Refund policy
We would love to be able to offer refunds if you're unable to attend a workshop you booked in for.
Unfortunately, it's often surprisingly complicated at our end. Aside from the admin involved (which is usually minor), a cancellation often has implications for numbers balance, or preparation of materials, or our planning of the workshop, ticketing rounds, or - since a lot of workshops fill up - means that others have been turned away for no reason (and we lose income through no fault of our own).
So like other similar events - seminars, performances, courses, training, etc. - we need to put a value on the cost of cancellations. Unless stated otherwise, if you let us know at least 48 hours prior to a workshop, we can refund what you've paid less a $20 cancellation fee per ticket ($30 in the case of the Curiosity workshop). We hope this strikes a balance between your situation, and ours.
Accessibility
Curious Creatures is committed to diversity and accessibility. Considerable lengths have been taken to adapt the material, format and presentation to suit a wider range of people. If you are aware of anything that might make our workshops inaccessible to you, please contact us, and we will happily see if we can find a way to make it inclusive.
It is with sadness that we point out that the venue we use is not wheelchair accessible at the time of writing (due to four steps at the front of the building and inadequate toilet facilities). We have long-term plans to offer workshops for people of different abilities, in accessible spaces.
Because consent and communication is crucially important to what Curious Creatures does, and because the workshop content is delivered in English, you must have at least a moderate level of spoken English.
Mission Statement
Curious Creatures is working towards:
A world that is sex-positive*, inclusive, and safe.
Communities that are educated and incredibly good at communication about consent.
Individuals that are empowered, liberated, and comfortably self-exploring.
*"Sex positive" means we are positive about our interests in consensual sex, and other people's interests. We might not like a particular kind of sex, or any kind of sex, but we are not negative or shaming about other's interests. Sex positivity exists as an alternative to a "sex negative" approach where individuals are in shame around their own sexuality, and critical of other expressions of sexuality.
Roger's commitment to gender equality and diversity
I acknowledge that I am sometimes unclear on how best to include gender issues in my workshops; concepts that are otherwise simple enough to navigate can be difficult when applied to the public workshop environment. In documenting my commitments, I am not pretending to have all the answers.
Sometimes there are no answers; some of these issues are unsolvable. As an example, I sometimes find myself sitting between one group of people who, to be seen and included, need to have gender described as a fluid, non-existent, or fluctuating experience. On the other side, might be a group that need to have gender described as a fixed, rigid, and defined experience. It’s difficult to create environments (let alone describe gender) in a way that will make both of these groups of people feel simultaneously welcome.
So my primary commitment, in relation to gender inclusivity, is to do my best, regardless. I will continue to try and create spaces where different folks can co-exist, and hopefully benefit from what the other brings. I will keep learning and listening and improving – and I’m sorry for all of the times I get it wrong.
The main purpose of my work is to contribute to how consent and sex-positivity plays out in our culture. To do this, I need to be reaching out to all people, not just those that are already ‘on the team’. This means I often wind up with genuine diversity at my workshops and events – which can feel a little odd, but can be a highly valuable experience for all.
My additional, specific commitments are:
Policy: Intimacy with workshop participants
There are two main reasons why a workshop facilitator shouldn’t be intimate with workshop participants.
The first is that the facilitator has a duty of care to look out for the wellbeing of workshop participants. This means presenting the participant with as much of a safe space as possible, which is compromised if a romantic or sexual interest is also present. In my opinion, the facilitator should be attempting to create a space for participants to explore their edges, but only to a level that’s right for them. Pursuing a sexual interest means that there’s a motivation to push people too hard, and deteriorate the sense that they’re free to do things at their own pace. Or to simply misread their signals.
The second reason is that at least around the time of the workshop, a rank / power difference can exist between the facilitator and the participant. If the participant is new to the world of sexual exploration, the rank difference can be so strong that if a proposition is made to the participant, they are potentially unable to know what their honest answer is, or be able to communicate it. They may feel pressured to say yes, either internally or externally. If so, they are not in a position to give consent.
These power and rank differences exist across a lot of roles; from teacher to student, from police to victims of crime, from politicians or performers to supporters, etc. It’s the same reason that counsellors need to be very careful about their boundaries with clients, and why sex-workers need to be similarly careful about who they date (since the same rank differential exists).
At its worst, in ignoring these dynamics, a workshop facilitator will go home with a participant after a workshop, or date them very soon after a workshop. I have never done this, and nor will I ever.
However, due to the nature of overlapping communities and roles, the situation is a lot more complicated than a simple policy of having no involvement with workshop participants under any circumstances:
The world presents some interesting grey areas, and anyway things change over time. My policies now have been updated and improved from where they were five years ago, and I imagine that process will continue. My policy is “No play with participants where a peer-based relationship doesn’t exist”, and I take it seriously.
We would love to be able to offer refunds if you're unable to attend a workshop you booked in for.
