Episode 85 - Sexual Consent 情节 85 - Sexual Consent Ellie: 0:21 艾莉：0：21
Hello and welcome to Overthink. 您好，欢迎来到Overthink。
David: 0:24 大卫：0：24
The podcast where two philosophy professors think through important issues in our daily lives.
两位哲学教授思考我们日常生活中的重要问题的播客。
Ellie: 0:29 艾莉：0：29
I’m Ellie Anderson. 我是艾莉·安德森。
David: 0:31 大卫： 0：31
I’m David Peña Guzman, we wanna let you know that today’s episode will involve discussions of sexual violation, bodily harm, and murder. So this might be one to skip or listen to carefully if you are sensitive to these issues.
我是大卫·佩尼亚·古兹曼，我们想让你知道，今天的节目将涉及性侵犯、身体伤害和谋杀的讨论。因此，如果您对这些问题很敏感，这可能是一个可以跳过或仔细聆听的问题。
Ellie: 0:46 艾莉：0：46
Yeah, in particular, we are gonna talk about some quite rough stuff, so this will definitely be the most intense content-wise of our episodes. And so proceed with care and caution for yourself. Alright, David, let’s get into it. SInce the Me Too movement, there has been an increasing attention paid to the complexities of sexual violation and the fact that consent, especially when conceived of as a clear yes or no, is not enough. And when I say I feel like there’s been increasing attention, I can also back that up with the fact that there have been multiple books that have come out on this topic recently. Tons of op-eds and in particular, a lot of these publications have focused on cases of what we might call gray rape or otherwise unclear situations that don’t necessarily map onto this legal, “oh, that’s obviously a rape” versus, “no, that was consensual sex.” We’ve also become aware that people aren’t always totally sure what they want and when they want it.
是的，特别是，我们将讨论一些相当粗糙的东西，所以这绝对是我们剧集中最激烈的内容。因此，请谨慎行事。好了，大卫，让我们开始吧。在Me Too运动中，人们越来越关注性侵犯的复杂性，以及同意这一事实，特别是当被认为是明确的是或否时，是不够的。当我说我觉得人们越来越关注时，我也可以用最近有多本关于这个话题的书来支持这一事实。大量的专栏文章，特别是，这些出版物中的许多都集中在我们可能称之为灰色强奸或其他不明确情况的案例上，这些案例不一定映射到这种合法的，“哦，这显然是强奸”与“不，那是双方同意的性行为”。我们也意识到，人们并不总是完全确定他们想要什么以及何时想要。
David: 1:46 大卫： 1：46
Yeah, no, you’re right about this and this attention to nuance has understandably freaked a lot of people out because, how do we know if we’re being ethical sexual partners to one another when we’re dealing with these gray areas? What if you think someone wants something, but then it turns out afterward that they didn’t ask for it and maybe didn’t feel super comfortable proceeding in that direction. And what about cases also where someone is consenting to violence or submission, as in some intense BDSM scenarios, as Catherine Angels suggest in her recent book Tomorrow Sex Will Be Good Again. Often women fear not only violent men, but also having their desire questioned or their lack of desire doubted.
是的，不，你是对的，这种对细微差别的关注让很多人感到害怕，这是可以理解的，因为，当我们处理这些灰色地带时，我们怎么知道我们是否是彼此的道德性伴侣？如果你认为有人想要某样东西，但后来发现他们没有要求它，也许对朝那个方向前进感到不太舒服怎么办？还有人同意暴力或屈服的情况，就像在一些激烈的BDSM场景中一样，正如凯瑟琳·安吉尔斯（Catherine Angels）在她最近的书《明天性爱会再次好起来》中所建议的那样。通常，女性不仅害怕暴力的男人，还害怕她们的欲望受到质疑或缺乏欲望受到怀疑。
Ellie: 2:35 艾莉：2：35
Yeah, and so this speaks to the fact that it’s not just about whether others will respect our boundaries, but also to the fact that we don’t always know what our boundaries are, let alone like what our desires and interests are. And in the face of this ambiguity, this fear of nuance that you mentioned, a lot of people have reasserted the importance of sexual consent. But as we’ll discuss today, there’s a lot of debate about what sexual consent consistent. In fact, I myself have written about this in a couple of places, and I wanna start, however, before we get into some of the details of the complexities of sexual consent with the most black and white case possible. So let’s start with the strawman version of consent. And this is an early articulation of sexual consent that received a lot of attention in the 1990s, the Antioch College policy. Antioch College at the urging of students was the first American college to formulate an affirmative consent policy in 1991. And so an affirmative consent policy means like the presence of a clear Yes. And this policy suggested that consent must be verbally obtained before any sexual interaction. Any new sexual activity must be consented to during the encounter. So this policy itself is not like a strawman version of consent, but it itself became parodied a lot and became what people think about when they think about sexual consent in a black and white fashion. And there in particular was this SNL skit called, Is it Date Rape from 1993 that parodied this quite a bit. So I wanna show you a little bit of this skit, David. The audio quality is frankly horrible. So listeners, if we don’t end up including the actual audio in the podcast episode, that is why we will make sure in our brief discussion of it to give you the basics. So here we have a fake game show where there are contestants deciding whether something is date rape or not, and to help them out. There are these date rape players. The male contestant is actually wearing an Antioch College sweatshirt and it indeed is the very famous comedian, Chris Farley. And then to help them navigate whether something is the right answer or not, you know, is it date rape, they have these date rape players so-called, who come in and act out a scene and the date rape players are saying things like the following, yes, I would like you to kiss me on the mouth. They kiss. May I elevate the level of sexual intimacy by feeling your buttocks? Yes, you have my permission, and so on and so on. David, what do you think about this parody of affirmative verbal consent?
是的，所以这说明了这样一个事实，即这不仅关乎别人是否会尊重我们的界限，还关乎我们并不总是知道我们的界限是什么，更不用说我们的欲望和兴趣了。面对你提到的这种模棱两可，这种对细微差别的恐惧，很多人都重申了性同意的重要性。但正如我们今天要讨论的，关于什么是一致的性同意，有很多争论。事实上，我自己已经在几个地方写过这个问题，然而，我想先开始，在我们用最黑白的案例来讨论性同意的复杂性的一些细节之前。因此，让我们从稻草人版的同意开始。这是性同意的早期表达，在1990年代受到了很多关注，安提阿学院的政策。在学生的敦促下，安提阿学院是1991年第一所制定平权同意政策的美国大学。因此，肯定性同意政策意味着存在明确的“是”。这项政策表明，在进行任何性互动之前，必须获得口头同意。在相遇期间，任何新的性行为都必须得到同意。所以这个政策本身并不像稻草人版的同意，但它本身被模仿了很多，成为人们以黑白的方式思考性同意时所想到的。特别是这部名为《1993 年的约会强奸》的 SNL 短剧，对这部剧进行了相当多的模仿。所以我想给你们看一点这个小品，大卫。坦率地说，音频质量很糟糕。因此，听众们，如果我们最终没有在播客剧集中包含实际的音频，这就是为什么我们将确保在简短的讨论中为您提供基础知识。 所以在这里，我们有一个假的游戏节目，有参赛者决定某件事是否是约会强奸，并帮助他们。有这些约会强奸玩家。男选手实际上穿着安提阿学院的运动衫，确实是非常著名的喜剧演员克里斯·法利。然后为了帮助他们确定某件事是否是正确的答案，你知道，是约会强奸吗，他们有这些所谓的约会强奸玩家，他们进来表演一个场景，约会强奸玩家会说这样的话，是的，我希望你亲吻我的嘴。他们接吻。我可以通过触摸你的臀部来提升性亲密程度吗？是的，你有我的许可，依此类推。大卫，你如何看待这种对肯定性口头同意的模仿？
David: 6:00 大卫： 6：00
Well, I mean, first of all, the fact that it’s presented as a game that’s modeled after Jeopardy, right? As if it’s all a question of giving the right answer to the right question already frames the sexual consent policy as as a joke of itself, right? It’s almost as if they’re saying that the Antioch policy is its own parody because nothing could be more unreasonable than to expect this level of communication and contractual agreement over every single behavior. What’s really fascinating to me is that the characters that are playing the game players, is that how you would call them? Like, the people answering the questions like the contestants. contestants. They themselves are stereotypes of college students. On the one hand, you have this woman who is a major in victimization studies.
嗯，我的意思是，首先，它是以 Jeopardy 为蓝本的游戏，对吧？好像这都是一个对正确问题给出正确答案的问题，已经将性同意政策本身视为一个笑话，对吧？这几乎就像他们在说安提阿政策是它自己的模仿，因为没有什么比期望对每一种行为进行这种程度的沟通和合同协议更不合理的了。真正令我着迷的是，扮演游戏玩家的角色，你是这样称呼他们的吗？比如，回答问题的人就像参赛者一样。选手。他们本身就是对大学生的刻板印象。一方面，你有这个女人，她是受害研究的专业。
Ellie: 6:52 艾莉：6：52
Oh yeah. Yeah. I forgot. Yeah, she’s, yeah. She’s listed as being a major in victimization studies.
哦，是的。是的。我忘了。是的，她是，是的。她被列为受害研究专业的学生。
David: 6:57 大卫： 6：57
This kind of like nerdy looking white woman with glasses who is presented as somebody who is just an expert in finding situations in which they are a victim. So already, you know, a stereotype with, which we are familiar with nowadays with the social justice warrior or the woke crowd. But then the male contestant is presented as a jock who is extremely unintelligent and who has already been guilty of a couple of hazing deaths as a joke.
这种看起来像书的戴着眼镜的白人女人，被描绘成一个在寻找自己是受害者的情况方面的专家。所以，你知道，我们已经有一种刻板印象，我们现在对社会正义战士或觉醒的人群很熟悉。但随后，这位男性参赛者被描述为一个非常不聪明的运动员，并且已经犯了几次欺侮死亡的罪行。
Ellie: 7:30 艾莉：7：30
Oh, they mention that in the beginning, I forgot.
哦，他们提到一开始，我忘了。
David: 7:32 大卫： 7：32
Yeah. So even though it’s like presenting these stereotypes, it already tells you something about the context, ie, college life in which this policy is developed, which is, you know, like a situation where you have frat culture, frat parties that maybe are conducive to.
是的。因此，即使它像是呈现这些刻板印象，它已经告诉你一些关于制定这项政策的背景，即制定这项政策的大学生活，你知道，这就像你有兄弟会文化的情况，兄弟会派对可能有利于。
Ellie: 7:49 艾莉：7：49
Yeah. It’s rape culture is what you’re saying.
是的。这是强奸文化，就是你在说什么。
David: 7:51 大卫： 7：51
it’s rape culture, but here it’s, it’s presented as a comedic, for comedic relief.
