Sex, dating, and discrimination. w. Dr Simone Degn and Dr Søren Midtgaard

Being straight: a fair sexual preference or discrimination? What about not wanting to date people of certain races? Or screening dates based on height? What counts as discrimination in dating, and what is simply following your preferences? Two leading philosophers of dating have a new take. We discuss freedom of association, fetishisation, dating apps, looks-based discrimination (or “lookism”), and more. 

Warning: explicit language.

Send in voice notes for the listener special based on this episode! By 19 July 2026. Email: william.gildea@mcgill.ca Include name/pseudonym and location.

Give your feedback! https://tinyurl.com/feedbackformSurprisingEthics

Podcast website for contact details and more: surprisingethics.buzzsprout.com

Instagram: @surprising_ethics_podcast tinyurl.com/surprisingethics 

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:01

Being straight. Is that a fair sexual preference or is it discrimination in dating? What about not being inclined to date any people of colour? Or screening off potential dates based on height or looks? What counts as discrimination in dating and what is just following your preferences? Hello and a very big welcome to Surprising Ethics, the show that promises a surprising idea about ethics or political theory in every single episode. Many thanks to the ongoing support of the Centre for Research and Ethics, an academic research centre based in Montreal. Today our topic is discrimination in dating, and this is the last topic of this inaugural year of Surprising Ethics. This is a super interesting topic, and I have two guests for you today. Now, I will be inviting listener voice notes on this episode for the very first listener special of Surprising Ethics. So do send in your thoughts on today's episode by sending a voice clip by the nineteenth of july twenty twenty six to my email address William dot Gilday G I L D E A at McGill at M C G I L L dot C A. We'll then have a summer break and we'll be back on September the first or October the first at the very latest to kick off the second year of the podcast. As always, we begin with the status quo on our topic before looking at a surprising alternative. So what is the status quo when it comes to dating and discrimination? It seems to be that we are free to choose whatever partner we want, that we needn't worry about discrimination when it comes to decisions about who to go on a date with, who to marry, who to have sex with, and so on. More fully, the conventional view is that we do have duties not to discriminate, and these are very important in the public sphere, but they do not extend to arenas that are intimate and personal, like dating. So the very important principles say don't discriminate on the basis of race or class or disability and so on. These apply to employment, to commerce, to housing, healthcare, and so on. But they do not apply to decisions about dating because sex and romance are special. As always, here are some audio clips that demonstrate the status quo, with the caveat that many may find these clips drawn from social media to be offensive.

SPEAKER_01 3:02

Would you rather date a black man or an Asian man?

SPEAKER_02 3:05

Black guy.

SPEAKER_01 3:07

Would you rather date an Indian man or an Asian man?

SPEAKER_02 3:10

I think they're equally not my type, but I would probably date the Korean just because they'd be culturally, you know.

SPEAKER_01 3:16

Would you rather date a Latino man or an Asian man?

SPEAKER_02 3:19

Latino.

SPEAKER_01 3:20

Would you rather date a white man or an Asian man?

SPEAKER_02 3:23

White.

SPEAKER_01 3:24

Okay, interesting. Look, I think people can have racial dating preferences. There's nothing wrong with that. She was she was vibing with me. And we just picked it up and then went from there. So now uh I date white women now.

SPEAKER_04 3:37

Which race do you find the most attractive? For me, Latinos. I like their lashes and their eyes, the color of the eyes and their face expression.

SPEAKER_03 3:47

Um, I just don't really date Asians, and all three of them are Asian.

SPEAKER_02 3:53

Whoa, all right, Shantan. What who do you what kind of per What's your type?

SPEAKER_03 4:01

My type is tall, dark, handsome. And you're not preference? No race, no race. But you don't do it. Besides Asians.