Unfortunately, it's often surprisingly complicated at our end. Aside from the admin involved (which is usually minor), a cancellation often has implications for numbers balance, or preparation of materials, or our planning of the workshop, ticketing rounds, or - since a lot of workshops fill up - means that others have been turned away for no reason (and we lose income through no fault of our own).
So like other similar events - seminars, performances, courses, training, etc. - we need to put a value on the cost of cancellations. Unless stated otherwise, if you let us know at least 48 hours prior to a workshop, we can refund what you've paid less a $20 cancellation fee per ticket ($30 in the case of the Curiosity workshop). We hope this strikes a balance between your situation, and ours.
Accessibility
Curious Creatures is committed to diversity and accessibility. Considerable lengths have been taken to adapt the material, format and presentation to suit a wider range of people. If you are aware of anything that might make our workshops inaccessible to you, please contact us, and we will happily see if we can find a way to make it inclusive.
It is with sadness that we point out that the venue we use is not wheelchair accessible at the time of writing (due to four steps at the front of the building and inadequate toilet facilities). We have long-term plans to offer workshops for people of different abilities, in accessible spaces.
Because consent and communication is crucially important to what Curious Creatures does, and because the workshop content is delivered in English, you must have at least a moderate level of spoken English.
Mission Statement
Curious Creatures is working towards:
A world that is sex-positive*, inclusive, and safe.
Communities that are educated and incredibly good at communication about consent.
Individuals that are empowered, liberated, and comfortably self-exploring.
*"Sex positive" means we are positive about our interests in consensual sex, and other people's interests. We might not like a particular kind of sex, or any kind of sex, but we are not negative or shaming about other's interests. Sex positivity exists as an alternative to a "sex negative" approach where individuals are in shame around their own sexuality, and critical of other expressions of sexuality.
Roger's commitment to gender equality and diversity
I acknowledge that I am sometimes unclear on how best to include gender issues in my workshops; concepts that are otherwise simple enough to navigate can be difficult when applied to the public workshop environment. In documenting my commitments, I am not pretending to have all the answers.
Sometimes there are no answers; some of these issues are unsolvable. As an example, I sometimes find myself sitting between one group of people who, to be seen and included, need to have gender described as a fluid, non-existent, or fluctuating experience. On the other side, might be a group that need to have gender described as a fixed, rigid, and defined experience. It’s difficult to create environments (let alone describe gender) in a way that will make both of these groups of people feel simultaneously welcome.
So my primary commitment, in relation to gender inclusivity, is to do my best, regardless. I will continue to try and create spaces where different folks can co-exist, and hopefully benefit from what the other brings. I will keep learning and listening and improving – and I’m sorry for all of the times I get it wrong.
The main purpose of my work is to contribute to how consent and sex-positivity plays out in our culture. To do this, I need to be reaching out to all people, not just those that are already ‘on the team’. This means I often wind up with genuine diversity at my workshops and events – which can feel a little odd, but can be a highly valuable experience for all.
My additional, specific commitments are:
- I commit to not teaching sexuality in a gender-binary way. This includes no mention of ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’, and no prescribing of particular behaviours to particular genders.
- I will not assume heteronormativity or queerness. I will articulate in workshop descriptions how people will be partnered for pair-work exercises, so that folks can make their own choices.
- In most workshops, I will include scope for people to clarify the gender pronouns they like to use in relation to themselves, at the start of the workshop. I will generally use my rank as the facilitator to role-model gender diversity and fluidity, and also to create an atmosphere of positivity around gender diversity.
- In the unlikely event that a participant makes a negative gender-based comment in one of my workshops, I will do my best to respectfully address the comment and see if it can be rephrased. I will avoid leaving minority groups to defend themselves.
- From time to time, I will facilitate group processes (conflict resolution) on gender and related issues.
- I will make sure that paid support staff have a thorough understanding of gender diversity and related issues.
- I will attempt to create an atmosphere where participants feel drawn to exploring their gender identity, rather than feeling pressured or shamed into doing so.
- I generally won’t run workshops exclusively for one gender (with exception*, below). I will instead attempt to show that we can all do this work together, even though that brings extra challenges – an opportunities! – relating to diversity.
- Where possible, I will run ‘hetero’ versions of workshops (where folks that identify as men are paired with folks that identify as women), ‘mixed’ workshops (where pairing happens randomly), and ‘couples’ versions (where folks, regardless of gender, work just with the person they arrived with), and they will be clearly labelled as such. *If demand exists, I will run bespoke lesbian and gay workshops.
- I will attempt to bring gender diversity and fluidity into as many of my workshops as possible, so long as I’m not starting to push an agenda that folks didn’t sign up for.
- I will do my best to balance comments made by participants that assume that “men are like x”, “women are like y”, “non-binary folks are like z”, etc. To the extent that I am able, I will make sure that diversity and fluidity is represented.