这是强奸文化，但在这里，它被呈现为喜剧，以喜剧的方式解脱。
Ellie: 7:57 艾莉：7：57
Yeah, and I think you draw attention in a very like rigorous reading the SNL skit as a text kind of way. To some of the deeper dynamics at work. But I also just wanna note like the bare facts of the scene as well. So this is a scene in which it’s a scene within a scene in this case where the date rate players are acting out, would you like me to touch your buttocks? May I touch your butts, et cetera, et cetera. And this. Seen, I think, does speak to anxieties around the nature of sexual consent because the SNL skit actually is more or less doing what the Antioch College policy says that it should do. And the point of the SNL skit, which stands, you know, a full 20 years later, is that this isn’t actually the way that most sexual scenarios happen. The point of the Antioch College policy is that, well, maybe it should be the way that most sexual scenarios happen. Maybe we should have explicit verbal consent for each activity. Right? But I also think there’s a case to be made for the fact that like, maybe that’s not the goal either, right? If verbal, explicit consent at every moment of an encounter doesn’t need to be the only way of thinking about moving sexual ethics forward and away from rape culture, as we’ll talk about later. I mean, my own personal position on this is that we need to really attend to the affective and embodied levels of interactions as well, rather than focusing so much on the verbal. But what I’ll say here is just that, yeah, this is a parody that is getting at a really big disconnect between college sexual consent policies both then and now, and the way that a lot of sex happens among people.
是的，我认为你以一种非常严格的方式阅读 SNL 短剧来吸引注意力。到工作中的一些更深层次的动力。但我也只想注意到现场的赤裸裸的事实。所以这是一个场景中的场景，在这种情况下，约会率玩家正在表演，你想让我摸摸你的臀部吗？我可以摸摸你的屁股，等等，等等。还有这个。我认为，Seen 确实表达了对性同意本质的焦虑，因为 SNL 短剧实际上或多或少地在做安提阿学院政策所说的它应该做的事情。SNL短剧的要点，你知道，在整整20年后，它实际上并不是大多数性场景发生的方式。安提阿学院政策的要点是，好吧，也许它应该是大多数性场景发生的方式。也许我们应该对每项活动都有明确的口头同意。右？但我也认为有理由证明，也许这也不是目标，对吧？如果像我们稍后将讨论的那样，在相遇的每一刻口头、明确同意并不一定是思考推动性道德向前发展并远离强奸文化的唯一方式。我的意思是，我个人对此的立场是，我们也需要真正关注互动的情感和具体层面，而不是过多地关注语言。但我在这里要说的是，是的，这是一个模仿，在当时和现在的大学性同意政策之间有很大的脱节，以及人们之间发生很多性行为的方式。
David: 9:32 大卫： 9：32
And I think what you’re calling anxiety here, can also be described as ambiguity in the sense that a lot of sexual experiences have built into them this ambiguity, which is that many of us, you know, want to be quote unquote, objectified in the sense of being the object of somebody else’s desire. But we also want to be agents in the context of sexual encounters. And so this, ambiguity between wanting to be objectified and desired, but also wanting to desire and to be agents.
我认为你在这里所说的焦虑，也可以被描述为模棱两可，因为很多性经历都内置了这种模棱两可，也就是说，我们中的许多人，你知道，想要被引用不引用，被客观化，成为别人欲望的对象。但我们也想成为性接触的代理人。因此，想要被物化和被欲望，但也想要被欲望和成为代理人之间的模棱两可。
Ellie: 10:04 艾莉： 10：04
You’re speaking my language. You know, I wrote an article about that moral significance of being an erotic object co-authored with Caleb Ward, 2022.
你说的是我的语言。你知道，我写了一篇关于成为色情对象的道德意义的文章，与 Caleb Ward，2022 年合著。
David: 10:11 大卫书 10：11
Oh, I haven’t read that.
哦，我没读过。
Ellie: 10:12 艾莉：10：12
Not actually the one that we’re gonna be talking about today. But anyway, yes, I did. I did write about that.
实际上不是我们今天要讨论的那个。但无论如何，是的，我做到了。我确实写过这个。
David: 10:15 大卫： 10：15
Okay. And yeah, and so this, I think this ambiguity is incompatible. I mean, respecting that ambiguity is incompatible with this contractualist, linguistic approach to sexual consent. Where, you know, even if we were to give the best possible rendition of the intentions of this policy, which was to move discussions of consent away from the absence of a no to the presence of a yes, there are questions about what you would have to do in order to actually satisfy the policy, because the policy does say that you would have to get verbal consent for every act. So it’s not just for the encounter as a whole. But how do you cut up a sexual encounter into acts? You know, here they do say, I’m going to elevate the temperature. Touching a new part of the body is a new sexual act. But that’s one way of cutting the pie. There are different ways of interpreting what a new act is.
好。是的，所以这个，我认为这种模棱两可是不相容的。我的意思是，尊重这种模棱两可性与这种契约主义的、语言学的性同意方法不相容。你知道，即使我们尽可能地诠释了这项政策的意图，即将关于同意的讨论从没有“否”转移到“是”的存在，但为了真正满足政策，你必须做什么也存在问题， 因为该政策确实说，您必须为每一项行为获得口头同意。因此，这不仅仅是为了整个相遇。但是，如何将性接触切割成行为呢？你知道，他们在这里确实说，我要提高温度。触摸身体的新部位是一种新的性行为。但这是切馅饼的一种方式。有不同的方法可以解释什么是新行为。
Ellie: 11:09 艾莉： 11：09
If you’re stroking a butt back and forth, do you have to get permission for each stroke?
如果你来回抚摸屁股，每次抚摸都必须获得许可吗？
David: 11:13 大卫书 11：13
Is that one act, is that five acts? Yes. Or if you start stroking it faster, is that another act or different than the first one?
那是一幕，是五幕吗？是的。或者，如果你开始更快地抚摸它，这是另一个行为还是与第一个行为不同？
Ellie: 11:22 艾莉：11：22
Yeah. Yeah. 是的。是的。
David: 11:23 大卫： 11：23
I mean, the, the whole thing about. Sexual activity is that, is this ebb and flow of two bodies that’s very difficult to compartmentalize, and where sometimes it’s not clear except in retrospect, at which point you have moved from one “level” of intensity or interaction to another one. And it’s often after we cross that line that we say, Hmm, actually I’m not sure I’m okay with that. Let’s dial it back a little bit.
我的意思是，整个事情。性活动就是这样，是两个身体的潮起潮落，很难区分，有时除了回想起来之外，不清楚，在这一点上，你已经从一个强度或互动的“水平”转移到另一个“水平”。在我们越过那条线之后，我们经常会说，嗯，实际上我不确定我是否同意。让我们把它拨回去一点。
Ellie: 11:52 艾莉：11：52
And I wanna bring in one other aspect of the disconnect between college policies and the way that a lot of sex actually happens on college campuses, which is the presence of alcohol. A lot of college policies around sexual violation explicitly say that consent cannot be obtained under the influence of alcohol and this is just like completely at odds with the way that a lot of college campuses work, where alcohol is practically a precondition for casual sex. And so I think that’s another place where we really wanna think about a sexual ethic that’s gonna be more responsive to the realities of sexual interactions in the society we live in, rather than happening in this sort of idealized abstract world.
我想引入大学政策与大学校园里大量性行为之间脱节的另一个方面，那就是酒精的存在。许多关于性侵犯的大学政策明确规定，在酒精的影响下不能获得同意，这就像与许多大学校园的工作方式完全不一致一样，酒精实际上是随意性行为的先决条件。所以我认为这是另一个地方，我们真正想要思考一种性伦理，它将对我们生活的社会中性互动的现实做出更积极的反应，而不是发生在这种理想化的抽象世界中。
David: 12:37 大卫： 12：37
No, you’re right. And I remember when I was in college, there were all these discussions of what happens when both parties have had something to drink. Does that mean that they’ve committed mutual rape? Is that a coherent concept even? And again, where do you draw the line between alcohol intoxication versus, you know, having had a drink or maybe two with dinner, but still being in control of your faculties. Today we are talking about sexual consent.
不，你是对的。我记得在我上大学的时候，有那么多关于当双方都喝了点东西会发生什么的讨论。这是否意味着他们犯下了相互强奸罪？这是一个连贯的概念吗？再说一遍，你在哪里划清酒精中毒与晚餐时喝了一两杯酒，但仍然控制着你的能力之间的界限。今天我们谈论的是性同意。
Ellie: 13:10 艾莉：13：10
Consent be the central guiding norm for sexual ethics, or not?
同意是性伦理的核心指导规范，还是不是？
David: 13:15 大卫： 13：15
And are there certain actions to which we cannot consent even if we wanted to.
是否有某些行动，即使我们想同意，我们也不能同意。
Ellie: 13:21 艾莉：13：21
What might be alternative ways of thinking about sexual consent beyond the notion of giving permission?
除了给予许可的概念之外，还有什么其他方式可以思考性同意？
David: 13:31 大卫： 13：31
Ellie, I wanna begin today by telling you a harrowing case that came out of Germany in the early 2000s, and that got a lot of attention when it became international news. This happened in 2001 when two German men in their forties met through an online chat portal. After one of them, a man by the name of Armin Mewies posted an ad. Asking for volunteers who wanted to be murdered and eaten. So this is going to be a story about merger, about cannibalism and about sexual violence. Now, Meiwis posted this ad hoping that somebody would respond. And because the internet is the internet, somebody did. A man by the name of Bernd Brandes responded to Meiwes and told him that it was his sexual fantasy to have sex with somebody and have that person then consume his body in an erotic murderous encounter, to which Brandes said he would consent. Now Brandes then traveled to Meiwes’ house, actually to his farmhouse. You know, the scene gets even a little bit more ominous, with a house in the middle of a farm in rural Germany.
艾莉，我今天想先告诉你们一个2000年代初在德国发生的令人痛心的案件，当它成为国际新闻时，引起了很多关注。这发生在 2001 年，当时两名四十多岁的德国男子通过在线聊天门户相识。在其中一人之后，一个名叫阿明·梅维斯（Armin Mewies）的男子发布了一则广告。要求想要被谋杀和吃掉的志愿者。所以这将是一个关于合并、关于同类相食和关于性暴力的故事。现在，Meiwis发布了这则广告，希望有人会做出回应。因为互联网就是互联网，所以有人做到了。一个名叫伯恩德·布兰德斯（Bernd Brandes）的男子回应了梅维斯，并告诉他，与某人发生性关系，然后让那个人在色情的谋杀遭遇中消耗他的身体是他的性幻想，布兰德斯说他会同意。现在布兰德斯去了梅维斯的家，实际上是他的农舍。你知道，这个场景变得更加不祥，在德国农村的一个农场中间有一所房子。
Ellie: 14:52 艾莉：14：52
it’s giving Black mirror.
