> You're eliding the critical issue of consent.

There are plenty of types of relationships that are consensual, but that are still either illegal or else forbidden by the ethics standards for various industries. Just because something is widely accepted today, doesn't mean that it will be acceptable in the future as long as there is consent.

Ethical standards are shaped by the conflict between the world as it exists currently and the type of society we'd like to have. They're not immutable, nor are they guaranteed to move in any particular direction. E.g. if the human population outstrips the supply of cheap natural resources, liberal western values may go out the window very quickly around the world, just like they did in Iran.

So are you making some kind of slippery slope argument then? The common thread with all of the housecleaning that's currently going on is that it's been harassment/assault/rape, i.e. non-consensual. I don't really understand what you're worried about? Is your argument that by allowing people to face punishment for non-consensual sexual behavior (i.e. harassment/assault/rape), we're opening the door in the future for people to be punished for consensual sexual behavior?

History has also been going the opposite direction of what you're claiming anyway. Promiscuous consensual sexual behavior was much more heavily penalized in the past than in the present. It's going the other way. Many people were calling for rock music to be banned back in the day because of this kind of behavior they said that it idolized. Now, if anything, it's celebrated.

As far as I know the only person in the current wave of scandals who is being raked over the coals for consensual behavior is Bill Clinton. Every single other case involved men forcing themselves on women sexually.