{"id":1138,"date":"2021-02-22T10:00:43","date_gmt":"2021-02-22T10:00:43","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/?p=1138"},"modified":"2021-02-20T08:02:07","modified_gmt":"2021-02-20T08:02:07","slug":"modeling-sex-as-a-joint-activity","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/modeling-sex-as-a-joint-activity\/","title":{"rendered":"Modeling Sex as a Joint Activity"},"content":{"rendered":"

There has been an ongoing philosophical discussion over the last three decades on consent and refusal of sex qua speech acts \u2013 that is, acts performed in the uttering of certain words (typically, \u2018yes\u2019\/\u2018no\u2019) in a sexual setting[1]<\/a>. Both consent and refusal are \u2018second-turn speech acts\u2019. The thought is simple: for my \u2018yes\u2019\/\u2018no\u2019 utterance to be appropriate, I must have been previously addressed with an interrogative act of some sort. Sexual advances can therefore be construed as interrogative acts, which make a subsequent \u2018yes\u2019\/\u2018no\u2019 response relevant and expected. Interrogative acts comprise a number of different speech moves. Requests, offers, invitations, proposals \u2013 these are all interrogative in character. The question I\u2019d like to tackle here is, Which kind of interrogative act, if any, provides a good model for sexual advances?[2]<\/a><\/p>\n

Consent\/refusal talk models sexual advances as permission requests. That consent and refusal concern permission is largely agreed upon[3]<\/a>. In paradigmatic consent exchanges, one party asks permission to do something (\u2018May I do such-and-such?\u2019), and the other allows them to do it, while taking on, to some extent, a passive role. Informed medical consent, for example, means a patient grants a doctor (or a team of doctors) permission to conduct a certain medical procedure upon their body. Consent to be searched means a suspect grants the police permission to search their person or effects. And consent to cookies (with which we have all become more than familiar) roughly means granting a domain\u2019s owner permission to collect one\u2019s data and track one\u2019s activity on their website. In all such cases, the one who plays an active role \u2013 the one who will get to do something \u2013 is the requester (the doctor, the police officer, the domain\u2019s owner), not the consenter.<\/p>\n

If this is so, then conceiving of sexual advances as permission requests, and of the \u2018yes\u2019\/\u2018no\u2019 response that follows in terms of consent\/refusal, is to model sex as an agent-patient asymmetrical activity. Since all partners\u2019 positive sexual agency matters, a model of this sort should be met with a critical eye. Even more so, once we acknowledge that the asymmetry is heavily biased towards men. Nothing about permission requests implies that women must \u2018suffer\u2019 sex while men are the performers. But given cultural realities, what people all too commonly have in mind in thinking and talking about sex is a man who actively requests sex and a woman who lets him or otherwise refuses to let him do things to her. A hierarchical model for heterosexual sexual relationships is thereby constructed \u2013 a model in which the man gets to use the woman\u2019s body with her permission, and the scope of a woman\u2019s sexual agency only comprises two alternatives: voluntarily acquiescing or refusing to acquiesce to a man\u2019s desires[4]<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Resisting this view involves conceptualizing sexual advances as different types of interrogative acts. Let\u2019s quickly sift through the pragmatic shape of the basic interrogative types, beginning with simple requests and offers. Simple requests (e.g. \u201cWould you take out the trash, please?\u201d) are attempts to get the hearer to do something; offers (e.g. \u201cI can lend you some money, if you wish\u201d) are promises that the speaker commits to keep on condition that the hearer accepts. In both cases, the bringing about of the state of affairs at stake (e.g. taking out the trash, lending money) requires the active contribution of one party (the requestee, the offerer), but not necessarily a contribution from the other. This makes it clear that neither simple requests nor offers provide a good model for sexual advances \u2013 sex would still be pictured as an asymmetrical activity.<\/p>\n

