Politics, Philosophy and Economics 19 (2):107-127 (2019)

Authors
Japa Pallikkathayil
University of Pittsburgh
Abstract
The way in which consent to sexual interactions is understood in the US is undergoing a transformation. Many universities, sometimes at the behest of lawmakers, are moving to adopt ‘affirmative consent’ policies, which define consent in terms of affirmative behavior that goes beyond mere silence or lack of resistance. Although these policies are a move in the right direction, I argue that their content has not been properly understood. In particular, the circumstances in which nonverbal behavior may communicate consent are more limited than might be apparent. And even though these circumstances can be abstractly identified, it is difficult to give people adequate guidance about when some of them obtain. Moreover, I argue that no matter how the allowance for nonverbal behavior is construed, affirmative consent policies unnecessarily prohibit interactions that people may have reason to engage in. I propose an alternative policy that remedies these problems with the affirmative consent policies that are currently being implemented. And I note that the justification for this alternative policy does not turn on any special features of the university setting. Instead, the account I give suggests grounds for reforming the law as well.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2020
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1177/1470594x19884705
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 68,975
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Coercion.Alan Wertheimer - 1990 - Princeton University Press.
Yes Means Yes: Consent as Communication.Tom Dougherty - 2015 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 43 (3):224-253.
The Moral Magic of Consent: Heidi M. Hurd.Heidi M. Hurd - 1996 - Legal Theory 2 (2):121-146.
Understanding, Communication, and Consent.Joseph Millum & Danielle Bromwich - 2018 - Ergo: An Open Access Journal of Philosophy 5:45-68.

View all 20 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Presupposition and Consent.Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa - 2020 - Feminist Philosophy Quarterly 6 (4):Article 4.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Juliette: A Model of Sexual Consent.Kavanagh Chandra - 2016 - Journal of the International Network for Sexual Ethics and Politics 4 (1):43-54.
Intention and Sexual Consent.Hallie Liberto - 2017 - Philosophical Explorations 20 (sup2):127-141.
Consent to Sexual Relations.Alan Wertheimer - 2003 - Cambridge University Press.
Consent to Sexual Relations.Alan Wertheimer - 2006 - Law and Philosophy 25 (2):267-287.
Sex Education and Rape.Michelle J. Anderson - 2010 - Michigan Journal of Gender and Law 17 (1).
Consent and Sexual Relations.Alan Wertheimer - 1996 - Legal Theory 2 (2):89-112.
Consent, Coercion, and Sexual Autonomy.Jeffrey A. Gauthier - 1999 - In Keith Burgess-Jackson (ed.), A Most Detestable Crime: New Philosophical Essays on Rape. Oxford University Press. pp. 71-91.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2019-11-06

Total views
53 ( #211,929 of 2,498,154 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
6 ( #118,816 of 2,498,154 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes