Blog #6 - Evolving Perspective on Consent

Content Warning: Discussion of consent, sexuality, and privilege.

Summary: This blog outlines my previous understanding of consent and how that understanding has evolved based on my Accountability Process and the Trauma Training for Tantra Professionals workshop I attended February through April 2023.

 

When I became a member of Sex Positive Portland (SPP) in 2015, I completed the Awesome Boundaries curriculum several times and later taught it along with Gabriella Cordova, the founder of SPP. In that workshop, “Hell, Yes!” was taught as the gold standard of consent, which was aligned with how I’d lived my entire sexual life. Up until recently, I believed myself to be in full understanding of consent.

 

When I first read some of the angry posts and comments on the EP Facebook page from the end of January through March 2023, I was initially defensive, confused, and failed to understand the reason for many of these complaints, as in my own recollection I had asked for permission and received a clear “yes” in every one of those interactions. I have now come to learn that any time I feel defensive or confused, it’s a sign that I need to listen more deeply and with curiosity for where I may be wrong. It’s also the most important time to accept that, whatever my intent, the impact of the interaction is real and should be the main focus of my attention. It’s a clear signal that it’s time for me to go into deep listening with compassion and curiosity and to let go of defensiveness, to whatever extent I can.

 

Possibly the most important result of this accountability process has been to open my eyes to how short-sighted the “Hell, Yes!” understanding of consent is, especially for a leader with so much power and privilege.  The seductive simplicity of it completely ignores power and privilege differentials, and I now see how inadequate, misleading, and even harmful relying on that phrase can be. That made it clear to me that since November 2015 when I first began leading sex-positive workshops through SPP, many of my sexual partners may not have been able to truly consent due to my role as teacher/daka/facilitator. 

 

It’s become clear to me that a high percentage of harms I have done come, at least in part, from me failing to acknowledge the substantial power and privilege I have compared to most of the people coming to events that I lead and how strongly that power differential impacts their ability to truly consent. I now see there are a wide variety of reasons why a “yes” may be offered that shouldn’t be relied upon, including:

• Fear of loss of status if the response is a “no”

• Being in freeze (one of the four stress responses - fight, flight, freeze, appease)

• Fear of being alienated from the community

• Being in sex brain

• Desire to gain favor, validation, status, or social capital by connecting with a person in leadership/power (the appease stress response)

• Sexual transference towards me as a leader

In any of these, a “yes” is not really a “yes”, no matter how enthusiastic the verbal response. There is a serious risk of harm from seeking sensual or sexual exchange as a leader without a much deeper evaluation of the dynamics of power and the resulting potential pitfalls and harms such a relationship could result in.

 

My initial deep insight into this (what Charity calls my Conversion Moment #1) occurred during the first two seminars of the 70-hour Trauma Training workshop I began in late February 2023.  Hearing two very experienced Tantra teachers talk about their own experiences of sexually engaging with students either during or immediately after workshops and the very deep wounding that resulted for some of those students were what allowed me to understand the huge power differential I have and how that makes it very difficult (if not impossible) for most students to truly consent.

 

Early on in my process, Miles Hurwitz, my accountability coach, introduced me to the concept of “Mining for the No”, which I believe is critical for any leader to adopt.  Before engaging personally in any way, I need to lay out all the possible reasons a relationship with me might not be a good idea.  A list of those reasons includes:

 

• The new partner and I may have little to no chemistry so the relationship will end after a few dates, even if one of us wants it to continue. Relationship endings can be particularly difficult if the ending is initiated by the person who holds a leadership role. 

• When a relationship ends, if the other person needs space from me (often a necessary part of healing), they may feel they must disconnect from the community.

• What may feel like a “hell yes” to the person in the moment due to any of the above causes may result in feelings of objectification or “being used” even years later, particularly if they see me dating others.

• The person may fear saying “no” because they are concerned about being treated differently by me or might become the object of retaliation.

• Others in the community may have a variety of feelings towards people I date, and, as a result, they might be treated differently by community members. 

• Others may be discouraged from approaching anyone I date simply because they are dating me.

• Potential dating partners may be unaware of these potential harms to them in the moment of connection and only discover they feel harmed later. The harm is real whether it was experienced in the moment or at a later date.

 

I’ve realized that the above points (and undoubtedly more) must be thoroughly explored before a “Hell, Yes!” can even be considered.

 

Finally, I’ve concluded that this “Mining for the No” should happen in writing (I’ve made it part of my STARS discussion) and be conducted at least a few days before any sexual interaction occurs.  That’s the only way I can see for the influence of sex brain to be minimized (it can never be eliminated as most of us are inherently sexual creatures).

 

Based on my trauma training, the injunction to “do no harm” must come first, just as it does for a medical doctor or a psychotherapist. From this perspective, I firmly believe that anyone leading an event where sexual energy is exchanged should never participate, either during or immediately after.  Outside of events, my current thought is that dating students and community members as a leader has a high risk of doing harm in at least some percentage of those relationships.

The threads of information, learning, shadow work, and accountability repeatedly bring me to the same place. Even when a person feels it’s a “Hell, Yes!!” In the moment or even for years following the relationship, the potential for harm remains at any point, especially when a person has viewed someone as their teacher. 

Of course not all will be harmed, but it’s possible that some will be harmed. I work to remain curious about this, but I continue to return to the same understanding. Teachers approaching present or past students is risky for the student, for the community at large, and for the teacher and therefore should be avoided in almost all cases.  The RJ Report presents clear evidence that even years later a person may begin to question the connection and therefore experience harm.  The most ethical and honest step forward is to offer wholehearted and sincere apologies, change my behavior, let go, and accept that no person I’ve harmed owes me forgiveness.

 

My coach has encouraged me to be cautious about making absolute statements on this latter topic because I have been wrong before, so I remain in curiosity about it and realize there may be situations where I as a leader could engage in a new relationship with a longer-term student, although I have difficulty imagining a way to eliminate the possibility of doing harm at this point.  Naturally, I’ve thought quite a bit about this topic and will explore the nuances and caveats that have emerged in a later blog.

 

Had anyone asked me on New Year’s 2023 what I felt about dating community members, event participants, or others who saw me as a leader, I would have truthfully stated that I believed it was acceptable and even potentially beneficial as long as they said “yes.” This has radically changed for me because I cannot unsee what I have seen.