They Know Not What They Do (Consent Hypocrisy)

[sparr]

Deep in the comments of a recent rehash of an old discussion, I had an epiphany that some of the people I was trying to talk to might never have witnessed or considered the sorts of consequences I was concerned about for others and had experienced myself. This is my first attempt to drill down into that particular detail, but it probably won’t be my last.

Sam says “Do not ever touch someone without explicit consent. To do so is a consent violation.” However, Sam actually applies a much more reasonable standard when judging people who touch others without consent, such as when navigating a crowded party or exiting a train. Sam also acts in a way compatible with how they judge people. Sam doesn’t put much thought into the contradiction between their thoughts/actions and their words.

Pat taps someone on the shoulder to get room to exit a train, or brushes up against someone walking through a party, acting exactly as Sam would in those situations, possibly even based on Sam’s example. Sam doesn’t judge Pat negatively.

Ash sees what Pat does, or might even be one of the people Pat touched, and says “Pat is a consent violator”. This label is unreasonable, and Ash has harmed Pat.

So far, I think we’re mostly all on the same page. A few people will disagree at this point, either with the plausibility of some part of the hypothetical, or with my uses of “unreasonable” and “harmed”. If that’s you, please make it very clear in your comment, because otherwise attempting to apply your comment to the primary topic and purpose of this post will produce conclusions that probably don’t match what you intend.

This is where we get to the meat of the post. Ash doesn’t just say “Pat is a consent violator”. Ash appends “according to the consent standards advocated by Sam and a dozen other community leaders or a hundred other community members”.

This enhanced statement harms Pat significantly more. Very little of that additional harm is solely Ash’s fault or responsibility. Take that additional harm, and divided it by a factor somewhere between 1 and 12 or 100, and *Sam* is responsible for that much harm. Further, I’d say Ash’s responsibility for the base amount of harm is also diminished and partially distributed to Sam; it’s far more reasonable to accuse someone of wrongdoing when some / many / most / all people surrounding you tell you that your standards are appropriate than when fewer / none do.

I don’t think most of the Sams reading this post understand that. Of the ones who understand the concept, I don’t think most of them agree. Of the ones who agree, I think most of them see the positive value of their statement as outweighing the harm it causes.

It’s those last three statements that I want to investigate further. I want all the Sams around me to understand this chain of reasoning. I want to convince more of them to agree with it. And I want to bring our analysis of the net harm or benefit of the situation into closer alignment.

If you’re a Sam, where do I lose you above? If you’re a Pat, can you share any experiences that you perceive as matching this phenomenon? If you’re neither, I’d still appreciate your insights in relevant directions.