Journal of Interpersonal Violence· 2026Q1
Crossing the Line: Measuring Sexual Exploitation Across Advocacy and Sex Research Traditions
- 0citations
- Q1SCImago
- 2026year
Short summary
Sexual exploitation is best measured by separating the sexual act, the tactic used, and the context, rather than relying on imprecise labels like 'unwanted sex' or 'rape'.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Key points
- Existing labels like 'unwanted sex' or 'rape' are inadequate for measuring sexual exploitation.
- Distinguishing consent from desire is crucial, as 'unwanted' and 'nonconsensual' do not always mean the same thing.
- Measurement tools must account for diverse sexual acts and victims, not just heterosexual female victimization.
- Coercion must be defined to include pressure and manipulation but avoid eliminating sexual agency.
- Sexual exploitation is best measured by separating the act, tactic, and context.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Abstract
Where is the line between permissible sexual seduction and sexual exploitation? This commentary argues that the answer cannot be settled by global labels such as unwanted sex, nonconsensual sex, rape, or abuse. Drawing on a collaboration between researchers working in violence-against-women and sex-research traditions, we examine three measurement problems that arise when sexual exploitation is defined behaviorally. First, consent must be distinguished from desire, because the terms unwanted, nonconsensual, and without permission may not measure the same thing. Second, measures must identify which sexual acts occurred and whose body was involved without making heterosexual female victimization the only template for harm. Third, coercion must be defined broadly enough to capture pressure, manipulation, vulnerability, authority, and constrained choice, but not so broadly that sexual agency disappears. We conclude that sexual exploitation is best measured by separating act, tactic, and context, allowing researchers to document contested boundaries transparently rather than hiding them behind imprecise labels.
The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2026 · DOI ↗
Continue with a free account
Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.
Continue free on the webSign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.
On your phone:
Field: Gender Studies
Gender StudiesSocial Sciences