Assessing the behavior of those who cash in on affairs.

What should we think of a woman (or man) who engages in a voluntary sexual encounter with a married public figure and then threatens to expose the relationship unless she is paid for her silence? Several women are currently in the news for having been paid and then seeking to undo their nondisclosure agreements.   

Let me be clear: I am not talking about victims of sexual harassment, sexual assault, or other predatory relationships. I’m talking about a purely consensual, mutually satisfying, short- or long-term relationship that one party threatens to expose unless paid. There’s a legal term for such demands — it’s called extortion, and it’s punishable by double-digit years in prison.   

In some respects, such extortion is comparable to revenge porn, which we rightly condemn and even prosecute. Imagine how we would react if a man demanded payment for not posting a video of a consensual sexual encounter with his former girlfriend? Yet the media, and many members of the public, have expressed sympathy for women who have made such extortionate demands on their former lovers.   

Part of the reason for this sympathy is that some of these alleged affairs were with Donald Trump, and for some people, anything that will help “get Trump” is fair game. There have also been claims of pressure exerted by those who have paid. But other such extortion demands have been made against less controversial figures and without any counterpressure. Yet sympathy has been expressed for the female extortionists.

I am not here defending married men who have illicit affairs which they would rather not have exposed. That is between them and their spouses. Nor am I necessarily calling for the indictment, conviction, and imprisonment of all female extortionists who threaten exposure of their consensual affairs unless paid. What I am calling for is a moral reckoning.

If we continue to reward sexual extortionists of either gender, we will only encourage the monetization of consensual sexual relations.

In the current age of #MeToo, it seems that women can do no wrong even if they are equal and fully consenting partners in illicit relationships. This seems to deny women agency over their own lives. Women have the right to decide with whom to have affairs. But if they do decide to have an affair with a married man, and the understanding is that the affair will remain confidential, basic decency would require that the woman not demand payment in exchange for her silence.

To be sure, a woman has the perfect right to kiss and tell. What she does not have the right to do is kiss, then demand money for not telling. In several of the current cases, not only have the women kissed, threatened to tell, and been paid money; they have then insisted on telling, keeping the money, and suing for even more money.

How should feminists — indeed everyone who cares about gender equality — regard these women? Surely it is not enough to be a woman to be deemed a victim of a consensual affair. What if the roles were reversed?

Imagine the case of a wealthy, powerful female public figure who has a consensual affair with a young man. If the young man were then to demand payment for his silence, would feminists express sympathy for him? What if he received payment for his silence and then decided to blow the whistle on the woman? Would feminists clamber to his side? Put another way, is this about gender or is it about agency and consent? If it’s the latter, we ought to think hard about why so many members of the media and public are glorifying these kiss, cash-in, and tell women.

If we continue to reward sexual extortionists of either gender, we will only encourage the monetization of consensual sexual relations. Some might argue that this will have the beneficial effect of leveling the sexual playing field based on power and wealth. But that is not a proper function of either our legal system or of informal rules governing consensual sexual relationships. 

The situation may become so dangerous for those engaging in voluntary sexual encounters, that presexual contracts may be required before someone engages in a voluntary sexual encounter. Some radical feminists argue that all sexual encounters should be governed by contracts requiring informed consent. Would they include consent to disclose the encounter? Sexual extortion is a variation on the revenge-porn blight, though with the genders generally switched. That doesn’t make it any better.

So let’s think hard about how we treat play-for-pay extortionists, because you may be the next victim — whether you’re a man or a woman.