In this premier episode of the podcast, Partnered with a Survivor, Ruth Stearns Mandel and David Mandel, partners in their personal and professional lives, have a far ranging and personal conversation about the relationship between coercive control and consent. Touching on the defense strategy used by Harvey Weinstein, the re-victimization of a British national in a Cyprus rape case to the founding principles of the United States, David & Ruth dive deep into the topic of how coercive control shapes our understanding of consent, and harms our ability to support survivors.
Now available! Mapping the Perpetrator’s Pattern: A Practitioner’s Tool for Improving Assessment, Intervention, and Outcomes The web-based Perpetrator Pattern Mapping Tool is a virtual practice tool for improving assessment, intervention, and outcomes through a perpetrator pattern-based approach. The tool allows practitioners to apply the Model’s critical concepts and principles to their current case load in real
Check out David Mandel's new book "Stop Blaming Mothers and Ignoring Fathers: How to transform the way we keep children safe from domestic violence."
In this premier episode of the podcast, Partnered with a Survivor, Ruth Stearns Mandel and David Mandel, partners in their personal and professional lives, have a far ranging and personal conversation about the relationship between coercive control and consent. Touching on the defense strategy used by Harvey Weinstein, the re-victimization of a British national in a Cyprus rape case to the founding principles of the United States, David & Ruth dive deep into the topic of how coercive control shapes our understanding of consent, and harms our ability to support survivors.
Now available! Mapping the Perpetrator’s Pattern: A Practitioner’s Tool for Improving Assessment, Intervention, and Outcomes The web-based Perpetrator Pattern Mapping Tool is a virtual practice tool for improving assessment, intervention, and outcomes through a perpetrator pattern-based approach. The tool allows practitioners to apply the Model’s critical concepts and principles to their current case load in real
Check out David Mandel's new book "Stop Blaming Mothers and Ignoring Fathers: How to transform the way we keep children safe from domestic violence."
Speaker 1: [00:00:00] All right, so starting, yeah, we're still going, so we're trying to come up with a a way to introduce our our our blog. [00:00:09][8.6]
Speaker 2: [00:00:10] Partnering with a survivor, [00:00:10][0.7]
Speaker 1: [00:00:11] partnering with a survivor because, you know, David took his commitment to partnering with survivors pretty far and actually married one who, you know, we talk about survivorship and abuse and domestic violence and domestic abuse and coercive control and masculinity and femininity and relationship and consent and kids all the time. All the time. All the time. Constantly. We're constantly talking, right? I think that's your Brooklyn. [00:00:44][33.1]
Speaker 2: [00:00:46] I like talking. I'm, you know, this is what I do for a living. [00:00:49][2.6]
Speaker 1: [00:00:49] You. You love talking. [00:00:50][0.8]
Speaker 2: [00:00:51] I like talking. I like words. [00:00:52][1.1]
Speaker 1: [00:00:52] But it's more than you like talking. It's that you have this need to work things out through through modeling them and language, through talking them through with other people and hearing yourself your own ideas. Well, and I'm similar because I grew up with a commune with 55 other people, so talking was something that people did a [00:01:12][20.0]
Speaker 2: [00:01:12] lot, right? And as an extroverted talking things through, it really does help me clarify ideas and and listening to people is very important to this. This idea of this podcast that was talking this is near and dear to both of us. [00:01:26][13.6]
Speaker 1: [00:01:26] So I got it wrong. I called it a blog. The kids would make fun of me and less fun [00:01:31][4.6]
Speaker 2: [00:01:31] of me because you call it a blog. Yes. [00:01:33][2.3]
Speaker 1: [00:01:34] Yes, OK, it's a podcast. [00:01:35][1.0]
Speaker 2: [00:01:35] It's a podcast. [00:01:36][0.2]
Speaker 1: [00:01:37] So this morning we were talking about consent, but consent. Not as a concept just of sex and the consent to give somebody something, but the entire relational aspects of consent as an ongoing relationship and how we can both forget that that's an aspect to relationship, but we can also do damage to it in many different ways. And and the reason I was thinking of it is I've been following the the rape case in Cyprus and the blurred lines between a woman consenting to a sexual interaction. And then that leading into forced, you know, coerced sexual interactions is becoming more and more clear in many parts of the world to people, you know, in the U.K., obviously, people understand that she did not consent to those further sexual contacts. But the judges and the lawyers in Cyprus who made their case around her argued her initial consent equaled ongoing consent. And to me, that is really important. Having lived in coercive control in a commune where the belief actually was that no one just on the sexual side that women could not say no to their husbands in having sex, I know it seems very, very, very outdated to most people, but a lot of people still live in those type of relationships in this world [00:03:22][105.2]
