Katessa S. Harkey
The Clearing of Consent
Special Concern: Intoxicants & Events The final disputed behavior coming in at 20% is “Pressure to consume intoxicants that would impair judgment.” It is curious that no one outside the high responders pool reported having this experience; which circumstance may be due to the older demographics represented in the survey at large. During the initial fieldwork phase, this type of behavior was frequently mentioned by younger informants; and especially as a reason why non-sober events were avoided.31 It is worrisome that 20% of responders did not count this type of pressure as a consent issue; however, in practice it can be difficult to divine the difference between a simple offer and actual pressure applied intentionally by an individual. Quite often the pressure comes internally, as one tells oneself a story about needing to do whatever is necessary in order to fit in. For those who do regularly find themselves in potential touch situations involving intoxicants, there is very little in the way of education; as the vast majority of learning scenarios are declared sober spaces (whether or not this is the case in actuality). Therefore, protocols around sobriety and insobriety are never addressed. One disturbing theme in stories related by informants were scenarios in which a participant did not inform their partner of their state of insobriety before engaging play; and then later became uncomfortable during the exchange. If such things are occurring even in event spaces that openly allow intoxication, how much more so would they be in declared non-sober spaces in which attendees may be yet more reluctant to honestly declare their state of sobriety to potential partners. Such relevant facts may be left out of reports given to leadership if not directly sought. However, in this area specifically, participants have been tacitly trained to tell “white lies” by a culture that publicly declares spaces sober while privately knowing that participants are largely not sober; and by making “exceptions” for anything which can be claimed as medicinal. Either a space is sober, or it isn't; and practically speaking no organizer can guarantee what attendees are going to do with their own bodies. Social Violations Social violations, representing 25.93% of the list, are those which, while certainly uncomfortable, are less likely to be or lead to an unwanted physical or sexual interaction. This does not imply that all social offenses are “lesser” to all physical offenses, however. For example, stalking behavior may be as simple as an overly-hopeful suitor or as egregious as a stranger following one home after an event. “Roughhousing” might represent a single instance of unasked-for tickle play; while verbal bullying might be or become harsh and persistent enough to cause someone to leave a community altogether. Nevertheless, in an event space, social issues are usually resolvable by a simple conversation about the etiquette of the space, while physical issues often require a more involved response. Social violations garnered the highest mean reporting values in both the low and typical pool (though by a slim margin in the latter); but curiously came in third in the high reporting pool. Excepting entries 5 and 6, the vast majority of reports indicated 1-2 instances. Though many people have had experiences of this kind, they appear to be isolated instances rather than endemic.
31 As an anecdotal example, the author's organization was publicly lambasted for offering a New Year's Eve ecstatic dance party at which the lodge bar was available to those who wished to partake. It was not considered that proceeds would go to help support a community space dedicated to local charity work and social support programs; nor that the goal was to offer a “safer”, monitored, inclusive, and no-pressure space on a holiday expressly celebrated by profligate drinking.
89