Blog #8 - Organizational Failures at Empowered Pleasure

 Content Warning: Discussions of lack of oversight, power and consent issues, and misuse of the term “safe space”. 

Summary: Prior blogs have addressed harms related to power differentials, consent and communication style. This blog is co-written by Cliff and Charity and addresses organizational failures at Empowered Pleasure and how those impacted survivors, the Empowered Pleasure Community as a whole, and the broader sex positive community. 

 

We, Cliff and Charity, acknowledge, accept, and should be held accountable for the harms caused by how we organized and operated Empowered Pleasure. We damaged something that was beautiful for many of you. We realize that in naming problems associated with organizational structure, we will inevitably miss some. If anyone has additional comments or concerns they wish to report, please reach out to one of us or to Miles Hurwitz, our accountability coach. 

Note to the Empowered Pleasure Community Members

We have heard through indirect channels that some from the Empowered Pleasure community who appreciated what we offered criticized and confronted survivors who invited us into the RJ/Accountability Process. To any of you who felt or continue to feel that the invitation into accountability was unfair, we want to tell you that we disagree.

Some responses from EP Community Members who did not personally experience or witness problems intensified the division that occurred in the Portland sex positive community. Some who felt good about their experiences at Empowered Pleasure events questioned and minimized the concerns expressed by survivors. Comments along the lines of “I’ve never personally experienced xyz” or “see, it’s not that bad” or suggestions to “leave Cliff and Charity alone” resulted in further conflict and distress. 

As leaders, we failed to create an environment that centers and supports accountability. Any organization inviting participants to explore their wild energies, especially that of sensuality and sexuality, must center and support those courageous enough to step forward and say openly, “I had a bad experience.” Non-defensive openness to feedback and honoring/protecting those who express concerns are critical. This offers safeguards for everyone including members at large, survivors, and also provides those who have caused harm the opportunity to learn and grow if they accept the invitation to do so.  

Leadership Structure

We created Empowered Pleasure with us as the sole leaders and did not include additional organizational structure to provide critical evaluation of our processes. In our pride, we didn’t seek oversight or supervision, nor did we employ appropriate checks and balances. We did not use the talents and gifts that many community members offered us. We had the attitude, “If you don’t like our events, don’t come.” We apologize for thinking that way. 

All teachers and leaders, especially in the sensitive work of sex education and sacred sexuality, need oversight and must have people in their circle who are willing and able to directly address concerns. There was no one to hold us accountable, which is oppression dynamics at work.

 

Echo Chamber

We operated in an echo chamber. Those who felt unsafe or marginalized at our events stopped coming, and those who liked what we were doing came and voiced their support. Undoubtedly some tolerated what they disliked and kept quiet because of their concern that if they spoke up, they would be rejected or otherwise ostracized from the community.

As a result, we heard overwhelmingly positive reviews, while those feeling uncomfortable or hurt were left wondering if it was somehow their fault.  We often adjusted and modified events based on participant suggestions, but we allowed our egos to be inflated by praise and thus didn’t take seriously some of the complaints, concerns, and relationship ruptures.

 

Event Participation

Our participation in events we led caused harm to some, particularly Cliff participating in the blindfolded part of Massage-a-Trois. Members who did not want to receive touch from Cliff were left with the impossible dilemma of directly going to the person who held all the power and saying, “I don’t want you to touch me.” 

As a result, some felt they could not come to events anymore and were separated from the community. Others probably “tolerated” our participation and felt uncomfortable with it.

 

Sexual Power/Privilege Violations

Both of us approached community members for dating and sexual engagement outside of events. Charity’s gender naturally brings up the very important question, “Is this OK for women leaders but not OK for men?” Charity believes she also put people at risk when she approached participants for romantic or sexual engagement and her gender does not make it okay. Cliff discussed our conclusions extensively in his consent blog (https://cliffnotes108.blogspot.com/2024/01/blog-6-evolving-perspective-on-consent.html). 

Our dating participants potentially harmed not only the people that we approached, it created a culture where many unspoken dynamics played out. Mischa Byruck writes about this in his article “Healing The Guru Curse” found here: https://medium.com/@mbyruck/healing-the-guru-curse-0bda268b824a

The article discusses why leaders dating members, even when the member says “yes”, risks harm. One of the most prominent values in sex positive communities is affirming one’s right to say “yes” to consensual play/pleasure and to ask for what we want. As a result, worried onlookers may not have known how to process feelings related to knowing that we were propositioning students and participants, especially if the person seemed to be giving a “hell, yes.” 

Some onlookers may have wondered if that was simply a part of being in a sex positive community and dismissed their inner alarm system, feeling “that’s just how it is in these groups.” To anyone who felt uncomfortable with our propositioning students and participants for sexual engagement, you were right. Not all were harmed, but we risked harm to them and to witnesses/onlookers. Part of our accountability process has included open conversations with our current long-term lovers, many of whom we initially approached while they were primarily event participants. 

When we first opened Empowered Pleasure, we agreed that we would wait 6 months before engaging with anyone that we met as a participant but never stated this publicly. Furthermore, we flirted with, expressed interest in, and discussed among ourselves whom we might want to date once their 6-month period had ended. This caused division, uncertainty, and an environment in which some believed that the way to be “leveled up” was to have sex with one of us. While this wasn’t true, it’s quite understandable that the belief existed and we fully understand why a whisper campaign was started to warn new members.

