Pacer Pillowtalk: When relational power is imbalanced, consent is nullified
It isn’t enough to only discuss consent in terms of legality, though the lawfulness of consent is a necessary concern.
Legality and consent have an intricate relationship when the courting environment is in the workplace, school or positions where there are inherent power imbalances.
The impact of unequal positions of power on an emotional or sexual relationship can be detrimental to the person in the submissive position. While power-imbalanced relationships can healthily exist, the extent of the difference in power and the forms of coercion play a significant role legally and emotionally.
Strictly from a legal context, a power imbalance negates consent. If there is the potential for any form of coercive influence, consent cannot be given.
Morally, there are still concerns.
Power is “the ability to influence and control the people and environments around us,” creating a “hierarchical chain which affords (privilege) to certain individuals,” wrote Davinia Chew, co-founder of Allegedly, a blog “to provide a voice and community to those who have experienced sexual trauma.”
When sex is introduced to the workplace, the initial conception may be seen as the stereotypical male versus female dynamic, where the harassment is overt and on a physical scale. This notion must be expanded to involve the emotional aspects of sexual relationships and coercive influence.
Power makes things easier, whether that be professionally or influentially. There is an understood authority over individuals, as there is an acknowledgment of consequences should someone deny a superior’s request, or benefits when a favor is returned.
Herein lies the moral concerns: consequence versus benefit. The weight of this choice is fully on the non-authoritative individual, increasing emotional, financial and professional stressors.
Chew explains, “It (imbalanced power relationship) allows the person wielding power to control and influence the other party, whether intentionally or not. The individual with lesser power may feel obligated, pressured, anxious and/or coerced into ceding to the person with more power, because not consenting has the potential to create negative consequences.”
She continues, describing the impact of trust and respect in an unequal relationship, “When we trust and respect someone, we rationalize and excuse their bad behaviour.”
Even outside of the workplace power imbalances in relationships exist. Domestically, when one person has the means to control the finances, housing, personal relationships and reputations, the choices of the partner are bare. Psychological control, whether that be emotional or verbal abuse, is just as detrimental to the well-being of the partner as withholding or threatening to withhold other necessary resources.
The National Sexual Violence Resource Center suggests the following question for those in a relationship where partners are not in equilibrium: Would this person say yes if I didn’t have power/authority over them? The opposite can be asked, too: Would I say yes if this person did not have power/authority over me?
It isn’t as simple as just asking the questions.
Situations where a partner dominates the other cause fear of negative consequences that would arise from rejecting the authoritative partner’s demands. Choices that may seem obvious to those outside of these relationships, like leaving the person or the environment, aren’t feasible when the livelihood of the partner may depend on the abuser.
Support for people experiencing sexual and emotional coercion is found in legislation and human resources departments, though a lack of social infrastructure and harmful gendered stereotypes contribute to the resistance, or hopelessness, of potentially seeking legal assistance.
The basics come in handy here. “No” means no, and “yes” after repeated instances of coercion, manipulation and threats mean no, too.
