Power, Privilege and Coerced Consent in Polyamory
Consent is never an excuse for abuse.
Has anyone talked to you about how they were physically, sexually, emotionally, and/or psychologically abused in a relationship — and then their abuser turns around and says something like, ‘They knew what they’re were getting into’? Or, even worse, ‘they consented to this treatment, so that makes what I did okay’?
This mindset has become all too common in non-monogamy. Every abusive behavior, every hurtful or insensitive action, every mistreatment can be excused if consent is somehow obtained from the victim.
Many people have begun to use consent as a carte-blanche excuse to act like a total selfish asshole. ‘People give me permission to use and abuse them. If they want to be treated better, they just need better boundaries. It’s their fault they didn’t like what happened to them. I’m not accountable for my actions, but people are accountable for how they react to them.’
It’s shocking and disheartening to witness people in a community that’s supposed to be about loving people hold such clearly anti-social and exploitative beliefs.
What’s even more disturbing is people siding with the abuser, accusing the victim of being co-dependent (without understanding what codependence means), having poor boundaries or simply in need of becoming more selfish and more exploitive themselves. This is wrong, immoral and, quite-frankly, a horrible model for how interpersonal relationships should work.
Even if someone needs better boundaries or better self-esteem, does that mean they deserve to be bullied, used or abused?
The answer is: No. No, no, no, no!
Let’s be clear:
Someone giving their consent to be abused, does not excuse the abuser… EVER.
Why?
Abusers will often withhold information and/or use coercive tactics to gain consent from those they have power over by threatening them emotionally or physically.
This is coerced consent or consent under pressure — and it has NO place in ethical non-monogamy, let alone polyamory.
Polyamory hinges on the informed, non-coerced consent of all parties involved. Without informed consent without coercion, it’s not ethical non-monogamy. Period.
But what constitutes consent and how does power dynamics effect someone’s ability to consent?
In order for consent to be obtained, 1) the person making the decision must have agency to make an informed choice and not be subject to physical, emotional or psychological coercion. 2) In order to have agency, the choice must be informed through clear, honest and proactive communication. 3) In order to avoid coercion, all power imbalances must be recognized, discussed and negotiated by all parties involved.
Agency is a person’s ability to make an informed decision. This not only speaks to whether or not they have all the information, understand the consequences, and are aware of the power dynamics involved, but also their cognitive ability to understand.
This is also the reason we have statutory rape laws. An adult cannot get the informed consent of a young teenager to engage in sexual activity, especially if they’re not even old enough to drive a car.
Abusers will often ignore or even take advantage of someone’s inability to make a decision, whether it’s because they’re underage, are under-the-influence or simply do not have all the information on hand. They do not really care about agency, as long as they’re getting what they want.
Communication is the cornerstone of informed consent. Without it, you don’t have the agency to make a decision.
Another tactic an abuser can use to circumvent agency is to withhold vital information from the consenter. The person who is consenting is thereby not actually consenting to the situation, but rather consenting to a lie the abuser is presenting to them.
The abuser knows that if they were to be completely honest and share all the information at hand and their true intentions, the person they want to date and/or have sex with would probably say ‘no.’ So, they lie and manipulate the target into consenting to a false situation.
Not only does this take away your ability to consent, but it violates your boundaries.
Boundary violations are about taking away your consent.
Examples of how not communicating negates our agency to consent and violates our boundaries:
—If your partner opens up your relationship without informing you.
— If your partner takes on a new lover without informing you.
— If they fail to use a condom with someone else and then have sex with you without informing you.
— If your partner fails to tell you they have other partners or an STI before they have sex with you.
— If they don’t communicate their boundaries or negotiate a relationship agreement with you — and then spring the ones they want on you when you’re already deep into the relationship.
— If they change their relationship agreement with you without talking to you about it first.
— If they lie to you about what they want from the relationship or lead you on in order to continue to have sex with you.
It’s fine if things change, but communication MUST happen.
