Defining a contested concept
The term ‘sexual diplomacy’ circulates within historical, political, and popular discourse, yet it avoids a single, stable definition. It is best understood as a fluid spectrum of state practices where intimacy, sexuality, and gender are instrumentalised to achieve political objectives. At one end of this spectrum lies the diplomacy of alliance, where strategic marriages and sexual unions forge kinship ties, mediate cultural divides, and secure peace between polities. At the other, darker end lies the diplomacy of coercion, where seduction, entrapment, and blackmail become weapons in the arsenal of espionage, designed to extract secrets, compromise adversaries, and exert illegal influence.
Sexual diplomacy’s historical forms range from the use of dynastic marriage and colonial cohabitation as tools of statecraft to the evolution of coercive sexpionage. This coercive counterpart includes the femmes fatales of the World Wars and the institutionalised ‘honey trap’ programs of Cold War intelligence agencies like the KGB, Stasi, and CIA.
In the 21st Century, these tactics have dematerialised into the digital domain. The modern context is characterised by the rise of the cyber honey trap, the convergence of state-level espionage with criminal sextortion, and the emerging threat of AI-generated ‘deepfake’ kompromat.
These practices are effective because diplomacy has long been a gendered and sexualised institution where patriarchal norms are central to the exercise of power. ‘Sexual diplomacy’ is therefore employed not only as an external tool against adversaries but also as an internal mechanism for policing the boundaries of the diplomatic corps itself.
This use of intimacy as a state tool raises profound ethical and legal questions about consent and coercion. It also highlights a fundamental paradox of statecraft: states often prohibit internally, through strict anti-fraternisation policies, the very behaviours they weaponise externally.
The diplomacy of intimacy and historical precedents
The instrumental use of sexual and marital relationships for political ends represents one of the oldest forms of statecraft. Long before the professionalisation of modern diplomacy, the exchange of bodies served as a primary mechanism for sealing treaties, managing succession, and mediating between cultures. This practice, however, was not uniform; it existed on a broad spectrum of female agency, from the deployment of women as passive assets to the active use of kinship ties by influential female leaders to achieve their own diplomatic goals. As diplomacy became a formal, masculinised profession, the role of intimacy changed but did not vanish, creating complex and contradictory scenarios for women within its structures.
Dynastic ties and colonial intermediaries
In colonial North America, leveraging a woman as a cultural and political intermediary was a common practice among both Anglo-European and Indigenous elites. A clear example is the 1640s marriage between Giles Brent, a prominent English colonist, and Mary Kittamaquund, daughter of the Piscataway paramount chief. This union was explicitly designed to cement a political-military alliance, with Mary serving as the living embodiment of the pact.
Similarly, in French Louisiana, the cohabitation of French men with African women and African men with Quapaw women represented an informal but significant type of ‘sexual diplomacy’ that created kinship networks and stabilised the volatile colonial frontier.
These examples reveal a wide variance in the influence of the women involved. While many, like Mary Kittamaquund, were used as pawns, others acted as conscious political agents. Perhaps the most striking case is that of Tattooed Arm, the Grand Female Sun of the Natchez people in the early 18th Century. Facing French encroachment, she deliberately offered her daughter to a French officer and explorer, Antoine-Simon Le Page du Pratz. She calculated that potential child from this union, embodying both heritages, would create unbreakable kinship ties and make peace ‘more tenable’. For Tattooed Arm, intermarriage was a sophisticated political manoeuvre. This demonstrates that historical sexual diplomacy cannot be reduced to a simple narrative of female victimhood; it was a complex field of power where women, depending on their social position and political acumen, could be either objects of exchange or architects of policy.
Gender and the modern foreign service
The 19th and 20th centuries witnessed the professionalisation and masculinisation of diplomacy into an ‘all-male institution’. This shift reconfigured the role of women, creating new, often paradoxical, positions. The diplomatic wife emerged as a ‘quasi-professional partner’, holding no official title but bearing immense responsibilities for managing the social functions that facilitated the exchange of information. Her performance was under constant scrutiny, as an effective wife was understood to be critical to her husband’s career. In this context, these women acted as ‘transmitters’ of American culture and goodwill, displaying a form of soft power that was essential yet formally unacknowledged.
