Redefining Consent: a Phenomenological Approach (with Dr. Ellie Anderson)

[@locochingadero]

Very insightful thesis Dr! I couldn't help but think this treatment is even more relevant to consent in healthcare, particularly as in health there is almost a power imbalance or inherent vulnerability with one party. I love that this thesis also requires a rich working mitleid (compassion) rather than an Aristotelian cognitive 'empathy'. Thanks so much!

[@curt982]

Thank you for discussing this difficult topic. I think a lot of people appreciate you

[@Yogaleif]

This was interesting. Of course, now that you have brought attention to it, I realize that consent is an excellent topic for phenomenological research! Thank you.

[@hjeriz]

Love your channel. Would it be possible to add the list of works/authors mentioned in your videos? Sometimes its difficult to understand, especially without subtitles. Keep up the good work 👍

[@alangivre2474]

The problem is that empathy can only come from trust, and trust can only come without punishment. As long as there is fear, true consent is not possible, Any punitivistic approach to consent is self-defeating. As long as consent is about whether the interaction was right or wrong, only pain will occur in those interactions. Because there is no trust and no vulnerability. Pleasure will only occur once we go beyond the boundaries of right and wrong. In other words, Right and Wrong is in the mind. In the body, it is the pain, the suffering and the empathy. The feelings, also the pleasure. Instead, sexual encounters should be based on trust. Trust is hard work for everyone involved. Trust should be based on communication. And it should be built on slow-building construction of a relationship (even if it is a one-night short-term). True consent can only be slow. I believe that casual sex is intrinsecally risky, except for people extremely high emotional abilities. This implies, by the way, that not only women need to feel safe, but also men need to feel safe sharing their vulnerability, including their vulnerability of being rejecte, of being punished, etc. Consent is not about morals, but ethics: it is about building shared humanity.

[@ellastack1093]

wow, this is so helpful for my studies! thank you, this video is great. :)

[@ivankornmusic]

Bright exposition of a current difficult topic. Thanks

[@jopmota]

I am currently reading "Tomorrow sex will be good again" because of your recommendation and a lot of the themes presented here resonate with the book. I love this podcast so much! Thanks!

[@meesalikeu]

thx dr ellie. what an interesting and important subject. it just made me initially feel this is a highly mature view and of course our legal system is fairly base and needs to be easily actionable. so that is how consent is so often narrowly defined in the general public realm, or how you get to more specific guides like at antioch. i do believe most people typically understand that consent is tied to both mind and body and interaction and is not just a verbal action, even if they can't quite explain why so well, so that is of some relief. well thx again, love the philosophy overthinks -- next i should read your paper for more detail.

[@Nedwin]

So insightful and triggered some more discussions about the topic. Anyway direct perception account is nice term to visualize the behaviorism of people as an individual. Thanks for sharing.

[@maximtrickett]

I always get a lot of value from these videos, so thank you for continuing to produce them! I was interested to hear you mention Sartre and De Beauvoir, as I was previously unaware of their work on 'the erotic self'. As a layman, my only real knowledge relating to eroticism has been attained through the reading of Georges Bataille's account of it. If you have read it, I would be interested to know your perspective, whether or not it necessarily pertains to the subject of consent. (I also welcome the thoughts of people in the comments section)

[@emgrasmeder4893]

been waiting for this one to become a video.

[@yabyum108]

Very rich & helpful.

[@dillonflynn4554]

such a great channel. thanks to you ill be reading philosophy. god bless professors

[@liamsternberg4617]

The 8 line prelude , chapter 64 of MIDDLEMARCH, has a George Eliot angle on 'active and passive.' Implying consent (obedience) and power as coexistent forces always being in useful concert, or not, within a framework of purpose.

[@Nuerorythm]

Hey you're doing a great job. Philosophy effects all of our lives. Likewise, KZbin is where a lot of young people go to get their information which effects their world view. If we want a better world it starts with it must start with mind. Being comfortable within ourselves. Understanding the nature of mind and knowledge is crucial to a more healthy and productive society. Incorporating older schools of thought into a unified "new Philosophy " may be possible. Language holds baggage and we need to create a new way of expressing these ideas. This is for the future.

[@tiatiatiatiatia]

Where I can I read more about operative vs act intentionality (in general, not just in terms of consent)? Thanks for this video! And I second the recommendation of Angel’s book!

[@OverthinkPodcastPhilosophy]

Jennifer McWeeny has some articles on this in the work of Beauvoir :)

[@mmbyron]

Question: Woud your definition mean that sex work doesn't involve consent? One could argue that a paid sexual encounter doesn't involve an erotic desire of the sex worker for the client or even a desire of the client 's desire.

[@alexcompton2804]

Similarly, even folks in partnerships may consent to sex without desire that is erotic in nature. Sometimes the erotic act can function to satisfy multiple other desires.

[@AlohaMichaelDaly]

The parties may organically “feel with”, “desire with”, “agree with”, even enthusiastically and on-going to have sex but one or both may be coerced into denying the connection by an other agent/s: say a parent/family member, a standing partner, the church, social influencers. Carers and organizations can be good but many can be sinister, narcissistic and abusive interfering with adult relationships. It’s phycological abuse and a psychotic nightmare effecting lifetimes. I know rape is universally known as wrong, and indeed illegal; it’s forcing sex and crossing the boundary of relationship. But I’m wondering why forcing abstinence, interfering in relationships, creating shame and guilt is not relegated to the same scrutiny by society and the law. My feeling is that if we are going to untangle the whole consent ball of wax, which includes body and mind motivations it’s imperative to study what’s going on in the party’s mind and body when this consent crossroad is happening. Their maybe no coercion in the bedroom but plenty outside that violates free association and free expression.

