Post edited 1:50 am – May 9, 2010 by jbash

Here, for discussion, is one of the suggestions that have been made for the CPAA's general policy position on abusive relationships.

THIS IS NOT ADOPTED POLICY. In fact, many CPAA members and volunteers have not seen it. It's here to stimulate community input. Is it on the right track? If so, what should be changed? If not, where should we go?

Basic position on abusive relationships.

Relationships should be conducted with affirmative concern for the feelings, well-being, and autonomy of all involved. The essence of abuse in relationships lies in denying or denigrating a partner's personhood and interests.

All relationships, monogomous or otherwise, which are based on coercion or invalid consent, are abusive. Such relationships are proper targets for legal sanction.

Abuse in monogamy and abuse in polyamory are fundamentally analogous and in many cases identical.

The presence of multiple partners in a conjugal relationship cannot properly be used as a proxy for coercion, invalid consent, or abuse of any other kind. These are amenable to direct observation, and should be observed directly.

Validity of consent

We recognize that people may be unduly influenced by direct abuse, by temporal or spiritual threats, or by other social, cultural, and institutional forces, and that extreme coercion or manipulation may invalidate a person's consent to any arrangement. We further recognize that children and adolescents are often more easily subject to such manipulation than are adults, and that the criteria used to determine the presence of undue influence upon a minor may differ from those used to determine the presence of undue influence upon an adult.

Invalid consent is seen in monogamy, in patriarchal polygyny, and presumably in polyamory as well.

Nonetheless, history clearly warns of the danger of setting up officials to judge the decisions of others. Absent clear, direct and specific evidence of coercion or extreme manipulation, the consent of adults must, in a free and democratic society, be presumed valid.

Recommendations

1. When drafting or enforcing laws, the presence of multiple partners in a conjugal relationship must not be used as a proxy for coercion, invalid consent, or abuse of any other kind.
    

2. Acceptable legal provisions intended to protect against undue influence must meet the following conditions:
    
   1. The concept of undue influence embodied in the law must be clearly defined.
   2. The presence of or absence of undue influence must in the overwhelming majority of cases be easily decidable.
   3. The criteria for determining undue influence must not involve discrimination on inappropriate grounds, including the grounds of the number of people involved in a relationship.
   4. The law must not burden those in consensual relationships with the onus of proving that they have not been unduly influenced. [Never ever?]
   5. The law must be capable of consistent enforcement by reasonable measures compatible with a free and democratic society.