When women began to seek entry into the Foreign Service as officers in their own right, they encountered a deeply established institutional belief that they were ‘not fitted to discharge the exacting and peculiar duties of a Foreign Service Officer’. The justifications for this exclusion were explicitly gendered and often sexualized. Officials argued that women would be unable to gather intelligence in the male-only environments of clubs and business circles where much of diplomacy was conducted.
The case of Alison Palmer, who joined the U.S. Foreign Service in 1959, starkly illustrates how the institution weaponised sexuality as a form of gatekeeping. When Palmer was considered for postings in Africa, U.S. ambassadors rejected her, not on the grounds of incompetence, but with the justification that she would be an ‘ineffective diplomat because she would face sexual advances by her counterparts in the African governments’. This argument sexualized her very presence, framing her as a potential victim and therefore a liability. The irony, as Palmer herself testified, was that the only threats of sexual assault she faced came from senior male colleagues within the American diplomatic community itself.
This reveals a critical dynamic: the concept of sexual diplomacy was turned inward, used not as a tool against a foreign adversary but as a discourse to legitimise discrimination and maintain the masculine-coded culture of the Foreign Service. Sex and the fear of its exploitation became the ‘excuse for discrimination against female officers’, leading to less, rather than more, gender equality within the institution. This demonstrates how the gendered norms of diplomacy shaped not only who could participate but also the very terms on which their participation was judged.
The honey trap: Sexpionage and state-sponsored seduction
While intimacy can be a tool for alliance, its darker twin coercion is a staple of statecraft. ‘Sexpionage’, the use of romance or seduction to conduct espionage, is a well-documented practice. Its most famous variant is the ‘honey trap’, a secret operation to attract a target into a compromising relationship to extract information, gain influence, or create an opportunity for blackmail. This tactic evolved from ad hoc operations into structured programs during the Cold War and has now adapted to the digital age.
From ‘swallows’ to ‘Romeo spies‘
The legend of Mata Hari, executed during WWI, cemented the archetype of the femme fatale spy. While her effectiveness is debatable, the strategic use of seduction was undeniably part of the wartime toolkit, as seen with agents like Betty Pack of MI6.
The Cold War marked the peak of institutionalised sexpionage. The Soviet KGB became notorious for its female ‘swallows’ and male ‘ravens’, who were tasked with seducing foreign officials. The East German Stasi, under spymaster Markus Wolf, perfected this model with its ‘Romeo spies’—agents who seduced women in positions of power in West Germany, often maintaining these relationships for years to infiltrate government ministries and NATO.
Western agencies were not idle observers. Declassified documents reveal the CIA ran its own ‘elaborate and efficient sex operation’, maintaining ‘black books’ of recruits and operating ‘safe houses’. More sinisterly, the agency used prostitutes in ‘love traps’, secretly filming foreign diplomats to blackmail them into becoming informants.
Kompromat: The politics of sexual blackmail
During the Cold War, the KGB systematically targeted individuals whose sexuality made them vulnerable, such as British civil servant John Vassall and American journalist Joseph Alsop, both victims of ‘gay honey trap’ operations. After the fall of the Soviet Union, kompromat became a tool in internal power struggles. In 1999, Prosecutor General Yury Skuratov, who was investigating Kremlin corruption, was forced from office after state television aired a video of a man resembling him with two prostitutes. These cases illustrate the core function of kompromat: to create a scandal so damaging that it silences dissent and removes political opponents.
The digital honey trap
The principles of the honey trap and kompromat have proven remarkably adaptable to the digital age, shifting from the physical compromise of the body to the dematerialised compromise of data. This practice, ‘cyber-honeypotting‘, involves intelligence agencies creating fake online profiles to cultivate relationships with targets. China’s Ministry of State Security (MSS) has been particularly active, as seen in the targeting of U.S. political figures and the recently detailed case of a government employee blackmailed with ‘intimate photos’ after being seduced by a foreign agent.