Speaker 2: [00:03:23] and even in the U.S. until relatively recently, we're still marital rape wasn't outlawed right now in many states until the last few decades. And so that's, you know, not it's not that outmoded, unfortunately, right? [00:03:37][14.3]
Speaker 1: [00:03:38] Yeah. But also just that the sense of understanding consent and relationships at once. And this goes to the bottom of understanding coercive control as a way that people's consent is broken not just sexually but consent towards other actions. And that is is that if once you're threatened, once somebody tells you that you must do something because x y z will happen as a result of not that not being done, or you must do something because I'm going to commit suicide or kill myself if you don't right? Or you must do something because if you don't, our social circles will be devastated and judge you and your you're a person who is knocking the system of how we do things in this particular social system or context that once that no is no longer comfortable, even in the context of I've made an agreement with you that we're married. But at any point in time, in order for the power dynamics of the relationship to be, you know, stable and for me to be a person who is autonomous and safe and for you to be a person who is autonomous and safe that we have to have the right to say no. Even if it's an action that we did before that, we consented to. In other words. And that oftentimes we sort of thought was thoughtlessly throw ourselves into interactions because we have been trained by society to believe that when we have consented to something once that we've consented to the whole bucket of things that come along with it. [00:05:20][102.3]
Speaker 2: [00:05:21] Right. And I think that, you know, when going back to your point about sex in the context of of an abusive relationship, of course of control, that the one of the big problems I would always see with the cycle of violence model, which which suggested that there was sort of a tension building build period and then an explosion and then a honeymoon period. And then it would repeat again, was that the implication that somehow the dynamic created by the violence and of course, control was somehow missing in this idea of a quote unquote honeymoon period that somehow that that that you could return to a previous stay a honeymoon. You know, it just carries that term, carries all sorts of cultural baggage, you know, sort of sweetness and and the beginning of relationship and good times and and and you know, it might feel better and might have less overt stress and then obviously a period of violence or period leading up to to violence. But it really, really leaves perpetrator accountability off the table because in that period, they still instilled coercion and threats and an atmosphere of violation and potential violation, and so make up sex in that context. Again, really sort of assuming that this concept of you can have make up sex between two equal people post abuse post violence is just is a continuation of the of the mental manipulation by by a perpetrator, but also a cultural idea that somehow these things can be disconnected and that there's no relationship between the two things. [00:07:20][118.9]
Speaker 1: [00:07:21] Yeah, I mean, I think fundamentally where we really want to be linear people and we we like to say, Oh, you consented to this once? And so this is OK, this is a known factor, and I get to do this over and over and over again. You understand what I'm saying. Think we're a little bit simplistic that way? Right? As human beings, it takes far more work and far more reflection to to understand that that consent is dynamic and that it's not. It's not predicated upon one agreement at one time and that it can be a very fluid thing. And I think that legally in the legal system that the notion of female consent particularly interrupting something where something was agreed to. And then there's a hard stop. There's a hard no. And this is this is true of sex or anything. This doesn't have to just be about sex. And that's I think the thing that I'm I'm most concerned about is is that people aren't really carrying over this sense of consent into understanding how to understand coercive control, right? And power dynamics because it because it has to be embedded in our understanding of how to look at coercive control from a pattern based, behavioral based aspect, because if not, it's decontextualized. Mm hmm. Because then the perpetrator says, well, she consented to this right at one point