Conclusions

This concluding chapter summarizes the Evidential Account that is comprised of the Interpersonal Justification Argument, the Expression of Will View, and the Due Diligence Principle. After elaborating how the account applies, this chapter surveys remaining doubts that we may have about this account. Doubts are inevitable because there is a tension between two attractive thoughts. On the one hand, there is a pull to thinking that a consent-giver should be able to control the scope of their consent. On the other hand, there is a pull to thinking that the consent-receiver should have epistemic access to the scope of the consent. Since the consent-giver may fail to control the epistemic access of the consent-receiver, these thoughts cannot be fully reconciled, and so any account will miss out on something attractive. After discussing how the Evidential Account responds to this tension, this book ends by revisiting the topic of sexual deception. The Evidential Account entails an expansive view of sexual misconduct in so far as the account implies that many sexual deceivers engage in non-consensual sex with their victims.

Introduction

This chapter introduces this book’s investigation into the question of which normative principle governs the scope of consent. The scope of someone’s consent is the range of actions that they permit by giving consent. The ultimate conclusion of this book is that the scope of consent is determined by certain evidence that bears on the appropriate interpretation of the consent. To reach this conclusion, this book’s investigation involves taking a stance on what constitutes consent. By appealing to the idea that someone can justify their behaviour by appealing to another person’s consent, this book defends the view that consent consists in behaviour that expresses a consent-giver’s will for how a consent-receiver behaves. Discovering the principle for consent scope’s is important for a variety of practical applications, including sexual deception: by engaging in deception, a perpetrator can unwittingly manipulate their victim into taking part in a sexual encounter that lies outside the scope of their consent.

Flowers of Deceptive Aristolochia microstoma Are Pollinated by Phorid Flies and Emit Volatiles Known From Invertebrate Carrion

Deceptive flowers decoy pollinators by advertising a reward, which finally is not provided. Numerous deceptive plants are pollinated by Diptera, but the attractive cues and deceptive strategies are only identified in a few cases. A typical fly-deceptive plant genus is Aristolochia, which evolved sophisticated trap flowers to temporarily capture pollinators. Though rarely demonstrated by experimental approaches, Aristolochia species are believed to chemically mimic brood sites, food sources for adult flies, or utilize sexual deception. Indeed, for most species, studies on scent composition and attractive signals are lacking. In this study, we focused on Aristolochia microstoma, a peculiar Greek endemic with flowers that are presented at ground level in the leaf litter or between rocks and are characterized by a unique morphology. We analyzed flower visitor and pollinator spectra and identified the floral scent composition using dynamic headspace and gas chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry (GC/MS). Female and male phorid flies (Phoridae) are the exclusive pollinators, although the flowers are also frequently visited by Sciaridae, as well as typical ground-dwelling arthropods, such as Collembola and arachnids. The carrion-like floral scent mainly consists of the oligosulphide dimethyldisulfide and the nitrogen-bearing compound 2,5-dimethylpyrazine. These compounds together are known to be released from decomposing insects, and thus, we conclude that pollinators are likely deceived by chemical imitation of invertebrate carrion, a deceptive strategy not described from another plant species so far.

Evidence for a food-deceptive pollination system using Hylaeus bees in Caladenia hildae (Orchidaceae)

Numerous orchid species are pollinated by food deception, where rewardless flowers attract foraging pollinators through the mimicry of other flowers or the use of non-specific floral signals. Here we investigate the pollination of Caladenia hildae, a member of a diverse Australian genus containing species pollinated by sexual deception, and species pollinated by food foraging pollinators. Despite eight bee species occurring at the main study site, only food foraging bees of a single species of Hylaeus (Colletidae) were observed to remove and deposit pollen of C. hildae. Spectral reflectance of C. hildae flowers differed from co-flowering rewarding species in terms of both the wavelengths of light reflected, and the pattern of colouration. As such, there was no evidence that C. hildae uses a pollination strategy based on floral mimicry. However, the attraction of only a single bee species at this site suggests that C. hildae may use a deceptive strategy that exploits sensory biases or behaviours that differ between Hylaeus sp. and the remainder of the bee community. While Hylaeus have been recorded visiting orchid flowers in several parts of the world, C. hildae may represent the first documented case of an orchid species specialised on pollination by Hylaeus bees.