Emma Jervis

Why Rape Law Revisions should be Consistent with Anderson’s Negotiation Model

Introduction

Why rape law revisions should be consistent with anderson’s negotiation model. Advocates for UK rape law revisions based on Anderson's negotiation consent model. Critiques current laws failing women, promoting clear consent, gender equality, and societal norm shifts.

Abstract

In this essay I argue that the current law structure unobjectionably fails to protect women against cases of rape and needs reform. I further maintain that Anderson’s suggestion of ‘negotiation consent’ is the most appropriate line of reform, and I will defend her proposal in the face of potential objections. The current rape law in the UK was implemented in 2003, which revised previous laws firstly defined in the Sexual Offenses Act of 1953. Despite the ostensibly ‘objective’ nature of this law, which will be further examined in this essay, many feminist philosophers have noted the biases within the law which favour male interests. This essay explores the present issues within UK law, as well as our current understandings of what constitutes ‘a reasonable belief of consent’, that fail to protect women in instances of rape. This foundational attitude towards such matters influence performative revision models, such as the No Model and the Yes model, which I consider within this essay. Yet the inadequacies of such approaches, as I demonstrate, mirror some of the current issues with rape law in the UK today; such as the lack of recognition of men’s frequent inability to interpret women’s nonverbal behaviour and disregard for instances where one person changes their mind. Furthermore, I advocate for Anderson’s proposal of the negotiation model as an alternative reform of the law as well as society’s attitude towards sex and how consent can be clearly obtained. This model, when legally applied, will not only legally protect women in cases of rape, but eventually protect them from the present societal norms that perpetuate the imminent risk of rape and sexual exploitation.  Through making the act of negotiation a legal requirement, I maintain that there would be a ‘ripple effect’ throughout society that would, eventually, lead to a change in public expectations of men and women. Anderson’s emphasis on either party being able to initiate the negotiation establishes a much more open-minded attitude towards gender roles and expectations of individuals based on their gender. This is the greatest strength of Anderson’s argument, as this equality-driven initiative would eventually seep into society’s wider expectations of individuals when initiating sex, and create a world where understanding what the other person is anticipating in a sexual situation is the norm.  

Review

This essay proposes a critical examination of current UK rape law, asserting that its present structure and understanding of consent are fundamentally flawed, failing to adequately protect women and exhibiting inherent biases favouring male interests. The author critiques existing reform models, such as the 'No Model' and 'Yes Model,' for their inadequacies, particularly concerning the interpretation of nonverbal cues and the recognition of individuals changing their mind. The central argument advocates for the adoption of Anderson's 'negotiation consent' model as the most appropriate line of reform, aiming to offer a more robust and equitable framework for both legal and societal change regarding sexual consent. A significant strength outlined in the abstract is the ambitious scope of the proposed work, which aims beyond mere legal reform to instigate a broader societal shift in attitudes towards sex and consent. The paper effectively highlights the perceived benefits of Anderson's model, particularly its potential to create a "ripple effect" by making negotiation a legal requirement. This emphasis on explicit, mutual agreement is posited as a powerful mechanism to challenge and reframe entrenched gender roles and expectations surrounding sexual initiation and interaction. The argument for an equality-driven initiative, where either party can initiate negotiation, promises a more balanced and respectful approach to sexual encounters, moving towards a societal norm where mutual understanding is paramount. While the abstract presents a compelling vision, the full essay would benefit from a more detailed exposition of Anderson's model itself, particularly its practical application within a legal framework. Exploring the nuances of how "negotiation" would be legally defined, obtained, and proven in court, especially in the context of real-time sexual encounters, will be crucial. Furthermore, engaging with potential criticisms or complexities inherent in operationalizing a negotiation-based consent model, such as the possibility of implicit coercion within negotiations or the challenges of adapting to fluid situations, would strengthen the overall argument. Finally, while the claim of a societal "ripple effect" is powerful, a more explicit theoretical framework or historical precedent detailing how such a profound cultural shift could manifest would enhance the persuasiveness of the proposed reforms.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.