People hold ambivalent feelings about sexual activity. Libertarians rank "sexuality" alongside morally neutral activities the significance of which would be determined in terms of their place in the constellation of human affairs. To them, "consent" is sufficient for a sexual activity to be morally legitimate. They practice noninterference with sexual activity, provided that it does not interfere with the "freedom" of others
Alan H. Goldman captured this belief succinctly: https://iai.tv/articles/why-sexual-morality-does-not-exist-auid-1212
There is no such thing as sexual morality per se. Put less dramatically, there is no morality special to sex: no act is wrong simply because of its sexual nature. Sexual morality consists in moral considerations that are relevant elsewhere as well being applied to sexual activity or relations. This is because the proper concept of sexual activity is morally neutral. Sex itself is not a moral category, although it places us in relations in which moral considerations apply. It gives us opportunity to do what is otherwise regarded as wrong: to harm, deceive, or manipulate others against their will
"Consent" may be decisive over a wide area of activities, making the difference between theft and gift, battery and sport
But is "consent" always enough? Are there any philosophies that maintain more than "consent" is required to legitimatize sexual activity?
Is sexual activity morally neutral? Or is it governed and regulated in accordance with morality?