SPEAKER_00 4:11

So these clips demonstrate that many people think it's fine to have these kind of race-based preferences, for example, and they're willing even to express them on camera. Now many people will think that we shouldn't put these preferences on our dating at bios, or voice them explicitly at all. But there is a general view that people do have preferences in this regard, and that that's fine, that in itself it's not really a moral issue, that we can't really be held responsible for liking who we like. Now, an interesting, surprising alternative view about dating and discrimination has been developed in a recent journal article by Simone Summer Dane and Soran Flinch Midgard, two Danish philosophers who were based at Aarhus University when they wrote this. And fortunately enough, they are today's guests. Now do remember, once you've listened to the conversation, to send me your voice note by the 19th of July 2026, if you're listening to this when it comes out. This can be a few seconds, it can be several minutes, and do include a name or pseudonym and a rough location. I can try and put it through a voice distortion mechanism thing if you want me to, and if I get enough, you might be on the next episode. Okay, so first of all, I wanted to ask like what discrimination in dating like looks like, what kind of people are being discriminated against potentially, and maybe you can walk us through like why there's a kind of nuanced debate to be had here.

SPEAKER_04 5:43

Yeah. Okay, let's uh we'll learn sound how to do this. So so you ask um who gets discriminated against in the dating sphere. So we see different social groups that get discriminated against. Um, usual minority groups, actually, the disabled, the unattractive. Um, we can be more specific, like the tall women, the short men. We see um within racial groups, we see different, like different hierarchies of who is deemed attractive and desirable. So Asian men, for instance, experience a fair bit of discrimination as sort of not deemed attractive by most other racial groups. And black women, for instance, are experience discrimination in a in a similar way. Um, whereas Asian women also can be discriminated against in the dating sphere, but um are sought after or fetishized in a way that so they're not rejected and not chosen, but they're instead sort of sought after in a in an uncomfortable and potentially harmful way.

SPEAKER_00 6:50

Right. And so where does the kind of uh puzzle come in, or or why isn't this just a simple case of you know, discrimination is just always wrong on the one hand, or other people might just think people have free choices and they can have their own preferences. Like where does the nuance come in? Why is this a kind of tricky or interesting debate?

SPEAKER_06 7:10

I think it's an interesting debate because sort of many in the literature, and also I guess people in general would assume that sort of uh we have there are very few constraints, sort of, uh, in what we can do in our dating uh life, sort of uh say that we have certain preferences and we um have um we we can act on those preferences uh uh and and we do not sort of have to justify having certain specific even uh racialized uh preferences. Whereas uh if those racialized preferences were in the mouth of an employer, for example, that would be sort of uh blatantly uh wrong. I take it that many would uh say that uh yeah, even of course, I mean it it it could raise some eyebrows, but still sort of it if in a friendly conversation someone said I have a preference for this and that uh racialized group, I think that yeah, it could raise eyebrows, but it it it people wouldn't say that that's sort of impermissible, that's sort of wrong of you. You're you're you're sort of violating a certain right by by having those uh preferences. So so in that way, there's a sort of uh interesting asymmetry between how we treat uh discrimination in our private lives uh vis-a-vis discrimination in in a public uh setting.

SPEAKER_00 8:40

Yeah, there's just maybe a sense that we have to like we have preferences in the dating sphere and we have to kind of run with those preferences. We can't really, if we try and go too sharply against them, it's not gonna work. Like we can't have a um a dating life where we're kind of going too far away away from our preferences. Whereas I guess in the employment case, an employer an employer can simply choose to like ignore their prior preference for um, say, white workers, and they can say, well, that's just I I've realized that's wrong. I can just select other candidates or amend the hiring you know document that says here's the procedure. Um, but I guess yeah, that's the sense in which it seems harder to do to do that in a dating context. Um okay, so then moving to your view, kind of in a nutshell, what is your general view that you present in this in this new article about discrimination and and dating?

SPEAKER_06 9:33

I would say sort of the the main uh takeaway is that we question this uh um asymmetry. Uh sort of uh sort of it's it's widely shared, I think, um amongst those who work in in philosophy, but also uh more generally, I would say that that people think this is quite okay to discriminate in a dating sphere. And and we push against that at least in certain senses, such that if uh the sole reason for not wanting to date a person is, for example, dislike of uh this person's uh racialized features, or even uh sort of a sort of particular, sort of favorable uh view on this person's uh uh racialized features. Uh this is uh this has some wrong-making features uh that are sort of similar to the wrong-making features that we find in uh in other kinds of uh of uh discrimination. And I I guess that this is uh yeah, this is a uh a controversial and uh I hope an interesting uh view. And one thing I I think I like about the view or sort of uh find persuasive and hope that others do too, of course, is that often sort of when people are arguing for the asymmetrical view, they make this point that uh in order to sort of act on our preferences and uh in order to sort of be able to flourish in our love life and so on, we need to have a right to discriminate. And and I think we push against that idea that uh actually you can abide with uh certain familiar anti-discriminatory uh constraints and still flourish in your love life. Actually, I would say that it's a misconception to think that sort of we need to be able to discriminate. I think that's uh a sort of in a way a bizarre view because when we discriminate, we often sort of do it by using stereotypes and sort of uh categorizing people in certain ways. And this seems to be at loggerhead with the idea that when we meet another person, we should sort of focus on the sort of uh specific individual.

