I recently ran upon this post on another site and have been wanting to share it here for a while, as I think it's something that runs rife in communities of all kinds in all kinds of places--this one is no excpetion. I really wanted people here to see it at as well--a lot of this writing contains concepts I've tried to express for months but never managed to put so well into words.
I am grateful that the writer of this insightful, intersting post, Sara Scalper, has granted me their permission to share their wonderful writing here,so long as it is attributed and linked. If you are able to read the post through the link, I beg you to do so, and to leave comments there and show this person love there where they can see it and enjoy the credit they so deserve.
Consent violations and the fallacy of kindness by SaraScalper
11-17-2018
TW: sexual abuse/assault, consent violations
I am always stupefied when I see someone in this community whom I consider to be an overall ethical, well-intentioned person defend a known repeat consent violator. It stops me in my tracks. I have seen people who have spoken out vehemently against predators backpedal on everything they've said before when it turns out someone close to them has harmed multiple people. I have seen people who posit themselves as consent advocates and strong allies to victims continue to associate with, play with, or date people about whom at least half a dozen people have reported consent violations.
I kind of understand it. If someone commits A consent violation, it's important not to shun or vilify them if they are willing to learn from their mistakes/make amends, as doing that straight off the bat creates a culture where people cannot admit their fuck-ups and leads to more silencing of those who've experienced violations. And if someone I am close to had A person report to me that they violated their consent, I wouldn't want to just cut this person I care about out of my life, I would want to talk with them, help them "get it." I might even have a hard time believing the person who reported, because we as humans inherently believe those we're closer to over others. But, BUT, if half a dozen people came to me stating that someone I'm close to violated their consent, I wouldn't just stand by that person and state that they were innocent. I wouldn't say, "Well, they've changed," or, "Well, they didn't mean to." I would do my damnedest to confront the person and address the issues, and would cut ties if they victim-blamed, half-heartedly apologized, etc. The inactivity, the being complicit, is the part that I have a hard time understanding.
But, then again, not really. Because I work with victims of sexual abuse, DV, and sexual assault every day. One of my areas of specialization as a therapist involves helping those who've experienced sexual/relationship trauma. And almost every single one of these people was either silenced by family members or friends when they came out with their abuse experiences, had their experiences questioned by people they believed cared about them, or had those who were supposed to protect them stand aside while they were being abused. All of these people have been so hurt by having their experiences negated, quieted, or outright denied by those they believed loved them. And we talk about how "good people" could act in this way, and the answer is the same every goddamn time.
The fallacy of kindness.
Humans love shortcuts when it comes to thinking, because life is hard and stressful. We have a tendency to categorize, box, define other people very quickly and easily based on limited experiences with them. That person gave you a dirty look? Bad. That person bought you a coffee? Good. This is an oversimplification, for sure, but when it comes down to it someone can do all the nice things but, if they are not doing them to/for you, they are often defined as not being a "good/nice" person. On the flip side, someone who has spent their time and energy doing kind things for you IS a "good person," despite what others' experiences might say to the contrary.
When people discover someone they care about has been doing "bad things" to other people, they oftentimes engage in denial about the behavior. This is for two reasons. The first is that they have a difficult time reconciling their conception of who this person is with what they have done. The second (and bigger) reason is that it causes them to question their judgment, their ideas of what the world is like. This is very frightening to people, so, rather than take the time to challenge their perceptions, to understand WHY someone who could be so good to them could be so horrid to someone else, they instead pretend the "bad" behavior has not happened or make excuses or justifications for it. Tale as old as time.
BUT, remember, serial killers don't shit where they eat. This is not a literal statement, obviously-what I mean is that, left in the wake of every person in this world who has done the kind of horrendous shit that makes most of what we deal with in the kink scene pale in comparison, there is a group of people going, "What? It couldn't be him. He brought me groceries every Sunday/volunteered at my church/sang in my chorus." People who do bad things, even REALLY bad things, can still have nuance, because, at the end of the day (and I've said this before), humans aren't monsters. Are people like serial killers as close to monsters as you get? Abso-friggin'-lutely. But they're still technically people, so maybe they have a pet they take care of, have a grandma whose house they clean, have an auntie who they walk across the street. Maybe they do these things because, though so much of them is tainted, there's a part that still cares about someone or something. Or maybe they know that, if they show a modicum of caring to some people, people in general are less likely to suspect them of engaging in unspeakable behaviors and they can get away with them for longer. Look at Gacy. Look at Bundy. Look at Shipman.
I think most people in the kink community who are repeat consent violators, who harm others but still have people they hold near and dear, are able to care about people, because most of the ones I've met have a hard time viewing their actions as wrong or lack the insight to see that they're harming others. I don't believe most of them hold people near and dear to them because they want an alibi...but I believe some of them do. Regardless of why these people maintain good relationships with others, they do, because EVERY HUMAN HAS SOME. What is problematic is when we allow these positive connections to blind us to their not-so-positive behavior and to excuse it. Every "good person" who stands beside or behind a serial consent violator despite repeat violations is enabling them to continue their behavior, whether we want to/realize it or not. This is why it's important to not allow ourselves to have our perceptions shaped by the fallacy of kindness, but rather by an ideology of consistency. Is the person you're close to a person who is not only kind to you but is viewed positively by the community at large, welcome in a variety of spaces, has positive connections with people of all stripes? Fab. But if the person you're close to has a mixed reputation, if multiple people report that they are not careful/kind to them or have harmed them in some way, it is time to start questioning whether the fallacy of kindness has blindfolded you, gagged you, and tied your hands behind your back without your consent.
