Sexual Consent in the Post-MeToo World: A Study in Philosophy and Law

2017年和2018年的#MeToo运动是一场名副其实的文化和政治海啸，其全部影响仍在发挥作用。在其持续的后果中，世界继续考虑性骚扰，剥削，甚至强奸的纯粹规模和平凡性，这被揭示为如此多的妇女经历的一个方面，在如此多的不同的生活领域。#MeToo是一个分水岭，可以肯定地说，我们对性、同意和权力的看法将永远不会相同。 现在我们正处于余波之中--或余震--内在的问题是事情应该有何不同，应该采取什么行动（可能包括通过法律）来灌输新的性道德，以及应该采取什么措施对于那些#MeToo已被认定犯有不当性行为罪，但刑法尚未（或尚未）的人。 某些纠正立场现在几乎得到了普遍的支持。其中包括对性领域权力失衡运作的新认识;双方同意的性行为往往具有剥削性质，以及工作场所内外严重和偶然的性骚扰对受害者（主要是妇女）生活的严重后果。什么程度的压力，或者什么类型的欺骗，有效地使性行为的同意无效？对于一个被揭露过去曾以当时社会可接受的方式对他人进行性骚扰的人，有什么适当的反响？A是否需要表达一种肯定的、热情的性渴望，以便B合理地得出A同意发生性行为的结论？强奸罪的有罪（或犯罪意图）条件应如何准确地制定？“相信妇女”是什么意思，这一必要性如何与无罪推定相互作用？我们是否应该在社会生活中或在我们的就业决定中采用与刑法相呼应的无罪推定？这样做是否符合“相信妇女”的倾向，当她们提出性侵犯指控时？#MeToo所揭露的令人震惊的性行为是否会通过在生活或法律中采用所谓的“肯定”同意标准来打击，就像美国大学校园中越来越多的情况一样？ 这些问题既难又让人不舒服。该项目将借鉴哲学，法律和政治领域的长期和尖端奖学金，以进一步解决这些问题。一系列在线播放的对话录像将以一种无障碍的方式传播与项目问题有关的不同学科学者的想法。在为普通观众设计的电影和书面作品中，它将把更多的学术辩论注入公共话语中，将当前的话题性争议与长期存在的更深层次的哲学争议联系起来，并将为性同意和性不法行为的法律提供急需的清晰度。法律和道德问题将被有益地分开。该项目的大问题将通过参与真实的生活案例来解决，其中许多是媒体关注的熟悉案例，并将哲学，法律和政治方面的批判性思维应用于他们提出的问题。在法律的领域，政策制定者和法律的从业人员将与学者直接对话，以考虑法律的改革在促进更好的性行为方面可能发挥的作用。“我也是”的问题归根结底是正义的问题：性别正义、刑事正义以及在不平等的世界中谈判性的正义。正如所有的正义问题一样，我们不应该期待简单的答案;但这个项目的目的是在他们的凹痕。

The #MeToo movement of 2017 and 2018 was a veritable cultural and political tsunami, whose full implications are still very much playing out. In its ongoing aftermath, the world continues to reckon with the sheer scale and mundaneness of the sexual harassment, exploitation, and even rape, which was revealed to be an aspect of so many women's experience, in so many different walks of life. #MeToo was a watershed moment, and it is safe to conclude that our thinking about sex, consent, and power will never be the same. Now that we are in the aftermath-or aftershock-the immanent questions are how things ought to be different, what actions ought to be taken (including, possibly, by the law) to inculcate a new ethic of sex, as well as what should be done about those whom #MeToo has found culpable of sexual misconduct, but whom the criminal law has not (or not yet). Certain corrective stances now enjoy near-universal support. They include a new appreciation of the operation of power imbalances in the sexual domain; of the often-exploitative character of consensual sex, and the serious consequences of both severe and casual sexual harassment on the lives of victims, largely women, inside the workplace and outside of it. Every bit as much, though, there are questions which continue to divide and to puzzle. What degrees of pressure, or which kinds of deceptions, effectively invalidate consent to sexual activity? What are the appropriate repercussions for a person who is revealed to have sexually harassed people in the past in ways that were, at the time, socially acceptable? Need A express an affirmative and enthusiastic desire for sex in order for B to reasonably draw the conclusion that A consented to that sex? How should the culpability (or mens rea) condition for rape be formulated exactly? What does it mean to "Believe Women", and how does this imperative interact with the presumption of innocence? Ought we to adopt a presumption of innocence in social life, or in our employment decisions, which echoes that of the criminal law? Is so doing compatible with the disposition to "believe women" when they make sexual assault allegations? Would the egregious sexual practices exposed by #MeToo be combatted by embracing, in life or law, a so-called 'affirmative' standard of consent, as is increasingly the case on American college campuses? These questions are as difficult as they are uncomfortable. This project will draw on long-standing and cutting-edge scholarship across philosophy, law, and politics, to further the answers to them. A series of filmed conversations broadcast online, will disseminate, in an accessible manner, the ideas of scholars working across different disciplines which bear on the project's questions. In both its filmed and written outputs, designed for a general audience, it will inject more of these scholarly debates into the public discourse, connecting up current, topical controversies with deeper ones of long philosophical standing, and will offer much-needed clarity about the law of sexual consent and sexual wrongdoing. Questions of law and ethics will be helpfully prised apart. The project's big questions will be tackled through engaging with real life cases, many familiar from the media attention they received, and applying critical thinking in philosophy, law, and politics, to the issues they throw up. In the legal sphere, policy-makers and legal practitioners will be brought into direct conversation with academics to consider what role legal reform may have to play in promoting better sexual practice. The problems of #MeToo are, at bottom, problems of justice: gender justice, criminal justice, and the justice involved in negotiating sex in an unequal world. As with all problems of justice, we should not expect simple answers; but this project aims to make a dent in them.