Important clarifications:

This article is written for readers who are already familiar with the Drama Triangle theory.
This article is not talking about abuse of the helpless (children etc) but about interactions between capable adults.

~~~~

The genius idea behind “The Karpman Drama Triangle” and its later developments, is that it doesn’t matter in which of the corners of the triangle we find ourselves — as long as we are in one of them we partake in the dynamics of victim consciousness and create unnecessary drama in life. It is sometimes hard for us to admit it, but what this model claims is that the Victim, the Persecutor, and the Rescuer are all operating on the same level of consciousness. Even the Rescuer is just operating on a victim-consciousness level, no more. Therefore — if we do not want to continue living on that level, we must stop playing, consciously and unconsciously, the games of V-P-R.

The Empowered Triangle

In his book “The Power of T.E.D. (The Empowerment Dynamic) David Emerald has the corners relabeled in a new way that suggests a path out of the drama: in that path, the Victim is invited to realise that s\he is the Creator of her\his own reality, the Persecutor then becomes a Challenger, while the Rescuer is called to upgrade into a Coach mentality.

What’s Between a Rescuer and a Coach?

One of the differences between being a Rescuer and being a Coach is that the rescuer reinforces the victim's victimhood, whereas the coach doesn't buy into the victim's story of disempowerment. The coach’s aim is to empower the one who is seeing themselves as a victim, remind them that they are not a helpless victim but the creator of their own reality, and offer them tools to claim back their power and meet the challenge from an empowered place. When the victim is ready for that shift (and not any victim is ready! In fact most of humanity is still addicted to Drama and the psyche derives hidden pleasures from it, even while suffering) they transform the dynamics and pop themselves out of the drama triangle.

Was it Intentional?

One of the things I cherish from my rabbinical education is the clear line that lies in the Jewish law of Halacha between an intentional “bad deed” and an unintentional one. An act can be called “an evil act” only if done with intention. For instance: if one person intended to harm another by his deeds, then the deed is considered evil and the consequences in the Jewish court will be severe, accordingly. Nevertheless, if it was an unintentional act, done by mistake, based on confusion and ignorance (“had I known that this will hurt you I would have never done it!”) It is not considered an evil act, and the consequences in court will be totally different.

When we come to talk about sexual abuse, the crossing of sexual boundaries, and sexual misconduct we first need to apply this question to the situation: Was it an intentional act? Was the person accused as a Persecutor aware of the fact that her\his actions are harming the other?

Many of the allegations that the field of sacred sexuality is dealing with nowadays have to do with interactions that were NOT intended to cause any harm, even if they did, unfortunately, eventually. It is, of course, totally normal to feel hurt as a result of unintentional harm. This is a normal occurrence in any interpersonal dynamic, so of course, it can also come up in sexual dynamics. It just so happens that there's a lot of sexual trauma and societal trauma around sexuality so the amount of pain that can come up is often quite acute.

Many times, not only the person who is blamed to be a Persecutor was not aware of the painful impact of their actions, many times the one who is standing in the role of the Victim was not aware of the painful consequences at the time of the connection. It is later, sometimes months or even years later, that they woke up to the feeling that there actually was something painful about that interaction.

What happens a lot currently on social media is the phenomenon of people coming forward with sexual allegations towards a specific person, often without revealing their own identity, publicly accusing this individual of sexual misconduct, without taking any responsibility for their own part in that interaction. They portray themselves as Victims, the specific individual as a Persecutor and the whole web community is immediately enrolled in the role of the Rescuer.

A different way to relate to allegations in a conscious community

Dawn Cherie, the wise woman I am fortunate to be life partners with, suggested that when a person comes forward with such allegations where it is clear that there was no harming intent, we as a community, will consciously step into the Coach position. As a conscious community that is interested in upgrading itself and the field as a whole, we will agree to relate to allegations only after the person who comes forward is also invited to answer questions such as: “How might you have contributed to the unclarity of the situation?”

Getting out of the Victim Triangle and back into love, empowerment, and presence, requires us all to notice if/when we are playing the role of Rescuer and then consciously choose to step into the Coach Role instead. This involves calling for integrity and accountability from all parties involved. This is far from “victim-blaming” — since we are not interested in the games of blame and guilt whatsoever. What I am talking about is sharing responsibility between all the architects of a given situation, instead of putting it all on one side.

In situations of unintentional harm, we have to inquire how did such misunderstandings happen to take place? And, perhaps more importantly, how can the individuals involved empower themselves to minimize the chance of the misunderstanding happening again? What can each party do to create a better outcome if/when they encounter a similar situation again in the future? The lessons that can be learned from such an inquiry might be so important for both sides, and a lot of healing and growth might come out of it, that will upgrade the whole community.

For a conscious accountability process to take place, we must pay close attention to the level of consciousness we are operating from. Are we unconsciously holding blame energy, judgment, righteousness, or caretaking? If we're being a Rescuer, we might think that we're helping the person who feels hurt, while in reality, we might actually be exacerbating their hurt by depriving them the opportunity to feel powerful, aware, and equipped to prevent future hurt from happening. There is freedom, healing, and power in acknowledging how they contributed to creating the dynamic, and what they might have done differently to create a better dynamic — whether it's stating a need or boundary, being more precise and clear in expressions, sharing about sensitivities/ fears/ resistances, etc.