SPEAKER_04 12:04

And I think also I would like to add that you know, importantly, like Cern and I are not trying to be the dating police with this article and saying you should definitely date this type of person or this member of a certain group. But we are asking people to reflect on their um preferences in the dating sphere.

SPEAKER_06 12:24

Yeah, and I think there's a misconception when people discuss sort of moral duties in this sphere, they quickly sort of jump to the idea that okay, then uh then you sort of uh have a moral duties to date certain groups uh or when certain people are in need of friendship, then you should sort of be obligated to befriend those people. And I mean that's one way of fleshing out uh duties in not very plausible uh way, and and we're trying to say there's a sort of array of of uh of duties that we could have in this uh regard, as Simon also mentions simply an idea of of sort of a critical reflection, also on our preferences, but but also this those sort of basic constraints. That um it's not a it's not a valid reason for deselecting a person that this person is uh uh has a certain uh group membership. At least not in in the standard cases. We allow that some uh minority groups might for different uh reasons, uh for example, their culture could be threatened in very various ways, and you could have specific reasons to want to date one from that as a member of your own group, but I think it's sort of in in what we would say the standard case, it's it's not a good reason.

SPEAKER_00 13:47

Yeah. So you're not saying we should go around dating people who are from minority groups, or that we have any obligation to go on dates or have relationships with people who are who would otherwise not want to for whatever reason. It's a kind of procedural or like process-based duty, so it's like a duty to reconsider the way that we think about candidates to go on dates, or it's uh it's a duty to kind of reflect on our preferences and where they've come from, right? So it it it's not saying you have to do something you you really don't want to do, it's it's a duty to reconsider. Is is that the the view?

SPEAKER_04 14:25

Yes.

SPEAKER_00 14:26

Yes, I would say that's that's uh uh sums it up.

SPEAKER_04 14:30

Uh I think people can also easily think that when we ask when we tell people that they have a duty, then it must be action-based in a sense you have to go and do something. Um, but we're asking for a duty that stays more or less in your mind. So and that's why it's deliberative, it's reflecting. I guess you could also talk to your friends about your preferences. That would also be a way to, I think, exercise that duty. Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 15:00

I see, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah.

SPEAKER_04 15:01

So it's not outcome, as we say, outcome-oriented.

SPEAKER_00 15:06

Yeah. And and Soren, you you picked up on this point that actually you might have a more flourishing dating life if if if you act on this this duty of non-discrimination. Can you unpack why that would be the case a bit more?

SPEAKER_06 15:19

Say I I want uh to have this birthday, birthday party, and I only want uh people with this uh rigid religious belief or with this racialized uh feature, and that uh sort of many people in the literature believe that this is a sort of yeah, condition for a flourishing intimate um relation. And and what I'm I'm trying to say is is that uh there seems to be a fundamental flaw in that uh argument, in the sense that the reason on the basin basis of which you're sort of excluding certain people has nothing to do with the individual or partial features that they have. It's because you don't like the category or or you have some stereotypes about this group. So I think that avoiding being discriminatory in our friendship, uh dating, and so on means that we can to us to a higher degree cater or to be attentive to the sort of particular features of the persons that we are sort of relating to. Imagine that that sort of you find out you you have a partner and this you find out that sort of it has been crucial to this partner that um you're a Caucasian, for example. So that was sort of a very important feature for the person who selected you. I would find that this would be something of a disappointing reason for this partner finding me uh worthwhile spending time uh with because it's sort of uh uh in a way this per partner would not be treating me as an individual, uh, but more as a sort of member of a category that could be substituted.

