David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Rape, coerced sex, and abandonment when pregnant are quintessentially gendered grievances that generations of young women have experienced. The law, however, has not always responded to these grievances by providing a tradition by which women could receive monetary damages for these kinds of sexual predation. This article situates the nineteenth century American seduction cases at the cusp of the transition from violent retributive sanctions for sexual assault to civil actions for money damages. The seduction cases tell the story of the move from patriarchal violence to "rationally" created rules of law. In the nineteenth century, courts provided fathers with a cause of action when their daughters were subjected to sexual coercion while they worked outside the confines of their father's home. As the state assumed more of a monopoly on violence in these situations, it replaced the traditional domination exercised by the patriarch by copying its distributional pattern rather than by recognizing new rights in the parties most harmed. The extension of rights under this ancient tort was, in fact, antithetical to single women's independence because it reinforced the patriarchal order and defeated acts of emancipation on the woman's part. In a study of more than two hundred cases, Professor VanderVelde first makes the case that there was no tradition of monetary redress for one of a woman's greatest fears, sexual assault. The article demonstrates the doctrines and cultural precepts which inhibited the development of an action that the woman herself could bring. Second, the article examines the terms on which the tort of seduction operated. Finally, the article demonstrates how a minor change in standing adopted virtually without notice changed the cast of seduction disputes in some states. Through this means in some eleven states, servant girls at last were able to sue masters who coerced them into engaging in sex.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Eric M. Cave (2011). Sexual Liberalism and Seduction. In Adrianne Leigh McEvoy (ed.), Sex, Love, and Friendship: Studies of the Society for the Philosophy of Sex and Love: 1993-2003. Rodopi.
Lois Pineau (1989). Date Rape: A Feminist Analysis. [REVIEW] Law and Philosophy 8 (2):217 - 243.
Sally J. M. Sutherland (1992). Seduction, Counter Seduction, and Sexual Role Models: Bedroom Politics and the Indian Epics. [REVIEW] Journal of Indian Philosophy 20 (2):243-251.
Scott A. Anderson (2005). Sex Under Pressure: Jerks, Boorish Behavior, and Gender Hierarchy. [REVIEW] Res Publica 11 (4):349-369.
Eric M. Cave (2009). Unsavory Seduction. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 12 (3):235 - 245.
Andrea L. Hibbard & John T. Parry, The Occasional Triumph of the Moral Sentiments Over Legal Technicalities: Law, Seduction, and the Sentimental Heroine.
John T. Parry & Andrea L. Hibbard, Law, Seduction, and the Sentimental Heroine: The Case of Amelia Norman.
Herner Sæverot (2011). Kierkegaard, Seduction, and Existential Education. Studies in Philosophy and Education 30 (6):557-572.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-04-30
Total downloads1 ( #301,885 of 1,013,367 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?