Husak And Thomas Arguments Against The Act Of Y

People can use conventions to give and receive sexual consent through other means than a “verbal expression of agreement” (Archard, 1997, p. 273) to move the initiation of sex from being morally impermissible, to morally permissible. A convention is when Person 1 does Y to express their consent to doing Z. The act of Y is understood through convention, as opposed to the act being understood in its natural way. This natural way may be understood as, Y would express what would be understood had there not been a created relationship between the act of Y and the concent to Z (Archard, 1997, p. 278). Archard is against the use of sexual conventions (Archard, 1997, p. 274) and argues this through an analysis of Husak and Thomas’ argument for sexual
236). This is because, for them, females use conventions to highlight their consent to sex as females are less likely to be open to talk about sex (Archard, 1997, p. 276). Archard is “against the existence of sexual conventions” (Archard, 1997, p. 283). This is highlighted through Archard addressing the issues with Husak and Thomas’s view of sexual conventions (Archard, 1997, pp. 283-4). For example, in Situation 1 if anyone performs Y, then they are consenting to Z. Person 1 performs Y, and as a result is consenting to Z. However, in Situation 2 if it can be inferred from Y a potential to consent to Z, then if Person 1 does Y, they may be consenting to Z (Archard, 1997, pp. 283-4). For Archard, Husak and Thomas make a move from Situation 1 to Situation 2 as their definition of sexual conventions (Archard, 1997, pp. 284-5). The difference between the two situations can be expressed through the difference between the meaning of a wink and a nod. A nod – like Situation 1 – is a clear indication of consent, whereas a wink – like situation 2 – could imply a nod later on, but is not in itself a ‘yes’ (Archard, 1997, pp. 284-5). If there is any doubt that Person 1 could not be consenting to Z through the convention of Y, then this presents and allows a high-risk opportunity to
277), and as a result reject his approach to conventions. This is because I believe that sexual consent can be given through a convention to someone as an initial stage of consent, and as a result the convention does not have to be universal, as there is another checkpoint in place to ensure consent and no risk to the people involved. The first stage of giving sexual consent via convention is the use and recognition of a convention. The second stage involves a clear, and non-ambiguous confirmation of consent being given (Pineau, 1989, p. 234). This can either be a verbal confirmation of consent, or a clear bodily interaction with the person requesting consent (Davion, 1999, p. 236). An example of how someone could use stage 1 could be as follows: Person 1 uses a convention to Person 2 to receive potential consent towards sex and allow a change in social settings, from an inappropriate sexual environment, such as a crowded place where Person 2 would be less likely to consent to sex, to a more appropriate environment where consent to sex can be gained without anyone feeling like they will be stigmatised for consenting (Archard, 1997, p. 276). Within this example, Person 1 is not acting wrongly, even if Person 2 did not understand the convention being used. Thus, the second stage of sexual consent is the crucial stage in determining whether consent