SPEAKER_00 17:11

So before kind of getting to the practical implications of your view, I I wanted to first ask about an objection. Many people might be sort of surprised to think that we don't just have a kind of right of freedom of association here, right? That that is that they might think, look, we can choose who we who we interact with, we can choose who we consider uh as friends or as dates. And just as we can kind of choose who comes to a birthday party or which employers to apply for for a job, we can also kind of pick who to speak to, who to ask on a date. Um, and we don't owe it to anyone to give them kind of romantic attention. And so long as this might be a common view, so long as we don't make public any kind of potentially upsetting or jarring dating preferences, if we just privately act on these on these preferences, that's within our rights as kind of autonomous beings, you can kind of just choose what we what we do when it comes to these optional interactions. What would you have to say uh kind of against that kind of common view?

SPEAKER_06 18:13

I would uh if I can begin, I I would say that uh one um problem in the way of depicting it as you do, and I think you actually summarised very nicely also how the sort of people would uh would uh approach it from the point of view of freedom of association, for example. I think that that one of the problematica features about that this framing is this idea that that moral constraints are sort of an external feature that are sort of konstricting or fathering our choisés. And it's sort of sort of something that is sort of inkonvenent and limiting of our freedom. And I would say that in in many cases. Um I take it that when we engage in relations with others, we do so sort of uh with certain sort of moral parameters already in place and uh and as a even as something that is sort of important for the relation in in question. So so I take it that uh sort of these uh moral norms need not sort of be restrictive, but might actually be some that are sort of uh a condition for a valuable uh uh relationship.

SPEAKER_00 19:36

And um so moving to the kind of practical implications of your view, um I want to talk about lookism or looks-based discrimination. So you you you have this part in the paper where you say, Look, imagine we're in uh a kind of sex club and you see someone with a certain uh body shape who wants to talk to you, and you kind of ignore them, you you walk past them, you don't you don't uh interact with them. And and you say that this is kind of morally problematic. And I can imagine someone saying, well, finding this very surprising, and they they might think, if I'm not attracted to someone, why do I need to kind of invest any resources in that interaction? And they might further think, uh, as a kind of another justification for this, that the person who's ignored only wants to be engaged with if it's kind of because of because they're attractive to that person, or not not just because they're so they have a minority status in some way. And so I wonder, it's kind of two questions in one, sorry about that, but I wonder if you can firstly clarify when looks-based discrimination is fine or not fine in dating, and also speak to those objections, yeah, that I that I that I mentioned.

SPEAKER_04 20:50

I think I think so and you might be better suited for that question.

SPEAKER_06 20:55

I was going to say the same when I put it here, but no. I um yeah, but no, I think it's uh the way you put it is is challenging. I I think when we we actually uh had a um workshop uh related to the paper, and uh we had um some pushing exactly that line. Yeah, this being very clear about your preferences and uh and might be good at both ends. So I guess one uh one answer would be sort of to emphasize uh what I'm sure that Simon also would agree that uh it's it's not a sort of this direct duty to to date or to engage in kind of uh physical relation if if you are adverse uh to that. Yeah, we shouldn't sort of just out of hand uh reject this this person. Sort of saying that it's problematic if you use a certain feature and say this is sort of silences all reasons for engaging with this. Person, sort of if this person have has a crooked nose and so on, then I don't want to have anything to do with this person. But still, this is compatible with saying that there could be many reasons for for us not wanting to engage with this uh this particular person.

SPEAKER_04 22:15

I think also practically speaking, if we talk about the sex club example, there might still be other moral constraints, right? You still don't have even if you don't find a person attractive who's come up to you and and shown your interest, uh it might still be polite to not just walk past them or ignore them completely. Um so I think I think that's also worth saying that you don't have to be impolite, right, when you reject people in the dating sphere. And rejection is also a part of the dating sphere.

SPEAKER_06 22:46

Yeah. If I recently taught a course on um on feminism and we had this uh this paper by uh by Kuchler, it occurred to me that we often in these contexts sort of we want, as you sort of implied by the question, sort of we are we're often focusing on the ideal case in which um people are mutually attracted and uh you have um and of course consent is a necessary uh condition, but there might also be other reasons for sort of engaging with people. Sometimes we can, as they put it, Kugler, um, for example, um do other people a favor.

