"Consent Injury" versus "Consent Violation"
Lately I've been using the term "consent injury" rather than "consent violation." I feel like "violation" centers breaking the rules of a venue, it evokes moral impurities, it evokes "defile" or "deflower." As if there is an inherent harm to someone regardless of their own emotions on the matter. The way that "taking" someone's virginity is framed as marring someone.
"Injury" centers the hurt that the someone actually feels, the trauma of having your agency overridden and rendered irrelevant. It's not that you violated my rule or went against what I sad. It's that you hurt me, used me, overpowered me, took advantage of a moment of vulnerability.
I had a consent injury a couple years ago that as time passes I process and realize how much of an impact it has left on me psychically. When I describe what literally happened in detail... it sounds messed up but it also doesn't sound that severe. Was I "violated" by what happened? It's not that the memory makes me feel "violated" but it makes me feel weak, or scared, or mistrusting of others. It makes me feel bad that someone would take advantage of me in that way. The crux of the issue is less "He didn't ask first, that's The Rule as taught In Class." The crux of the issue was he used me sexually with no regard for if I actually wanted it or if I was capable of making that decision. It was the injury to me of having had that experience that is the lasting harm, not the violation of community norms.
The other thing I like about the framing of "consent injury" is that it lets us speak in a more nuanced way about certain risky negotiation practices.
Under the "consent violation" framework, there are things that people do all the time which are stigmatized or framed as shameful or inherently unethical or nonconsensual. For instance, playing while under the influence of mind-altering substances, adding something to a scene you think your partner would like but didn't ask about explicitly, or negotiating-up mid-scene.
By the rules I set for events I organize, all three of those are necessarily consent violations if they are reported to me. If someone says they played with someone while drunk, new elements were introduced that are usually fine but not asked about, and consent was sought mid-scene, and that they feel this was all non-consensual, then I will absolutely take their side, because those things all make it more likely someone won't be able to properly consent. As an organizer the fact that someone reported this to me tells me those things weren't okay this time.
But in all transparency, I have done BDSM scenes while tripping on psychedelics, or high on cannabis. I have had partners I trust and have rapport with introduce new elements to a scene that they knew I'd love and they were right and I was very happy. I've paused scenes for a bit, took a breath, and negotiated up. And they were fine. I didn't feel violated or hurt. We mutually enjoyed the scene and had fun. I know that there are a lot of people who do these things all the time with established play partners and while we would never tell a newbie to do it this way, we do it ourselves, even though if done at a venue it would possibly be considered a consent violation by the policies of the event.
With the consent injury framing, we have the ability to frame these actions not as inherently violating but as risky.
If you negotiate while someone is on mind-altering substances, you riskinjuring their consent, which is a very serious risk to take. There is a riskthey won't remember consenting, or will feel taken advantage of, or will be traumatized. I've had my consent injured while drunk in college, and it was highly traumatic and I had to go to therapy for it. It's very risky, but if you do it, and you do mutually have fun and nobody's consent is injured, then it wasn't immoral or wrong. You should talk about this sort of thing with your established play partners while sober and discuss if doing scenes while on substances is within your risk profile, being aware of the risks that come with it, and as an organizer I can say it's too risky to do at an event I moderate for my comfort, without commenting on if it's wrong for someone to do in private.
If you add a new element to a scene that wasn't discussed in advance that you think your play partners will like, you are taking a huge gamble that they won't like it and won't be happy that you didn't talk about it before hand. You're risking injuring their consent. You and your play partners should discuss outside of scenes where your risk profile is with adding new elements to scenes without explicit discussion first, knowing the risks that this could become a consent injury easily, it could be traumatic potentially, and you can discuss together how you feel. As an event organizer, I can establish that this is not within the bounds of what I'd consider consensual for the sake of handling a consent report, it's murkier than I want consent to be in a space I moderate, but that's not a commentary on what you do in private.
If you negotiate up mid-scene, you're taking a risk that your play partners was too subby to properly think through saying anything other than yes, and will feel taken advantage of later. You're risking an injury to their consent. It could damage your relationship and the trust you've built. It's a big risk to take, and yet people take it all the time. You and your play partners should discuss your risk profile around this, and how you'd like to mitigate or accept or avoid this risk entirely. With some of my play partners, we will negotiate up after a ten minute break from the scene to do aftercarey things and ground ourselves, which mitigates but doesn't eliminate the risks associated with negotiating up. That's within our risk profile. As an event organizer, I can say that it's too risky for me to be comfortable with it at an event I moderate, and if something is reported to me involving negotiating up, I won't count it as consensual, but that's a commentary on what I feel comfortable accepting as risks at my events, not a commentary on the ethics of what you do together in private.
So I have come to prefer consent injury over consent violation for these reasons. What do you think?
