|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Summary
This piece details what constitutes Quid Pro Quo Sexual assault. This is usually a situation when a person of authority request some form of sexual favour from their subordinate. Often, they are silent about what the other party stands to lose if they fail to comply.
Over the years, I have heard people erroneously describe quid pro quo Sexual Assault (SA) as tit for tat. I first heard it in an old Nollywood movie where the lecturer said, “If you want an A, give me your B.”
This is often erroneously attributed to transactional sex because you give something (usually sexual favours) in exchange for something. Others even claim that it is not sexual assault because you get to choose to decline or not to decline.
Many have argued that “she/he was not forced.” We saw this argument trail the #MeToo movement when actresses detailed their harrowing experiences in the hands of Hollywood executives. People claimed they ‘consented’ to it because they could have just said no.
Using the recent case of Derek Dixon accusing Tyler Perry of Quid Pro Quo sexual assault, and thereby suing him for $260 million, I will break down this simple phenomenon. First, I will provide background on Derek Dixon vs. Tyler Perry.
According to Dixon, as reported by the BBC, he and Tyler met in 2019, where Tyler showed interest in helping him with his career in Hollywood, until things took a different turn and Tyler began making sexual overtures at him, which he rejected.
Tyler had him on a role in his series The Oval & Ruthless, and then told him that his character, Dale, would be killed off in the series if Dixon did not ‘make him (Tyler) happy’. He also said he could get Dixon his own TV show if he complied.
He accused the Hollywood executive of a “coercive, sexually exploitative dynamic” while he was acting on The Oval and Ruthless, which included pinning him to a wall and inappropriately groping him.
The point being made is that even without Tyler touching him physically, it is sexual assault, and this article seeks to make this point clear. Quid pro quo SA is NOT:
✖️ Choice
✖️ Transactional sex.
So what then is quid pro quo SA, and why is it a form of sexual harassment?
Quid Pro Quo is a Latin phrase meaning “Something for Something: an exchange or a transaction.
Emphasis is on giving something in exchange for something; however, people are usually silent about what the other party stands to lose if they fail to comply.
For instance, if I walk into Shop Rite and later decide not to buy anything, I can choose to walk out. I don’t lose anything, and Shop Rite also doesn’t lose anything; no sanction is imposed. THIS IS CHOICE. But if Shop Rite stops my ATM card and says I must buy something, can we still call it a choice or a transaction?
You see, the consequence that follows changes the nature of what happened. It moves it from a mere transaction to Harassment. Unlike ordinary business transactions, there are certain features that make quid pro quo a form of Sexual assault, and these are:
1. Unequal bargaining power: Where one person holds considerable power over the other and UNFAIRLY uses the power to his advantage, to the detriment of the other and their right to choose to or not to, then that begins to enter the realm of SA.
For example, a CEO and a janitor at his establishment, a lecturer and a student, a minor and an adult, a therapist/doctor and a patient, a Hollywood executive and an upcoming actress/ actor. (The scenarios are not limited to this. It is evident in all works of life.
Usually, the other person is in a vulnerable position, and where vulnerability is used to gain an unfair advantage, the bargaining power is unequal.
The bargaining power question is crucial in determining how equitable an interaction is. However, where there is fear of sanction if the other chooses to say no, then it is no longer a mere exchange; it becomes sexual assault.
2. Merit: Sex is not a workplace currency. Competency and merit should ordinarily determine whether or not a worker or a student climbs up the ranks.
Where a person with considerable power changes work dynamics and begins to demand sex in exchange for promotion, career advancement, a job, grades, etc, then it becomes SA.
3. Abuse of authority & undue influence: Taking advantage of unequal bargaining power to arm-strong someone else into sex is ABUSE OF AUTHORITY.
Undue influence vitiates consent. It means even if the person says yes because of the influence you exerted on them, that yes has been vitiated by law.
4. Lack of choice: Choice has basic elements recognised by law. For there to be a choice, there must be :
✅ Full and Informed consent (includes benefits & risks)
✅ Without fear of sanction
✅ Voluntary: Without pressure, coercion, blackmail, undue influence or other elements that vitiate consent.
✅ Capacity: The person must not be under any form of legal disability. For instance, minors & persons of unsound mind are under legal disability; even if they say yes, the law says no on their behalf.
So even when a person says yes, and any of these elements are absent, such a consent is legally vitiated!
5. One-sided transactional: This is different from transactional sex, where the very object of the act itself is sex. However, even in transactional, where you go overboard more than the demands of the agreement, it can become SA.
Now, assuming Derek himself approached Tyler and offered sex in exchange for a role, in my opinion, it is not sexual assault (except in instances of legal disability); however, it would be abuse of authority on the part of Tyler because sex should not be a workplace currency. It’s like saying that a minor ‘seduced’ you. As an adult, it’s your duty to say no.
