Robert Morgan (University of Leeds), "Sexualisation"

Forthcoming, Australasian Journal of Philosophy

By Robert Morgan

the underlying idea

I want to find a definition of sexualisation and an account of what goes wrong when a person is sexualised against their will. Here’s a central case from the paper:

“Ashley is attending a business meeting shortly after accepting a job at a new organisation…After welcoming her, Bill turns to Ashley and says: “You’re very pretty, aren’t you? I know the guys are very happy to have you working here. I’m sure you’ll have a good time with them”” (Morgan, Forthcoming). His tone indicates that he intends to convey the sexual double-meaning of his words.

Bill implies that Ashley’s colleagues find her attractive and that she would enjoy having sex with them. Intuitively, Bill wrongs Ashley because he treats her in a sexual manner against her will by presenting her in a certain way. This gives us an initial idea of sexualisation: One person sexualises another when they present them in a sexual way. By itself, this is fairly obvious and extremely vague. So, I need an account of what it means to present someone in a sexual way and why it’s wrong to do this against their will.

an account of sexualisation

How about this? One person sexualises another when they foreground a sexual property of that person. I take the idea of foregrounding from a brilliant analysis of self-presentation by Amy Olberding (2014). According to Olberding, self-presentation involves making some features of ourselves relevant in our interactions with others, and other features irrelevant. Here’s an example:

Networking. Caitlin is hosting an event for potential new clients. One prospective client, Dennis, knew her when she was a child. Dennis repeatedly recites stories about Caitlin from when she was young. This prevents Caitlin from discussing business with Dennis and distracts her when she tries to win business from others.

Caitlin’s self-presentation involves foregrounding her professional expertise (she wants other people to focus on this) and backgrounding her childhood (she wants people to overlook or ignore this). Dennis contradicts Caitlin’s self-presentation by foregrounding something that she would rather background and ignoring what she wants others to focus on. He does not sexualise her, however, because he does not foreground a sexual property.

Sexualisation occurs when one person foregrounds a sexual property of another person. I suggest that a property is sexual if it has something to do with a person’s sexual desires. Bill sexualises Ashley by foregrounding her sexual desires when he says that she will have a “good time” with her new colleagues and foregrounding her alleged role in the sexual desires of others when he says that they are “very happy” to have her working there.

Some other properties of a person also count as sexual properties because they are so often the object of sexual desire. For example, commenting on certain parts of a person’s body (for example, their genitals) and on certain acts they might have engaged in (for example, penile-vaginal intercourse) typically sexualises them. Importantly, it’s irrelevant whether a person actually has the property in question; falsely claiming that someone has engaged in a particular sexual act will sexualise them just as much as if the claim were true.

the wrong of unwanted sexualisation

I then say something about why unwanted sexualisation is seriously wrong, starting with the ethics of contradicting a person’s self-presentation.

Contradicting a person’s self-presentation reduces their autonomy. They cannot determine which parts of themselves guide their interactions with others and are usually prevented from doing a host of other things. Caitlin is prevented from making her professional expertise the subject of conversations with prospective clients, so it is more difficult for her to secure new business.

It also instrumentalises the person, treating them as though they exist to serve others without respecting them as someone with their own preferences. Dennis talks to Caitlin as he wishes without regard for Caitlin’s own interests.

So, unwanted sexualisation is wrong because it contradicts a person’s self-presentation. But I want to say something stronger. Unwanted sexualisation seems to be a particularly bad case of contradicting a person’s self-presentation. While Dennis wrongs Caitlin, Bill’s actions towards Ashley are, it strikes me, more seriously wrong. There are a few reasons that unwanted sexualisation is particularly serious:

·       Sex is typically considered a deeply private and intimate matter. Unwanted sexualisation foregrounds a very private part of a person, one that we often think makes a person vulnerable.

·       Unwanted sexualisation is often threatening. The perpetrator demonstrates that they are willing to disregard the victim’s preferences to treat them in a sexual manner. The victim might reasonably believe that the perpetrator will escalate this to physical violence.

·       Unwanted sexualisation often discriminates; we have reason to believe that it is disproportionately perpetrated by men and disproportionately targets women. As a result, it can convey misogynist messages. Ashley might reasonably perceive that Bill targets her, and that he does not take her seriously as a professional, because she is a woman.

·       Unwanted sexualisation is often experienced as especially awful by the person targeted.

a proviso

Contradicting a person’s self-presentation is not always wrong, however. Imagine that Eric cheats on Freida. When Freida criticises Eric for this, she foregrounds something about him that he prefers to background. But, she is clearly justified.

On my view, it is ordinarily wrong to contradict a person’s self-presentation without good reason. However, this moral right or claim that others respect our self-presentation is one that we can forfeit. So, when a person behaves poorly, they cannot reasonably complain if the wronged party draws attention to this.

This is an outline of my account of what sexualisation is and why unwanted sexualisation ordinarily constitutes a serious wrong against the person sexualised. The full paper, where all of this is worked out more fully, is accessible online in the Australasian Journal of Philosophy.

references

Lewis, David. 1979. “Scorekeeping in a Language Game.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 8 (1): 339–59.

McGowan, Mary Kate. 2019. Just Words: On Speech and Hidden Harm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Morgan, Robert. Forthcoming. “Sexualisation.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00048402.2023.2227641?af=R

Olberding, Amy. 2014. “Subclinical Bias, Manners, and Moral Harm.” Hypatia 29 (2): 287–302.