in time. And and I'm I'm looking at how Harvey Weinstein's lawyer is, is framing the friendly emails between him and his victims as being a form of consent, which makes me just crazy inside because the reality is, is that when you're living in a situation with somebody who is very powerful and this is from my my own experience, living as a child in severe abuse. When you have somebody who has control of the directionality of your world, you try to make them happy. And that is just a survival tactic. And actually, it's a really frickin smart survival, right? Sure. You have to make yourself safe. Safety is the main priority. And so keeping the perpetrator happy in that situation is not a sign of consent. Right. And it is not. It is a sign of self-protection. Right. When you bring it into the context of this person threatened me, right? And they have this. Power over me. Right. And they can destroy me financially, or they can destroy me physically, or they can destroy me emotionally, or they can destroy my reputation. They have now tipped the balance of consent completely. That consent is no longer a factor at all. The balance of power is in their hands. And so this notion of friendly contact or of victims even quote unquote air quotes consenting to live in an abusive relationship, you can't actually consent to live in an abusive relationship. You can choose certain behaviors which keep you there because probably you actually believe that it's going to keep you safe in the end. There is some sense of safety that you're trying to establish and [00:10:49][208.3]
Speaker 2: [00:10:50] and it and it's it's even, you know, I want to recognize that whether it's my abusive relationship, that they're not only trying to appease somebody who may be a perpetrator out of out of a sense of of safety, physical or emotional safety, but that they're they're still trying to achieve other ends for themselves and their kids, whether it move forward in a career or get their kids to go to school. Right. And so it's actually even beyond sort of managing the system with situation, trying to kind of placate somebody to get to get safety, a taxi, to get other goals achieved as well. And and with the case of Harvey Weinstein, you know that these women wanted their careers to grow and blossom and that he either was a gateway or the gateway controller that was in control. That's right. And in some cases, it was clear that legally he was in control of of some of the ways that our films were edited or what happened in terms of their performances. And so you know that we have to be cognizant that what's at stake is not just safety, which would be important enough in itself, but but in some it's also these these deeper life goals. I mean, if you think about, um, affluent women who stay in abusive relationships because they see that their kids will lose all the things or are afraid that they lose all the things that that they want them to have, that they they buy right in some sense or should have access to them by being a child of of this them as a couple or that her partner is somebody who's got money. And then she says, if I leave, they're going to lose all these things because he's going to use it against me as a tool. [00:12:48][118.0]
Speaker 1: [00:12:48] Right. They're going to [00:12:49][0.5]
Speaker 2: [00:12:49] suffer. They're going to suffer. And so that's not we could frame that as safety. But if we don't include these other pieces about aspirations of dreams being met or goals for children, I think we're missing something really important. [00:13:03][13.8]
Speaker 1: [00:13:04] You doing? Do you remember when we went to to my nephew's wedding and we were up on the bar, the rooftop bar and there was a guy badgering the mm, the bartender? Yeah. And he said, if if you don't go out with me, I'm gonna jump off the roof. Mm hmm. And then I turned it turned to her and said very loudly. That's something that people who are going to abuse you say because he's just basically coerced you and you and I. I feel like, you know, there's there's so many layers of people not really getting what consent looks like. My who holds the power right in their relationship. Right. And not contextualizing it because it's very, very easy, particularly people who are really prone to victim blaming, right to say, well, she's a she's a fucking idiot if she went out with him. Mm hmm. I mean, he showed his cards from the very beginning, right? But at the same time, what we don't take into consideration is the reality that that people who love to hold the power dynamics and love to hold all the control in their camp in order to make other people do what they want them to do. Our number one, very good at doing that and in many different subtle ways which can mimic love. But the other piece of that is is that truly, at least in my own experience of myself and why I get so angry when people victim blame is that there is a level of care and empathy, and that is just basic to most human rights, but to many, many humans, and that we don't want to see other people suffer. And and in that sort of narcissistic place where somebody is going to take all the power and they're going to control the situation and they're going to coerce you into doing what they want. They very much are able to use that sense of you need to do something because it's good for me. Right, right. Do something because it's good for me, right? [00:15:19][135.5]
