tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35037591814023293762024-03-13T14:42:47.967-04:00Ravenstone's Reflections<b><i>Kinky heretical musings on sexuality, spirituality, politics and other related topics</i></b>Desmond Ravenstonehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11731355272768955344noreply@blogger.comBlogger148125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3503759181402329376.post-62419685928734688502017-01-23T19:12:00.000-05:002017-01-23T19:12:38.520-05:00Moving on ...Much has changed since I started this blog. I've departed Unitarian Universalism, and become more active as a vocal ally of sex workers. I'm now administering <a href="https://sexworkclients.org">Clients of Sex Workers Allied for Change (CoSWAC)</a> Given the time required to do that, I've decided that this shall be my last post on this blog.
<br>
<br>
That doesn't mean I won't be blogging at all. I've started a new site, <a href="https://harlotsbulldog.wordpress.com">"The Harlot's Bulldog"</a>, focused on sex work issues, including re-posts from this site. Meanwhile, I'm leaving "Ravenstone's Reflections" online, as an archive.
<br>
<br>
See you on Facebook, Twitter, and elsewhere on the Web!Desmond Ravenstonehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11731355272768955344noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3503759181402329376.post-55610055052812643192017-01-02T18:02:00.000-05:002017-01-02T18:03:11.140-05:00On Knowing ShitThis actually happened once. I was with some friends at a restaurant, and having an intense discussion with two of them, when another person interrupts us.
<br>
<br>
"Tell me this. Deer, horse and cow pretty much eat the same stuff, but the deer excretes pellets, the horse big clumps, and the cow flat patties. Why is that?"
<br>
<br>
There was silence for a moment, then I spoke up: "Well, they may all eat the same stuff, but they digest them differently. I'm thinking the deer absorbs the most moisture of the three, and the cow the least." That led to the others taking out their cell phones to fact-check what I had said. Yup, I'd pretty much gotten it right.
<br>
<br>
I'd also deprived the person interrupting us of a punchline:
<br>
<br>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOctGX4ud-QDV9h4KU_Scb6JIDeuCzfUuzi0EIYEEtRNbj1VekKFyfjCoqpgBPkt6xZOHv5z_tRNhVkJG7FLPS519fqlc63EX9m7NUNvrm5qpGqtS1wdkvG8xuXvPDd2yeIIsciBfZUm03/s1600/DontKnowShit.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOctGX4ud-QDV9h4KU_Scb6JIDeuCzfUuzi0EIYEEtRNbj1VekKFyfjCoqpgBPkt6xZOHv5z_tRNhVkJG7FLPS519fqlc63EX9m7NUNvrm5qpGqtS1wdkvG8xuXvPDd2yeIIsciBfZUm03/s320/DontKnowShit.jpg" width="198" height="320" /></a></div>
<br>
<br>
Since then, I've seen people getting all serious about the logical fallacy that not knowing literal shit means they are not qualified to talk about other shit. There were even people who went out and researched why different animal shit had different shapes and consistencies. No shit, folks!
<br>
<br>
This is what's interesting. Here I was, with little prior experience or study of animal biology, and I'm able to figure out why each one excretes different shit. Which raises the question of which is more important - <i>knowing</i> shit to begin with, or <i>figuring out</i> shit.
<br>
<br>
I'm thinking this is why my two friends – who are quite smart – felt uncomfortable responding to that question. They assumed that, since they didn't have enough information about shit, they weren't able to give an intelligent answer about shit. I've found myself in similar situations, even when I was able to figure out that shit. Somehow, we've equated <i>having information</i> with being smart, to the detriment of problem-solving and critical thinking.
<br>
<br>
That, in turn, affects our discourse. We find ourselves talking to someone, and they're rattling off all sorts of figures and assertions on some shit, and we assume that having this apparent command of facts on this shit means they really <i>know</i> said shit. Or, do they?
<br>
<br>
Seriously. My father's a physicist, along with knowing all sorts of random scientific and mathematical shit. Yet when something breaks in the house, he gets frustrated and unable to figure out how to get it fixed. One time, the garage door broke, and he was getting ready to bash it with a sledgehammer, when my mother yelled at him to put it away and sent me to take a look. Me, who at the time was studying sociology in college. I looked at what was broken, deduced a possible solution, and had the door up and open within ten minutes so that the car could go in and out and final repairs could eventually be made. How is it that a man with a graduate degree from Harvard, knowing all sorts of shit, is unable to figure out practical mechanical shit, but his youngest son <i>is</i> able to figure out such shit?