Invitations and proposals are better candidates, since they both involve a contribution from the speaker and<\/em> hearer in the carrying out of the activity in question. However, one thing is to invite you to my birthday party; quite another thing is to propose that we throw a party together. Although an invitation, once accepted, calls for action on both sides (the inviter will have to throw the party and the invitee will have to show up), the details of the event are appanage of the inviter[5]<\/a>. By contrast, a proposal, once agreed to, opens up a negotiation as to how to proceed \u2013 we will decide together the theme and size of the party, the location, etc. A genuine proposal is an attempt to get another person to take part in some joint, fully collaborative activity. Conceiving of sex as something initiated by a proposal means, I claim, conceiving of it as an agent-agent symmetrical activity. It means construing sex as something that one does with<\/em> the other person and over which each partner has an equal say. Interestingly, one does not, strictly speaking, consent to a proposal or refuse it \u2013 one agrees to a proposal or rejects it. Consent and refusal turn out not to be the right speech categories when it comes to responding to sexual advances. And the issue, as a speech act analysis shows, is not merely terminological.<\/p>\n

The view I am sketching is a \u2018regulative ideal\u2019, for it leaves aside all the many cases in which sex is less than fully collaborative, as it were. Sex may sometimes be offered to please the other person or even requested as the granting of a favor. While this is far from ideal, it can (and does) happen, and it isn\u2019t per se unethical, provided that everyone involved has communicated their wish to engage in the sexual activity in question. My point, to state it out loud, is that, in philosophizing over sex and the language we use to engage in sexual activities, we should be aware of the ideological implications that an emphasis on sexual consent\/refusal might have. A proposal model of sexual advances, which does without consent and centralizes agreement and negotiation, avoids the risk of reinforcing a sexist stereotype of female sexual passivity and fares better than alternatives in picturing sex as a joint activity.<\/p>\n

[1]<\/a> See, e.g., Langton, Rae (1993), \u201cSpeech Acts and Unspeakable Acts\u201d, Philosophy & Public Affairs<\/em>; Cowart, Monica (2004), \u201cUnderstanding Acts of Consent: Using Speech Act Theory to Help Resolve Moral Dilemmas and Legal Disputes\u201d, Law & Philosophy<\/em>, 23(5): 494-525; McGowan, Mary Kate (2009), \u201cOn Silencing and Sexual Refusals\u201d, The Journal of Political Philosophy<\/em>, 17(4): 487-494; and Dougherty, Tom (2015), \u201cYes Means Yes<\/em>: Consent as Communication\u201d, Philosophy & Public Affairs<\/em>, 43(3): 224-253.<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> Speech acts can be performed non-verbally, as when one nods assent in lieu of saying \u201cYes\u201d. That people frequently approach for sex non-verbally does not rule out a speech act reading of sexual advances.<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> See, among many others, Cowart (2004), McGowan (2009), and Dougherty (2015).<\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> See, esp., Anderson, Michelle (2005), \u201cNegotiating Sex\u201d, Southern California Law Review<\/em>, 41: 101-140; and Gardner, John (2018), \u201cThe Opposite of Rape\u201d, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies<\/em>, 38(1): 48-70.<\/p>\n

[5]<\/a> For a different interpretation of invitations, see Kukla, Rebecca (2018), \u201cThat\u2019s What She Said: The Language of Sexual Negotiation\u201d, Ethics<\/em>, 129: 1-28.<\/p>\n