它给了黑镜。
David: 14:54 大卫： 14：54
Yeah, something, I mean even darker than Black Mirror. I mean, we’re talking here about like colorless mirror, I don’t know. And he went to this farmhouse where they indeed had sex and then Meiwes proceeded to give copious amounts of alcohol to Brandes in anticipation of the more painful acts that were to follow to which Brandes had consented. So Brandis gets drunk, continues to affirm the same consent that he had given online and then proceeds to have, I’m sorry, this is going to be very graphic. He proceeds to have Meiwes cut his penis off with a knife of sorts, and then try to consume it raw. Now Meiwes didn’t realize that eating penis flesh, I suppose, is very difficult when that flesh is uncooked, and so he then proceeded to cook the penis on a pan in order to soften the flesh so as to better ingest it. While this is happening, Brandes is now in the tub, bleeding to death, at which point Meiwes murders him cuts up his body, puts his body remains in the freezer, and then proceeds to consume them over the next few months, police get a tip off from God knows whom about this event happening in this farmhouse. They go to the house and, uh, lo and behold, they find in Meiwes’ freezers the remains of Brandi’s body to make things even more scary and more unsettling. The whole thing was filmed. By Meiwes, not just for the eroticism of filming this act, but also to capture in video Brandes’ consent to the whole thing. As you can imagine, when this became news, uh, it drew a lot of attention from German and international media because you had a case of an homosexual erotic murderous act in a farmhouse that just blends a lot of really disturbing things together into one particular encounter. What are your thoughts about this?
是的，有些东西，我的意思是比《黑镜》更黑暗。我的意思是，我们在这里谈论的是无色的镜子，我不知道。然后他去了这个农舍，他们确实在那里发生了性关系，然后梅维斯开始给布兰德斯大量饮酒，以期待布兰德斯同意的更痛苦的行为。所以布兰迪斯喝醉了，继续确认他在网上给予的相同同意，然后继续说，对不起，这将是非常生动的。他继续让Meiwes用一把刀切掉他的阴茎，然后试图生吃它。现在，Meiwes没有意识到，我想，当阴茎肉未煮熟时，吃阴茎肉是非常困难的，所以他开始在平底锅上煮阴茎，以便软化阴茎肉，以便更好地摄入它。当这种情况发生时，布兰德斯现在在浴缸里，流血致死，这时梅维斯谋杀了他，切开了他的尸体，把他的尸体放在冰箱里，然后在接下来的几个月里继续食用它们，警方从天知道这件事发生在这个农舍的人那里得到了消息。他们去了房子，呃，瞧，他们在梅维斯的冰柜里发现了布兰迪尸体的残骸，这让事情变得更加可怕和不安。整个过程都被拍了下来。通过Meiwes，不仅是为了拍摄这一行为的色情，也是为了在视频中捕捉到布兰德斯对整个事情的同意。你可以想象，当这成为新闻时，呃，它引起了德国和国际媒体的广泛关注，因为你有一个在农舍里发生的同性恋色情谋杀行为的案例，它只是将许多真正令人不安的事情融合在一起，形成一个特定的遭遇。您对此有何看法？
Ellie: 17:19 艾莉：17：19
Well, as you know, I know this story already because we just, we agreed to read a chapter of a book that discusses it together. But I have to say, hearing it, for not the first time, it’s still, it still makes my stomach turn for sure. So it’s like very horrifying. The book in question that we are going to be talking about now that describes this case is Joseph J Fischel’s book Screw Consent, which came out a few years ago, and the basic idea there is that we can’t say that consent is the be all, end all of sexual ethics because this is a case of consent. It’s clear, affirmative, enthusiastic, and ongoing consent. Fischel points out that by the time that Meiwes was really drunk, it’s unclear whether consent still obtains or not, but obviously he had received consent before. Nope, sorry. It was Brandes’ penis, not Meiwes’ I misspoke a moment ago. And so, I mean, one thing that you could say about this, which Fischel notes is
嗯，如你所知，我已经知道这个故事了，因为我们刚刚同意读一本书的一章，一起讨论它。但我不得不说，听到它，这不是第一次，它仍然，它仍然让我的胃肯定地转动。所以这就像非常可怕。我们现在要讨论的一本书 描述这个案例 是约瑟夫·J·费舍尔（Joseph J Fischel）的书 螺丝同意 几年前出版的 那里的基本思想是 我们不能说同意是全部，结束所有性道德 因为这是一个同意的案例。这是明确的、肯定的、热情的和持续的同意。菲舍尔指出，当梅维斯真的喝醉时，目前还不清楚是否仍然获得了同意，但显然他之前已经得到了同意。不，对不起。是布兰德斯的阴茎，不是我刚才说错的梅维斯的阴茎。所以，我的意思是，关于这一点，你可以说一件事，Fischel指出的是
sometimes a defense is the following: 18:21
有时辩护如下： 18：21
this actually wasn’t a case of sexual consent. It was a case of consent to murder. Consent to murder is not something that one can consent to. And so the problem with this case is not that it was sexual, it’s that it was something else but official says that this is a limited way of understanding this case. For one, it was sexual for the people involved.
这实际上不是性同意的案例。这是一起同意谋杀的案件。同意谋杀不是一个人可以同意的事情。所以这个案子的问题不在于它是性的，而在于它是别的东西，但官方说这是理解这个案子的有限方式。首先，这对相关人员来说是性行为。
David: 18:42 大卫： 18：42
I mean, it was primarily sexual, we should say.
我的意思是，我们应该说，这主要是性的。
Ellie: 18:45 艾莉：18：45
Yeah. Yeah. And although this is like a, the most extreme possible form of BDSM that you can imagine official notes that oftentimes BDSM cases that result in violence are tried in courts as cases of violent assault rather than sexual assault specifically. And he thinks that’s a problem because BDSM practitioners are doing this, you know, out of a sexual desire. And so BDSM practitioners often emphasize the importance of consent. But Fisher’s point is that consent is definitely not enough, and he’s coming from a queer theory perspective. So it’s not a conservative moral claim that BDSM is in principle wrong because it’s like against nature or against God or something of that sort. But it is a case that there are contradictions in the narratives that we tell ourselves about consent, especially when it comes to cases where consent involves violence.
是的。是的。尽管这就像一个，你可以想象到的最极端的BDSM形式 官方指出，导致暴力的BDSM案件通常在法庭上作为暴力攻击案件进行审判，而不是专门针对性侵犯的案件。他认为这是一个问题，因为BDSM从业者这样做，你知道，是出于。因此，BDSM从业者经常强调同意的重要性。但费舍尔的观点是，同意绝对是不够的，他是从酷儿理论的角度出发的。因此，BDSM原则上是错误的，这并不是保守的道德主张，因为它就像违背自然或反对上帝或类似的东西。但有一种情况是，我们告诉自己关于同意的叙述存在矛盾，尤其是在涉及同意涉及暴力的情况下。
David: 19:37 大卫： 19：37
Well, and the interesting thing in connection to this case is that when it went to court, the first court decision about my visa’s fate was that he was guilty not of murder, but of manslaughter. And the court ruled that the difference was precisely Brandes’ consent, so you can’t murder the consenting. So this was the official ruling initially. Then that decision was appealed and a higher court reversed the original ruling. Arguing that consent to murder is a contradiction in terms and consenting to being eaten, cannot be a justifying defense for the act of murdering and eating somebody, but even internal to the law, this was a really tricky issue with different judges landing on on different places because it does bring us to this limit of consent because presumably many of us would say that there are some things that people should not be allowed to legally and morally consent to, even if they want to do so in full control of their mental and emotional capacities, right? So this is not a case of somebody not being “in their right mind.”
有趣的是，当这个案子上法庭时，法院对我的签证命运的第一个判决是，他不是犯有谋杀罪，而是犯有过失杀人罪。法院裁定，区别恰恰是布兰德斯的同意，所以你不能谋杀同意的人。所以这是最初的官方裁决。然后对该决定提出上诉，上级法院推翻了原来的裁决。认为同意谋杀在条款上是矛盾的，同意被吃掉，不能成为谋杀和吃掉某人行为的正当辩护，但即使在法律内部，这也是一个非常棘手的问题，不同的法官在不同的地方着陆，因为它确实将我们带到了同意的极限，因为大概我们中的许多人会说，有些事情人们不应该这样做允许在法律和道德上同意，即使他们想完全控制自己的精神和情感能力，对吧？因此，这并不是某人“头脑不正常”的情况。
Ellie: 20:50 艾莉：20：50
And so someone might respond though that the problem here is not with the concept of consent. It’s about the breadth of consent. And so maybe we need to more narrowly define consent or place certain caveats on it. Like you can consent to somebody doing anything to your body unless it involves death or unless it involves lasting physical damage of a major sort, et cetera, et cetera. I think this would maybe be a way of excusing many intense forms of BDSM, while also saying that the case that we’re discussing is wrong.
因此，有人可能会回答说，这里的问题不在于同意的概念。这是关于同意的广度。因此，也许我们需要更狭隘地定义同意或对其提出某些警告。就像你可以同意某人对你的身体做任何事情，除非它涉及死亡或除非它涉及重大的持久身体伤害，等等，等等。我认为这也许是为许多激烈的BDSM形式开脱的一种方式，同时也说我们正在讨论的情况是错误的。
David: 21:27 大卫书 21：27
Yeah, you’re right. And in fact, this is what the law currently does. There have been many cases that make their way to court. And the question that the court has to decide is not whether or not consent was given, although that also is the case in situations where there is some ambiguity about that. But whether the consent given authorizes the sexual act in question or whether it gets invalidated because it violates some further stipulations that then get baked into the definition of consent. And typically the two caveats that are used to reign in consent and put some limits on it are dignity and serious bodily injury. So let me just begin with dignity. One could say that I can consent to whatever I want as long as the thing that I’m consenting to does not in some way violate my fundamental, humanness my dignity as a human person that has some interest in preserving my own integrity. The problem with the dignity condition is that depending on your moral interpretation of what dignity means, it can end up ruling out as Unconsentable. Things that maybe we should be okay with, but that arguably could violate dignity. So for example, if you think about certain sexual acts like piss play, like basic humiliation, you could say that that’s something that violates dignity and that therefore should be forbidden. But presumably we don’t want to ban those forms of, of sexual play. In fact, Fischel points out that there has been at least one scholar who has argued that serodiscordant sex, which is sex between partners that don’t have the same HIV status. Is fundamentally undignified because it violates the dignity of the human in some way. And so you can see how this notion of dignity can get a little slippery and start being used to police sex on moralistic grounds.
是的，你是对的。事实上，这就是法律目前所做的。已经有许多案件进入法庭。法院必须决定的问题不是是否给予同意，尽管在对此存在一些模糊的情况下也是如此。但是，给予的同意是否授权了有问题的性行为，或者它是否因为违反了一些进一步的规定而无效，然后被纳入同意的定义。通常，用于统治同意并对其施加一些限制的两个警告是尊严和严重的身体伤害。因此，让我从尊严开始。可以说，我可以同意任何我想要的东西，只要我同意的事情不以某种方式侵犯我的基本人性，我作为一个对维护自己的完整性有一定兴趣的人的尊严。尊严条件的问题在于，根据你对尊严含义的道德解释，它最终可能会被排除在不可同意之外。也许我们应该接受的事情，但可以说可能会侵犯尊严。因此，例如，如果你考虑某些性行为，比如小便游戏，比如基本的羞辱，你可以说这是侵犯尊严的事情，因此应该被禁止。但据推测，我们不想禁止这些形式的性游戏。事实上，菲舍尔指出，至少有一位学者认为，血清不一致的性行为，即没有相同艾滋病毒状况的伴侣之间的性行为。从根本上说是没有尊严的，因为它在某种程度上侵犯了人的尊严。所以你可以看到这种尊严的概念是如何变得有点滑溜的，并开始被用来以道德为由来监管性行为。
Ellie: 23:39 艾莉：23：39
And this is a sense in which our legal system has origins in Kantian philosophy and the view of Immanuel Kant about the dignity and humanity of persons and Fischel’s point seems to be that this concept of dignity gets really slippery when it’s applied to particular cases, and it can really be the subject of disagreement. And one might also suggest that in the case of sex, the object of dignity is really vague because it’s linked to humanity, but what we’re doing when we’re having sex is like having sex as individuals where it’s a lot more complicated. And I’m not totally sure I agree with Fischel on that. But anyway, that seems to be like a major point of his is that just like this doesn’t actually work that well in particular cases. So the idea of dignity is kind of a dead end for him.
