Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-12T10:50:05.030Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Unjust Sex vs. Rape

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Abstract

This article returns to a philosophical conundrum that has troubled feminist theory since the topic of sexual violence has been taken seriously, what I call the problem of the “heteronormative sexual continuum”: how sexual assault and hegemonic heterosex are conceptually and politically related. I continue my response to the work of Nicola Gavey, who has argued for the existence of a “gray area” of sexual interactions that are ethically questionable without rising to the category of sexual assault, but whose analysis did not explicitly articulate what these two categories share or what distinguishes them from each other. After summarizing Gavey's position, I summarize my previous articulation of the common ground between instances of sexual assault and examples of sexual interactions in the “gray area.” I then develop a theoretical account of how the two categories differ, arguing that the victim's agency plays different roles in the two types of interactions. Both the fact of that distinction—that we are capable of providing a philosophical account of the difference between sexual interactions that fall into the gray area and those that constitute sexual assault—and its particular content are crucial for the development of a tenable feminist sexual ethics.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © 2016 by Hypatia, Inc.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, Scott A. 2005. Sex under pressure: Jerks, boorish behavior, and gender hierarchy. Res Publica 11 (4): 349–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brownmiller, Susan. 1975. Against our will: Men, women, and rape. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Cahill, Ann J. 2001. Rethinking rape. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Cahill, Ann J. 2014. Recognition, desire, and unjust sex. Hypatia 29 (2): 303–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chemaly, Soraya. 2015. It's not “forced sex,” it's rape – and why not calling it that is dangerous. Everyday Feminism, May 22. http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/05/rape-euphemisms-and-myths/ (accessed July 27, 2016).Google Scholar
Conly, Sarah. 2004. Seduction, rape, and coercion. Ethics 115 (1): 96121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
du Toit, Louise. 2009. A philosophical investigation of rape: The making and unmaking of the feminine self. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gavey, Nicola. 2005. Just sex? The cultural scaffolding of rape. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Heyes, Cressida. 2016. Dead to the world: Rape, unconsciousness, and social media. Signs 41 (2): 361–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langton, Rae. 2009. Sexual solipsism: Philosophical essays on pornography and objectification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKinnon, Catharine. 1989. Toward a feminist theory of the state. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Nagel, Thomas. 1969. Sexual perversion. Journal of Philosophy 66 (1): 517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
New York Times Book Review Editors. 2006. Editors’ note. New York Times Book Review, February 2.Google Scholar
Pateman, Carol. 1988. The sexual contract. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Reitan, Eric. 2001. Rape as an essentially contested concept. Hypatia 16 (2): 4366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar