I believe my statement was that “consent was assumed without the practice of consent in a sexual encounter” which would indicate more than say being kissed.
It’s quite typical to assume in normal society consent based on implicit cues in many situations.
There are people who would say that having sex with someone on a first date after the person being really drunk would be a consent violation.
My account is meant to primarily focus on my broader concerns about the training as well as the response of the organization to this incident rather then the initial incident itself.
I don’t think it’s possible to discuss broader concerns well without grounding them in hard facts. You for example write “I experienced this environment as being designed to break me and as seriously impairing the agency and judgment of those involved. ”
This is again a layer of abstraction that doesn’t allow the reader to form his own view to what extend the enviroment is designed well but only allows the reader access to your judgement.
As I said I appreciate that you put the information in the open that you did (and personally weakly upvoted the post). If you intent is however
A 30 page document is not an effective way to community to the general public.
I disagree. I would appreciate more details out in the public. In the Leverage case having Zoe’s very detailed account out in public was very valuable for facilitating a good discussion about the harms of Leverage.
Thinking in public about organizational issues is also helpful to people to the broader community. There are other organizations that could face similar issues and publically talking about issues helps create common knowledge about what patterns are important when it comes to running organizations.
The letter could probably use greater clarity on events. There however is a substantial amount of information in the letter regarding recruitment practices, lack of informed consent, training risks and impacts, and lack of teacher/”staff” experience that I am guessing you didn’t have a few days ago. You are right that it can be helpful to think in public about organizational issues and that strategic focused documents can be helpful. You have stated your preferences for more detail and thorough documentation about what the environment is like are noted and maybe helpful in future statements.There are already collaborative efforts that have been and are working on this kind of documented effort to which I have contributed substantially that will be available when they are available.
That however, is NOT the purpose for THIS letter. It would be helpful to remember that you are NOT the primary audience for this letter (unless you have an undisclosed affiliation here.) It would also be helpful to remember that we are not entitled to people’s stories or more than they wish to share. Please notice that you are engaging with me and with events that were incredibly abusive and traumatic to me. As stated above this style if writing and response is not geared towards less wrong but I none the less thought it would be useful info to some people who maybe on the fence in this community. I am writing in a way that feels heartfelt, clear, and authentic for me. This is a extremely personal and emotional letter about my experience (and one that has been very painful and still is) and a call to action to the Monastic Academy and broader community members. Most of whom do have context for this environment and will not be surprised by statements such as “I experienced this environment as trying to break me...” This letter is very much for those community members who are out there hurting and feeling alone; whom already know what I’m talking about. I want them to know they are not alone. You have no idea what kind of messages I’ve been getting in ptivate. There are people whom have been waiting a decade for someone to speak out. Someone had to go first. Hopefully more will come forward when they are ready. The silence is over.
Based on your previous comments around consent I suggest you further engage with your own inner work and further education about how to better navigate consent.
It’s quite typical to assume in normal society consent based on implicit cues in many situations.
There are people who would say that having sex with someone on a first date after the person being really drunk would be a consent violation.
I don’t think it’s possible to discuss broader concerns well without grounding them in hard facts. You for example write “I experienced this environment as being designed to break me and as seriously impairing the agency and judgment of those involved. ”
This is again a layer of abstraction that doesn’t allow the reader to form his own view to what extend the enviroment is designed well but only allows the reader access to your judgement.
As I said I appreciate that you put the information in the open that you did (and personally weakly upvoted the post). If you intent is however
I disagree. I would appreciate more details out in the public. In the Leverage case having Zoe’s very detailed account out in public was very valuable for facilitating a good discussion about the harms of Leverage.
Thinking in public about organizational issues is also helpful to people to the broader community. There are other organizations that could face similar issues and publically talking about issues helps create common knowledge about what patterns are important when it comes to running organizations.
The letter could probably use greater clarity on events. There however is a substantial amount of information in the letter regarding recruitment practices, lack of informed consent, training risks and impacts, and lack of teacher/”staff” experience that I am guessing you didn’t have a few days ago. You are right that it can be helpful to think in public about organizational issues and that strategic focused documents can be helpful. You have stated your preferences for more detail and thorough documentation about what the environment is like are noted and maybe helpful in future statements.There are already collaborative efforts that have been and are working on this kind of documented effort to which I have contributed substantially that will be available when they are available.
That however, is NOT the purpose for THIS letter. It would be helpful to remember that you are NOT the primary audience for this letter (unless you have an undisclosed affiliation here.) It would also be helpful to remember that we are not entitled to people’s stories or more than they wish to share. Please notice that you are engaging with me and with events that were incredibly abusive and traumatic to me. As stated above this style if writing and response is not geared towards less wrong but I none the less thought it would be useful info to some people who maybe on the fence in this community. I am writing in a way that feels heartfelt, clear, and authentic for me. This is a extremely personal and emotional letter about my experience (and one that has been very painful and still is) and a call to action to the Monastic Academy and broader community members. Most of whom do have context for this environment and will not be surprised by statements such as “I experienced this environment as trying to break me...” This letter is very much for those community members who are out there hurting and feeling alone; whom already know what I’m talking about. I want them to know they are not alone. You have no idea what kind of messages I’ve been getting in ptivate. There are people whom have been waiting a decade for someone to speak out. Someone had to go first. Hopefully more will come forward when they are ready. The silence is over.
Based on your previous comments around consent I suggest you further engage with your own inner work and further education about how to better navigate consent.
Thank you for your input and you’re welcome 🙏