In contrast to rescuing people in pain, we can play the role of a coach by consciously holding ourselves and one another accountable and acting from love, empowerment, and presence. This looks like calling for awareness, integrity, and accountability from all parties, and in doing so supporting the empowerment and the awakening of all.

An example of an inquiry in this direction can be to ask the one who complains:

“Did you communicate your boundaries in a clear and direct way to the person that you claim had crossed them?”
while we ask the other side:
“Did you ask for the boundaries of the person you were engaging with? Did you give them the space and permission to express their real boundaries, or were you pressuring them to lean in the direction you wanted?”

We can get curious and ask the one who complains:

“Can you recognize ways in which you actually contributed to the other person’s confusion?” (for instance, by giving them double messages),
while asking the other person:
“Could you notice a confusion, in you or in the other, at that time? if so, were you interested to clarify it or did you ignore it?”

If we move away from the questions of “who is right and who is wrong” we can even offer both of them to look at the shadow aspects of the situation, the aspects that one will never express when trying to win the case. We can ask them both: “If you are completely honest, what part of you was actually interested in keeping the situation foggy and unclear at that time? What did it serve?” And — “What can YOU learn for the future as a result of that saddening event?”

FREEZE

As the awareness of trauma and PTSD grew in the sacred sexuality field, we as a community became more aware of the post-traumatic responses of our nervous system. We became more aware of the fact that not always we are able to access our truth when our nervous system is on alert mode. Claims such as “ I froze… I couldn’t express my real boundaries at that moment...” become more and more common as a result of this rising awareness.

A different claim that comes from our awareness of trauma responses can be something like: “I indeed said Yes, but I didn’t really mean it!” This kind of claim might be related not only to a freeze response but also to the fourth one, which some psychologists call “Appease” (“Fight, Flight, Freeze and Appease“, some others try to keep the F initial letter and call it ”Fawn”). This type of trauma response makes us “get along with the program“ as a survival strategy. We participate in an activity, be it a sexual interaction or else, not because this is what we really want, but because our nervous system feels this will be the safest way to survive (whether it is true or not).

This rising awareness of trauma and PTSD responses in our field is so important and beautiful, nevertheless, it has some shadows that we should bring to the light. One of those shadows is the way it might sometimes contribute to the good old drama triangle. Days, weeks, or even years after an event people might wake up to the fact that they did not express their true boundaries because of a Freeze response, or they said ‘Yes’ and participated in a sexual interaction just as an Appease response, and so forth. The pain is sometimes so big that they might want to get rid of it by throwing the full responsibility for the grievance on the other person that was with them. They want to assume that this person should have been able to read subtle signs, and know better than them what was happening for them. As a result, this other person finds themselves all of a sudden accused, or even publicly shamed, as if they were a Persecutor of an innocent Victim, while the truth is that both of them were unaware of what was happening under the surface at the time of the event.

While I’m sure all of us would love to be mind readers, or at least detect all unspoken subtle signs of possible trauma response, there is no way to ensure it, and we cannot expect it from anyone. The responsibility for what happened in the past should be shared by both sides, including the person who went into Freeze or Appease without communicating what is really happening for them.

When I say “Share the responsibility” I do not mean sharing any blame or guilt. It does not imply moral values of good or bad in a person. Sharing responsibility is just a mature way of dealing with an event. We get curious and examine what part of it was I responsible for and what can I learn from it for the future, for myself, and even for my community. No blame.Furthermore: In a conscious community times of sharing responsibility can be normalized and even celebrated!

It is totally normal, for instance, to cross our own boundaries. We do that many times, knowingly and unknowingly. Many times the only way we come to realize we actually have a boundary is by crossing it, at least once, and feeling the pain that crossing it causes us. This is just the way we learn. We are human.

My beloved friend and ISTA colleague Janine Ma-Ree said once that just like with freezing food, our system tends to Freeze stuff when we are not yet ready to “eat” it. We freeze it for later, and when it defrosts, it might mean that this is the right time for our nervous system to deal with the memories and feelings that were frozen.

The OUTCOME should be HEALING

One of the “Three Vital Questions” that David Emerald brings up as questions that might help upgrade the deep wiring of humanity towards drama, is “Where are you putting your focus, on problems or on outcomes?”. I want to add to his question another one: What is the outcome that we are seeking? Are we seeking a violent act of revenge and punishment (actions that are usually called “Justice” by the victim and the rescuer), actions that by themselves are part of the drama triangle, or are we seeking healing and empowerment as the outcome?

I think that for us, the folks who inhabit the conscious communities and sacred sexuality fields this is not really a question. We are here because we seek healing for our communities, humanity, and the planet. Therefore we have to be wise and not fall into the old drama triangle. We have to seek other ways to deal with those situations where pain and sorrow were caused by misfortunate erotic interactions between individuals that did not mean to harm each other.

Can we rise up, upgrade our actions, rewire our old neuron pathways where victim consciousness had carved its path for generations and take part in the creation of a new humanity that does not play the old endless dramas of VPR?

I believe we can.

1 Karpman MD, Stephen (1968). "Fairy tales and script drama analysis". Transactional Analysis Bulletin. 26 (7): 39–43

2 David Emerald (2016). The Power of TED* (*The Empowerment Dynamic). Bainbridge Island: Polaris Publishing Group.

3 David Emerald (2016). The Power of TED* (*The Empowerment Dynamic). Bainbridge Island: Polaris Publishing Group.

Ohad Pele / May 2022, Buffalo NY

Featured