Ghostless Machine

In the second Ghostless Machine dialogue, I talk to Kitty about verbal vs. nonverbal consent. Kitty jokingly refers to herself as a “consent-nazi”, meaning she thinks the only legitimate way to obtain consent is verbally. I, on the other hand, tend to think that such an approach fails to take into consideration the full complexity of human behavior and sexuality. Because of that I tend to favor alternative ways to tackle the issue of accidental violations of consent. So what do you think? Is nonverbal consent ever enough?

00:00:00 Teaser

00:00:42 Intro

00:01:50 Kitty's intro

00:02:30 Where do we agree and disagree?

00:06:47 How to ethically make a move on the first date?

00:08:35 Are there legitimate alternatives to verbal consent?

00:12:26 Steelmanning

00:15:59 What about people who are turned off by verbal requests for consent?

00:16:53 Nurture vs. Nature

00:33:43 How plausible it is that asking for verbal consent could become a dominant social norm?

00:39:36 If verbal consent wasn't an option, what would be the second best alternative?

00:43:23 Should we promote verbal consent as an admirable option rather than an obligation?

00:44:59 How confident are we about your opinion?

00:46:42 How confident am I?

00:47:20 Asking for consent in a non-robotic way

00:51:23 Why do guys reject the idea of asking for consent verbally?

00:55:33 What would make you change your mind?

00:57:25 What would make me change my mind?

01:00:20 Tips and final thoughts from Kitty

01:01:30 Do you think being dogmatic about verbal consent risks backfiring?

If you’re interested in Kitty’s work, you can learn more about it in the following links:

- Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thekittyrea/

- Podcast: https://eropedia.ro/

- Influx: https://influx.events/

If you’re interested in tips about relationships, dating, and masculinity from her recommended sources, you can check them out here:

- https://www.tiktok.com/@mattcama23

- https://www.tiktok.com/@justinbaldoni

- https://www.tiktok.com/@remasculine

- https://www.tiktok.com/@watchfulcoyote

And finally, if you like my content, you can always follow me here:

- Website/Newsletter: http://ghostlessmachine.com/

- Podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/ghostlessmachine

- Facebook: https://facebook.com/ghostlessmachineblog

- Instagram: https://instagram.com/ghostlessmachine

- Twitter: https://twitter.com/arielpontes

- Medium: https://medium.com/@arielpontes

- Ko-Fi: https://ko-fi.com/arielpontes

This is the first of a series of articles defending a compatibilist interpretation of utilitarianism, which can be reconciled with all major moral theories in Western moral philosophy. In this article I explain what utilitarians mean by "pleasure" and "pain" and debunk a few myths that result from a misunderstanding of these terms.

Original article: https://medium.com/humanist-voices/are-pain-and-pleasure-all-that-matters-4d45ac0a3e18

"Abortion should be legal. It is immoral to make it illegal. But is that because women have a fundamental right to do whatever they want with their bodies? No. This is simply an invalid argument, and in part the reason we fail to make progress on the abortion debate. Arguments matter. Sure, people are emotional and some are so blinded by their religion that they will not be persuaded by any arguments. But in any debate, there will always be persuadables. If we manage to spread a pro-choice narrative that appeals to universal moral intuitions rather than to the gut feelings of certain political groups or religious confessions, we might have a chance to make that narrative viral and persuade a critical mass of people. So what is the reason abortion should be legal?"

Original article: https://medium.com/humanist-voices/abortion-is-harmless-62ddebdd4f72