MMA Is an Implicit Bias Test About Consent (Patreon)

By Sam (@StuffFromSam)

Or, more specifically, MMA is an implicit bias test about consent FOR MEN. I previously wrote, "The Hidden Ethics of Combat Sports," which covered how the ethics of consent is what separates mutual combat from assault and how consent informed much of the regulations. This article, however, is not about the formation of regulations but more about how we, as fans, in particular men, respond to MMA.

There are the more overt problematic reactions that are easy to spot, people who watch HOPING to see someone die in the cage. However, even then, that bloodthirsty view can be obfuscated by nostalgia: "I miss the old days, how it used to be." Now you are one step removed from deathmatch. The gladiator UFC aesthetic was a dog whistle to a time when enslaved people fought to the death. It's sold as a time when "men were men," but these were not free men but property who had no will of their own, no consent to give.

Recently, we had an instance of a fighter who was WARNED not only during the fight by the referee but also before the match and countless fighter's meetings not to knee a downed opponent. This was former bantamweight champion Petr Yan who gave an illegal knee to then challenger Aljamain Sterling. Even during the broadcast, the audience at home could clearly hear Yan's corner yell "punch," yet Yan delivered a knee.

This article, however, is not about Yan nor Sterling but us as the viewers of this "accident." Just as implicit bias tests examine our unconscious views on racism and stereotypes, the Yan-Sterling incident examines our unconscious views on consent, even for "conscientious" fans and fighters.

Our self-image of ourselves does not always line up with our actual actions and beliefs. This is why it is useless to run a survey on racism by directly asking people if they are racist. (Just as it is useless to self-declare, you are not racist. The need to declare such a thing is in itself a red flag.)

Instead, the survey will ask around that question in a way where people can put their guards down and answer without feeling bad about themselves. This is when we get closer to the truth.

Many fans reacted to the Yan-Sterling incident by victim-blaming Sterling and/or by absolving Yan and saying it's no one's fault and the rules are to blame. I run a combat sports group for theoretically "conscientious," progressive combat sports fans. Yet, I would say the split on this incident was 50/50 among the cis men. Even Demetrious Johnson, who many hold as "one of the good ones in MMA," fell on victim-blaming and absolving Yan.

Let's say instead of MMA, this was a 5-Card Draw poker game. Let's say Yan does something illegal in 5-Card Draw. He's aware of the rules and was told the rules beforehand on multiple occasions, has played 5-Card Draw numerous times, and was warned not to cheat during the game and does it anyway. Who would say they should have been playing Texas Hold' Em instead where that move wouldn't be cheating? No one. Because that's not what was mutually agreed upon. It does NOT mean 5-Card Draw is a superior game or ruleset; it just means that's what both participants agreed to beforehand with an organizing body and witnesses to confirm this agreement.

Let's say you engage in a sexual relationship, and your partner says no oral sex. Just because you believe that's a "dumb" rule does NOT give you the right to agree upon the terms then violate the rule.

Why the knee shocked so many of us is not because we think "no knees to a downed opponent" is a superior rule, but because Yan, even after knowing better, still violated the mutually agreed-upon terms. Then it went from a prizefight of mutual combat into an assault. THIS IS THE PROBLEM.

Demetrious Johnson, poetically, lost a recent title fight via knee while he was down. ONE and even Johnson used this to flex that this was a superior ruleset. As the next generation of conscientious kids would say, "Weird flex, but okay." Johnson still framed the knee as personal responsibility and mindset. Except here's what he missed, he said in ONE, he knew what he was signing up for, which were legal knees to downed opponents. That is NOT what Sterling or any UFC fighter agrees to—along with many other rules.

Perhaps this is a blind spot for cis men because even for the progressive and "conscientious," they're only used to living in a world where their might makes right. That's a lot to unlearn but will only happen IF they are aware there is anything to unlearn. That means no longer judging ourselves by our self-image but by our actions and beliefs. For that, we still have a long way to go.