 

Furthermore, we were arrogant and spoke out against ISTA for allowing leaders to have sex with students during workshops. We allowed ourselves to believe we were “different” because we were not having sex with new participants during events. Cliff was the first of us to realize the error in our reasoning during his course “Trauma Training for Tantra Professionals.” Charity took a bit longer to accept that participation in events and approaching participants during or following events (even after a waiting period) runs the risk of harm and should therefore be avoided.

We now understand that the power differential inherent in the role of teacher/leader/daka/dakini outlasts the active student/teacher relationship. While we realize that there may be circumstances where dating a former participant is acceptable and beneficial, at this point we conclude that the potential for harm outweighs any likely benefit. This has been a radical change in thinking for us. We will later be publishing a formal Code of Ethics regarding our policies and boundaries related to any interactions with current or former students/participants.

 

Inconsistency in Consent Training and Leveling

In our eagerness to resume in-person events after the pandemic, we pieced together a leveling system and core classes that were inconsistent. We transferred levels and experience from other organizations, taking their materials without giving proper credit (Gabriella Cordova first developed the formal leveling system at Sex Positive Portland). Our orientation and consent training was done by a video course to make it easier for both participants and ourselves. This resulted in participants having a wide range of consent training, variable language use, and different expectations. Many had been trained in the “Hell, yes!” model that does not address power differentials, conflict resolution, erotic transference, or erotic attunement.

 

In our mentorship program, we were disorganized and failed to communicate expectations clearly.  As a result, members were confused about the process. Our mentors were not offered training, there was extreme variability in the speed of leveling up, and the benchmarks for leveling were unclear. This created community strife and confusion and was an inadequate process for determining both a) safety of participants and b) readiness to engage in higher level (more sexual) events.

 

The inconsistency and lack of clear training of mentors also resulted in confusion for mentors. Because the leveling requirements evolved over time, participants that came later had more expectations, resulting in a sense of unfairness. The fact that we made the final decisions about leveling up was especially problematic if the person being considered for leveling up was a person one of us were dating or a metamor (partner of someone we were dating). These dual relationships made it impossible to give unbiased opinions and understandably perpetuated the message that the best way to “level up” was to engage sexually with one of the three of us. It also further discouraged reporting concerns out of fear that “falling out of favor” or “rocking the boat” with one of us could result in not leveling up.

 

No Avenue for Complaints

One of our most serious failures was not creating a confidential and safe avenue to report complaints, consent violations, or member conflicts. In our arrogance, we believed that instructing participants to inform one of us of any of the above was sufficient. It was not, especially if the complaint, consent violation, or conflict involved one of us. 

We now recognize that best practices in sex positive organizations include having a well-designed, confidential, and independent process to report and address complaints, consent violations, and member conflicts. Removing barriers to expressions of concern is the responsibility of organizational leadership, and we failed at this.

 

Financial Structure

We weren’t transparent about the finances of Empowered Pleasure. We heard whispers about being a “profit-based business” and did not address them. This perpetuated oppression dynamics and led to valid concerns about how much money was being made, where the money was going, and whether the primary intent of the organization was to make money off of participant’s deepest vulnerabilities and their desire for connection and sexual expression. There will be a separate blog post including financial disclosure for all the years that Empowered Pleasure was in operation.

Misuse of the Term “Safe Space”

We habitually referred to our events as being “safe spaces.” We over-promised and did not deliver. Empowered Pleasure events were not “safe spaces” in the current definition that means a space where no one will be triggered. 

The term safe space refers to places "intended to be free of bias, conflict, criticism, or potentially threatening actions, ideas, or conversations" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_space#United_States) Even if we had provided the needed support structures, sacred sexuality environments and sex positive spaces inviting sensual and sexual energy exchange through touch cannot be accurately designated as “safe spaces.” 

More appropriately, we should have used the term “brave space”, and participants should have been fully apprised of the risks so they could give informed consent. Sacred sexuality spaces and structures can trigger emotional wounds and trauma related to an explorer’s deepest longings for sacred union, liberation, connection, pleasure, and love. 

Many of the events we lead invite participants to play with wild and powerful sensual and sexual energies. While this can be profoundly transformative for those who want to push their edges on the path to liberation, it can and will trigger a person's deepest shadows even alongside experiences of bliss and transcendence. Often explorers experience a confusing combination of pleasure, expansion, and bliss coexisting with loss, trauma, and longing. 

Anyone attending should be made aware of this possibility of experiencing a wide range of sometimes contradictory emotions and be provided with sufficient safeguards to process and integrate what arises. This is the responsibility of the teacher/leader/daka/dakini. We did not provide the critical elements of fully informed consent or sufficient integration and support, which misled those who heard us repeatedly use the word “safe”. Some explorers found the events expansive, some had mixed experiences, some were harmed. In this blog we are centering those who were harmed and those who had mixed experiences.

Final Note

Sex positive organizations choose to color outside the lines, and we all must do our part to ensure that we have safer, risk-aware brave spaces, especially spaces that honor, elevate, and protect those who speak out against harm. To any who criticized or confronted survivors, especially to anyone that blamed survivors for the loss of Empowered Pleasure events in the Portland sex positive community, we urge you to be accountable for any harm caused by your words or actions. 

We specifically want to acknowledge the roles of survivors, Miles Hurwitz (Accountability Coach), Shashi Solluna, Jan Day, and our lovers/partners for your teaching, challenges/confrontations, loving support, belief in our capacity to grow, and your deep commitment to the journey of accountability. We would not have been able to walk through this fire without you.