You must be given all the information *and* consent before any action is taken — or your consent has been violated.
Power and privilege must be acknowledged and discussed or there can’t be any true consent. Why?
Where there is power, there is the potential for coercion.
Informed consent in a completely egalitarian power structure usually works fine. But when the power dynamic is skewed, informed consent can be coerced.
Coerced consent is when someone is pressured into giving consent. This could be as overt as being threatened physically, but it can also be more subtle and manipulative. Someone could withhold affection, give you the silent treatment, criticize you, pressure you, or even threaten to end the relationship if you don’t agree to their terms. There’s not a negotiation or recognition of your wants and needs or agency in the relationship. It’s their way or the highway.
Consent relies upon the assumption people will choose in their own self-interest every time they make an interpersonal decision, but this simply is not true. For one, part of loving someone is compromising and considering their wants and needs and their feelings, as well as your own. Loving someone is not a selfish act. Secondly, and more importantly, people consent to things they do not want to do out of fear. Fear of violence. Fear of ridicule. Fear of rejection. Fear of devastating loss.
We’ve all done things we didn’t want to do in order to avoid negative consequences. This does not make us co-dependent, dependent, insecure, or needy. Fear is a universal human motivator.
Fear of emotional pain is just as valid as fear of physical pain.
Rejection and the silent treatment actually produces the same neurological effects of pain in the brain. That’s why emotional abuse is so insidious.
People will do almost anything to avoid pain. When you love someone, you might consent to something you don’t want to if there’s an unequal power balance in the relationship. You might also remain in a situation that’s harmful to you or with a person who does things that make you feel uncomfortable, unsafe or just plain sad, because of this fear.
You deserve relationships and partners who make you feel comfortable, loved and safe.
Want to tell if someone loves and respects you? Tell them that what they’re doing or what they want you to do makes you feel uncomfortable or unsafe. If they love and care about you, they will stop and examine their actions — or stop pressuring you to do it.
If they don’t, they will continue — or just leave you.
Exploitative and/or abusive people will get away with as much as you allow them to.
While this may speak to a need to build better boundaries, it’s also important to note that sometimes the consequences to not consenting or leaving may be so high that it could be devastating to you if you don’t. This could mean the loss of a relationship you’ve heavily invested in, a devastating divorce, the loss of a job you love — or the end of a life-long dream.
When someone has the power to take away something you love or have worked hard to obtain, they have the power to coerce you if they have the power to take it away.
Coercion is a manipulative tactic used against someone until they give in and give consent. It could be in the form of pressuring, threatening to break up, intimidating, criticizing, name-calling, bullying, blackmailing, guilt-tripping, etc.
When people are coerced, they are not saying ‘yes’ on their own terms.
If you want to understand coerced consent and it’s relation to power more deeply, just take a look at why Louis C.K. got in trouble with the #MeToo movement. He, indeed, got the consent of the women he was masturbating in front of, but he had power over them. They were all aspiring comics who admired him and wanted him to like them. They were also afraid that by saying ‘no,’ there could be negative consequences to their show business careers and life-long dreams of being successful comedians.
Their consent was coerced because of the implied power dynamics involved. He didn’t even need to threaten in them. That’s how much power he had.
Those in power don’t even need to be coercive to get their way. Just the fact that they have more power in a situation gives them more leverage. Intentions can be ‘good,’ but if you’re not aware or won’t acknowledge that you have power or privilege, how can you ensure that you’re getting someone’s enthusiastic consent and they are just going along with your wishes because they simply don’t have the leverage you do?
You can’t.
How does this manifest in polyamory?
Toxic. Unaddressed. Unacknowledged. Couples’ privilege.
There is nothing inherently wrong with privilege on it’s own, but there is something wrong with denying that privilege exists at all. Imagine how annoying and toxic it is when rich white men deny having an advantage over poor non-caucasian women — or an affluent American denies being financially luckier than someone born in poverty in the Sudan.