从某种意义上说，我们的法律制度起源于康德哲学和伊曼纽尔·康德关于人的尊严和人性的观点，而费舍尔的观点似乎是，当这种尊严的概念应用于特定案件时，它变得非常滑稽，它可能真的是分歧的主题。人们可能还会说，就性而言，尊严的对象真的很模糊，因为它与人性有关，但是当我们做爱时，我们所做的就像作为个体做爱一样，这要复杂得多。我不完全确定我是否同意 Fischel 的观点。但无论如何，这似乎是他的一个主要观点，即在特定情况下，这样实际上并不那么有效。所以尊严的想法对他来说是一条死胡同。
David: 24:28 大卫： 24：28
Yeah, no, and that’s why he calls it an empty signifier, and he spends relatively little time discussing it. He actually spends a lot more time discussing the other caveat, which I agree is more interesting, that is sometimes placed on consent as a way of keeping out these very extreme cases, like the case of cannibalism, and that’s the condition of serious bodily injury. You can consent to anything you want as long as it doesn’t produce serious bodily injury. Fischel also has a problem with this clarification of the concept of consent, and his argument here is rooted on a concept that he introduces in his discussion of this topic, which is corporonormativity. According to him, when we think about serious bodily injury as the limit of consent, we’re giving too much weight to things that are rooted in the body, like physical injury, literally to my limbs, to my skin, to my bones. That maybe in the grand scheme of things are not that big of a deal in the context of some of these sexual acts, especially in BDSM settings, and because we focus so much on the body and bodily injury, we start overlooking things that are a bigger deal that we should focus on. To give us another example, a very extreme situation of sexual enslavement that happened in Nebraska where again, one man agreed to be the sexual slave of another man, and he traveled to Nebraska to be imprisoned in this man’s basement, in the basement of his floral shop. So this guy was like a florist by day.
是的，不是，这就是为什么他称它为空洞的能指，他花相对较少的时间讨论它。他实际上花了更多的时间讨论其他警告，我同意这更有趣，有时将同意作为防止这些非常极端情况的一种方式，比如同类相食的情况，这就是严重身体伤害的条件。你可以同意任何你想要的东西，只要它不会造成严重的身体伤害。菲舍尔对这种对同意概念的澄清也存在问题，他在这里的论点植根于他在讨论这个话题时引入的一个概念，即公司规范性。根据他的说法，当我们将严重的身体伤害视为同意的极限时，我们过于重视植根于身体的东西，比如身体伤害，从字面上看，我的四肢，我的皮肤，我的骨骼。在其中一些性行为的背景下，也许在宏伟的计划中，这并不重要，尤其是在BDSM环境中，而且因为我们过于关注身体和身体伤害，我们开始忽视我们应该关注的更重要的事情。再举一个例子，在内布拉斯加州发生了一个非常极端的役情况，一个男人同意成为另一个男人的隶，他前往内布拉斯加州，被囚禁在这个男人的地下室，在他的花店的地下室里。所以这家伙白天就像一个花店。
Ellie: 26:10 艾莉：26：10
A little shop of horrors, am I right?
一个恐怖的小商店，我说得对吗？
David: 26:12 大卫 26：12
I know! Like flowers upstairs and gimps in leather below. And so this man traveled, became this man’s slave. After giving very explicit consent, including consent to be re enslaved if he ever tried to escape.
我知道！就像楼上的鲜花和下面的皮革小精灵。于是这个人四处旅行，成为这个人的奴隶。在给予非常明确的同意之后，包括同意如果他试图逃跑，就会被重新奴役。
Ellie: 26:29 艾莉：26：29
Whoa. Oh, whoa. 哇。哦，哇。
David: 26:32 大卫： 26：32
Yes. It really like psychologically hard to wrap your head around once he was. Imprisoned in a cage in the basement. He decided that he was no longer into it. Tried to escape and did escape with the help of another gimp who came to the conclusion that he should help this other person, and then sued the guy who enslaved him, who by this time had also inflicted very serious bodily injury on him, including branding him. And so according to FIschel, what we should be focusing on in this case is not really the branding because that’s not the most troublesome element. What we should be focusing on is the psychological damage that indefinite captivity can have on a human being. And unfortunately, when we are corporonormative and we focus exclusively on serious bodily harm, we don’t notice that. At all. And so his concern with that way of rendering consent is that it just gives too much weight to the body while ignoring the psychological, the effective, the social dimensions of sexuality.
是的。一旦他成为，在心理上真的很难把你的头缠起来。被囚禁在地下室的笼子里。他决定不再参与其中。试图逃跑，并在另一个傻瓜的帮助下逃脱，他得出的结论是他应该帮助这个人，然后起诉了奴役他的家伙，此时他也对他造成了非常严重的身体伤害，包括给他打上烙印。因此，根据 FIschel 的说法，在这种情况下，我们应该关注的并不是真正的品牌，因为这不是最麻烦的元素。我们应该关注的是无限期囚禁可能对人类造成的心理伤害。不幸的是，当我们是公司规范的，我们只关注严重的身体伤害时，我们没有注意到这一点。完全。因此，他对这种表示同意的方式的担忧是，它只是赋予身体太多的权重，而忽略了性行为的心理、有效性和社会层面。
Ellie: 27:42 艾莉：27：42
This is where official goes on to say that the limitations of consent mean that we really need to move towards a broader way of understanding our flourishing in the world. I do think that a lot of the problems still remain with consent discourse, however, that just moving to flourishing isn’t necessarily gonna solve. And so we’ll get into that in a moment. But just, you know, as one example here. Fischel mentions the notion of deep consent in BDSM circles where there are sometimes contradictions between somebody’s statement of consent or non-consent. Somebody says, no, I don’t want it. But it’s understood within the BDSM scene that they actually do want it. And so deep consent is contradicting the consent on the level of the scene, which as Fischel points out, is extremely dangerous because it’s often the one in position of power, the dominant person who is deciding whether deep consent is present on the part of the submissive, which goes against pretty much everything the Antioch College policy stands for, but also that I think we tend to assume about sexual ethics, which is listen to people when they tell you to stop doing things. We’ve raised some issues with the concept of consent, and we’re gonna come back to some further critiques of it later. But I also wanna consider why consent has been emphasized by so many to begin with. Why has it become so prominent in sexual ethics. Even if we think it’s misguided, obviously it had very important motivating reasons, and the primary reason for this is the fight for gender equality. Historically speaking, sexual consent became important once women were considered to have sexual autonomy. Prior to the 1970s, for instance, marital rape was legal in every US state, and this was a hangover from women being seen as the property of their husbands.
这就是官员继续说的地方，同意的局限性意味着我们真的需要朝着更广泛的方式来理解我们在世界上的繁荣发展。我确实认为，同意话语仍然存在很多问题，但是，仅仅走向繁荣并不一定能解决。因此，我们稍后会讨论这个问题。但是，你知道，这里举个例子。Fischel 提到了 BDSM 圈子中的深度同意的概念，其中某人的同意声明或不同意声明之间有时会存在矛盾。有人说，不，我不想要它。但在BDSM场景中可以理解，他们确实想要它。因此，深度同意与场景层面的同意相矛盾，正如菲舍尔所指出的，这是极其危险的，因为它通常是处于权力地位的人，主导者决定顺从者是否存在深度同意，这几乎违背了安提阿学院政策所代表的一切， 而且我认为我们倾向于假设性道德，即当人们告诉你停止做事时，他们会倾听他们的意见。我们已经提出了一些关于同意概念的问题，我们稍后将回到对它的一些进一步批评。但我也想考虑一下，为什么一开始就有这么多人强调同意。为什么它在性伦理中变得如此突出。即使我们认为它被误导了，显然它有非常重要的动机原因，而其主要原因是争取性别平等。从历史上看，一旦女性被认为拥有性自主权，性同意就变得很重要。 例如，在 1970 年代之前，婚内强奸在美国每个州都是合法的，这是女性被视为丈夫财产的后遗症。
David: 29:52 大卫： 29：52
Well and rape outside of marriage. Um, say the rape of young bourgeois women was, for much of recent history, seen primarily as a problem only because it turned them into spoiled goods. ie, the goods of men. So it’s a property damage issue. In fact, it’s as if men’s future property, ‘it’s future potential wives were being damaged. But this is still the case, I think today in some parts of the world.
好吧，婚外强奸。嗯，比如说，在近代历史的大部分时间里，强奸年轻的资产阶级妇女主要被视为一个问题，只是因为它把她们变成了被宠坏的商品。即，人的货物。所以这是一个财产损失问题。事實上，這就好像男人未來的財產，「未來潛在的妻子正在被損傷。但我认为今天在世界的某些地方仍然如此。
Ellie: 30:17 艾莉：30：17
Absolutely. And so legal protections are crucial in permitting women to enact sexual autonomy and consent, which was already an established norm in liberalism outside of sexual context got applied to sex. As you know, I have some issues with the way that this has worked out, but I do think it’s worthwhile to explain how and why the understanding of sexual consent has been so important in philosophy and law.
绝对。因此，法律保护对于允许女性制定性自主权和性同意至关重要，这已经是自由主义在性背景之外的既定规范，适用于性。如你所知，我对这种方式有一些问题，但我确实认为有必要解释一下对性同意的理解在哲学和法律中如何以及为什么如此重要。
David: 30:40 大卫：30：40
We usually do think of consent following this Antioch policy discussion as a form of giving permission as green light for certain behaviors. By extension, we think of sexual consent. Legally speaking as giving permission in an intimate sexual context that involves necessarily at least one other person. We typically don’t think about consent for self-directed sexual acts, right? Um, it is always sexual permission to another being.
我们通常认为在安提阿政策讨论之后的同意是一种给予许可的形式，为某些行为开了绿灯。推而广之，我们想到了性同意。从法律上讲，在必然涉及至少一个人的亲密性环境中给予许可。我们通常不会考虑对自我指导的性行为的同意，对吧？嗯，它总是对另一个人的性许可。
Ellie: 31:11 艾莉：31：11
That’s exactly right, but then the question becomes giving permission for what and how is that permission conveyed? A very influential view on this is that of the legal scholar Heidi Hurd. Hurd suggests that consent performs what she calls a moral magic by transforming an act that would be permissible into one that’s permitted. So say someone just walks into my house after I’ve prepared a meal, in that case they have trespassed. Like, what are you doing here? Why are you here?