An alarming development is the convergence of these state-level tactics with the methods of common criminals. The explosion of ‘sextortion’, which uses the same playbook, creates a significant attribution problem: a targeted official could be the victim of a financial scam or a sophisticated foreign intelligence operation. The final stage in this evolution is the advent of AI-generated deepfakes. A hostile actor no longer needs a real compromising situation; they can manufacture kompromat from scratch, posing an unprecedented threat of political blackmail and disinformation.
Theorising sex and power: Critical perspectives on diplomacy
To fully grasp sexual diplomacy, one must apply critical frameworks that deconstruct the underlying dynamics of gender, sexuality, and power in international relations. Scholarship from feminist and queer perspectives has challenged the field’s traditional gender-neutral assumptions, revealing diplomacy as a deeply gendered and sexualised institution.
A feminist gaze on foreign policy
Feminist International Relations (IR) theory treats gender as a system of power, arguing that the international system has been structured by a hierarchy privileging traits associated with masculinity. Diplomacy has thus been framed as a masculine domain, a process that has systematically erased or marginalised women’s contributions. A crucial insight from this analysis is how sexuality is weaponised for institutional gatekeeping. As seen with Alison Palmer, framing female diplomats as potential sexual targets and security risks served to maintain the male-dominated status quo. In response, some states have adopted a ‘Feminist Foreign Policy’, seeking to actively challenge gender inequality through diplomacy, defence, and trade.
Sexuality, normativity, and the State
Building on feminist critiques, queer theory analyses how international relations are shaped by ‘sexualised norms, subjectivities, and logics’. This framework illuminates why non-normative sexualities were historically potent targets for espionage. During the Cold War, the social stigma of homosexuality made gay men in the West acutely vulnerable to blackmail by services like the KGB, leading to security breaches and purges of gay and lesbian employees from Western intelligence agencies. The State’s security apparatus thus became intertwined with the enforcement of heterosexual norms.
Sexual diplomacy vs. soft power
It is essential to distinguish ‘sexual diplomacy’ from ‘soft power’. Coined by Joseph Nye, soft power is the ability to obtain outcomes through attraction and persuasion, resting on cultural appeal and legitimate political values. Cultural diplomacy is an instrument of soft power, fostering mutual understanding through exchange.
Sexual diplomacy, particularly in its coercive forms, operates on a fundamentally different logic. It is predicated on targeted manipulation and deception, not generalised attraction. Its objective is not mutual understanding but unilateral advantage. Therefore, while dynastic marriages might be seen as a form of cultural exchange, coercive practices like sexpionage are the antithesis of soft power. They are a form of hard power, using intimacy as a weapon to compel a target to act against their interests.
The ethics of intimacy as a state tool
The use of sexual relationships as an instrument of the State plunges diplomacy and espionage into a profound ethical chaos, forcing a confrontation with fundamental questions of consent, coercion, and human dignity.
Consent, coercion, and objectification
From a Kantian perspective, any act that uses another person merely as a means to an end is morally impermissible. State-sponsored seduction is a textbook example of this violation: the agent feigns intimacy for the sole purpose of instrumentalising the target for a state objective. Sexpionage and kompromat operations exploit the grey zone of consent, creating the illusion of a romantic relationship to mask a reality of strategic manipulation, thereby violating the target’s autonomy in the most intimate way possible.
The legal void and the fraternisation paradox
The legal setting governing sexual diplomacy is fragmented and contradictory. Acts that constitute a honey trap, such as blackmail, are criminal offences domestically. Yet when conducted by a state against a foreign target under the cloak of national security, they enter a legal void, ungoverned by any comprehensive international treaty.
This vacuum is made more striking by the hypocrisy of states. Internally, military and diplomatic organisations maintain strict anti-fraternisation policies to prevent the very security risks (e.g., conflicts of interest, loss of objectivity) that sexual diplomacy is designed to create in an adversary. A state, therefore, operates under a dual ethical standard: it identifies inappropriate intimate relationships as a grave threat to its security while simultaneously weaponising those same relationships as a tool of foreign policy. The logic used to justify the internal ban is the precise logic that explains the utility of the external practice. This paradox reveals that in the world of national security, the vice at home becomes a virtue abroad, sanctioned by the perceived necessities of statecraft.
Click to show page navigation!
