There's a Thing going on in my social circles. Someone I know (who wishes to remain anonymous) recommended that a version of the following statement be posted by the person at the center of the Thing.

I don't think that person is likely to follow that advice. I imagine that they're pretty overwhelmed, whether they're guilty or innocent or something in between.

I'm posting it here myself, instead, putting words in their mouth, to see how people respond. For instance, I can imagine people saying that it makes sense, or that it's not enough, or that it's manipulative, or that it's good but sets up bad incentives, etc. I wonder if a statement like this would be seen as meaningful, in this whole situation, or if it would simply be confirming evidence to both sides.

I'm curious to hear your reactions. I am unlikely to respond to any of them.

Again, this is me, a third party who knows everyone involved reasonably well, IMAGINING words that they might say, in response to prompting from another anonymous third party. None of this is secretly a sock puppet campaign, for instance. The people involved can't see this post or your replies to it.

(I'm trying to figure out subtle social stuff, and NONE of them need the stress of watching us throwing a bunch of hypotheticals back and forth when their lived experience is real and present-to-them and traumatic. But at the same time, I think the rest of us HAVE to be able to discuss these things, and not to let our knee-jerk reactions run the show.)

You're allowed to be emotional in your response, if you have one. You don't have to try to adhere to my usual standard of rationality. You can say things that you don't fully endorse or can't fully defend (and I will defend you from others attacking those things, though they're welcome to disagree with them). But avoid escalation/accusations/flame wars on this hypothetical thread; if things get too tribal or too fight-or-flight I'll just delete them."
--------------------------------------------------------

A statement from an imaginary version of Brent:

"Two of the women I have dated believe I have abused them. Others might feel the same. From my point of view, I think the story is more complex, and there's a lot of difficult-to-predict and difficult-to-understand stuff going on with consent and power dynamics and people asking you to do things in unusual contexts and people processing trauma.

However, I agree that I hurt them, and I agree that their present pain is at least half on my shoulders. I have tried repeatedly to atone and apologize, and been unable, in part because our history understandably makes it difficult for them to let me get close enough to do so. I'm not adding a public apology here, because that just sets up a weird dynamic. But I regret what happened, did not want them to be where they are now, and would do things differently given a time machine.

Here are their statements [link]. Here is mine [link]. If you are thinking of dating me, this is information you deserve to have. I don't think all of what's written there is true, but it's all believed by those who wrote it, and that counts for something even if facts are uncertain.

I don't think these stories disqualify me from being a good romantic partner, or an upstanding member of society. I do think they provide evidence about my ability to tell where the line is, or to distinguish between what my partners seem to me to want in the moment versus what they will endorse having wanted in the future.

If you're uncertain about your ability to stand your own ground, or susceptible to pressure and confusion, you shouldn't date me. If you think I'm an abuser, you absolutely shouldn't date me.

But I don't think that all people fall into those buckets, and I don't think the answer to my past is to preemptively make everyone else's decisions for them in the future."

--------------------------------------------------------
Two things to add (since, again, I don't plan on responding much to comments):

1) I do think there remains genuine uncertainty about matters of fact and blame. I think that the statements of the women are entirely accurate insofar as they honestly represent the pain and trauma experienced, and what was going on for them both in the past and now. I don't think they're exaggerating what it felt like to go through what they went through. I think they deserve trust, care, support, and protection, and that they are acting in honest defense of future women who they want to protect from similar experiences.

AND YET it still seems to me, given my present state of knowledge (which includes private conversations with all involved parties at various points in time), that all of the data admit of multiple explanations, not all of which require malice, and that it's my moral obligation to not throw away those explanations in which the cause is [tragedy and confusion and it's-hard-to-communicate-around-sex-and-power and people-often-mispredict-how-they-will-respond-to-things] as opposed to [overt intent-to-harm or sociopathic disregard for others].

I agree 100% that unintended harm is STILL HARM, and that risky behavior is STILL RISKY even when people consent, and that it's reasonable to take concrete action to prevent the future from resembling the past when the past caused damage. This is not a call for "no action." But we can take preventive action without incorrectly vilifying people, and I don't yet have sufficient reason to believe that vilification is the right direction to move in.
2) If you ever find yourself in a position like the one described by the women involved in this situation, and you reach out to me, I will come for you, I will get you out, and I will 100% respect your autonomy and sovereignty as I do so. I have done this in the past and I will continue to do it in the future. I don't have to know who's right and who's wrong and whose fault it is to simply help create space for people who desperately need it.