@article{ref1,
title="What's consent got to do with it?",
journal="Social philosophy today",
year="2021",
author="Brison, Susan J.",
volume="37",
number="",
pages="9-21",
abstract="What are we doing when we see rape as nonconsensual sex? What does this prevent us from seeing--and doing? On my account, the harm of rape--to the victim and to others--is not adequately captured by calling it &quot;sex without consent.&quot; If we want, first, to understand how rape harms its direct and its indirect victims and, second, to eradicate rape, or at least change the culture so that rape is less prevalent, the question &quot;Did she consent to his doing this to her on that occasion?&quot; may not be the most important question, or even a very helpful question, to ask, and focusing on it exclusively may be counterproductive. Defining rape as &quot;sex without consent&quot; or &quot;nonconsensual sex&quot; is, I argue, not only politically ineffective as an anti-rape strategy. It also constitutes an epistemic injustice against rape survivors who attempt to bear witness to the politically significant incessant and ubiquitous occurrence of male gender-based violence against women, which is something much larger than any one thing that was done to any one of them without their consent.<p /> <p>Language: en</p>",
language="en",
issn="1543-4044",
doi="10.5840/socphiltoday202181983",
url="http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/socphiltoday202181983"
}