11-26-2016, 08:06 AM
It has a lot to do with it because you must be able to justify why consent is right, on a metaphysical level, given the assumption that there is no God. If you can't justify objectively why consent ought to be the precondition for proper sexual behavior, then you are asserting an idea without a just basis for it. In other words, you are being arbitrary. You're essentially arguing that two people must consent to a sexual act because you think consent is good. But then someone else can be equally arbitrary and say that consent is irrelevant when it comes to fulfilling their sexual lusts (as pedophiles, rapists, and others do). That's the consequence of your idea on sexual behavior, especially in a world without the sovereignty of a personal God.