Photo by Jason Leung On unsplash https:\/\/unsplash.com\/photos\/F2WX4BTIkpQ<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"There has been an ongoing philosophical discussion over the last three decades on consent and refusal of sex qua speech acts \u2013 that is, acts performed in the uttering of […]","protected":false},"author":1319,"featured_media":1140,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"Laura Caponetto \"Modeling Sex as a Joint Activity\" on Open for Debate","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[19],"tags":[284,283],"custom_author":[285],"class_list":["post-1138","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-open-for-debate","tag-sex","tag-speech-act","custom_author-laura-caponetto"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p8KPlM-im","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":1497,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/social-media-a-viral-promoter-of-social-ills\/","url_meta":{"origin":1138,"position":0},"title":"Social media: a viral promoter of social ills?","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"August 8, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Public discourse is the currency in which we exchange our attitudes and beliefs. Social media has proven a double-edged sword with respect to this exchange. On the one hand, it has enabled debate and contact between citizens on a scale previously unimaginable. On the other, this ability to exchange ideas\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":1802,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/how-to-become-an-incel\/","url_meta":{"origin":1138,"position":1},"title":"In-Between Identities: The Online and Offline World of Incels","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"October 16, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Introduction Discussions around incels \u2013 involuntary celibates \u2013 have become prevalent across popular social media platforms such as X\/Twitter. However, it is not always clear who exactly is behind the incel identity. Are incels just people who can\u2019t find love, or is there more to it? Can anyone fall into\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2023\/10\/man_computers.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2023\/10\/man_computers.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2023\/10\/man_computers.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x"},"classes":[]},{"id":646,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/objectification-knowledge-and-pornography\/","url_meta":{"origin":1138,"position":2},"title":"Objectification, Knowledge, and Pornography","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"April 8, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Objectification is treating or depicting a person as a mere thing. What does this involve? By now we\u2019re all familiar with the idea that it\u2019s an aspect of women\u2019s subordinate status in society that they are sexually objectified: they are treated and depicted as sex objects. Practices such as sex\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/03\/aleksandar-radovanovic-10295-unsplash-1-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/03\/aleksandar-radovanovic-10295-unsplash-1-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/03\/aleksandar-radovanovic-10295-unsplash-1-scaled.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/03\/aleksandar-radovanovic-10295-unsplash-1-scaled.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/03\/aleksandar-radovanovic-10295-unsplash-1-scaled.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/03\/aleksandar-radovanovic-10295-unsplash-1-scaled.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":1001,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/whats-to-ban-social-media-policies-on-hate-speech-and-reclamation\/","url_meta":{"origin":1138,"position":3},"title":"What\u2019s to ban: social media policies on hate speech and reclamation","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"August 24, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Social media policies on hate speech are very controversial and have recently ignited a lively debate.[1] For one thing, social media have both the right and the responsibility to police the shared contents and comments, or the platform risks to be used to promote hate, violence, and the like. Such\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/08\/900px-Highline_art_Zoe_Leonard.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/08\/900px-Highline_art_Zoe_Leonard.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/08\/900px-Highline_art_Zoe_Leonard.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/08\/900px-Highline_art_Zoe_Leonard.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":419,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/reflections-on-transcribing-multimodal-texts\/","url_meta":{"origin":1138,"position":4},"title":"Reflections on Transcribing Multimodal Texts","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"March 26, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Since the election of Donald Trump in 2017 the media has often seemed to be in a continual state of shock at the brusque manner of the forty-fifth president\u2019s speech. During the summer of 2017 I conducted a research project into transcription methods for multimodal discourse, contributing to the Changing\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/03\/4244624289_70b27dc8a6_z.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":2188,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/terrorism-and-evil\/","url_meta":{"origin":1138,"position":5},"title":"Terrorism and Evil","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"January 20, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"On 1 January of this year, an American man drove his pickup truck into a crowd on Bourbon Street in New Orleans (Louisiana, US). Fifteen people were killed and dozens of others injured. The perpetrator, Shamsud-Din Jabbar, a resident of Houston (Texas), was inspired by the Islamic State\u2019s violent extremist\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2025\/01\/New_orleans_12279946665_e7faf93133_c.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2025\/01\/New_orleans_12279946665_e7faf93133_c.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2025\/01\/New_orleans_12279946665_e7faf93133_c.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2025\/01\/New_orleans_12279946665_e7faf93133_c.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"meta_box":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/02\/jason-leung-F2WX4BTIkpQ-unsplash.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1138","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1319"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1138"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1138\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1141,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1138\/revisions\/1141"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1140"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1138"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1138"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1138"},{"taxonomy":"custom_author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/custom_author?post=1138"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}