这是完全正确的，但接下来的问题就变成了允许传达什么以及如何传达该许可？法律学者海蒂·赫德（Heidi Hurd）对此非常有影响力的观点。赫德认为，同意通过将允许的行为转变为允许的行为来发挥她所谓的道德魔力。所以说有人在我准备饭后走进我家，在这种情况下，他们已经擅自闯入了。比如，你在这里做什么？你为什么在这里？
David: 31:41 大卫书 31：41
Why do you want those salads? I know you eat a lot of salads.
你为什么想要这些沙拉？我知道你吃了很多沙拉。
Ellie: 31:44 艾莉：31：44
I do eat a lot of salads. It’s true. Um, but if I consent to their coming into my house, then we have a dinner party. It’s like, welcome, you’re here. I have made the salad for you and Hurd argues that the same is true of sex. It turns what would be a bodily trespass or a rape into intercourse, a welcomed dinner party. And Joan McGregor, who shares the view that consent is transformative, actually says this explicitly. McGregor says, consent transforms rape into intercourse.
我确实吃了很多沙拉。是真的。嗯，但是如果我同意他们来我家，那么我们就有一个晚宴。就像，欢迎，你来了。我为你做了沙拉，赫德认为性也是如此。它把身体侵犯或强奸变成了性交，一个受欢迎的晚宴。琼·麦格雷戈（Joan McGregor）也认为同意是变革性的，她实际上明确地指出了这一点。麦格雷戈说，同意将强奸转化为性交。
David: 32:17 大卫 32：17
Yeah, and Fischel makes a similar claim. He says that it is through consent that we sublate or, you know, magically transform,
是的，Fischel 也提出了类似的说法。他说，正是通过同意，我们才能升华，或者，你知道，神奇地改变，
Ellie: 32:25 艾莉：32：25
OK, Hegel. 好的，黑格尔。
David: 32:26 大卫书 32：26
Yeah, it is a kind of transformation in that regard. Straight up violence into either BDSM or kink.
是的，这方面是一种转变。直接将暴力变成BDSM或扭结。
Ellie: 32:35 艾莉：32：35
Yes, so we’ve got this view mainstream within philosophy and law that consent is a form of giving permission. The question then becomes, well, what exactly constitutes giving permission? For Hurd, consent is a subjective mental state or an act of will. Say you have to desire having sex with someone in order for it to be consensual, and you have to license that desire in a sense. You have to sign off on it by willing it.
是的，所以我们在哲学和法律中主流认为同意是给予许可的一种形式。那么问题就变成了，那么，究竟什么构成给予许可？对于赫德来说，同意是一种主观的心理状态或意志行为。假设你必须渴望与某人发生性关系才能达成共识，你必须在某种意义上许可这种欲望。你必须通过愿意来签署它。
David: 33:03 大卫： 33：03
Yeah, but if consent is a subjective mental state tied to an act of willing, Then how do we decide whether it was present or not? In those cases where there is a disagreement, right? Where there is a conflict between the two parties, what if you thought that an encounter was going well, but then afterwards the person that you had sex with said that they didn’t consent and maybe even appealed to their subjective mental state at the time? You know, how do you read somebody else’s mind?
是的，但是如果同意是一种与自愿行为相关的主观心理状态，那么我们如何确定它是否存在？在那些有分歧的情况下，对吧？当双方发生冲突时，如果你认为相遇很顺利，但后来与你发生性关系的人说他们不同意，甚至可能诉诸他们当时的主观精神状态怎么办？你知道，你怎么读懂别人的心思？
Ellie: 33:34 艾莉：33：34
This is the tricky part. And in fact, there was an op-ed that Bari Weiss wrote after Aziz Ansari’s case came out. Do you remember this? It wasn’t a legal case, but a woman who went on a date with Aziz Ansari wrote an article about how the situation in which she found herself was really messed up because he kind of kept forcing himself on her. And it wasn’t a case of straight up rape, but it was one of these like gray cases of sexual violation. And Weiss says that all I’m sorry was guilty of was not being a mind reader. And I found it, like such a bizarre and problematic claim for reasons we’ll come back to later. But ideally, you know, the core of what you’re saying is true, which is that someone does communicate their subjective mental state. But what you’re pointing out, is that there are tough cases when that doesn’t happen, and so it seems kind of strange to define consent as a subjective mental state the way that Heidi Hurd does.
这是棘手的部分。事实上，在阿齐兹·安萨里（Aziz Ansari）的案件出来后，巴里·韦斯（Bari Weiss）写了一篇专栏文章。你还记得吗？这不是一个法律案件，但一个与阿齐兹·安萨里约会的女人写了一篇文章，讲述了她发现自己所处的情况是如何搞砸的，因为他一直在强迫自己。这不是一个直接强奸的案件，但它是其中一起像灰色的性侵犯案件。Weiss说，我很抱歉，我唯一感到内疚的就是不是一个读心者。我发现它，就像一个奇怪而有问题的主张，原因我们稍后会回来。但理想情况下，你知道，你说的核心是真实的，那就是有人确实传达了他们的主观心理状态。但你所指出的是，在一些棘手的情况下，这种情况不会发生，所以像海蒂·赫德那样将同意定义为一种主观的心理状态似乎有点奇怪。
David: 34:26 大卫书 34：26
Yeah, and I remember the Aziz Ansari case was so polarizing because people were applying that straight up, yes or no rape standard to a case that was a case of gray rape where she felt like he was insisting too much, if I remember the details correctly, and eventually did something that she wasn’t feeling particularly good about, whereas, the problem from the perspective of people like Bari Weiss was that she didn’t openly say, no, I don’t want this. And so as soon as the absence of language was noted, it’s almost seen as if there is no grounds on which she can make a complaint about the way in which that experience felt for her.
是的，我记得阿齐兹·安萨里（Aziz Ansari）的案件是如此两极分化，因为人们将这种直接，是或否的强奸标准应用于一个灰色强奸案，如果我没记错的话，她觉得他坚持得太多了，最终做了一些她感觉不是特别好的事情， 然而，从像巴里·韦斯这样的人的角度来看，问题在于她没有公开说，不，我不想要这个。因此，一旦注意到语言的缺失，几乎就被视为没有理由让她抱怨这种经历对她的影响。
Ellie: 35:08 艾莉：35：08
Yeah, actually I wanna say that the woman maybe did say no once or twice. I need to revisit the case, but certainly there were more. Physical cues that she was giving than anything else. She was physically moving away from him repeatedly and she was like, why is this guy not picking up on the fact that I’m literally moving away from him? And you know, that seems like a case where that’s, you don’t have to be a mind reader to know that somebody moving away from you probably means that they don’t want this to happen. Right. Unless there has been like an explicit engagement and discussion of this before.
是的，实际上我想说的是，那个女人可能确实说过一两次不。我需要重新审视这个案子，但肯定还有更多。她给出的身体暗示比其他任何事情都重要。她的身体一再远离他，她想，为什么这个家伙没有意识到我真的在远离他？你知道，这似乎是一个案例，你不必是一个读心者，就能知道有人离开你可能意味着他们不希望这种情况发生。右。除非以前有过明确的参与和讨论。
David: 35:35 大卫： 35：35
I, I’m not a mind reader. How should I know that? Evading me at every move means that they’re not interested.
我，我不是读心者。我怎么知道呢？一举一动都回避我意味着他们不感兴趣。
Ellie: 35:43 艾莉：35：43
Right. But yeah, so I mean the, the core of this, the problem with the attitudinal approach to sexual consent, which is Hurd’s view, that consent is a subjective mental state, is that it arguably opens it up to cases where a clear no was not present by saying like, well, the person didn’t consent in their minds. Right? And so this seems to present some issues.
右。但是，是的，我的意思是，这其中的核心，对性同意的态度方法的问题，这是赫德的观点，同意是一种主观的心理状态，可以说它打开了它，通过说，好吧，这个人在他们的脑海中不同意，从而打开了它。右？所以这似乎带来了一些问题。
David: 36:03 大卫： 36：03
Yeah, that can be tricky.
是的，这可能很棘手。
Ellie: 36:04 艾莉：36：04
Yeah, and like I said, I mean Hurd as a legal scholar, thinks that the subjective mental state should be communicated. But yeah, it is not necessarily always communicated according to critics of this attitudinal approach. So this has led to an alternative view that’s also been quite popular among philosophers in legal theorists, which is the performative view. If you’ve listened to our episode on Performativity, you will know that performative acts are speech acts that change states of affairs in the world. They’re not like pretending to do something. Performative acts actually are doing something. Performativity has to do with communication, not just as an expression of an internal mental state, but actually as a transformation of the external circumstances.
是的，就像我说的，我的意思是赫德作为一名法律学者，认为主观的精神状态应该被传达。但是，是的，它不一定总是根据对这种态度方法的批评者进行传达。因此，这导致了另一种观点，这种观点在法学理论家的哲学家中也非常流行，这就是表演性观点。如果你听过我们关于表演性的一集，你就会知道表演行为是改变世界事态的言语行为。他们不像假装做某事。表演行为实际上是在做某事。表演性与沟通有关，不仅仅是作为内部精神状态的表达，而且实际上是外部环境的转变。
David: 36:44 大卫书 36：44
Yes, as opposed to Ellie’s pet peeve of the popular use of performative today as a synonym for fake or artificial as in like performative allyship.
是的，与艾莉对今天流行使用表演作为假或人造的同义词的讨厌相反，就像表演盟友关系一样。
Ellie: 36:55 艾莉：36：55
Bad term guys. 坏术语家伙。
David: 36:56 大卫： 36：56
Yeah. So Ellie, tell me, how does this idea of the Performative Act come into theories of sexual consent?
是的。那么艾莉，告诉我，这种表演行为的想法是如何进入性同意理论的？
Ellie: 37:05 艾莉：37：05
Okay, so the idea is as follows, for those who think consent is performative, sexual consent is a behavior or an act. That is communicated to one or more other persons, in this case, to one sexual partner or partners. And the philosopher Alan Wertheimer gives an example here that he thinks shows the importance of consent as a performative act. Imagine the following scenario. I leave my car on the street and I hope that it will be stolen so I can collect the insurance money. This example hits a little close to home’cause I have a very old and creaky car.
好的，所以这个想法是这样的，对于那些认为同意是表演的人来说，性同意是一种行为或行为。这被传达给一个或多个其他人，在这种情况下，传达给一个或多个性伴侣。哲学家艾伦·韦特海默（Alan Wertheimer）在这里举了一个例子，他认为这个例子表明了同意作为一种表演行为的重要性。想象一下以下场景。我把车停在街上，我希望它会被偷，这样我就可以拿到保险金。这个例子离家有点近，因为我有一辆很旧而且吱吱作响的车。
David: 37:39 大卫书 37：39
Yes. You have a horrible car. I was just thinking that.
