I am currently enrolled in PH 256: The Philosophy of Sex and we are in continued talks about what can be considered acceptable sexual activity. Thomas Mappes wrote a piece entitled "Sexual Morality and the Concept of Using Another Person", in which he argued for a type of sexual libertarianism that made the primary stipulation for "moral" sexual activity informed, free consent. Robin West wrote a critique of Thomas Mappes article, "The Harms of Consensual Sex", stipulating that consensual sex harmed women in many ways.
At first, I was very open to be in agreement with Ms. West. She was trying to make an argument that Mappes' sexual libertarianism was not as willy-nilly, free love, and full-proof as it seemed. However, every one of her arguments severely debased women or ignored the idea of free, informed consent. She started by arguing that a woman in an abusive relationship might consent to having sex with her abusive partner to avoid his wrath later, or for various other reasons. First, I think it should be noted that these examples are not free consent. The abused in that instance is being coerced by the implicit threat of violence or by the bleak outlook of poverty. In other words, by saying no there are grave and serious consequences. Second, I think it should be noted the image of women that is being given here. It starts with an abused woman in a relationship so powerless she cannot do anything for herself and has no will to attempt to work her way out of the situation. While I would be foolish to not acknowledge that situations like these do arise and arise with quite too great a frequency, it is extremely harmful to women to paint them not as victims of abuse, but as powerless and having weak wills.
West then turns her critique to the overly curious teenager. She says that certain female teenagers will consent to sex out of curiosity, or to not hurt their partner's ego. In both cases, she says it is not beneficial sex or "moral sex". In the first case, if the curiosity entails that either partner doesn't know what they are getting into, it is not informed consent. On the second one, we once again have the image of the weak-willed woman, which seems to be a theme of West. This portrait of women plays into the vicious cycle of misogyny and should not be tolerated, especially in philosophical circles which pride themselves on logic and understanding.
As a philosopher, I think critiques like West's should receive critiques of their own and that we should not allow such gross misrepresentation of women. Philosophers of sex should continue to strive for equality in the sexual relationship and should always remember that equality outside of it comes first. Misogyny and any bigotry should not be tolerated.
At first, I was very open to be in agreement with Ms. West. She was trying to make an argument that Mappes' sexual libertarianism was not as willy-nilly, free love, and full-proof as it seemed. However, every one of her arguments severely debased women or ignored the idea of free, informed consent. She started by arguing that a woman in an abusive relationship might consent to having sex with her abusive partner to avoid his wrath later, or for various other reasons. First, I think it should be noted that these examples are not free consent. The abused in that instance is being coerced by the implicit threat of violence or by the bleak outlook of poverty. In other words, by saying no there are grave and serious consequences. Second, I think it should be noted the image of women that is being given here. It starts with an abused woman in a relationship so powerless she cannot do anything for herself and has no will to attempt to work her way out of the situation. While I would be foolish to not acknowledge that situations like these do arise and arise with quite too great a frequency, it is extremely harmful to women to paint them not as victims of abuse, but as powerless and having weak wills.
West then turns her critique to the overly curious teenager. She says that certain female teenagers will consent to sex out of curiosity, or to not hurt their partner's ego. In both cases, she says it is not beneficial sex or "moral sex". In the first case, if the curiosity entails that either partner doesn't know what they are getting into, it is not informed consent. On the second one, we once again have the image of the weak-willed woman, which seems to be a theme of West. This portrait of women plays into the vicious cycle of misogyny and should not be tolerated, especially in philosophical circles which pride themselves on logic and understanding.
As a philosopher, I think critiques like West's should receive critiques of their own and that we should not allow such gross misrepresentation of women. Philosophers of sex should continue to strive for equality in the sexual relationship and should always remember that equality outside of it comes first. Misogyny and any bigotry should not be tolerated.
No comments:
Post a Comment