Privilege becomes toxic when it’s not acknowledged.
Seems obvious right? Not so much when it comes to polyamory. There are many, many couples, usually in long-term marriages who either don’t perceive or straight out refuse to acknowledge their privilege.
Privilege is often invisible to those who have it.
When there’s a couple, there’s privilege and power, more privilege and power than any new parter walking into the situation. They might share a household, children, have enmeshed finances, and long-standing obligations to each other that no other person will ever be allowed to affect. A long-term, deeply enmeshed relationship is not only a secure place for a couple to explore non-monogamy, but it can be an institution.
Unfortunately, this can be intimidating for new partners who will compromise more so not to upset the status quo and risk being kicked to the curb for being ‘disruptive.’ Couples can also use this power to emotionally coerce new partners into doing things or agreeing to rules that might not be in their best interest.
Negotiating boundaries, rules and expectations is easier for those with more power and security in a relationship. Many times, ‘secondary’ partners are given the rules and relationship framework in which they must comply with in order to be in the relationship at all. Sometimes they’re even told that this is what ‘polyamory is,’ which is a form of gaslighting, something I talk about extensively here.
Sometimes, these rules and expectations are not honestly or clearly expressed from the start. This could be either inexperience — or an intentional withholding of information to bait and switch the new partner. In fact, you might be promised and told all kinds of things, like there are no limits to where the relationship can go, no hierarchy, no veto, the ability to take weekend trips away, respect for your time, a real, life-long commitment, etc.
These promises are made to draw you in and get you to consent to a situation you wouldn’t have if you understood the reality of it in the first place.
If power dynamics are not HONESTLY acknowledged and discussed, informed consent can easily become coerced consent.
Many times, someone will say or promise almost anything to someone they want to be with to make sure they become emotionally, mentally and physically invested before they start changing the rules on them. This is a form of emotional coercion.
Emotional power is gained over the target first and then consent is gained through coercion.
After we’ve fallen in love and are chemically bonded, the stakes are raised tremendously for us. Same thing if we move for someone, move in with someone, have kids with them, get married, etc. The more we’re invested and the higher the stakes, the more likely we’re to consent to something we don’t want to do in order to not only avoid rejection or to recoup the sunk cost of the relationship. The less power and security we have in a relationship, the more compromising we will do to stay in it… and the less our consent matters.
*Acquiescing out of fear does NOT make you mean you have co-dependent or maladaptive interpersonal tendencies. Co-dependency is actually a behavioral condition in a relationship where one person enables another person’s addiction, poor mental health, abusive behavior, immaturity, irresponsibility, or under-achievement in order to make sure the person needs them. It’s not just about fear of rejection.
Anyone can find themselves giving into a coercive situation out of fear of rejection. Emotional abuse like the silent treatment and threats of rejection actually have the same neurological effect on the brain as physical pain.
Empathetic, caring and emotionally mature partners in a long-term partnership will acknowledge this imbalance and work to make their other partners feel secure, respect their agency and empower them.
But those with more exploitative or selfish motivations will take advantage of this power imbalance and attempt to gain even more power over you and even use that power to coerce you. When you have the upper hand in a negotiation, you are more likely to get your way.
In polyamory, this could be your partner or a manipulative metamour or, worse — both.
You were told there was no veto going into the relationship and then are threatened with one six months later in order to coerce you into conceding one or more of your rights. You were only dating one member of a couple, now there’s suddenly pressure on you to date both members or else the relationship might be deescalated or end. You were once told there were no limits on your relationship, but now you feel like you might get in trouble for asking for a dinner out or a weekend trip. You may find that you don’t even have a right to you’re own schedule if you want to spend time with your partner, because your schedule doesn’t matter as much as theirs.
There are too many examples emotional coercion in the framework of toxic couples’ privilege to write, so I’ll end it here:
In a community and culture that prides itself on informed consent, we need to start being honest with ourselves about what consent actually means and STOP using it as an excuse to abuse the people we claim to love.
