In Contemporary Moral Problems we’re in the middle of a unit on ethical issues relating to sexuality. Our reading for today was Thomas Mappes, “Sexual Morality and the Concept of Using Another Person.” Mappes’s basic claim is that sex is immoral when it involves using someone as a mere means, or without their informed consent. His actual formulation is:
A immorally uses B if and only if A intentionally acts in a way that violates the requirement that B’s involvement with A’s ends be based on B’s voluntary informed consent.
Mappes says there are two major types of using: deception and coercion. Deception can include lies, like “I’m on birth control”, “I’m single.”, “I’m clean”, “Yes, I love you.”, omissions, equivocations, etc. Coercion can be “occurrent” or “dispositional.” Occurent coercion is basically the use of force (physically forcing someone, as in tying them down and shoving something somewhere), and dispositional involves the use of threats of harm (for example, raping someone at knifepoint).
But, Mappes adds, there is a third type, a kind of coercion that seems problematic yet does not involves the use of force or the threat of harm. It is the coercive offer. To get at this concept, Mappes distinguishes a threat from an offer:
Gesturing to a rough and ready distinction between “wants” and “needs”, Mappes then gives an example of a coercive offer, which I will paraphrase as follows:
Mr. Troubled is a widower with three young children. He wants to stay in his home, in his town, where his extended family lives, but he has lost his job and cannot make his mortgage payment. No one can help him. Ms. Opportunistic is sexually attracted to Mr. Troubled. She offers to make his mortgage payments if he agrees to an affair. Mr. Troubled is not attracted to Ms. Opportunistic.
Mappes claims that Ms. Opportunistic is attempting to use Mr. Troubled in the immoral manner defined above. Mr. Troubled has a genuine need, and Ms. Opportunistic is attempting to exploit it for her sexual gain. She is making a “coercive offer.” To be precise, it is not so much that she coerces him (and nothing hangs on our use of the word “coercion” here), but that she takes advantage of the fact that he is already “under coercion.” If Mr. Troubled accepts, he is likely to say something like, “I had no choice.” and that response would, Mappes asserts, make some sense to most people. Ms. Opportunistic is taking advantage of Mr. Troubled’s desperate situation, a situation in which his consent is so constrained by his desperate need, that it would not be fully voluntary.
Contrast this with another case (from Mappes), one in which a movie mogul offers a starlet a big movie part for a sexual favor. There may be other immoral aspects of the offer (perhaps the mogul is married), but the offer itself is not coercive. It is the starlet’s want, but not her need to have the big part. Her acceptance, if it happens, is voluntary.
My students had a good discussion of the question of whether it is fair to say Mr. Troubled has a “need” while The Starlet only has a “want.” Many of them seemed to want to say either they both have wants, or they both have needs.
At any rate, being a romance reader, I was sure I had seen a plot like the Mr. Troubled/Ms. Opportunistic one, only way sexier, and it took about .0008 seconds to find several Harlequin Presents that fit the bill. I chose The Italian’s Mistress, a 2005 Harlequin Presents by Melanie Milburn.
Here’s the blurb:
Back in his bed…with a vengeance!
When it comes to Anna Stockton, Lucio Ventressi knows he has an offer she can’t refuse….
Anna needs money — Lucio has it! His deal? Become his mistress for three months and he’ll pay for her son’s operation. Anna has no choice but to agree to being bedded by Lucio. But she finds that his passion is sweet — even if it is born of revenge….
Now, knowing that sometimes the blurb is misleading, I actually purchased and read this book. And … it is not misleading.
Here’s how it all goes down: Anna is in her native Melbourne, working a day shift as a hotel housekeeper (and a night shift as a dishwasher), and Lucio, who normally lives in Rome, is occupying the penthouse. Anna had been engaged to Lucio years ago, but ended up in bed with his brother, who took pictures to prove it. Anna was kicked to the curb, pregnant. She now lives in poverty with her gravely ill son and her deaf sister. Anna, in housekeeper mode, happens to walk in on Lucio, and they have this exchange.
