The Sexual Contract

The original contract is the conjectural history that is central to social contract theory. The story varies across the work of classic and contemporary contract theorists alike, but they all aim to explain the rational decision of individuals to trade the insecurities of natural freedom for the protection of civil freedom and equality by the state. That is, these theorists justify the binding authority and legitimacy of state and civil law and government by treating society as if it originated in a contract (1). According to dominant interpretations, the original contract is a social contract. However, for Pateman, “[t]he original contract is a sexual-social pact, but the story of the sexual contract has been repressed” (1). While the stories of this contract may be different, they are therefore all patriarchal in Pateman’s eyes (41). The point of The Sexual Contract is to retrieve the sexual aspect of the original contract from obscurity to demonstrate that the original contract secures modern patriarchy as the order of civil society.

The sexual contract is the repressed dimension of the original contract that, for Pateman, creates a patriarchal social order (1). The sexual contract is “the vehicle through which men transform their natural right over women into the security of civil patriarchal right” (6). It is a fraternal pact between the “brothers” who defeat the “fathers” of classic patriarchalism. Where the fathers enjoyed political right that either derived from or was identical to paternal right, men in modern civil society enjoy political right in their shared interest of upholding civil society through the subjugation of women in private and public spheres. These spheres are inseparable in civil society, but their rhetorical separation in dominant political theory allows the repression of the sexual contract. Pateman argues that the sexual contract is what makes the private sphere a political matter because freedom and equality between men in the public sphere depends on the subjugation of women in both spheres.

Contractarianism refers to the most radical form of contract doctrine, which understands the “individual” in universalized terms rather than the sexually differentiated terms of most classic contract theorists other than Thomas Hobbes. This understanding of “individual” as a universal designation is how socialists and feminists become proponents of contract and miss that contract necessarily entails relations of subordination and sexual difference. 

Socialism refers to a social, political, and economic philosophy that holds that the means of production should be publicly owned by the community, as opposed to the private ownership that characterizes capitalism. Socialism enters the contract argument through its considerations of the capitalist employment contract’s inherently coercive and exploitative (and therefore illegitimate) nature. Pateman argues that most socialist critique of contract theory is inadequate because it accepts the patriarchal split between private and public (and therefore misses the patriarchal structure inherent to capitalism) because its and focus on exploitation is an implicit acceptance of property in the person that obscures the fact that exploitation arises from the subordination that contractual relations create.

Feminism refers to a broad range of social, political, and economic ideologies that advocate for the recognized equality of the sexes in social, political, and economic realms. Feminist perspectives have been involved in the contract discourse since the inception of social contract theory in the 17th century, focusing particularly on interpretations of the original contract, the marriage contract, prostitution, and more recently the surrogacy contract. Pateman maintains that feminist participation in the contract discourse is often inadequate because of the way that it holds hands with contractarianism. The belief that extending the status of “individual” to women can undermine patriarchy and make women equal parties to contract overlooks the fact that “individual” is necessarily a patriarchal designation and that contract inherently creates relations of sexually differentiated subordination.

Patriarchy refers to a form of political power with origins in literal paternal rule. Regarding patriarchy’s interpretation as paternal rule, there are two lines of thought: the traditional, which analogizes all power relations to paternal rule (23), and the classic, which makes paternal rule and political rule identity (24). For Pateman, there is also a third line of patriarchal thought—modern patriarchy—which is the focus of The Sexual Contract. Modern patriarchy is fraternal, contractual, and structures all aspects of civil society, including domestic relations in the private sphere and capitalist relations in the public sphere (25). A large part of Pateman’s argument entails unraveling patriarchy from its literal interpretation as father-right in order to understand modern patriarchy as a fraternal pact that binds the private and public spheres to structure civil society (and thus is integral to the original contract, contract theory, and actual contractual relations overall).

Paternalism refers to the literal father-right, or rule of the father, which is often understood as the meaning of patriarchy. It also entails the subordination of those under the authority’s rule with the idea that the authority knows better than their subordinates what is in those subordinates’ best interest. Paternalism is integral to Pateman’s discussion because she wishes to disentangle the meaning of patriarchy from the idea of paternalism. Furthermore, it is the rejection of paternalism that allows contract theory to appear anti-patriarchal or post-patriarchal; proponents of the original contract and contract theory hold that civil society and contract are not paternalist relations, but rather agreement between free and equal individuals.

Fraternity, in literal terms, is brotherhood, or an organization in which men associate together for various aims. However, it is often regarded as a universalized term for “community.” Pateman advocates for recognizing the literal meaning, as it is central to her argument that modern patriarchy is a pact between men to treat each other as free and equal based on the right of all men to subordinate all women. Fraternity as a concept features most prominently in Chapter 4.

The “law of male sex-right” is a term that Pateman borrows from fellow feminist philosopher and political theorist, Adrienne Rich. It refers to the right of men to have sexual access to and control over women’s bodies. It figures prominently in Pateman’s discussion, as one of her central claims is that the sexual contract establishes the law of male sex-right within the original contract. The law of male sex-right is therefore central to the fraternal pact that forms modern patriarchy and originates men’s political right.

Conjugal right is a synonym for male sex-right. Therefore, it is central to the fraternal pact that forms modern patriarchy and originates men’s political right. Conjugal right is best understood through the domination present in the marriage contract, as the marriage contract replicates the original sexual contract within the private, domestic sphere.

Housewife is the designation for a woman who marries and becomes a laborer in the home. In other words, “a wife is someone who works for her husband in the marital home” (116). The housewife is a central topic in Chapter 5, as Pateman compares the marriage contract to other domestic contracts and to the employment contract, and as she seeks to demonstrate how the sexual division of labor in modern patriarchy surfaces in the contrast and interdependence of what it means to be a “housewife” and “worker.”

Prostitution is the practice of buying and selling sexual activity. Although men and women can both sell sexual access to their bodies, prostitutes are predominantly women, both historically and in contemporary times. In Chapter 7, Pateman deconstructs dominant arguments and perspectives regarding both the practice itself and prostitution contracts to demonstrate that not only is contemporary prostitution a distinct cultural and historical phenomenon with origins in modern patriarchy (195), but also that its contractual defense allows the perpetuation of male sex-right as political right (205). Some feminist analyses that support the normalization and legalization of prostitution refer to it as “sex work” (an umbrella term that also encompasses, for example, pornography). However, while Pateman agrees that prostitution is work in one sense—namely, that all contracted employment involves “selling one’s body,” which Pateman argues is inseparable from one’s labor—she contends that work in this sense always involves relations of domination and subordination and that in the case of prostitution those relations are specifically sexed. This, to Pateman, is what is “wrong” with prostitution, as the title of Chapter 7 implies.