this is good, if a little hard to parse without paragraph breaks in (2). i've been wondering about similar questions after trying to make sense of the harry chalmers <>kyle york debate over monogamy's permissibility. what criteria can the monogamist supply to explain why their restriction on romantic partners would not also force them to be a monogamist about friendship?

if your main puzzle is why it is wrong to enjoy the partner's displeasure despite consent, i don't think games are a super helpful analogy just b/c of their competitive nature. it's quite common and often expected in competitive games for both parties to persist despite the fact that the winner delights in the loser's displeasure. the more analogous activities seem like collaborative ones where the purpose is (at least in some large part) mutual enjoyment. things like mutual creative projects where nothing much hangs on the outcome. or non-competitive play more generally.

in those cases, it seems similarly perverse to take pleasure in the fact that the other party is not enjoying the activity, even while they persist in it. maybe not totally similar, but enough to make me think facts about mutual pleasure are necessary but not sufficient conditions for the special regard we have for sexual activity.

if the puzzle is to account for for the special type of consent that's needed for sexual activity then maybe it's more like the case of play, except with much higher stakes (children could result) and more emotional and physical vulnerability (feelings or bodies could get hurt).

Expand full comment

> I might be shattered and changed forever by the mountains or Fanny and Alexander (reader, I am)

Will you write an essay about Fanny and Alexander? I can't be the only reader who would look forward to it.

Expand full comment