Consent or power?

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 02/08/2025 (239 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

One woman. Five men/boys. In a hotel room.

A power imbalance by any measure.

The not-guilty verdict is in after the sexual assault trial of a group of five former world junior hockey teammates. Despite the evident power imbalance, the question at issue was: did the woman, E.M., consent? On the surface she probably did. She willingly went to that room for sex with one junior hockey star fresh from a win.

That star later invited four teammates to join them, claiming that she consented. Wasn’t that the point where the dynamics in the room shifted from consent to power?

Consent is much more complicated than a simple yes/no. When the person asking for consent has power over the person, is that consent freely given? Doesn’t that perspective make the targeted person implicitly responsible for managing the situation?

Power is also complicated. It can be used positively or negatively. A positive use benefits others, not only the one with power. One type of negative use is for self gratification, regardless of the effect on others. It is narcissistic domination.

In his book, The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil, Philip Zimbardo says that, unless we remain mindful of what our roles in society expect of us, we can greatly harm others.

At the end of the sixth chapter of his domination manual, The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli demonstrated such harmful power. He advised the prince to always and in all things seek to make his subjects dependent on him for everything. Then they would be loyal to him.

This advice was not about benefiting the subjects. By loyal, Machiavelli undoubtedly meant compliant, but compliance is not synonymous with consent.

Compliance can be voluntary or given under duress. Machiavelli was advising the prince to use his power over his subjects — power imbalance — to create dependency for his own gratification, to increase his power over them.

Machiavelli’s advice implies that dependency inadvertently attracts domination and indeed many in positions of power are drawn to those dependent on them. Think Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Jeffrey Epstein and others.

Were these young hockey stars in that room to benefit E.M. or just themselves? They were very young. Junior Hockey League players range in age from 16 to 20, so their prefrontal cortex impulse control was immature and impaired by alcohol.

They were also members of the same winning team. They had bonded with each other. Drunk or sober, they shared team spirit, as do street gangs, members of a profession, members of a political party and so on.

E.M. was not part of the team. Did she start out thinking she was the star of this show? If so, when did she realize that she was not, that they were still in team mode, a gang, and she was the puck they passed from one to the other? That she had no real power? They did.

Targets of assault, domestic or otherwise, often don’t fully understand what is happening to them until later, maybe years or decades later, that what they thought was love or admiration is actually abuse.

That gradual awareness can make their testimony appear unreliable, especially under the letter-perfect scrutiny of the law.

Similarly, those with power over others have to understand their own power and its effect on those without it. That understanding can also come gradually.

When we occupy positions of power we are blind to our privilege as well as our failures and abuses. We don’t like others pointing out our shortcomings and we will do everything in our power to retain our positive self image.

High-level sports stars are like gods in our society. Whether they are aware of it or not, they are role models, people with influence, power. And their team owners and coaches exert power over them.

One of the team members said he hadn’t gone as far as the others. However, the title of Barbara Coloroso’s book, The Bully, The Bullied, and the Not-So-Innocent Bystander, suggests that he was the latter, no less complicit than the others.

If we stand by and do nothing to change this negative “hockey culture” are we not also the not-so-innocent bystanders?

Ruth Enns is a Winnipeg freelance writer.