Not what I am trying to say

"The end justifies the means" is a debate whether sometimes any means are acceptable, while partly assuming that the means will be such that they would be devastating or deadly to many innocents. It also assumes a deliberate character to the use of those means - not that accidentally innocents might be affected.

This is not what I am trying to say.

Sometimes, there will be decisions in which doing the right thing or not doing the wrong thing will be unwise. But unwisdom doesn't have to imply either to affect innocents, or deliberateness in their affecting. Had the White Rose tried to blow up a building of a Nazi organisation or to conduct an attack at a public rally, then there might be a "the end justifies the means" question. As it is, no innocents were affected, and none were intended to be.

But it was still unwise. Each of them knew, since day one, what the likely end was, and decided to go on. That was unwise from them. It still doesn't make it wrong; (least of all in the context this act of unwisdom took place, where arguably it was explicitly the right thing.)

I regard consensual contact in about the same light - you know from day one (and, ideally, for me to define it without qualification as consensual, so does she) what the likely end is, and decide to go on. You don't affect others - only yourself and her. So it's not an "end justifying the means" question. But because you know the likely end, it is still an unwise thing to do. Which still doesn't make it wrong!!!