In the latest episode of the podcast, I spent some time talking about the modern philosophy of rape. I argued that the matter really comes down to 3 axes.
1 ) Disposition — positive vs. negative
That is, did the individual in question “want it” or not.
2 ) Physical force — employed vs. not employed
Self explanatory. Do THREATS of physical violence count? Depends who you ask, but many would say if they are CREDIBLE threats, then yes.
3 ) Agency — was the person able to make a choice for themselves without external coercion, or not
Did the person have power to say yes, or no, for themselves and on their own behalf, and have that honored. This is where “age of consent” plays in, as well as arguments about people in direct authority such as employers/bosses, teachers, pastors, etc. Argument being, a minor has no agency (check contract law if you want another example); and in contexts where the authority holds all the cards, even an adult might not have agency.
Now, I’ve not seen it put this way anywhere — this is just a distillation of the various approaches to rape that I’ve seen argued. It’s my attempt to systematize the entire question in a way that avoids the word “consent” (it’s overused as well as poorly and varyingly defined) while retaining the gist of the concept.
Approaching the question like this allows us to construct a spectrum. Any sexual encounter that fails the “agency” test is rape, and the other two axes provide further defining of the TYPE of rape. See below for the full list of options arising from this, where I lay out 8 different scenarios that depend upon an individual’s place within each individual axis.
Rape
No agency, negatively disposed, physical force — Violent Rape
No agency, positively disposed, physical force — Violent Rape (which the individual nevertheless enjoyed… which makes no difference in this case, but can conceivably arise in statutory-rape cases with WEIRD fetishes)
No agency, negatively disposed, no physical force — Rape by Non-Violent Coercion
No agency, positively disposed, no physical force — Statutory Rape
Not Rape (for the sake of representing the full continuum)
Agency, negatively disposed, physical force — Begrudging sex that got rough
Agency, negatively disposed, no physical force — Begrudging sex (as in “duty-sex”)
Agency, positively disposed, physical force — Weird fetish indulgement
Agency, positively disposed, no physical force — aka “Enthusiastic Consent”
Again, this paradigm arises out of the necessity of recognizing that “she wanted it” (positive disposition toward the act) DOES NOT 1:1 equate to what we call “consent”.
As I said above, the colloquial use of the word is confusing, because “consent” is used in equivocal ways. Sometimes by it is simply meant that a person “wanted it”. Sometimes by it is meant that the person was in a position to have agency (someone who is not a minor, etc.) AND used that agency to agree that the sex act should proceed. Hence, a minor who is positively disposed (“wants it”) consents in the first sense, but CANNOT consent in the second (as they are “under the age of consent”).
Thus, the above paradigm cuts out the word “consent” to avoid the misunderstandings that arise out of the equivocal uses. As you have now seen, the first sense of the word is taken up by the “disposition” axis. The second use of the word is taken up by the “agency” axis.
So there you have it! A further fleshing out of a subject which may have been a bit unclear in audio-only format. Hope this was helpful.
The post The Rape Matrix appeared first on The Chi Files.