The Wheel of Consent
A detailed summary
The Wheel of Consent is framework for healthy touch developed by Betty Martin, based on the 3 Minute Game by Harry Faddis. Betty Martin gives an excellent, in-depth explanation of the 3 Minute Game and the Wheel of Consent on her website, which has been further expanded into a book, so I recommend checking those out if you find these ideas interesting. Her explanations are rather long, however, so what follows here are the key details and ideas I found helpful.
Individual Warm-Up Exercise
Before getting into the partner-based exercises of the Wheel, there is an individual warm-up exercise designed to get you into the appropriate mindset. First, set aside some time, a few minutes may be enough, as long as you can fully devote yourself to the exercise for this time, without being distracted by other things you need to get to later. Next, pick an object, any object you can easily hold is fine, and sit down somewhere comfortable with the object in your hands. Then spend the next several minutes touching the object, focusing on the sensations in your fingertips. Explore the object, noticing everything you can about it, and how each detail affects your experience of touch. Notice also which sensations you like the most and explore those further. Allow yourself to relax into the sensations. With time, this simple exercise will become pleasurable, but it may take a while as many of us have a great deal of mental blocks, such as guilt. The goals of this exercise are to identify and move past these blocks, and also to develop sensitivity in one’s hands, and so it serves as the foundation for the exercises to come.
Partner Exercises: the Three Minute Game
In the Wheel of Consent, touch is divided into 4 quadrants: giving, receiving, taking, and allowing. On one axis of the wheel, giving and taking are active, receiving and allowing are passive. On the other axis, touch is for the pleasure of the receiver and taker, while respecting the limits of the giver and allower. The 3 Minute Game is a set of exercises where partners act within complementary roles. In one variant, one partner gives touch while the other receives; in the other, one partner takes and the other allows. Each practice lasts 3 minutes, on a timer, with the active participant tracking the time, and then participants switch roles. In a class setting, touch is restricted to the hand and forearm and is entirely nonsexual. With a romantic partner, all of these restrictions are a helpful starting point for your first time trying the exercises, but can be loosened as you get more familiar.
In the giving-receiving exercise, the giver asks the receiver: “how would you like to be touched?” The receiver takes some time to think and then makes requests. The giver then touches the receiver in exactly the way asked—with no embellishments to give them what they “really want”—and the receiver can make new requests or ask for adjustments at any time. The giver can refuse requests for types of touch they are not willing to give, pausing as necessary to check in with themselves regarding their own boundaries. At the end of the exercise, the receiver says “thank you,” and the receiver replies, “you’re welcome.” All of these statements are to emphasize that the touch is for the receiver. The giver may enjoy the experience too, but that’s irrelevant to the exercise.
The taking-allowing exercise looks similar to giving-receiving from the outside, but is reversed in terms of who it is for. It starts with the allower asking the taker: “how would you like to touch me?” The taker takes some time to think and then describes their intentions and the allower expresses any boundaries they know in advance. The taker then touches the receiver, remaining careful to respect the latter’s boundaries but otherwise not considering the receiver’s experience or whether their style of taking is “acceptable.” At the end of the exercise, the taker says “thank you” and the receiver says “you’re welcome”, again with the purpose of emphasizing who the touch was for.
Some additional notes and reiterations:
Requests should be met with a lack of judgment.
Refusals do not need to be justified.
The experience of givers and receivers should range between positive and neutral. If it is ever negative—or in a state of “enduring”—it is time for them to pause the exercise and express a boundary. The Wheel of Consent has no place for “powering through.”
Mental blocks or unpleasant experiences are best approached with a mindset of curiosity.
What is this sensation telling me?
What am I trying to protect myself from?
Am I ready for the level of touch involved in this exercise?
Do I trust my partner enough to engage with them in this way? If not, what would it take to (re)build this trust?
Is this exercise activating emotional wounds?
Can I emotionally differentiate my present from my past experience?
Would it help to talk (or journal) about these feelings before proceeding?
What could make this experience better?
Is there a counter-request I have in mind?
Is there something I need—from my partner, myself, or the environment—before I can participate with authentic enthusiasm?
Can we find a “win-win”?
Underlying Ideas:
The purpose of the Wheel of Consent is to break down intimacy—which can be messy and complicated—into simpler parts, so that it is less overwhelming. Each part can then be learned individually before bringing the parts back together. And when something doesn’t feel right, this division can make it easier to identify and articulate where your blockers are. Furthermore, each of the roles has a core virtue that it cultivates, a shadow that can arise when it is not held with integrity, and a skill it builds with practice. Here are the roles in more detail:
Giving is physically active with a focus on the other person’s wants. Giving well requires actively listening to the receiver, believing what they tell you, and asking questions when you are not sure. Givers must also know their limits, only giving to the extent they are willing to be of service, not to the point of self-sacrifice. Giving can itself be pleasurable, but that is not the point. Giving must be authentically for the other person or else it becomes taking in disguise.
Receiving is physically passive and with a focus on one’s own wants. Receivers must know what they want and be willing to ask for it. When making requests, they should trust givers to take care of themselves and not worry about asking for “too much.” At the same time, however, receivers should not pressure givers with demands. Any request can be rejected, so that which is authentically given may be accepted with gratitude. When receiving, it can be difficult to balance cultivating a state of gratitude and guiding the giver towards “exactly” what one wants to receive—the former is necessary to fully experience the joy of receptivity, but worrying too much about how the giver will react to redirection can cause receiving to turn into allowing.
Taking is physically active with a focus on one’s own wants. Like receiving, taking requires knowing what one wants and being willing to ask for it, trusting one’s partner to know their limits. At the same time, however, takers must be careful not to overstep their partner’s boundaries—which, like giving, requires active listening.
Allowing is physically passive with a focus on the other person’s wants. In the context of touch, allowing is giving the gift of access to one’s body. Allowing is the most passive of the roles as it doesn’t require physical activity or articulating one’s preferences. It also requires the most trust in the integrity of one’s partner and one’s own ability to state boundaries as needed. Although allowing is for the other person, it can nonetheless be deeply pleasurable when one is able to fall into a state of trusting surrender.
Generalizing the Wheel:
The Wheel of Consent is typically used as a tool for understanding and navigating physical touch, but its concepts can be applied to any interaction. During spoken conversation, for example, if I am speaking, then I am in an active role—but I could be giving or taking depending on context. If what I am saying is for your benefit, such as to answer a question you have asked, that’s giving. But if I am, say, babbling about one of my interests and am excited to have an audience, that’s taking. Either can be wonderfully connective, but if we are not in agreement as to what kind of conversation we are having (specifically who it’s for), then it may end up irritating for both of us.