The recent case of the Astronomer’s CEO and his company’s HR highlights this. Even when it is consensual without any force, it can still be considered inappropriate and an abuse of authority.
Note that circumstances change the meaning of things; every matter is considered on a case-by-case basis.
6. Fear of sanction: Fear of sanction: This is the key ingredient- fear of sanction. This is what determines whether it is a choice or an assault.
Sanction here could mean physical assault, loss of earnings, loss of promotion, being transferred to another or a lower department for saying no, loss of career advancement and opportunities, spreading rumours about you, blackmail, isolation, instigating other colleagues against you, creating toxic work environment, termination of employment, hostility, retaliation, carry over in school etc.
Any form of disadvantage a person faces because of their choice to say NO amounts to a sanction.
Now, here is something to note about sanctions: listen attentively:
The sanction referred to here is NOT the NATURAL CONSEQUENCES of the action (Remember, the emphasis here is on natural).
With or without quid pro quo, actions generally attract consequences. In other words, the principle of cause and effect applies to every action we take.
However, in quid pro quo SA, the sanction is not a natural consequence of the actions; rather, it is human-made, and it is imposed by the person with higher bargaining power.
For example:
EX 1: I went to Kilimanjaro to buy dinner. They stated their price, but I do not have sufficient money to purchase, so I decided not to buy. I said no and walked away. Now, the natural consequence of saying no is that I will sleep hungry without dinner. That hunger is a natural consequence of my decision/ action.
EX 2: (Same scenario), I heard the price and said no. The moment I said no, the server began ignoring me, and when I asked for my ATM card, she said, “What is this beggar even doing here wasting my precious time since you know you can’t afford it?”
Everybody turned around and looked at me. Then the server told the security man, “Take this hungry thief out of here before he steals something,” and everyone laughed. They dragged me out. In the process, my clothes tore, causing further embarrassment. They threw me out of the building, and I fell and scratched my knee.
Now, the embarrassment I suffered is NOT a natural consequence of choosing not to buy, it is a human-imposed sanction which is wrong because I have the HUMAN RIGHT to choose to or not to patronise them.
The way the seller treated me or responded to my decision not to buy determines whether it is a mere transaction or an assault.
I do not owe them a legal obligation to say YES. I have the right to say NO, treating a person as subhuman and imposing sanctions for exercising that right to say no only derogates from my well-protected fundamental human right.
BECAUSE EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE WITHOUT FEAR OF SANCTION.
Any sanction or consequence from my action should be NATURAL CONSEQUENCES, not HUMAN-IMPOSED CONSEQUENCES. Remember that sanctions or consequences mean any form of disadvantage suffered because of choosing not to.
The only person illegally empowered to impose human-made consequences is THE LAW or anyone empowered by law to do so. For instance, if I break traffic laws, I get a fine or spend some days in prison. This is because OBEYING TRAFFIC LAWS IS NOT A CHOICE, IT IS LEGALLY MANDATED. Sanctions are only applied where there is a duty imposed on you, and you break that duty.
Now, the question is: Do you owe your boss a legal duty to say yes to sex?
If the answer is no, why then is he imposing sanctions?
Who gave him the right or authority to impose a sanction on you for saying no?
Is receiving a yes from you his right?
What law did you break by saying no?
Once again, what gave him the right to impose sanctions for non-compliance???
When a boss, lecturer or any person in a position of authority causes you to suffer sanction for EXERCISING YOUR RIGHT TO SAY NO, he is saying that you don’t have a right to choose; rather, you have a mandate to say yes to him and by saying no, you deserve to be punished for breaking that mandate. The question is, would you still consider this a choice?
It is easy to say, “He/she was not forced. They could have turned down the offer,” however, people should not be made to choose between means of livelihood and sex. Like I said earlier, sex is not a workplace currency. If a person in a position of authority changed the work dynamics for his personal gain, to the detriment of others, it becomes SA
“Even if Derek had said yes and gotten a TV show of its own, that doesn’t make it any less of a sexual assault because all the elements of consent are missing, notwithstanding that they enjoyed some benefits.”
The litmus test for identifying quid pro quo SA. Whenever you’re in doubt whether or not what you’re facing is QUID PRO QUO SA, my litmus test is, ask yourself these two questions:-
1. Do I owe this person a duty to say yes to that particular demand?
2. Is the consequence I am facing a natural consequence of my choice, or is it a human-made consequence?
If the answer to both questions is NO, then it is most likely quid pro quo sexual assault.
Editor’s note: This story was written by Dogo Joy Njeb and was first published on SheResonance.