[@skihik591]

Though not explicitly about sexual ethics, I wonder if you've given any thought to Fred Moten's use of the term consent in "consent not to be a single being"? His work is absolutely involved with questions of race and sex in interpersonal relationships, and I wonder if you've ever thought about doing it episode about Fred's work. Thanks for all you do!!

[@captainbritain7379]

Do you think you’ll do a video on Phenomenology and the Ethics of Love? That’s my favourite essay of yours

[@OverthinkPodcastPhilosophy]

Thank you, that's a good idea!

[@agentsmidt3209]

"modelled in the realm of property rights"...I don't know why but I found that funny. As a layperson who hasn't read a lot, but travelled and lived in other countries...I can say this... There was a time when the US was an egalitarian society. Mores, and ways to behave came from our communities and nuclear families (be it in segregated neighborhoods or not). There came a point where mores were detached from that model and everyone gravitated to whatever flavor of intellectualized "philosophy of life" they found pleasing to them. Subcultures were formed and people, strangely enough , had more silos to pick from. When you have so many disjoined philosophies in a melting pot of strangers from all over the world....things get confused real quick. Parents, and communities (this is a mesh of civil community groups, and religious organizations) have been removed from systems of authority that shape a person's worldview, now it is left to "functionaries" i.e. faceless artifacts of reason. These include legal (with its tentacles being politicians/political theories, lawyers, LEOs, judges etc...), entertainment/marketing (celebrities, be it the traditional movie stars to KZbin personalities), and higher education institutions (with their tentacles being think-tanks, consultants, and colleges of all flavors e.g alternative to Ivy League). You tack on technology and an easy access to justification mills (social media, like-minded forums/news outlets/journals etc..)...you have a recipe for intractable dogma, egotistical worldviews, lack of nuance, and endless combativeness. Now you introduce interpersonal romantic relationships (confusing and complicated by default) to this paradigm...phew! Sorry for my grammar and run-on sentences.

[@somethingyousaid5059]

Sexual consent is one thing, but existential consent is another.

[@shamanverse]

Attuned erotic perception through the mutual reciprocity of touch, caress...a la Ponty. Thank you for the important distinctions offered in this upload. I will look for your paper.

[@williamkauffman-j9i]

I see what you are saying🙏

[@AlohaMichaelDaly]

Definitely gonna run this by my dates who come up for coffee or whatever 😅

[@areikas9157]

Why is it in your triadic structure, the other’s actual desire for my self not included? I understand that I would like to be perceived as desirable by the other, but that may not actually be the case. I may have misunderstood the definition. When you mean “one” are you implying myself and the other? Thank you for sharing your knowledge.

[@artemisXsidecross]

I would enjoy a talk on the topic of Phenomenology. I have read ‘The Spell of the Sensuous’ by David Abram and found the topic of interest. While the book was not a direct connection to sexuality or its intent, it may still be relevant. Thank you Dr. Ellie Anderson for this episode.

[@OverthinkPodcastPhilosophy]

Hi, we discuss phenomenology in a lot of our lecture videos and podcast episodes! :)

[@PhokenKuul]

Wait, the definition I learned of coercion is persuading someone to do something through force or the threat of violence. Now, being in a setting that provides a tendency to be more apt to agree is not force nor a threat of violence and therefore would not fit the definition of coercion as normally understood. Wining and dining clients in a business sense would never be called coercion. And I can think of a million other situations where a person would be more likely to agree to something due to social constraints or expectations that would not ever be called coercion, car salesmen use various tactics for instance. What makes this situation different? Because sex is involved? Because opposite sex dynamics might come into play in other circumstances as well.

[@s.wallerstein]

In my experience, speaking as a heterosexual male, when one is sexually excited, one is not thinking very clearly about what the other person wants, so there is a lot to be said for the idea of explicit verbal consent, that is, consent as permission because we males tend to be a bit blind when we are excited, especially after a couple of drinks.

[@asielnorton345]

started video. i'm gonna go read Schopenhauer instead.

[@NeverTakeNoShortcuts]

Please, please, please Mr. Musk bring sex robots to the market as soon as you possibly can.

[@phantomknight1395]

You can do it too.

[@kensho123456]

Consent is self evidently nonsense.

[@timothywise9731]

You take all the enjoyment out of sexual desire. If your goal was to remove physical desire from feelings of intimacy, you achieved it! I am so sorry that I spent time watching this video. I don’t know who taught you these weird concepts of sexual desire, erotic perception or intimacy, but they’re very cruel. You obviously can only see the world from an extreme feminist perspective…you cannot imagine how men see the world! You’re not pursuing philosophy or you would work to imagine seeing the world as others see it…not how you want them to see it!

[@fede2]

Christ, what a way to pout. If you find fault in her reasoning, point out specific flaws. No one cares how troubled or resentful you are over the implications.

[@undertaker66687]

And people are surprised that there are no great philosophers anymore. You all should be ashamed of yourselves!

[@pinecone421]

😹😭 I pray this comment is satire

[@petrasurin]

What?

[@undertaker66687]

@@pinecone421 Unfortunately it isn't. The health and wealth of a civilization depends upon its intellectuals, especially its philosophers. Your lack of Virtue is certainly a symptom, if not the cause, of Western decline. Not even in the dark age was thinking so ossified as it is today.