Speaker 2: [00:15:20] Well, and even that that circumstance which you bravely you serve. I admire that so much. I admire that so much, you know, and you know, you said that to her and you know, and then we called you called the hotel security and let me know. And because they really needed to back her up more. Yeah. And but that it's it's it's it's the mind games of it, because I doubt she really believed he would throw himself off the roof. Right? And so it falls into this realm of psychological kind of subtle psychological pressure that is presented even as a joke. Right? You know, and and also, as you know, conveys the sense can can be perceived. You know, this is how much I want to do this right? I want to go out with you. And it's got all these things wrapped in there. And we're not I think we're in equipping. And I don't want to say this is what's important. I don't think the job is to equip women or girls with this because I think it's really equipping the conversation and I clearly making sure that boys don't don't do this or anybody doesn't do this. But really the that we really kind of understand this where we start with this, what consent is. And and I think it's not just at the language level of words, it's a level of energy. [00:16:53][93.2]
Speaker 1: [00:16:54] It's actionable. And I think that that's that's right, it's actionable. And I think that that's very difficult. I mean, every day, I mean, this is the reality. So you sit your kids down and you say you got a or you're got to eat your dinner, kid, you've got to eat your dinner. All right. So now we're already we're already swimming in the waters of consent and the questions of how you formed children and model to right? What's what is what is their autonomy and what's their personal power and what's not? You know, and we've had debates about this before, where there's people far on the end of the spectrum of I'm not going to make my child anything they don't want. OK, well, is that OK? And then there's and then there's the people who sit their kid down and I'm like cringing inside because I know these people and I grew up with them and I lived with them, right? And and they force you to eat until you throw up. Right? And then they make you eat. You throw up. I mean, this very graphic, right? [00:17:50][55.8]
Speaker 2: [00:17:50] It's true. [00:17:50][0.2]
Speaker 1: [00:17:51] That's right. You know, and it's it's no longer I think the key is is that there's a place where it crosses over, right? It is actually no longer about the well-being of the person that you're dealing with. Not making that child eat that food because it's good for them, right? That's not true anymore. You've you've crossed over into this is now a power struggle, right? And I'm going to win, right? [00:18:14][23.3]
Speaker 2: [00:18:14] And I think there's I when I think about this, I think about about to two important things. One is that while this is about culture and politics and political definitions in the broadest sense, which is that that has to do with legitimate and and what is considered legitimate authority and legitimate boundaries by the culture, how far I can go is defined in part by what the culture says is appropriate. That's why why as flawed as they are in many ways, the the mandatory arrest and probable cause restaurant domestic violence were groundbreaking because they they redefined the boundaries. Why it's important to outlaw marital rape, why it's important to outlaw coercive control is flawed, as their application is their statement of of of of public understandings and the social responses. And I think that is that is critical. And then and then the second part is really understanding that that these things happen on a continuum. And that's why we said earlier the pattern based approach is so important because if, if if somebody in a relationship raises their voice once and and and it doesn't include put out and does include threats and doesn't include attacks and size character and doesn't doesn't include gestures of intimidation, you know, that's probably not going to have a major impact on the power dynamics in the relationship. Right. But if somebody says to somebody quietly, you know, if you leave, then you're not going to get a. Any for the kids, you're not going to get anything from me. You're going to be out in the street, you're going to be homeless and you know, I can do that and you know, I will. Then that may kick into to inter-relationship a power dynamic around control. And so to me, it was always, I would do these exercises and I say to people, what's the line between normal dysfunction in a relationship and abuse? And you'd have people explore it. And I think that kind of conversation is so critical because sitting at your example of a kid at the table is there, you know, there's a responsibility of parents to feed their kids right and to take care illegally, to take care of their basic needs. So you got that on one hand and to teach them and to guide them and to create structure in our family. [00:20:48][153.2]