SPEAKER_04 23:34

That's interesting. What did you call that again, Sam?

SPEAKER_06 23:37

It's uh like fame like sex based on uh uh given as a favor or sort of yeah, yeah, that's uh one of her or or yeah, or an offer. So the idea is that uh consent is in place. I mean it's that's not uh debated. But but then um it could be that we are too sort of purist when it comes to what are the sort of uh acceptable reasons for engaging in uh in sex, and and we have a sort of romanticized view that this is when um both sort of are attracted by uh by the other. And yeah, there could be a variety of uh of reasons that that uh are passable, despite the fact that um person A might not be particularly uh sort of uh attracted to uh person uh person B. Yeah, so that so that was just a thought in that regard. It's it's a controversial thought I can speak.

SPEAKER_04 24:36

Yeah, for sure. That's interesting. Especially because I wrote in another paper that I'm qu quite against charity dating and I guess also charity sex in that sense. Uh-huh. That's a super interesting view. I'm definitely skeptical.

SPEAKER_00 24:50

Yeah, that's uh I guess there's often like a gendered element in in in uh in that, but I guess we could flip it and imagine uh maybe a woman who who who is normally discriminated against in the dating market. Maybe that kind of person receiving that kind of like uh quasi gift might might be a bit different, I guess, intuitively. Um I don't know. Potentially.

SPEAKER_05 25:16

Yeah.

SPEAKER_06 25:17

I think it's Shine Vasan saying that uh nobody wants to sort of be um wants a nurse. Exactly. Yeah, you're you're uh you're not mentioning word, but that's yeah, exactly. That's okay yeah, and uh yeah, and and I can see I can see that, but but if the alternative is no engagement, then then uh sort of it it's it's of course desirable to be desired by by others. But uh if you're not, I mean then then yeah, there might be sort of uh non-ideal um uh ways of uh of engaging that uh yeah that are are are interesting to entertain.

SPEAKER_00 26:00

Yeah, hi just a really brief message to say if you think this podcast should reach more people, then hitting follow will be so useful. So if you can, thank you so much. So it seems that like looks uh are quite important in in dating, in the sense that people might have the preferences of different kinds. But can you talk about the distinction between what counts as look-based, looks-based discrimination and what counts as a morally uh permissible uh use of looks to make dating decisions? So are there some looks-based features that are fine to go off? Uh people might have all sorts of preferences, like uh they only date people with uh with with long hair, or they only date people who are taller than them or shorter than them. Um whereas other ones, like racialized ones, seem very different. But how do how do we draw the line between those two those two things?

SPEAKER_04 27:09

I think also we didn't probably define this at all in the paper, so don't you agree with me that there's something about, let's say, the example of height versus freckles, for instance. So hardly anyone, few people probably, but hardly anyone dates based solely on whether or not the other person has freckles or not. And so that becomes a bit of an innocent um dating preference to have because it just doesn't affect that many people, whereas uh short men or let's say tall women experience rather systematic sort of aggregated they they experience the aggregated consequence of so many people having that type of preference.

SPEAKER_06 27:52

Ah, okay, yeah.

SPEAKER_04 27:54

Right? Yeah.

SPEAKER_06 27:56

But still wouldn't you say that for example in terms of how tall a person is, it's uh it would be a hard sell to say that this would be impermissible to act on I think.

SPEAKER_04 28:10

Yeah, they they are completely allowed, I guess on our view, to act upon or upon those preferences, but they might want to reconsider uh, let's say the the tall women who don't want short partners or men, uh they might still be under our duty to reflect just a little bit. Is there no way that this guy who has all the uh attributes that I would like in a good partner, but he is shorter. That's the only sort of big factor about him that doesn't align with her preferences, then she might still want to consider.

SPEAKER_06 28:43

Yeah, I uh I agree on that uh sort of uh idea that uh yeah, it's it's problematic if we sort of let it completely uh silence all the other reasons, as you say, that that there could be uh in in play. Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 28:59

Yeah, so again, I'm kind of almost at risk of forgetting that. So it's not that we can't ultimately act on preferences like I don't know, symmetrical facial features or um something to do with cheekbones or whatever, but it's it's more to do with like uh giving those preferences scrutiny and and being open to considering someone who doesn't have a symmetrical face or whatever as a partner rather than saying we can never have a kind of profile of uh maybe a type or maybe preferences about looks that we act on in the in the end case.