是的。你有一辆可怕的车。我只是这么想。
Ellie: 37:42 艾莉：37：42
Probably not worth a lot in insurance money, but anyway, so I like leave my car on the street and I hope that it will be stolen. Now someone’s walking down the street and sees my car and steals it. Heimer points out that the person who stole my car is still morally and legally culpable because they didn’t know that I consented to its being stolen. And so if you take the attitudinal view that consent is just a subjective mental state, then you’d have to say that the person who stole my car is not morally culpable because I consented to it being stolen. And so too, in the sexual case, right, if somebody has sex with somebody else but doesn’t obtain, you know, consent through a behavior act or like verbal statement, then they are guilty of sexual violation, even if like secretly the person willed it.
保险金可能不值钱，但无论如何，我喜欢把我的车留在街上，我希望它会被偷。现在有人走在街上，看到我的车就偷走了。海默指出，偷我车的人在道德和法律上仍然有罪，因为他们不知道我同意偷车。因此，如果你认为同意只是一种主观的心理状态，那么你就不得不说，偷我车的人在道德上没有罪责，因为我同意它被偷了。同样，在性案件中，如果有人与其他人发生性关系，但没有通过行为或口头陈述获得同意，那么他们就犯了性侵犯罪，即使这个人私下里愿意这样做。
David: 38:31 大卫书 38：31
Yeah. Okay. I, I get the idea here, but this is also just such a weird example using like a lady in her car as a metaphor for, for rape. I don’t love it.
是的。好。我，我明白了，但这也是一个奇怪的例子，用一个女士在她的车里作为强奸的比喻。我不喜欢它。
Ellie: 38:44 艾莉：38：44
In general, no, I am like presenting this example because I wanna give a, you know, a fair hearing to these perspectives in analytic moral philosophy. I find this, and most of the examples that these philosophers use, like, absolutely horrible. They’re so bizarre because what, what bugs me about this example in particular is that Wertheimer is making an analogy between somebody’s body and their car as though our body is just like a possession of our mind. And this is actually one of my big gripes with this whole debate around consent from a legal perspective, is that it’s rooted in property law and there’s a very weird way to think about sex. However, I’m kind of getting ahead of myself because we’re gonna come back to my own alternative theory as well as some critiques of this debate. For the moment, let’s think a bit more about the performative view of consent and we’ll just like go with fair timer’s perspective, his example.
总的来说，不，我之所以提出这个例子，是因为我想对分析道德哲学中的这些观点进行公正的倾听。我发现这一点，以及这些哲学家使用的大多数例子，绝对是可怕的。他们太奇怪了，因为这个例子特别让我烦恼的是，韦特海默在某人的身体和他们的汽车之间做了一个类比，就好像我们的身体就像是我们思想的附身一样。这实际上是我从法律角度对整个关于同意的辩论的一大抱怨，因为它植根于财产法，并且有一种非常奇怪的方式来思考性。然而，我有点超越了自己，因为我们将回到我自己的替代理论以及对这场辩论的一些批评。现在，让我们多想一想同意的表演性观点，我们只想从公平计时器的角度，他的例子。
David: 39:34 大卫： 39：34
Agreed, but so this side of the debate between these two theories seems to be somewhat in line with the popular discourse that we have going around today about Yes Means Yes, and what some people call enthusiastic consent. The idea popularized on college campuses across America is that one has to communicate their desire in order for consent to be present, you have to enthusiastically say yes to it.
同意，但这两种理论之间争论的这一方面似乎与我们今天关于“是”意味着“是”的流行话语以及一些人所谓的热情同意有些一致。在美国各地的大学校园里流行的想法是，一个人必须传达他们的愿望才能得到同意，你必须热情地对它说“是”。
Ellie: 40:02 艾莉：40：02
Exactly. And you know, to be fair, this is compatible with the view that consent is a subjective mental state, but it’s not always foregrounded in it. But certainly the performative view is really trying to push that idea, and this seems great, right? Of course, communicating desires and intentions is crucial for sex to be ethical.
完全。你知道，公平地说，这与同意是一种主观心理状态的观点是相容的，但它并不总是突出其中。但可以肯定的是，表演性的观点确实在试图推动这个想法，这似乎很棒，对吧？当然，传达欲望和意图对于性行为的道德至关重要。
David: 40:23 大卫书 40：23
Sure, but this is where we get into very tricky territory as well, because this can easily become a matter of needing to expressly verbalize consent at every moment of a sexual encounter. You know, I’m having flashbacks here to the SNL skit about the Antioch policy.
当然，但这也是我们进入非常棘手的领域的地方，因为这很容易成为需要在性接触的每一刻明确表达同意的问题。你知道，我在这里闪回了关于安提阿政策的 SNL 短剧。
Ellie: 40:40 艾莉：40：40
Exactly, and the fact is that a lot of sexual encounters happen without a lot of explicit yeses. I mean, in long-term relationships, for instance, I think it’s very common for people to like know and trust each other’s bodily cues enough to like go with a certain momentum that’s been established for a long period of time without saying like, would you like me to touch your buttocks at this point?
没错，事实是，很多性接触的发生都没有太多明确的肯定。我的意思是，例如，在长期关系中，我认为人们喜欢了解和信任彼此的身体暗示是很常见的，以至于喜欢与已经建立了很长时间的某种势头相伴，而不会说，你想让我在这一点上摸你的臀部吗？
David: 41:07 大卫： 41：07
Um, well, yeah, and I, I actually would expand that to not long-term relationships as well. I think there are a lot of hookups. There are a lot of one-time no strings attached sort of encounters where you go with a certain kind of flow and you see the momentum or the energy shifting towards, you know, increasingly sexualized interactions, and you get a sense that this person is into you and you are into them. Even if at no point do you stop to have that moment of contractually agreeing in language that yes, we are both hereby initiating a sexual activity in. In some cases, that kind of requirement when it’s taken in its most literal configuration, would almost seem to break the flow of something that otherwise both parties are okay with.
嗯，嗯，是的，而我，我实际上也会把它扩展到不是长期关系。我认为有很多联播。有很多一次性的无附加条件的相遇，你带着某种流动，你看到动力或能量转向，你知道，越来越性化的互动，你会感觉到这个人喜欢你，你也喜欢他们。即使你在任何时候都没有停下来，在合同上同意的语言，是的，我们俩特此发起性活动。在某些情况下，当这种要求以最字面的配置来呈现时，几乎会破坏其他双方都可以接受的东西的流程。
Ellie: 42:01 艾莉：42：01
Yeah, and I think this whole debate between the attitudinal and the performative views is organized around the idea that consent is either something one has or one does. This is a big difference, right? In the case of the subjective mental state, consent is something one has, whereas in the performative view, consent is something one does. But underlying both of these positions is a real problem for me, and thanks in part to my co-author for the Erotic Object article. Caleb Ward, for pointing this out. Caleb wrote a really amazing dissertation, critiquing views of consent and points out that what’s underlying both of these is the idea that consent is giving permission, and this is a view that has quite a lot of problems. It’s also something that like Linda Martin Alcoff and Ann Cahill, other contemporary philosophers have pointed out as well. You ready to get into why?
是的，我认为态度观点和表演观点之间的整个辩论都是围绕着这样一种观点组织的，即同意要么是一个人拥有的东西，要么是一个人做的事情。这是一个很大的区别，对吧？在主观心理状态的情况下，同意是一个人拥有的东西，而在表演性观点中，同意是一个人做的事情。但这两种立场的背后对我来说都是一个真正的问题，这在一定程度上要归功于我的合著者 色情对象 文章。Caleb Ward指出了这一点。Caleb 写了一篇非常了不起的论文，批评了同意的观点，并指出这两者的基础是同意就是给予许可的想法，这种观点有很多问题。像琳达·马丁·阿尔科夫（Linda Martin Alcoff）和安·卡希尔（Ann Cahill）一样，其他当代哲学家也指出了这一点。你准备好了解为什么了吗？
David: 42:52 大卫书 42：52
Yes, I am. 是的，我是。
Segment: 43:00 时段：43：00
Please consider supporting the podcast by joining our patreon. We are an independent self-supporting show. As a subscriber, you can help us cover our key production costs, gain access to extended episodes and other bonus content, as well as joining our community of listeners on Discord. For more, check out Overthink on patreon.com.
请考虑通过加入我们的 patreon 来支持播客。我们是一个独立的自给自足的节目。作为订阅者，您可以帮助我们支付关键制作成本，访问扩展剧集和其他奖励内容，以及加入我们在 Discord 上的听众社区。有关更多信息，请查看 Overthink on patreon.com。
David: 43:20 大卫书 43：20
Ellie, so far, we have seen that the mainstream positions on consent see it as a form of permission giving and simply disagree about whether consent is inherently an internal mental state that one has, or a performative locution that one does. And for the past couple of decades, feminist and queer theorists have articulated what is wrong with this emphasis on permission. And Ellie, in fact, you wrote about this a couple of years ago in the APAs Women in Philosophy blog, you know about the limits of consent.
艾莉，到目前为止，我们已经看到，关于同意的主流立场将其视为一种给予许可的形式，并且只是不同意同意本质上是一个人所拥有的一种内在心理状态，还是一个人所做的表演性语言。在过去的几十年里，女权主义者和酷儿理论家已经阐明了这种强调许可的问题所在。艾莉，事实上，你几年前在APAs的“哲学女性”博客上写过这个，你知道同意的局限性。
Ellie: 43:51 艾莉：43：51
Yes. 是的。
David: 43:52 大卫书 43：52
And so one concern is that permission is often conceptualized as a punctuated moment in time as if you sign a contract and then as a result of that decision, you get, “locked” into the consequences of your own consent. You know, you can’t take it back. It’s already there.
因此，一个令人担忧的问题是，许可通常被概念化为一个间断的时刻，就好像你签署了一份合同，然后由于这个决定，你被“锁定”在你自己同意的后果中。你知道，你不能收回它。它已经在那里了。
Ellie: 44:13 艾莉：44：13
well, like in the case of the enslaved person in Nebraska,
好吧，就像内布拉斯加州被奴役的人一样，
David: 44:16 大卫书 44：16
Yes. Yeah. Who got quite literally locked into the consequences of his decisions.
是的。是的。谁真的被他的决定的后果所束缚。
Ellie: 44:22 艾莉：44：22
For real. 真的。
David: 44:24 大卫书 44：24
I know, I know. It’s kind of weird to make jokes about something that makes me uncomfortable
我知道 我知道。拿让我不舒服的事情开玩笑有点奇怪
Ellie: 44:27 艾莉：44：27
Yeah. Sorry, I didn’t wanna laugh that hard.
是的。对不起，我不想笑得那么厉害。
David: 44:28 大卫 44：28
I know. I feel just like, but anyways, the point here is that this focus on the moment of consent overlooks the fact that sex is by nature a temporally unfolding event. And the fact that our desires actually can morph sometimes slowly in ways that we don’t really become aware of until after the fact over the course of a sexual interaction. And so we don’t want to reduce consent to just. Yay or nay at one particular moment.
