When Theology Meets Modern Love: Letter 3 - On Vulnerability and Ethics in Relationship Design
Letter 3 of a series exploring conscious relationship design through the lens of faith and ethics
I've been engaged in a fascinating exchange about Conscious Relationship Design (CRD) - an approach that encourages us to thoughtfully craft our relationships rather than defaulting to traditional structures. Today's letter, the third in this series, tackles some of its most challenging ethical implications.
My correspondent raises profound questions about how consciously designed relationships hold up when life throws unexpected challenges our way. They present a compelling scenario: How might a time-limited relationship agreement adapt to the onset of a serious illness like Multiple Sclerosis? This question cuts to the heart of balancing personal autonomy with our moral responsibility to others.
They also explore evolving views on relationship dynamics, from changing attitudes towards infidelity to questions about consent in BDSM relationships. Throughout their inquiry runs a deeper question: How do we ensure that conscious relationship design serves not just our desire for freedom, but also our capacity for ethical care of others?
While keeping my correspondent's identity and words private, I'm sharing my response because it tackles fundamental questions about commitment, care and conscious choice in the face of life's uncertainties. Their thoughtful challenges push us to examine how we might design relationships that honour both personal freedom and ethical responsibility.
Dear X,
Thank you for your continued thoughtful engagement with these ideas. Your willingness to explore and challenge these concepts while maintaining open dialogue is deeply valuable to this discussion.
Regarding your reference to The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5TR)'s section on Paraphilic Disorders, I believe it's important to note how current psychiatric classification approaches consensual BDSM practices. The DSM-5TR actually draws a crucial distinction between consensual BDSM and clinical disorders like Sexual Masochism Disorder or Sexual Sadism Disorder. For a BDSM interest to qualify as a "disorder," it must cause significant psychological distress, impair daily functioning, or harm non-consenting individuals. Consensual BDSM activities—where all parties willingly participate and find personal satisfaction—are not categorised as disorders. In fact, research shows that BDSM practitioners typically have mental health profiles comparable to or better than the general population, often demonstrating lower levels of neuroticism and higher levels of open-mindedness (as mentioned in my last response). This reflects a modern clinical understanding that consensual BDSM represents a form of sexual diversity rather than pathology when practised ethically and with clear consent.
I found it particularly interesting that the paper you cited on BDSM and CSA actually supports the therapeutic potential of consciously designed relationships. The research emphasises that BDSM, when practised with clear consent and boundaries, can offer some individuals a path toward processing trauma and reclaiming agency. This aligns with my work on CRD - particularly the emphasis on conscious choice, clear communication and ethical frameworks.
Regarding your question about BDSM and divorce rates, the research presents an interesting picture. Studies show no direct link between consensual BDSM behaviours and higher divorce rates. In fact, when practised with mutual consent and respect, BDSM often enhances relationship satisfaction. Danish and Norwegian research indicates that couples engaging in BDSM report increased intimacy, trust and emotional closeness - sometimes exceeding levels found in non-BDSM relationships. While external stigma or mismatched interests can create pressure on relationships, this is true of any significant incompatibility, not just BDSM. The key factors appear to be mutual understanding, clear communication and respect for boundaries - principles that align closely with CRD.
Your concern about illness within time-limited relationships raises an important point about care and commitment. As someone with several close family members who live with MS, I deeply understand the gravity of this example and the complex care needs involved. However, I'd suggest that our capacity to care for others isn't dependent on formal relationship structures. We support sick friends, family members and community members without lifetime commitments. Even within traditional marriages, the presence of a "till death" vow doesn't guarantee care during illness - people leave despite such promises. What matters is our conscious choice to support those we care about, whether within formal structures or not.
Your observation about changing attitudes toward infidelity is particularly fascinating. The shift from automatic divorce to potential reconciliation through open communication perfectly illustrates the value of conscious relationship design. When people can openly discuss their needs and challenges, they often find more constructive solutions than when bound by rigid rules that discourage honest dialogue.
Your theological perspective on pleasing and appeasing in relation to the Empathy Canvas raises interesting questions about human motivation in relationships. However, I would suggest that CRD and tools like the Empathy Canvas actually work to move beyond these patterns by creating spaces where people can be authentically themselves rather than performing to meet others' expectations. This includes acknowledging that different relationship structures might serve different people's needs while still operating within ethical frameworks.
I deeply appreciate your candour about your professional background and role in people's lives. Your extensive experience listening to and supporting others through relationship challenges brings valuable insight to this discussion. While we may see some aspects differently, I believe we share a fundamental concern for human well-being and ethical relationships.
The journey toward more conscious relationships isn't about abandoning all traditional structures but about examining which elements serve human flourishing and which might benefit from thoughtful evolution. Your own observation about how society's approach to infidelity has evolved demonstrates how this kind of conscious examination can lead to more constructive outcomes.
I value this dialogue immensely and would actually be interested in sharing our exchange with a wider audience. Would you be open to me publishing this correspondence in my newsletter? I believe others could benefit from seeing how two people with different perspectives can engage in respectful exploration of these complex topics.
Looking forward to continuing our discussion,
Julie
P.S. I'm curious - did you see the conclusion of the paper you cited on BDSM and CSA? It seems to strongly support the idea that conscious, ethical relationship design can provide therapeutic benefits, even in contexts that might initially seem challenging or controversial.
What do you think?
How do we balance personal autonomy with ethical care for others? Our attitudes toward relationships evolve - from changing views on infidelity to new understandings of mental health and sexuality. But fundamental questions remain about commitment, consent and care.
When life presents unexpected challenges like serious illness, how do consciously designed relationships adapt? Does our capacity to care for others depend on formal relationship structures, or can we find new ways to honour both personal freedom and ethical responsibility?
Share your thoughts in the comments below. Your perspective enriches this exploration of how we might design relationships that serve both individual growth and collective well-being.
Feel free to share this article if you enjoyed it. Comment or reach out if you’d like to share your thoughts. I’d love to hear from you.
This comment may be a bit incoherent because as I started reading your first post, I went down a rabbit hole of 20-year commitment and BDSM.
It would be interesting to read the letters that inspired this correspondence as I feel that I am only seeing one side of an argument. I struggle personally with my obligations to society, others and myself. Often these are in alignment but there are times they are in conflict and that's where it gets tricky. Unfortunately, I have at times resorted to deception (justified by the idea that there is no harm as the actions are self-indulgent and not harmful). This justification is false on both levels as just the act of deception towards a loved one is harmful even if one feels the reason for the deception is not (and often the reason for deception is harmful or it would not necessitate the deception). Sorry for being intentionally vague but I am a private person by nature.
In regards to the 20-year marriage. I understand how the 20-year commitment may help one who can't fathom a life commitment enter the relationship. However, I think it provides a false justification to absolve oneself from the inevitable hurt that is caused when one person wants to leave a relationship and the other wants to continue. While your life is not owed to the other, saying I told you at the start that I was only willing to commit to 20 years does not lessen or justify the pain at the relationship's conclusion. So, I think it gives you a false sense of escaping easily when the evitable pain is the same.
I do agree that one can care for a person suffering from chronic illness without being married and that the relationship can continue to persist in a healthy form even if the label has changed.
Thanks for the thought inspiring posts.