Sexual Conduct and Peacekeeping

Author(s):  
Olivera Simic
Keyword(s):  
2007 ◽  
Vol 50 (3) ◽  
pp. 29-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chimaraoke O. Izugbara

Abstract:This article reports findings of a qualitative inquiry on representations of unsafe sexual conduct among female sex workers in Aba, Nigeria. Participating sex workers viewed their work as a form of business, a survival imperative in the face of poverty, and they generally considered it both risky and disgraceful. However, they frequently framed unsafe sexual behavior in terms of poorly remunerated unprotected sex with clients. Sex workers in the study were not only generally willing to grant, but also confirmed regularly granting, unprotected sex to clients offering to pay a premium for it. Receiving “good money” for unprotected sex made higher degrees of risk acceptable to these women and was considered an effective way to avoid clients assumed to be carriers of infections. In their struggle for sexual health, sex workers in Nigeria are hindered by poverty, powerlessness, and marginality. Future programs must aim, inter alia, at supporting sex workers' willingness to insist on condoms no matter what clients offer them to do otherwise.


2016 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 150-170 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clare Jackson

This article presents a conversation analytic examination of a telephone call in which a teenage girl updates her friend about developments in a relationship. The telling is in three phases, from initial reluctance, through first kiss to first sexual contact. Drawing on the notion of lower and upper bounded tellability, I analyse the talk for what is constructed as tellable and as taboo. Eminently tellable, the kiss is a directly named activity, details are sought, and it is assessed in a delighted way. In contrast, the sexual activity is not named and instead is referred to as ‘stuff’. The details of ‘stuff’ are not pursued, and the activity is assessed with (playful) disapproval. The telling speaks to normative gendered sexual expectations for teenage girls in the UK. In talking about personal experience of sexual conduct but without talking in any detail, these speakers position themselves as morally respectable.


Author(s):  
Michael J. Saks ◽  
Barbara A. Spellman

The basic rule limiting character evidence is quite sensible. Personality traits predict less than most people (including jurors) realize; situations, and person-by-situation interactions, are more potent forces. As the law suspects, people tend to perceive the behavior of others through lenses of propensity; consequently, they over-attribute and over-predict consistency between character and conduct. In fashioning the character evidence rules, common law judges correctly diagnosed a problem and took steps to temper those attributional tendencies to avoid inaccurate and unfair verdicts. The rules allow numerous exceptions, admitting some character evidence out of fairness or to permit helpful evidence while barring its most misleading variants. For example, defendants in criminal cases are permitted to offer evidence of their own character or the character of a victim. Other exceptions are made to assist factfinders to evaluate witness credibility. A special class of that rule deals with witnesses’ criminal records: a maze of sub-rules governs admissibility of prior crimes. Research finds that people tend to rely on prior crime evidence for its improper propensity purpose, contrary to judicial instructions about the limited use to which it may be put. A relatively new set of rules permits prior criminal sexual conduct to be admitted, allowing factfinders to draw inferences about “any matter to which it is relevant.” These rules are controversial because they invite jurors to engage in the very propensity thinking that centuries of evidence doctrine prohibited. Moreover, behavioral data do not support the theory behind a special rule for prior criminal sexual conduct.


Screw Consent ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 94-116
Author(s):  
Joseph J. Fischel

This chapter surveys several cases of transgender men or butch women being convicted of sexual misconduct for deceiving their partners as to their assigned sex at birth. The conviction and categorization of this sexual conduct as sexual offense is troubling and wrong. These transgender “rapists” are not rapists, the sex is not sexual violence, and consent is not necessarily polluted by the undisclosed absence of a penis, the fact upon which most such cases and convictions rely. At the same time, these cases dramatize a central problem of consent’s scope: what do we consent to when we consent to sex? In this chapter, I propose that the deliberate contravention of an explicit conditional to sex should be a legal wrong and that such a narrowly tailored solution to the problem of sex-by-deception best protects sexual and gender minority defendants from phobic juries and judges while also facilitating sexual autonomy.


2007 ◽  
Vol 52 (6) ◽  
pp. 1372-1375 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ernest Poortinga ◽  
Craig Lemmen ◽  
Karl Majeske
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document