Speaker 1: [00:20:48] You know, I think it's really interesting to me that this conversation that I didn't really have in person with somebody but just there was a discussion around somebody who's considered, you know, like a spiritual guru, and they had had their their girlfriend had written an article about how this person was abusive and, of course, heavily controlling and sexually manipulative. And then this conversation arose between me and this other person, and this other person was defending him. And she said, Well, I wouldn't want people to know what some of my worst behaviors and relationship. And I think that this is really, really interesting because I think that this is where this is, where we're able to tell ourselves a story that we have just as bad behaviors as people who are habitually and contextually coercively controlling and abusive. The US losing our temper as yelling at our kids. US losing our cool and saying things that we regret is dabbling in that energy of abuse. And therefore, what right do we have to judge anybody else? And it's it really creates this blind for abusers to operate in the dark under the guise of relationship issues? Oh, we're just having relationship issues, right? Rather than than being able to fully contextualize it and say, Well, let's look at the patterns of the behaviors. Let's look at the power dynamics of the of this, you know? No, you know, I'm a mom. I have three kids. You're you're your co-parent with me. We both know the places where you know the kids are are just being real jerks and we yell it out more, right? And and this is human. This is human nature. And it's it's human, either failing or it's just human interaction, you know? But at the same time, understanding what makes the power dynamics shift in one direction or the other and when also when it's being intentionally shifted to the benefit of one of the parties virtually in order to make them more comfortable, then more of this them more service them more. Whatever, then that's the big the big dividing line. And we haven't gotten really good at discussing that. [00:23:11][143.3]
Speaker 2: [00:23:12] I think I think there are things that can help us really do that, which is, I think, severity of behaviors. You know, I think the more severe the behaviors are, you know, the obvious ones are use of weapons or attempted strangulation or for [00:23:29][17.1]
Speaker 1: [00:23:29] the very sort [00:23:30][0.4]
Speaker 2: [00:23:30] and they're very far in. But just sort of just to be clear about severity. Well, with severity or severity of emotional threats, you know, I'm going to out some really some secret that you share with being confident that these severe violations and I guess maybe the good way to think about is severity of violations because I think it includes emotional violation, right? [00:23:53][22.7]
Speaker 1: [00:23:54] Isn't physical that includes the violation, right? You're too stupid to live on your own and therefore you need me to take it as [00:24:00][6.0]
Speaker 2: [00:24:00] a violation of somebody's spirit. So I think if I've never really thought about that way, but but to think of it as the severity of the violation is one thing. The second thing is is chronicity. How often does it happen? And and these things interact with it. So so it's easy to see, you know, that things that happen more regularly are going to have more severe impact, you know, and on some levels, some of the severe violations by the nature of violations, they can just need to happen only once to have severe [00:24:33][33.1]
Speaker 1: [00:24:33] right because they're so [00:24:34][0.6]
Speaker 2: [00:24:34] severe. And then the other way I think about it is is is is is domains of functioning that kind of get attacked. You know that that in some places, that abuse gets focused on very specific areas. And I'm not saying that's OK, right? But people have a lot more room to maneuver in other areas and take care of themselves and nurture themselves, whether through employment. Or through friends or through connections with family or doing the things that they enjoy, but that we can we can see that if if somebody who's being abusive, the the violations may not appear as big, but they're happening all the time and they're in they're intensely, you know, intimate, whether it's sexual abuse or it's you can't use water this way or I'm going to take the door off your [00:25:26][52.4]