我知道。我感觉就像，但无论如何，这里的重点是，这种对同意时刻的关注忽略了这样一个事实，即性本质上是一个暂时展开的事件。事实上，我们的欲望实际上有时会缓慢地发生变化，直到事后在性互动过程中我们才真正意识到这一点。因此，我们不想将同意减少到公正。在某个特定时刻是或不是。
Ellie: 44:59 艾莉：44：59
Yeah, it’s like, do the people who have presented consent as a clear yes or no, realize that we are temporal creatures? I sometimes, I’m not sure. Another critique.’cause I think I mentioned like seven critiques of consent in that blog post or something of that sort. But one of the other critiques that I think is really important, ‘cause we’re not gonna list them all here in the podcast, is that even though consent is presented as neutral, it’s almost always assumed to be something that women give and men receive. And so it ends up reinforcing the idea that men ask for sex and women respond. You see this in the Antioch SNL skit as well, where it was like the guy who was asking the woman if he could touch her buttocks. Carol Pateman and Linda Martin Alcoff are two thinkers who really compellingly point this out. Within heterosexual context, sex is figured as something that men are gunning for, and then women have to decide like, oh, would I like this or not?
是的，这就像，那些明确表示同意的人是否意识到我们是暂时的生物？我有时，我不确定。另一个批评，因为我想我在那篇博文中提到了对同意的七项批评或类似的东西。但我认为另一个非常重要的批评，因为我们不打算在播客中一一列出，即使同意被呈现为中立，它几乎总是被认为是女性给予和男性接受的东西。因此，它最终强化了男人要求性行为而女人回应的想法。你在安提阿 SNL 短剧中也看到了这一点，就像那个男人问女人是否可以摸她的臀部一样。卡罗尔·帕特曼（Carol Pateman）和琳达·马丁·阿尔科夫（Linda Martin Alcoff）是两位真正令人信服地指出这一点的思想家。在异性恋的背景下，性被认为是男人想要的东西，然后女人必须做出决定，哦，我是否喜欢这个？
David: 45:51 大卫书 45：51
Yeah, and because we think of consent as something that happens in a jiffy and that women give and men receive, I think it becomes actually part of the problem in sexual ethics because when we think about consent in that way, almost as an object that transfers hands from women to men, like, here is this thing that I give you, it prevents us from putting in the hard work of cultivating nuanced attention to the desires of our sexual partners when we are having sex with them. If as, let’s say, a man, because we just talked about the gendering of this distinction, if as a man all you are gunning for is the yes of your partner. Then chances are that you’re going to not pay attention to, for example, their bodily movements, their gestures, their overall way of interacting with you.
是的，因为我们认为同意是一瞬间发生的事情，女人给予，男人接受，我认为这实际上成为性伦理问题的一部分，因为当我们以这种方式思考同意时，几乎是一个将手从女人转移到男人的对象，就像，这是我给你的这个东西， 它阻止我们在与性伴侣发生性关系时投入艰苦的工作，培养对性伴侣欲望的细致入微的关注。如果，比方说，一个男人，因为我们刚刚谈到了这种区别的性别化，如果作为一个男人，你所追求的只是你的伴侣的“是”。然后，你很可能会不注意，例如，他们的身体动作，他们的手势，他们与你互动的整体方式。
Ellie: 46:46 艾莉：46：46
Whether they’re enjoying themselves.
他们是否玩得开心。
David: 46:48 大卫书 46：48
Yeah. Right. Like there are other ways in which people communicate, and if all you’re looking for are those three letters, you’re gonna miss pretty much the totality of the erotic encounter.
是的。右。就像人们还有其他交流方式一样，如果你正在寻找的只是这三个字母，你就会错过色情遭遇的全部内容。
Ellie: 47:01 艾莉：47：01
Yeah, and you know, this also relates to the complexity of not only interpreting another’s behavior, but understanding that another’s behavior might not. Just be like a straightforward expression of their inner desires, either, right? We often are ignorant of our own desires, and so suggesting that we can know what we want the moment we are asked, or that another person can pick up on that immediately overlooks forms of behavior that have been ingrained to us from a young age, including gender norms, the effects of past experiences, and the relative power of different social locations.
是的，你知道，这也与不仅解释他人行为的复杂性有关，而且与理解他人的行为可能不会的复杂性有关。就像直截了当地表达他们内心的欲望一样，对吧？我们常常对自己的欲望一无所知，因此建议我们可以在被问到的那一刻就知道我们想要什么，或者另一个人可以立即接受这一点，而忽略了我们从小就根深蒂固的行为形式，包括性别规范、过去经历的影响以及不同社会位置的相对权力。
David: 47:39 大卫书 47：39
And I think that’s why this contractual way of thinking about consent is so dangerous, uh, because once you feel like you’re locked into the consequences. Of course, you’re gonna be less likely to want to experiment with people because instead of creating a space where you feel safe exploring new things, new experiences, new behaviors, and feeling comfortable enough that you can walk it back, the moment that you feel that this is no longer right for you, you’re put in a situation where you feel as if your consent is actually taken away from you by virtue of that original. Yes, that you gave to God knows what, you know, it’s just like a blanket like carte blanche for whatever the other person might want.
我认为这就是为什么这种关于同意的合同思维方式如此危险，呃，因为一旦你觉得自己被锁定在后果中。当然，你不太可能想和人一起做实验，因为当你觉得这不再适合你时，你不会创造一个让你感到安全的空间，去探索新事物、新体验、新行为，并感到足够舒服，你可以把它走回去，你被置于一种你觉得你的同意实际上被剥夺了的境地源语言。是的，你给上帝知道什么，你知道，这就像一条毯子，就像全权委托别人想要什么。
Ellie: 48:22 艾莉：48：22
yeah. Consent does license a lot of bad sex. And so then the question and and bad in damaging ways often, um, as many scholars have recently pointed out, not just in like, oh, that wasn’t that fun. And so then the question becomes what to do about the fact that consent is so problematic. And before we get to the position that I’ve proposed in a recent publication, wanna mention two main views. One is the idea of rejecting the norm of consent as a guiding norm for sexual ethics altogether. There’s a great paper by Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa on this point where he suggests that the idea of permission giving is so deeply baked into the way that we talk about consent, that there’s kind of no hope for it. Let’s move past it. The other option is to maintain a role for consent, but to dethrone it and give it, you know, a role among other sexual norms. But to say it’s not the be all, end all, and this is what Linda Martine Alcoff does in her really great 2017 book rape and Resistance is to say that consent is one of four, if not more. She kind of leaves it a little bit open norms for having sex, and then we get to my view, which is. Let’s not reject consent. Let’s not dethrone it. Let’s actually redefine it. Let’s move it away from the discourse of permission giving. So David, I assigned you my article, A Phenomenological Approach to Sexual Consent. We are approaching kind of the end of our episode, but we have some time to talk about it. So what’s my view? What’d you think?
是的。同意确实允许很多不良的性行为。因此，问题和坏事往往以破坏性的方式发生，嗯，正如许多学者最近指出的那样，不仅仅是在喜欢，哦，那不是那么有趣。因此，问题就变成了如何处理同意如此成问题的事实。在我们讨论我在最近的出版物中提出的立场之前，我想提一下两个主要观点。一种是完全拒绝将同意规范作为性道德指导规范的想法。乔纳森·詹金斯·市川（Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa）在这一点上发表了一篇很棒的论文，他认为给予许可的想法已经深深地融入了我们谈论同意的方式中，以至于它没有希望。让我们过去吧。另一种选择是保持同意的角色，但要废黜它，让它在其他性规范中扮演一个角色。但要说这不是全部，结束一切，这就是琳达·马丁·阿尔科夫（Linda Martine Alcoff）在她2017年出版的《强奸与抵抗》一书中所做的，就是说同意是四种之一，如果不是更多的话。她有点开放性爱的规范，然后我们得出我的观点，就是这样。我们不要拒绝同意。我们不要废黜它。让我们重新定义它。让我们把它从给予许可的话语中移开。所以大卫，我把我的文章分配给你，性同意的现象学方法。我们的这一集即将结束，但我们有一些时间来谈论它。那么我怎么看呢？你怎么看？
David: 49:57 大卫： 49：57
I have to explain your view.
我必须解释你的观点。
Ellie: 49:59 艾莉：49：59
It’s more interesting than me explaining it.
这比我解释它更有趣。
David: 50:01 大卫： 50：01
Uh, so here we go. In a couple of minutes or less. Ellie argues that neither the attitudinal nor the performative view are good ways of thinking about consent because they actually misunderstand the nature of the sexual act and to understand the sexual act. This is like me going into professorial mode about something that I didn’t even write by the way.
呃，所以我们开始吧。在几分钟或更短的时间内。艾莉认为，无论是态度观还是表演观，都不是思考同意的好方法，因为它们实际上误解了性行为的本质和理解性行为。这就像我进入教授模式，顺便说一句，我什至没有写过的东西。
Ellie: 50:21 艾莉：50：21
Love it! Here for it.
爱上它！在这里。
David: 50:23 大卫书 50：23
And in order for us to really give a fair account of the sexual encounter, we should lean on the tradition of phenomenology because the sexual act as it is understood by phenomenologists, is something that happens between two individuals that recognize each other as individuals.
为了让我们真正公平地描述性接触，我们应该依靠现象学的传统，因为现象学家所理解的性行为是发生在两个相互承认为个体的个体之间的事情。
Ellie: 50:43 艾莉：50：43
Or more, but usually two. 或更多，但通常是两个。
David: 50:44 大卫： 50：44
Yeah, two or more. And as individuals who in their interaction can already have important information about each other’s consciousness, quite literally from the behavior that’s happening. So it’s not as if the other person is just like this question mark, like, oh, what do they want? You know, like, I’m not a mind reader. I can’t figure it out. In fact, there’s a lot happening that we just need to attune ourselves to and respect if we want to be good sexual partners.
是的，两个或更多。作为在互动中已经可以获得有关彼此意识的重要信息的个体，从字面上看，从正在发生的行为中可以看出。所以对方并不是像这个问号一样，比如，哦，他们想要什么？你知道，就像，我不是一个读心者。我想不通。事实上，如果我们想成为好的性伴侣，我们只需要适应和尊重很多事情。
Ellie: 51:15 艾莉：51：15
Yeah, and I mean this comes from the just basic like obvious insight that we are bodies and if we actually move away from mind-body dualism, we’re no longer thinking about sex as giving permission for somebody to use your body in a certain way. But we’re thinking about it more as like an interaction, right? It’s actually happening in the embodied social sphere, rather than happening in minds that then, you know, come down to earth and share their ideas. But it’s also different from the performative
是的，我的意思是，这来自一个基本的、显而易见的洞察力，即我们是身体，如果我们真的摆脱了身心二元论，我们就不再认为性是允许某人以某种方式使用你的身体。但我们更多地把它看作是一种互动，对吧？它实际上发生在具身的社会领域，而不是发生在头脑中，然后，你知道，脚踏实地并分享他们的想法。但它也不同于表演
David: 51:46 大卫 51：46
Their ideas! Oh yeah. 他们的想法！哦，是的。
Ellie: 51:47 艾莉：51：47
or share, share their desires,
或分享，分享他们的欲望，
David: 51:49 大卫书 51：49
Share their bodies. 分享他们的身体。
Ellie: 51:50 艾莉：51：50
Anyway. But yeah, go. Go ahead David. Sorry I cut you off.
