The Communicative Criterion: Establishing a New Standard for Non-Violent Sexual Encounters by Reframing Consent
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consent is a primary framework by which communities in the United States understand whether a particular sexual encounter is acceptable. Despite its centrality, consent is a troubling criterion for judging violent sexual interactions. Through an examination of historical articulations of consent, empirical studies on sexuality, and philosophical objections to the term, I argue that consent is a problematic construct, especially when addressing acquaintance rape. In order to rethink consent, I start from PineauA¢â¬â¢s communicative criterion and offer a model for understanding sexual encounters in which intersubjective processes of meaning making are central. Where the consent criterion prompts the question, A¢â¬ADid A agree to have sex with B?A¢â¬Â the communicative criterion seeks to understand whether the partners attended to each other, sought information from each other about likes and dislikes, and negotiated boundaries. Actors exemplifying the communicative criterion for acceptable sexual encounters notice both verbal and nonverbal cues and check their perceptions. Additionally, they assume that individuals behave, communicate, and interpret experiences in a variety of ways, always informed by cultural scripts. The communicative criterion focuses not on one individualA¢â¬â¢s knowledge of the other, but on the process existing in the space between sexual actors. The communicative criterion disrupts heteronormative conceptions of sexuality and has important implications for the law, academic scholarship, and public education.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.126 | 0.169 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.136 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.038 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.024 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".