Is It Ethical to Lie to Get Sex? - OZY | A Modern Media Company

WHY YOU SHOULD CARE

Because sex ethics are still ethics.

By Eugene S. Robinson

What Unprofessional Looks Like for a Prostitute

EUGENE, SIR: We’ve been together about five years and watched with interest and amusement one of our younger friends finding herself with sex work. She didn’t need money, wasn’t abused or trafficked, didn’t have a drug problem. But my partner found her online and booked an appointment with her. They had sex, I discovered, because it had secretly been taped (by my partner) and some of it was on a laptop I borrowed later. I’m fucking pissed. Our young friend is saying that if you have a restaurant, you serve anyone who comes in, and my partner, well, she’s saying that because it was lesbian sex they had, I shouldn’t think it was that big of a deal, and that the only reason I’m pissed is because they didn’t invite me. Which is not that true. Do I end this? I’ve read you for a while. Feel too stupid to ask friends. What do you think? — Name withheld by request

Dear Rest Haven: Well, where you are at precisely this moment in time is, without a doubt, completely framed by what kind of person you are. If you’re one of those people for whom ethics has always felt like a terrible anchor, then you might be in a wonderful spot, since it’s pretty clear that both your partner and the friends you have feel this way.

But just to be clear: Filming people without their knowledge or consent is creepy and possibly criminal. Booking an appointment under a fake name? Crappy. Booking an appointment under a real name? These two just decided to have an affair and the whole sex work–appointment thing is the threadbare cover for that. Also the BS about it “only” being “lesbian sex”? Sex is sex. And the misdirect of “you just wanted to be there too”? An olive branch, but only likely to seem appealing to you if you’re in the aforementioned “ethics-schmethics” classification.

If you’re not? End it. You’ll never be happy here in the long run.

I hesitate to recommend this outright because the “Which is not that true” bit leads me to believe you might be open to the right kind of persuasion. HOWEVER, that excuses none of the other ethical breaches. I’m all for fun and games, but only if everybody is having fun and playing the game.

Anything else? Just a product of hostility. Which is no way to spend your days.

But IS It a Lie?

EUGENE, SIR: I agreed to go to a group-sex thing. Only people with negative COVID tests allowed. But you had to agree to rules of order, and one of those said something like “must be willing to give and receive pleasure without regard for old biases.” I signed it. During the party another guy approached me and wanted to hang out, and I waved him away. Now I’ve been disinvited from the Yahoo group and banned from future events. I didn’t know the guy I waved away was the party organizer, but where does it say I have to have man-on-man sex if I don’t want to? — Andy the L

Dear A 2 the L: It says it right on that thing you signed before you showed up, you big dummy. Look, I’m no fan of having any kind of sex that you DON’T want to have, but you were told about the sex that would be had before you showed up to have it.

How about this? You go to a sex party and choose not to have ANY sex.

Now, you’re fully within your rights to do so, but you were invited specifically because it was expected that you wouldn’t do so. Why? Because you were invited because someone somehow thought you would be a fun person to have at a party, and despite being pre-informed and agreeing to be wholly fun, you were only half fun. I suspect this is what the host was thinking. I mean, finding single, hetero men for an orgy must not be the hardest thing in the world, COVID or not, but if bisexual was specified, then you’re the goat here.

HOWEVER, the wording WAS vague. And that’s your loophole. I mean you’re finished with this group no doubt, but for future reference: Everyone needs to get their terms established before any suchlike clothes-optional party. You’ll all be happier later on.

Positional Preference + Pregnancy

EUGENE, SIR: I have been told certain sexual positions have a decreased likelihood of resulting in pregnancy if unprotected sex is had. Which ones are these? Just curious. — Sara

Dear Motherhood: Well, there’s no scientific consensus on this, but the big brains seem to think that the sex that’s had where gravity starts to work against the slide of semen — standing up for example, cowgirl, reverse cowgirl — might result in fewer instances of pregnancy. Whereas missionary style or when your partner is behind you increases the likelihood. Yes, but what if your partner is behind you BUT you’re standing? Like I said, the science on this is not that strong, but one thing is for sure, and that’s that repeated bouts of unprotected sex will end up getting you Mother’s Day cards. Wait … forget about “repeated.” Any bouts of unprotected sex are likely to get you to the same place. Don’t believe me? Ask your parents.

Sign up for the weekly newsletter!