无论如何。但是，是的，去吧。来吧，大卫。对不起，我切断了你的联系。
David: 51:52 大卫书 51：52
Yeah. No, no, no. That’s fine. I mean, it’s, it’s your article. You can take the reins here, but the article goes on to talk about, once you think about it in this way, you move away from consent again as this punctuated moment in time. And you come to think of consent as an affirmation of an interaction that is unfolding in time. I don’t know to what extent you, I should just ask you directly to what extent you think that that interaction is just like a continuous affirmation, like a constant affirming through the act of continuing in the act, if that’s your understanding of consent, and if then we ought to think about the removal of consent. As moments when one party in the interaction starts either hitting the brakes or showing signs of discomfort or resistance, even if those are never verbalized, and even if the reasons for the resistance are not a clear mental state in the mind of the person who is hitting the brakes, so maybe they’re even hitting the brakes unconsciously, right? Like, ugh, I don’t, this doesn’t feel right.
是的。不 不 不。没关系。我的意思是，这是，这是你的文章。你可以在这里掌握缰绳，但文章继续谈到，一旦你以这种方式思考它，你就会再次远离同意，因为这个时间点缀着。你开始把同意看作是对一种在时间中展开的互动的肯定。我不知道你在多大程度上，我应该直接问你，你认为这种互动在多大程度上就像一个持续的肯定，就像通过继续行为的行为不断肯定一样，如果这是你对同意的理解，如果那样我们应该考虑取消同意。当互动中的一方开始踩刹车或表现出不适或抵抗的迹象时，即使这些从未用语言表达出来，即使抵抗的原因不是踩刹车的人心中的明确精神状态，所以也许他们甚至在不知不觉中踩刹车， 右？就像，呃，我没有，这感觉不对。
Ellie: 53:02 艾莉：53：02
Totally. I think I agree with you on that second point with respect to the question that you raised at first, like my basic idea is that rather than giving permission, consent is an agreement of feelings. And I’m drawing on the etymology Overthink listeners know I love an etymology, um, drawing on the etymology of consent from Latin where. Consentire. That’s the origin of con of the word consent means feeling with. And so I think we’ve really moved into this weird space where we’re thinking about consent as a contractual agreement rather than as an agreement of feelings. And so focusing on the affect of an embodied dimensions of it using phenomenology, help us reconceptualize consent. And part of that reconceptualization is precisely of consent as a desire for the other person. A desire that the other person desire you both in an erotic sense, and third, a desire for the continuation and unfolding of that experience. So yeah, definitely I do see the desire for continuation to be baked into that notion of consent.
完全。关于你最初提出的问题，我想我同意你的第二点，就像我的基本想法是，同意不是给予许可，而是感情的同意。我正在借鉴词源 Overthink 听众知道我喜欢词源，嗯，借鉴拉丁语 where 的同意词源。同意。这就是“同意”一词的由来，意思是“感觉”。所以我认为我们真的进入了这个奇怪的领域，我们把同意看作是一种契约协议，而不是一种感情的协议。因此，使用现象学来关注它的具体维度的影响，帮助我们重新概念化同意。而这种重新概念化的一部分恰恰是将同意作为对另一个人的渴望。一种渴望对方在色情意义上渴望你，第三，渴望这种体验的延续和展开。所以，是的，我确实看到了继续的愿望，这种同意的概念。
David: 54:06 大卫： 54：06
Yeah. And I like that in thinking about consent etymologically as concenter, like feeling with other people, having sentiments with another person. Your argument is not that we literally feel the same thing, like we’re having the same feelings at the same time. So it’s not a mirroring relationship at the level of feelings. It’s rather that I’m feeling it.
是的。我喜欢在词源上将同意视为中心，就像与他人有感情，与另一个人有情感一样。你的论点并不是说我们真的有同样的感觉，就像我们同时有同样的感受一样。所以这不是感情层面的镜像关系。而是我感觉到了。
Ellie: 54:26 艾莉：54：26
Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. 唔唔唔唔��
David: 54:27 大卫书 54：27
we are feeling this, you know, like you can’t see me, uh, overthink listeners, but I’m like rolling my head as I’m saying, like,
我们感觉到这一点，你知道，就像你看不到我一样，呃，过度思考听众，但我就像在说，就像，
Ellie: 54:34 艾莉：54：34
You’re, yeah, you’re doing a little circular motion.
你，是的，你正在做一个小小的圆周运动。
David: 54:37 大卫书 54：37
like a a, a head wob of sorts. Like, I’m feeling this and I do think that this is more faithful actually to, to lift experience of sexuality and eroticism, where often what we want and what we need is a partner who feels us, but who also has a feeling for whether or not we are feeling it.
就像一个A，一个头晃动。就像，我感觉到了这一点，我确实认为这实际上更忠实于提升性和色情的体验，我们想要的和我们需要的往往是一个感觉到我们的伴侣，但他也对我们是否感觉到它有感觉。
Ellie: 55:00 艾莉：55：00
Definitely, definitely. And I do wanna hold open space for the fact that that agreement of feelings, which as you said is not, doesn’t mean you have the same feelings as the other person can happen in casual encounters. So there is a sort of moralizing interpretation of my view, which might be that I’m sanctioning only loving sex between partners who have been in long-term relationships with one another, and that’s not my claim. I actually think like you could totally have a casual hookup where somebody is not that well known to you and whose expressions of interest and desire seem kind of foreign to you. But I do think that. If you have grown up with some attention and learned and actively cultivated attention to other people, there is gonna be like more or less a basic sense of Yeah, is that? Thing there or not, right? Like you said, are we feeling it? And so I think you can feel different specific things, but you can also sense like whether the person is kind of baseline into it or not. And one of the things I found useful in developing this argument is some empirical research that suggests that actually the cases where people don’t know whether somebody wants it or not are way rarer than we think, and so the worries that people have about like, well, what if she seems to be consenting, but secretly she’s not? There might be a problem in some cases, but it’s not a rampant issue. A lot of times people are using that as a bad faith shield for sexual assault.
当然，绝对。我确实想为这样一个事实保持开放空间，即这种感情的一致，正如你所说，并不意味着你有和对方在偶然相遇时会发生的相同感受。因此，对我的观点有一种道德化的解释，这可能是我只批准彼此长期保持关系的伴侣之间的爱性行为，这不是我的主张。我实际上认为你完全可以有一个随意的联播，某个人对你来说并不那么熟悉，他的兴趣和欲望的表达对你来说似乎有点陌生。但我确实这么认为。如果你在一些关注中长大，学习并积极培养对他人的关注，那么或多或少会有一种基本的“是”的感觉，是吗？有没有东西，对吧？就像你说的，我们感觉到了吗？所以我认为你可以感觉到不同的具体事物，但你也可以感觉到这个人是否是其中的基线。我发现在发展这个论点时有用的一件事是一些实证研究表明，实际上人们不知道某人是否想要它的情况比我们想象的要少得多，因此人们的担忧是，好吧，如果她似乎同意，但暗地里她不同意怎么办？在某些情况下可能会有问题，但这不是一个猖獗的问题。很多时候，人们将其用作性侵犯的恶意盾牌。
David: 56:30 大卫： 56：30
That that’s correct. That it is a bad faith argument. And the problem is that that image of the like woman who does not know what she wants but is giving signals to a boy that is otherwise well-intentioned and just wants to get laid, becomes the model of the sexual act around which we develop laws, university policies, and even sexual ethics. And so what I like about this notion of, of feeling with is that I agree with you. It doesn’t have to be something that happens only in this kind of like romantic, uh, long-term relationship between two people who know each other.
没错。这是一个恶意的论点。问题在于，那种不知道自己想要什么，却在向一个本来是善意的、只想上床的男孩发出信号的女人的形象，成为我们制定法律、大学政策甚至性道德的性行为的典范。所以我喜欢这个概念，感觉与我同意你的看法。它不一定是只发生在这种浪漫的，呃，两个相互认识的人之间的长期关系中。
Ellie: 57:04 艾莉：57：04
Which can be nice too.
这也很好。
David: 57:06 大卫： 57：06
Uh, sure. Yeah, I agree. As somebody in a long-term relationship, I hope that that’s still, you know, like I believe that that’s a thing.
呃，当然。是的，我同意。作为一个长期恋爱关系中的人，我希望这仍然是，你知道，就像我相信那是一回事一样。
Ellie: 57:13 艾莉：57：13
You’re straight up married. so…
你直接结婚了。所以。。。
David: 57:16 大卫 57：16
but as also somebody who had. It has casual sex. It is something that I do think is possible. It’s just about filtering out like people who don’t have a commitment to that shared feeling with another person. And sometimes you can get a sense of who those people are, but not always, right? So sometimes you do end up having bad sex because somebody is just not willing to go into that feeling space with you.
但也有人。它有随意的性爱。我认为这是可能的。这只是为了过滤掉那些没有承诺与另一个人分享感觉的人。有时你可以了解这些人是谁，但并非总是如此，对吧？所以有时候你最终会发生糟糕的性行为，因为有人不愿意和你一起进入那个感觉空间。
Ellie: 57:45 艾莉：57：45
You know, I could continue talking about this like all day, David, but I am aware of the fact that we have already extended our recording time past what we ordinarily would, but I will say, I don’t think I have it all figured out, but I do think that this phenomenological approach to sexual consent that’s rooted in feelings and bodies is a really necessary alternative to the accounts of permission giving, and that it means that we can still hold onto a notion of consent as a guiding norm of sexual ethics without thinking that it’s analogous to somebody stealing my car.
你知道，我可以像一整天一样继续谈论这个问题，大卫，但我知道我们已经将我们的录音时间延长到我们通常的程度，但我会说，我不认为我已经弄清楚了这一切，但我确实认为这种植根于感觉和身体的性同意现象学方法是给予许可的叙述的真正必要的替代方案。 这意味着我们仍然可以坚持同意的概念作为性道德的指导规范，而不会认为这类似于有人偷了我的车。
David: 58:18 大卫 58：18
For what it’s worth, I gave your article an enthusiastic Yes, Ellie.
值得一提的是，我热情地给了你的文章一个热情的是的，艾莉。
Segment: 58:25 分段：58：25
We hope you enjoyed today’s episode. Please rate and review us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to your podcasts. Consider supporting us on Patreon for exclusive access to bonus content, live q and as and more. And thanks to those of you who already do. To reach out to us and find episode info, go to overthinkpodcast.com and connect with us on Twitter and Instagram at Overthink_pod. We’d like to thank our audio editor, Aaron Morgan, our production assistant, Emilio Esquivel Marquez and Samuel PK Smith for the original music. And to our listeners, thanks so much for overthinking with us.
我们希望您喜欢今天的节目。请在 Apple 播客、Spotify 或您收听播客的任何地方对我们进行评分和评论。考虑在 Patreon 上支持我们，以独家访问奖励内容、实时问答等。感谢那些已经这样做的人。要与我们联系并查找剧集信息，请访问 overthinkpodcast.com 并在 Twitter 和 Instagram 上与我们联系，网址为 Overthink_pod。我们要感谢我们的音频剪辑师 Aaron Morgan、我们的制作助理 Emilio Esquivel Marquez 和 Samuel PK Smith 的原创音乐。对于我们的听众，非常感谢您和我们一起思考。