Let’s talk consent

It still shocks me—though it shouldn’t—that there is harassment and abuse reported in the higher echelons of the Christian world.  This recent revelation by Christianity Today about Christianity Today is a prime and sickening example. (Link: https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2022/march/sexual-harassment-ct-guidepost-assessment-galli-olawoye.html)

Would anyone who is abused give their consent for the abuse to occur?

Of course, they wouldn’t.  But before we start looking at the victim with a scowl, believing in some cases that they consented, we ought to look at a standard for consent that says, “Yes, I wanted what was offered to me believing it was always going to be good for me.”

And, “good for me is good also for those who are already in relationship with me.”

In other words, “good for me” means there will be NIL disadvantage to me—which extends to those in relationship with me, i.e., zero harm to everyone.

Let’s not be naïve about consent thinking people give their consent willingly knowing all of what they’re consenting to.  If a person knows only 60 percent of what they’re consenting to, it’s not consent, it’s manipulation.  It’s not a free relationship.  Most of the time when there are consent issues, people are either abused without their consent, consent is assumed yet not granted, or consent is given without the person knowing all of what they’re ‘consenting’ to.

If such a consent ends up NOT being good for the person—in that, unforeseeable consequences occurred to them or for them—then we can fully understand that they weren’t ever able to give their consent.  They may have been duped.  They may have been in a much less powerful position than the person making the offer.  The rules were changed on them, or they never genuinely understood the real rules.  Something wasn’t right.

Even when someone doesn’t complain, 
it doesn’t mean they asked for what they got.

Were they asked?  And if they were, were they reasonably able or allowed to say no?  By that I mean, would they have been welcomed in saying no?  Did the other party afford them such freedom?  Usually not, and where it’s a no, there is no consent. 

Were they coerced?  Were they wooed?  Were they manipulated with smooth sounding words or sweet charisma?  Were they ‘stung’ with delights they hardly felt worthy of receiving?  Were they sold only the positives/benefits?  If so, it wasn’t consent.

We’re all vulnerable for saying yes to a deal too good to be true.  Many times, we’ve even said yes against our better judgment, and so therefore was it full consent?  And certainly, consent can be withdrawn.

Consent is a yes to an offer that a person is free to take or leave, and it presupposes that the offer would be good for the person in question, and their whole life.

Ethically speaking, if the offer would potentially or actually damage a person in any way—yes, to the extent of their relationships also—even in the case that they said yes, there is still an issue with consent.

WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS OF RELATIONSHIP?

All relationships, no matter the standard of intimacy, rely on the standard of love.  No matter whether these are Christian relationships or not.

Let me explain.

Everyone has an expectation that they’re related with in ways that don’t disadvantage or damage them.  In other words, everyone expects that they’ll be treated with respect.  Nobody expects to be blindsided by betrayal.

Betrayal is a deal breaker in terms of consent.

Everyone enters into relationships with other people, and entities with entities, in good faith that the relationship will benefit and not hinder them.

Nobody enters willingly into relationships in the knowledge that things will turn sour or worse that they’ll be traumatised by the experience.

Relationship, by its very nature, if it is to be a relationship of any true function, assumes consent.  But when relationships turn against people in forms of abuse, the assumption of consent is immediately withdrawn, simply because the person abused would never have consented to being treated that way.

The rules of consent change when the nature of the relationship changes—when the person who agreed to a certain form of relationship finds they’re in a completely different arrangement.  It’s like defaulting on a contract.  One person changes the nature of the relationship through their abysmal behaviour, and the other has a right to call foul.

In abuse, the abuser changes the rules of the relationship game and expects the one they’re abusing to just sit there and take it.  By changing the rules of the game, which in many ways can simply be the revealing of the real rules, the abuser assumes control over the relationship.  Real relationships are either equal in their power base or the power dynamics are equalised somehow.  But the abuser has revealed the power dynamics are lopsided, unjust, and unfair, and those dynamics can never be equalised.

The standard of relationship that works and that is sustainable is safe for all parties because it meets the standard of love to the standard of respect.

Think of it this way.  Relationships are supposed to be rewarding, and there always needs to be capacity in relationships for both parties to be wrong, for either party to own their contribution.  Relationships fail when one or both won’t/don’t own their wrongs.

But that’s a whole new article...