SPEAKER_05 29:33

Yes, exactly.

SPEAKER_00 29:35

Okay. So my next question stems from a kind of Netflix show. So there's this there's a show called The Later Daters, which is all about like older people going on on dates uh who are really struggling to find someone. And in one of the episodes, there's this uh white man, and he says he only dates black women, and he says that his kids are mixed race, and now he's dating again after uh divorce or breakup. And when he's on the the date, he makes his preference clear and he tells his date, and this is the quote black women are at a higher level of energy and passion. What does your account say about the ethics of this kind of case?

SPEAKER_04 30:20

Essentially, he is allowed to have that preference, right? Essentially, but he should he is under the duty as we all are, on our view, to reflect on that preference. We can also discuss whether the comment that he said is appropriate or is it uh does it express a certain stereotypical view of black women? Is it harmful uh for that reason? Um so what do you think, Sanas that?

SPEAKER_06 30:52

Yeah, no, I that was exactly the way I would go. The last point you you made uh because we do uh endorse Robin Sang's uh view. Uh she has an excellent article on this. Uh it's called Is There's Something Wrong with Yellow Fever. So this preference that some have sort of treat um or want to date specifically Asian um uh women. Um and on the face of it it it it could be okay, or people could say, okay, yeah, that's that might not be that problematic. It even sort of uh in on some use favorable to the group uh and and sort of uh but but but then then when you sort of dig deeper, then you often see that those uh features that are being um highlighted, that they sort of come with a a a very problematic baggage of uh stereotypes.

SPEAKER_04 31:52

And I think also maybe worth pointing out that freedom of association works in all directions. So black women would also be completely morally I mean, it would be morally permissible for black women to reject him. He might have that preference, but he might never end up in this case he did apparently, but but he might not end up again with a black woman.

SPEAKER_00 32:16

Yeah, yeah. And that there's an interesting point you make in the paper about like uh replaceability or fungibility, like um that if someone is very much seeking someone of a specific race or whatever, it it it might be they're kind of treating them as somewhat replaceable, like if they just love women or men of this of this race, they're kind of um keen to to have that kind of person no matter what, they might regard the individual as somewhat replaceable, and that might be inconsistent with love, which requires an individualized attention to someone. Um at least sometimes that might be the case here, I guess, as well. Exactly.

SPEAKER_06 32:54

And and I think that actually goes back to this, yeah, this, yeah, exactly. This point about uh when we act on those categories of or stereotypes, yeah, then yeah, we're not really treating the person as an individual, as you're also implying by your uh um by your point.

SPEAKER_00 33:09

Yeah. So uh I have my next question is um I guess you could say it's about like uh the ethics of being straight, or it's about the ethics of completely screening off people of a of a given sex or gender. So which is I guess one way of one controversial way of understanding what it might mean to to be straight. So you say that it's not okay to categorically exclude people of certain races, right? To walk around thinking I'm just never gonna date someone of this of this race. But then you do say that it's okay to categorically exclude people of certain sexes. In other words, it's fine for um men to walk around think being like in their minds, I'm just never gonna consider another man um as a potential romantic or sexual partner. And I I don't I just wonder whether that view is is a kind of available to you given given your theoretical commitment. So here's a kind of case. Imagine like two male friends and they're really good mates, and one of them realizes that they kind of kind of have the best ever life together, they could be really happy as husbands, and this is suggested, he suggests this to the other man. Um, would it not be incumbent on the more hesitant party who is receiving the suggestion to at least consider that and maybe to consider it thoroughly? Um or is it okay for him just to kind of shut it down and never never treat it as an option and for him to be like, I'm straight, bro, like I'm not gonna like and never to consider it. Um is there a kind of obligation on on men to sometimes consider other men even if they think of themselves as straight?

SPEAKER_04 34:57

I think our argument could plausibly be expanded to also yeah, include that. Um we only discussed looks and race generally in our in our paper, but I don't see why it doesn't extend. Uh he still does not have to kiss his best friend, he doesn't have to big marry him or become or have sex with him. Um but he could still uh he is still under the duty to reflect on his preference for excluding men.

