Sexual Harassment and the “Repetition Requirement”

Philosophy of the Social Sciences 34 (1):79-83 (2004)
  Copy   BIBTEX


In his “Reply to Iddo Landau,” Edmund Wall responds to the author’s critique of some of the views expressed in his “Sexual Harassment and Wrongful Communication.” The present article concentrates on what the author takes to be the main problem in Wall’s definition: by requiring that any act, even if intentional and cruel in nature, needs to be repeated to count as sexual harassment, Wall allows too much leeway and renders permissible a wide range of intentional, mean, and harmful actions that most, including, the author believes, Wall himself, would like to outlaw. The article considers Wall’s linguistic and nonlinguistic responses to this critique and finds them problematic.



External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library


Added to PP

101 (#176,282)

6 months
88 (#57,408)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Iddo Landau
University of Haifa

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Sexual harassment and wrongful communication.Edmund Wall - 2001 - Philosophy of the Social Sciences 31 (4):525-537.
Reply to Iddo Landau.Edmund Wall - 2003 - Philosophy of the Social Sciences 33 (2):235-241.
Sexual harassment as "wrongful communication".Iddo Landau - 2003 - Philosophy of the Social Sciences 33 (2):225-234.

Add more references