‘Sammy needs…an operation,’ she said. ‘I don’t have private insurance but if I wait until it’s his turn on the public waiting list…it might be too late.’
‘What’s wrong with him?’
‘He has a heart condition.’
‘Serious?’
She took a painful breath. ‘He needs the surgery to survive into adulthood.’
He swore again. ‘How much is this…operation?’ he asked after a short pause.
She told him and he didn’t even flinch, which somehow annoyed her. It was such a pittance to someone like him, pin money really, and yet it could save a child’s life. Her child’s life. She watched him out of the corner of her eye. He was thinking…no—calculating…planning.
‘I might be able to help you,’ he said after another one of his strategically timed pauses.
‘Why would you want to do that?’ Suspicion crept into her tone as she lifted her eyes back to his.
‘I have my reasons.’ His expression gave nothing away.
‘A loan, you mean?’
‘No.’
‘No?’
He shook his head. ‘No.’
‘What, then?’ Her stomach tightened.
‘I will pay for Sammy’s health care, but I have some conditions on the deal.’
‘Conditions?’ She swallowed the restriction in her throat. ‘What sort of conditions?’
His eyes held hers determinedly. ‘You can save your son’s life but you must agree to do something for me in return.’
‘I will do anything to save my son’s life,’ she said. ‘Anything.’
The corner of his hard mouth lifted in a slight smile. ‘I’m very glad to hear that as I was expecting much more resistance on your part.’
The fingertips of fear tickled along her spine. ‘What do you want me to do?’
He gave her another contemplative look. ‘I thought you would have guessed by now, cara.’
His eyes burned as they came back to hers, the line of his normally firm mouth now so tight it hinted at cruelty.
***
‘I will pay for my nephew’s surgery but in exchange I want you back in my bed.’
Her eyes widened in alarm. ‘No!’ ‘
No?’ The eyebrow rose once more. ‘I didn’t think that was a word you were accustomed to using a great deal.’
She closed her eyes so she didn’t have to see his derision. ‘I can’t do it.’
‘All right.’ He dismissed her with a step away.
‘Finish the room and get out.’
He was halfway out of the door when she came to her senses. This was about Sammy, not her.
‘Lucio…’
‘Yes?’ He turned to face her, his expression one of extreme boredom. She found it hard to hold his gaze and lowered her eyes to the floor at his feet, the collapse of her pride making her shoulders slump in defeat.
‘I’ll do it,’ she said hollowly. ‘I’ll do what you ask.’
‘Good.’
Giving Lucio the benefit of the doubt — because he so clearly deserves it — I read on, to see if he indeed would exact his sexy revenge. Maybe it’s an idle threat, and he’s really a big ‘ol softie? But no, he does. Over and over and over. Lucio is obviously a complete fucking asshole making a coercive offer here. But what makes this situation different from Ms. Opportunistic and Mr. Troubled is that Anna is sexually attracted to Lucio, and still kind of in love with him. Well, ok, Anna’s mind hates him, but her body — oh treacherous flesh! — can’t resist him.
So, it makes a good case to discuss on the topic of immoral sexual coercion.
Now, for romance readers curious about this book, I do understand the allure of the over the top Presents line, but even so, I can’t recommend this one. To take just one example, Anna and Lucio are both convinced the child is his brother’s (because Lucio always wore a glove). Despite this, a nanosecond after the above chat, with absolutely no discussion of how they are going to present this little arrangement to the child, here is what happens (click to enlarge):
There is no development whatsoever in the relationship, Anna is a doormat, Lucio is a complete jerk, and the whole thing is based on a Big Misunderstanding which gets resolved in the last paragraph. See, Anna did not actually have sex with Lucio’s brother. The brother just gave her a roofie, stripped her naked, and took pictures, to make it look like they had sex. Why? Don’t ask stupid questions. They are Italian magnates! This is what they do.