SPEAKER_06 35:26

Yeah, I I would uh second that because I I I like the way you you posed a question in the sense that uh actually there's a sort of uh sort of consistency in saying that if if you sort of uh um uh have duties in in one regard in the in the racialized features or in in other features, why why does that this not apply to gender? And I think I would would formulate it in the way that uh say that if you're rejecting a person for date um on the sole ground uh of the person's gender, then it is a form of uh discrimination. We can discuss how sort of problematic it problematic it is, but it is a sort of uh actually sort of straightforward uh uh case of discrimination.

SPEAKER_04 36:15

And the type of deliberative duties that we defend don't um they don't require anyone to think about this question every day or several times a day. They can re- re revisit this duty a couple of times during their life, I suppose.

SPEAKER_00 36:32

Yeah, I mean that's a kind of surprising result, I guess, that like uh that it could be discriminatory for a man not to consider another man. But I I guess I guess before we're all cancelled, like uh we're not saying that there's anything wrong with being straight or whatever, like um it's just like consider consider whether you really are straight in in this context when when your friend is asking you, well, maybe we could be husbands. Like, but you know, it's fine to be like I've considered it and I really couldn't do that, or I don't want to do that, or and also I guess you can define being straight as a more of a kind of um like uh a summary of a more complex situation, like uh maybe someone who's straight says they think about these things and they find that they're almost universally only attracted to to people of quote unquote opposite uh gender, but the and that's their kind of working intention or working assumption, but then that that's sort of same as being straight. So but it but but yeah, sorry, just to repeat what you said, it's like a a duty of attention or re or considering.

SPEAKER_05 37:39

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

SPEAKER_04 37:41

And I guess it's just important to sort of say that again, we're not the dating police. So if you have done the duty of reflecting, of thinking about does this uh feature silence all other good reasons to date this person, etc., and you end up with the conclusion that I am not into this person right now, that is morally permissible.

SPEAKER_00 38:06

Yes. And then maybe a final question about like how dating is changing today or how things are uh moving. Do dating apps make this problem of discrimination in in dating worse or a lot worse? Or do they kind of introduce people to those that otherwise never meet and never consider, and at least they kind of consider it, they're kind of in a way forced to consider people they might never otherwise consider and kind of broaden their horizons? Like what's your sense of of how these apps are changing things?

SPEAKER_04 38:40

I mean, I guess it's really hard to say, empirically speaking. So we can talk about our intuitions probably, but the thing is that we don't have any data on how people behaved in the dating sphere. We know who gets married because that gets registered officially, right? But how people dated before dating apps is I mean, where's the data on this? It has to be self-report, and people don't remember who they talked to and who they kissed Friday night on a bar 20 years or 30 years ago. So there's a bit of a it's a bit of a difficult question to answer. Um But I think we can also distinguish between dating platforms who are very based on and focused on pictures versus dating platforms who are less focused on pictures. So those that are so heavy on on photos pretty much probably make the problem worse. But other dating platforms exist, right? It's it's a design choice that they that they make.

SPEAKER_00 39:42

Great. Thank you so much. This has been great. Um It's been so great.

SPEAKER_04 39:46

Thank you. Yeah, I agree.

SPEAKER_06 39:47

Nice uh nice conversation.

SPEAKER_00 39:49

Yeah, it's really fun. Um often more fun than than doing revised and reservates, uh which is what I'm doing the rest of the day.

SPEAKER_04 40:00

Yeah, we just get warmed up. You know, it was a little hard in the beginning, but Oh well yeah, was it?

SPEAKER_00 40:06

It didn't seem like it was hard.

SPEAKER_04 40:07

No, I don't know. It's just uh I don't know. There's something about warming up, talking about the topic, and you remember details or examples that are really good. So yeah.

SPEAKER_00 40:15

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

SPEAKER_04 40:16

It's a fun topic.

SPEAKER_00 40:18

Right, that's it. Thank you so much for tuning in and supporting this podcast in its first year. Do send me your voice clips if you're listening to this in July 2026, and hit subscribe so that you can tune back in in the autumn for more surprising ethics.