As an undergraduate, I took an applied ethics course that included Lois Pineau’s paper, “Date Rape: A Feminist Analysis.” Pineau discusses our society’s conception of what normal sex looks like—namely, a male person aggressively pursuing sex with an at-least-somewhat-reluctant female person who eventually acquiesces if the male person’s advances are successful. She argues that, given that this is what we think normal sex looks like, it is very difficult for us to recognize date rape when it occurs. Not only is it difficult for us to see it from the outside, but it can also be difficult for those who experience it to recognize it for what it is. Reading this paper led to a kind of paradigm shift in my own thinking, and I was sure to include it in the applied ethics courses that I had the opportunity to teach as a graduate student at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. However, a common question students would bring up during our conversations in class is: If she doesn’t want to be there, why doesn’t she just leave? I realized that the arguments in the paper weren’t going to seem compelling to many students if we didn’t address this question.
Later in my time at UMass, the university put out a call for proposals for first-year seminars, which are 1-credit classes for first-year students that introduce them to a specific topic, help prepare them for college, and foster community among students. Given my interest in the topic, I decided to propose a class on sexual ethics with a focus on consent. When my proposal was accepted, I decided to start the seminar with a discussion of gender socialization and the way it can impact what we take our options and obligations to be—often without us even realizing it. We discussed how girls are often socialized to prioritize pleasing others over responding to their own needs and wants, and the many manifestations of this. We also discussed human psychology more generally, and how difficult it can be for anyone to say “no,” especially to someone they care about. We discussed the “freeze” response as an alternative to the more commonly discussed “fight or flight” responses, and we talked about how bad we are, generally, at predicting how we would react if we were in situations like those of victims of harassment or assault; while most people think they would react with anger and with confidence in asserting what they deserve, few actually do respond in this way in the moment.
Once students had a better understanding of the social and psychological factors that shape people’s responses in contexts of unwanted advances, we were able to have more nuanced and thoughtful discussions of what consent might involve and what factors might undermine it. We also discussed alternatives to “consent” frameworks for thinking about sexual ethics, since this framework implies a pursuer and a pursued and tends to overlook important factors like desire, mutual respect, and the potential harms of consensual but unwanted activities. In addition, we discussed the ways in which cultural narratives around masculinity and the nature of sexual assault obscure the possibility of boys and men being victims of assault.
The success of the seminar led to the opportunity for me to teach a whole class on sexual ethics, which I have now taught versions of at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, the University of Vermont, Western Carolina University, and my current institution, California State University, San Bernardino. The first half of the class is focused on the complications of consent as described above, and the second half is focused on forms of sexuality and sexual identities that carry a stigma. We assess the sources of the stigmas and whether they are warranted. For example, we discuss sex work, objectification, and pornography, and look at feminist arguments for thinking they are harmful or valuable. We also talk about whether our sexual desires can be morally criticizable, including racialized sexual preferences, preferences for certain body shapes and sizes, or desires for domination or subordination. Here, we return to the discussion of our socialization and consider the possibility that certain harmful social norms underlie some of our sexual preferences. We talk about transphobia and its sources, and consider the possibility that even our sex- and gender-based preferences could be shaped by harmful social norms as well. We close with a discussion of polyamory, which is a more upbeat way to end the semester!
Every time I teach this class, I have students tell me that it is life-changing and that it allows them to develop a better understanding of themselves. It is, by far, the most gratifying class I have had the opportunity to teach. At the same time, much of the material can be extremely difficult to talk about, and much of it reminds many students of their own traumatic experiences. For this reason, I am explicit with students at the beginning of the semester that there are very good reasons for some not to take this class, and I encourage them to think carefully about whether having in-depth discussions of things like rape, racist and fatphobic beauty norms, and transphobia will be consistent with their ability to live well. Also, for this reason, great care has to be taken in structuring norms for discussion. Part of this involves modeling an open-mindedness toward some of the more controversial topics, as well as an ease around discussing sex in great detail. I’m always impressed with the students’ eventual willingness to really engage in what can be difficult conversations with a group of their peers, and they often note in course evaluations how liberating it is to have a space where they can openly talk about issues that are among the most stigmatized in our society, but which are so relevant to their lives.
The Syllabus Showcase of the APA Blog is designed to share insights into the syllabi of philosophy educators. We include syllabi in their original, unedited format that showcase a wide variety of philosophy classes. We would love for you to be a part of this project. Please contact Series Editor, Cara S. Greene via cara.greene@coloradocollege.edu, or Editor of the Teaching Beat, Dr. Smrutipriya Pattnaik via smrutipriya23@gmail.com with potential submissions.
Andréa Daventry
Andréa Daventry is an Assistant Professor at California State University, San Bernardino. Her research areas are feminist philosophy, ethics, and social & political philosophy. She has published work on gaslighting and on the relationship between oppressive socialization and personal autonomy. You can find out more about her research and teaching on her website.