Speaker 1: [00:25:27] bedroom, right? And that deadline. So that's the removal of freedom, which which we have a really hard time in the United States understanding coercive control. We're so locked right in the sense of women and children and victims need to be battered right before they can really be, you know, acknowledged right by the legal system in a substantial way. And even then, maybe not even in a substantial way, as we all know. But I think that that's the piece right there and that is understanding the reality that coercive control has so many different drips, so many different types of intensity and severity, and that it it's a removal of the liberties of the person. Really, it's not what's happening, it's what's not. It's what's being done in a way, it's what's. And that's very difficult for some humans to be able to wrap their minds around in the way that we've been trained, right? [00:26:23][55.8]
Speaker 2: [00:26:23] I think, look, you know, when we've seen Luke Lockhart speak about this, he'll talk about what was taken away. Right? And it's hard to see what's taken away. I think in some ways, and you really need to frame this through Evan Stark and this is his book. Coercive Control talks about domestic violence being a coercive control, being a crime of liberty and a human rights crime. And I think it's again, you're right. I think it's a language that isn't really strongly developed in the United States. It's it's better developed in other places. I think, you know where they're using a framework around the rights of women, of the rights of children and using much more of a U.N. human rights perspective to frame some of these issues. But in the U.S., it's not strongly developed. And and I think it's it's it's really critical. And we I would always talk for years about that. Domestic violence perpetrators target safety, self-determination, satisfaction. There was an attempt to to use an alliteration that that that that people remember. Right. And and for me, it was, you know, sort of really, if it's useful in the U.S. context, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a phrase that every kid learns as they learned about the founding the United States life liberty. So life is safety, liberty or self-determination and pursuit of happiness is is about satisfaction. And so in some ways, it's really useful to think about domestic violence as really targeting what is thought about as these inalienable rights that human beings have. And I think it's it's if we're going to keep putting what is still considered in many ways a personal private matter. Unfortunately, after all these years about activism into a public sphere and a public conversation. Right. We we want all of these connections that people can, can make or understand or hang their understanding on and really that it's attacking life, liberty and pursuit of happiness right through certain sets of patterns of behavior. [00:28:30][127.0]
Speaker 1: [00:28:31] Well, and this is a big topic to bring up at twenty eight minutes and 35 seconds because I think we should end it 30 minutes. But I do believe that the way that we habituate boys and we habituate populations towards the versions of masculinity that we have actually have a profound impact on the on the fundamental groundwork of consent already being damaged in so many ways because of the way that we've been trained, that masculinity is domination, is ownership right? Is the right to right is getting is getting is getting, you know, taking more and taking more and really not focusing on men as being nurturing men as being collaborators. Right. With women, as men, as being co-creative in the sense of co-creating these social structures of the family with women? Right. And so this has really done damage to the groundwork of consent because underneath that paradigm, you simply cannot move forward with consent because all the power is in one direction. It is one directional. Yeah. [00:29:53][82.2]
Speaker 2: [00:29:53] And it's that maybe this should be a teaser for our next minute podcast. That's a long time. Says that about about men and and and understands of power, and that has to be framed also around intersectionality and yeah, you know, it can't be looked at from one perspective. And and so I think it's it's a. And also this is a long conversation about sort of what's inherent and what's not and what social and what's learned, what's learned. And so I'm going to suggest. So we're just going to we're going to enter another future projects with this, with this, with this book [00:30:36][42.8]
Speaker 1: [00:30:36] going to end with a teaser of addressing masculinity in in all of its various forms. And that's a really small order, I think, but I think we can do it in half an hour. I don't [00:30:48][11.9]
Speaker 2: [00:30:49] know. We'll see. We may need to podcast remaining. [00:30:52][3.5]
Speaker 1: [00:30:53] All right. I love you. I'm happy. You're a good man. [00:30:53][0.0]
[1830.0]