- I will run, as interest allows, workshops that support people to explore their gender fluidity. These will sometimes look like it’s starting from an assumption of gender binary since that’s where most people start from. I will not push people harder towards fluidity than is right for a given individual, nor criticise a person for not knowing what they don’t already know.
- I acknowledge that marginalised gender and sexual identities often carry a disproportionate psychological load resulting from the way they are regarded by the mainstream, and that minority groups often wind up providing leadership to the mainstream around gender issues. As a sexuality educator, I acknowledge how much of knowledge base comes from this work, and that I have a debt of gratitude. I invest in further education and supervision on relevant issues at my own expense.
- I acknowledge the incredible work that has been done by feminism, the men’s movement, and the queer movements, and how my own work is thanks to these pioneering movements.
- I will generally not assume that a woman has a vagina, or that a man has a penis.
- If I am running a workshop where it is specified that women will be paired with men for pair-work exercises, I will take each person’s identity as they identify it.
- I have a scholarship system in place for people that feel that their gender or sexual identity has marginalised them and impacted on their earning potential. (I regret that I am unable to extend this tithe system to other areas of marginalisation, such as accessibility, health, indigeneity, etc.).
Policy: Intimacy with workshop participants
There are two main reasons why a workshop facilitator shouldn’t be intimate with workshop participants.
The first is that the facilitator has a duty of care to look out for the wellbeing of workshop participants. This means presenting the participant with as much of a safe space as possible, which is compromised if a romantic or sexual interest is also present. In my opinion, the facilitator should be attempting to create a space for participants to explore their edges, but only to a level that’s right for them. Pursuing a sexual interest means that there’s a motivation to push people too hard, and deteriorate the sense that they’re free to do things at their own pace. Or to simply misread their signals.
The second reason is that at least around the time of the workshop, a rank / power difference can exist between the facilitator and the participant. If the participant is new to the world of sexual exploration, the rank difference can be so strong that if a proposition is made to the participant, they are potentially unable to know what their honest answer is, or be able to communicate it. They may feel pressured to say yes, either internally or externally. If so, they are not in a position to give consent.
These power and rank differences exist across a lot of roles; from teacher to student, from police to victims of crime, from politicians or performers to supporters, etc. It’s the same reason that counsellors need to be very careful about their boundaries with clients, and why sex-workers need to be similarly careful about who they date (since the same rank differential exists).
At its worst, in ignoring these dynamics, a workshop facilitator will go home with a participant after a workshop, or date them very soon after a workshop. I have never done this, and nor will I ever.
However, due to the nature of overlapping communities and roles, the situation is a lot more complicated than a simple policy of having no involvement with workshop participants under any circumstances:
- I have had existing partners come along to workshops. Obviously, I’m not going to break up with a partner because they attended a workshop. Technically, that means that yes, I sleep with workshop participants, although it’s clearly not a violation of the rank differential since they were peers (and established partners) before they were participants.
- I have been in situations at other people’s workshops – my own professional development – where I’ve been partnered with one of my participants for an exercise. I have taken this on a case-by-case basis; the structure and clarity of the exchange makes it safer, as does the fact that the person is obviously on a journey of sexual self-discovery that extends beyond my workshops. Sometimes I have decided to step out of the activity, and sometimes I have participated. This will be an ongoing issue, because I need to continue my professional development and so will occasionally be paired with people from my workshops.
- I have been in situations at public events where I’ve gotten into some play with someone, and then discovered they’ve previously been to one of my workshops. I can’t remember everyone by face any more, so I generally either don’t attend events, or if I do, I only play with existing partners.
- Finally, there’s the question of how much time needs to pass before some level of involvement might be appropriate with a participant. In the case of counselling relationships, and several other professions, the guidance is from six-months to two years. It depends a lot on the dynamic of the rank / power difference between the people involved. For me, there have been two or three occasions where I’ve developed a peer-based relationship with someone after a certain period of time, and that person has become a partner. A lot revolves around my confidence in the person’s ability to say no to me, and this in turn comes down to how much self-development work they’ve done, and how much exposure they’ve already had to the sex-positive community. Suffice to say that someone that is just taking their first steps into that world is very different to someone that is (for example) a sex-worker, is in various polyamorous relationships, has been a part of the kink community for a long time, and who’s been running their own sexuality workshops; clearly, the rank different between the latter person and myself is not substantial. As a consequence, yes, in the course of teaching over 2,500 people about sex, about three people – after a sufficient waiting period, and with lots of scrutiny – have become partners. When I asked them if they thought there’s any chance that some kind of violation has occurred, the general response was that the suggestion was ludicrous.
The world presents some interesting grey areas, and anyway things change over time. My policies now have been updated and improved from where they were five years ago, and I imagine that process will continue. My policy is “No play with participants where a peer-based relationship doesn’t exist”, and I take it seriously.
