Negotiating Sex

“Negotiating Sex” is a response to the two major proposals for rape law reform in legal scholarship today, as well as a proposal for a third way. Susan Estrich and Donald Dripps argue that sexual penetration should be legal unless the victim expresses her non-consent, a proposal I call the “No Model.” Stephen Schulhofer argues that sexual penetration should be illegal unless the defendant obtains affirmative consent for penetration through the victim’s words or conduct, a proposal I call the “Yes Model.” Under this model, according to Schulhofer, if a woman does not say “no,” and “her silence is combined with passionate kissing, hugging, and sexual touching,” one may “infer actual willingness” based on her nonverbal conduct. Both the No and the Yes Models of rape law reform fail to account for important empirical realities. First, the lived experience of sexual trauma often includes physical paralysis and mental dissociation, which cut a victim off from her ability to object to penetration. Second, men often misinterpret women’s body language, seeing erotic innuendo and sexual intent where there is none, which impedes their ability to surmise consent accurately. Third, people often substitute sexual petting for penetration as a way to limit the health risks of sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy posed by penetration. It makes no sense, therefore, to “infer” consent to penetration from “passionate kissing, hugging, and sexual touching.” I propose that rape law abandon the notion of consent. In its place, the law should require negotiation—conversation and mutual agreement—between partners before sexual penetration occurs. Negotiation would require a communicative exchange about whether partners want to engage in sexual intercourse. The Negotiation Model requires communication that is verbal unless partners have established a context between them in which they may accurately assess one another’s nonverbal behavior. The verbal communication must be such as would indicate to a reasonable person that sexual penetration has been freely and explicitly agreed to

Marital Immunity, Intimate Relationships, and Improper Inferences: A New Law on Sexual Offenses by Intimates

Today, to one degree or another, marital immunity for sexual offenses persists in over half the states. Underlying the marital rape immunity has been the assumption that when a woman enters into a marriage, she is giving her ongoing consent to sexual intercourse. Professor Michelle Anderson argues that states must abolish this immunity to make the law formally neutral on the marital status of the parties. However, Professor Anderson argues, such formal neutrality is insufficient. The ideology of ongoing consent underlying the marital rape immunity has infected the way the legal system treats sexual offenses among intimates who are not married. The legal system often assumes that ongoing consent also exists between non-married intimates. Professor Anderson argues against the ideology of ongoing consent in both settings and proposes a new, single rule: evidence of a past or continuing sexual relationship between the complainant and the defendant is not itself a defense to a criminal sexual offense and, by itself, does not prove consent to the sexual act

Novel Perspectives on Due Process Symposium: Do the Proposed Title IX Regulations Protect or Undermine Due Process?

Due process for those accused of sexual misconduct on college campuses has arisen as an area of increased concern. Many scholars focus on whether the (usually) male students accused of sexual assault and harassment get a fair shake in the quasi-judicial disciplinary proceedings mandated by Title IX, the federal civil rights law that prohibits sex discrimination in educational institutions