Sometimes, people consent to sex because they face social constraints. For example, someone may agree to sex because they believe that it would be rude to refuse. I defend a consent-centric analysis of these encounters. This analysis connects constraints from social contexts with constraints imposed by persons e.g. coercion. It results in my endorsing what I call the “Constraint Principle.” According to this principle, someone's consent to a sexual encounter lacks justificatory force if (i) they are consenting because withholding consent has an adverse feature, (ii) they are entitled to withhold consent without it being the case that withholding consent has this adverse feature; and (iii) it is not the case that the consent-giver has sincerely expressed that, out of the options that are available to their sexual partner, they most prefer to go through with the sexual encounter in the circumstances.
FryeM (1983) The Politics of Reality: Essays in Feminist Theory. Freedom CA: Crossing Press.
20.
GardnerJ (2018) The opposite of rape. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies38(1): 48–70.
21.
GardnerJShuteS (2000) The wrongness of rape. In: HorderJ (ed) Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence: Fourth Series. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.193–217.
22.
GerverM (2021) Consent and third-party coercion. Ethics131(2): 246–269.
23.
HamptonJ (2001) Defining wrong and defining rape. In: Burgess JacksonK (ed) A Most Detestable Crime: New Philosophical Essays on Rape. New York: Oxford University Press, pp.118–156.
24.
HänelHC (2018) What is a sexist ideology? Or: why Grace didn’t leave. Ergo5: 899–921.
25.
HurdH (1996) The moral magic of consent I. Legal Theory2(2): 121–146.
26.
IchikawaJ (2021) Presupposition and consent. Feminist Philosophical Quarterly6(4): 1–32.
27.
KuklaR (2018) That’s what she said: the language of sexual negotiation. Ethics129(1): 70–97.
28.
LibertoH (2021) Coercion, consent, and the mechanistic question. Ethics131(2): 210–245.
McGregorJ (2005) Is It Rape? On Acquaintance Rape and Taking Women’s Consent Seriously. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
34.
MillumJ (2014) Consent under pressure: the puzzle of third-party coercion. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice17(1): 113–127.
35.
OwensD (2012) Shaping the Normative Landscape. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
36.
PallikkathayilJ (2011) The possibility of choice: three accounts of the problem of coercion. Philosophers’ Imprint11(16): 1–20.
37.
PalmerT (2017) Distinguishing sex from sexual violation: Consent, negotiation and freedom to negotiate. In: ReedABohlanderMWakeNSmithE (eds) Consent: Domestic and Comparative Perspectives. London: Routledge, pp. 9–24.
38.
RawlsJ (1971) A Theory of Justice. Cambridge MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
ScanlonT M (1998) What We Owe to Each Other. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
41.
ScanlonT M (2008) Moral Dimensions. Cambridge MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
42.
ShawJ (2012) The morality of blackmail. Philosophy and Public Affairs40(3): 165–196.
43.
TadrosV (2016) Wrongs and Crimes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
44.
BennettJJonesD (2019) 45 Stories of sex and consent on campus. In: The New York Times Editorial Staff (eds) Defining Sexual Consent: Where the Law Falls Short. New York NY: New York Times Educational Publishing, pp. 66–82.
45.
ThompsonM.2004. What is it to wrong someone? A puzzle about justice. In: R J Wallace, P Pettit, S Scheffler and M Smith (eds.), Reason and Value: Themes from the Moral Philosophy of Joseph Raz. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 333–384
