Context: a discussion of personal injury cases in a tort law class…
Student: Wasn’t P v. Q the one where the victim’s sexual performance was affected?
Lecturer: No, P v. Q was an infection. And anyway, the victim was a woman.
…laughter all round, except not from me.
At the time, I took the lecturer to be implying one of two things: (a) only men have (or do?) ‘sexual performance’ so if the victim was a woman there could have been no effect on sexual performance, or (b) women also have/do ‘sexual performance’ but even if it was affected it wouldn’t count as an injury.
Help me out, here: is there a way to understand this such that it doesn’t reinforce some pretty scary stereotypes about women and sex?