Analysis Of Igor Primoratz's Approach To Rape

1507 Words4 Pages

It is commonly agreed on that if someone uses physical force to make another have sex with them, then it is a clear instance of rape. However, Conly’s approach to rape removes the traditional idea of force playing a key role in constituting rape, but instead focuses on what drove that person to allow sex to happen, despite there being no presence of violence and not wanting to have sex (Conly, 2004, p. 98). Igor Primoratz’s definition of sexual harassment is when person A uses threatening behaviour to Person B to get Person B to have sex with Person A. Primoratz’s definition of sexual harassment is what Conly considers rape, only if certain conditions are met. (Law, 2015, p. 137). I will outline Conly’s approach to rape, and highlight its …show more content…

The one who is coercing another must act intentionally. It is not that their actions happened to result in another wanting them to have sex with you, it is instead that the perpetrator has a “knowledge of wrongdoing” (Griffin, 2012, p. 135) due to a lack of genuine consent on behalf of the victim, or that the perpetrator should have had some insight into the dangers of the situation they are in (Conly, 2004, p. 104). The second condition is that there has to be a lack of choice for the person who is under the “coercive pressure” (Conly, 2004, p. 105) so that any choice they make is “between illegitimate options” (Conly, 2004, p. 105). The third condition for coercion is that the actions of the coercer cause a sufficient harm, where the person who is being coerced is placed under such great “psychological pain” (Conly, 2004, p. 106) that any decisions they make after that pain are affected. However, there can be situations involving lesser harms – for example the threat of someone not going on a date with you if you do not have sex with them – which do not act as a (Conly, 2004, p. 106) “coercive pressure” (Conly, 2004, p. 105). The final condition for coercion is the absence of legitimacy. People can have legitimate authority over another and can demand something of someone legitimately. In the same way that someone can “constrain the options of the chooser” (Conly, 2004, p. 107) illegitimately. To illustrate this, …show more content…

106) that they were reduced to a place where they had to make an impossible decision (Conly, 2004, p. 105). Thus, Conly would argue that the example involving the boss and the employee did not involve any choice as the employee was under such great pressure, that they did not have a choice, which in turn fulfills Conly’s second condition for coercion. Because of the lack of choice which was experienced by the employee, it questions the lack of intent from the boss. Conly may argue that the boss’ actions of presenting an offer to the employee is in itself an action that aims to undercut any legitimate decisions made by the employee, as the offer of gaining financial benefits in exchange for sex will only be accepted by someone who is having a financial struggle. Thus, the boss would have to ignore the clear reasons as to why the employee accepted the offer to be excused of having no intention. This is not the case since the boss originally made the offer to their employee (Conly, 2004, pp.

Open Document