<br>
<br>
Being an empiricist, I'm deeply concerned about facts. But I'm also mindful that <i>understanding</i> such details – their relationship to one another, and how they fit into a larger picture – is just as important as merely accumulating them. Especially because we're often put in the position of figuring something out before we have all the details (what's often called a "minimum information problem").
<br>
<br>
And no, I'm not talking about endless theorizing and analyzing about shit, or deconstructing how other people try to understand and figure out their own shit. That's what I’ve come to call "criticality over practicality". Ever sit in a room where housemates spend hours debating how to determine who is going to clean the toilets and take out the garbage "in the most equitable fashion" even when one person rolls their eyes and says, "Look, I'm willing to do it, so let's move on"? That's what I'm talking about.
<br>
<br>
What bothers me is that we're not teaching people how to do the practical work of figuring out shit. We're teaching them to categorize and memorize, to label things and other people, and to delude one another into thinking that this amounts to knowing shit. It doesn't. And until we figure out this shit, we're going to find it harder to get shit done.Desmond Ravenstonehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11731355272768955344noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3503759181402329376.post-28324327309036761862016-12-20T13:33:00.001-05:002016-12-20T13:33:54.331-05:00Mandating Tests for Sex Workers Doesn't Get a Passing GradeOften when I engage in conversations with folks about sex work and public policy, I'm asked how I feel about mandatory testing of sex workers for sexually transmitted infections (STIs). And, when I answer that I don't support such measures, they're frequently astonished. "I thought you said that you support harm reduction methods! So why not this? Wouldn't requiring sex workers to be regularly tested reduce the spread of HIV and other STIs?"
<br>
<br>
No. Testing doesn't "prevent" anything. It provides information towards that end, and only if it's done right.
<br>
<br>
Let's take the argument for mandatory testing to its logical extreme. Sex workers are a relatively small segment of the total number of sexually active people out there, and according to the best studies out there, contribute very little to STIs overall, and virtually none of HIV transmissions. So if we were to mandate STI testing, then it makes sense to do that for <i>all</i> sexually active adults and adolescents, not just sex workers. Of course, it's reasonable to assume that a significant number of people would lie about being sexually active, in order to avoid being tested. The answer then would be to test <i>everyone</i> from the age of thirteen up.
<br>
<br>
This would, of course, be met with a number of objections, from cost to loss of freedom to invasions of privacy. And yet, some would still argue that, since STIs constitute an "occupational hazard" for sex workers, then mandatory testing therefore qualifies as an occupational health and safety measure.
<br>
<br>
But again, this doesn't make sense when applied to comparable circumstances. Hospital workers, for example, are exposed to far more diseases, some of them far more dangerous, and far more often. Yet hospitals do not regularly test every employee for every disease they might have been exposed to. Instead, they find it more effective to implement <i>preventative</i> measures, much as full-service sex workers use condoms and other safer sex measures to reduce the risk of contracting HIV or other infections.
<br>
<br>
There's also the question of <i>how</i> such measures are best mandated and enforced. More often, they are mandated as a condition of employment rather than by legal regulation; even when laws or government regulations are put in place, it is usually left to employers to maintain and enforce, with government agencies making spot checks or responding to employee complaints. Also, the most effective systems are when lawmakers institute a <i>general</i> mandate to assure health and safety, while leaving specifics to another body which may adapt more quickly to changes in evidence as to the best means of assuring this.
<br>
<br>
An example of which I'm personally aware is cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). I've been trained and recertified many times over the years, and have noticed how the protocols change as new evidence comes in, most significantly the use of an automated external defibrillator (AED). While there are laws determining who may train and certify people, those laws do not specify the protocols for performing CPR; instead, the groups that train and certify pay attention to new scientific data, and update protocols accordingly.
<br>
<br>
Compare that system to how Nevada mandates STI testing for sex workers in their legal brothels. <a href=”https://www.cdc.gov/std/prevention/screeningreccs.htm”>The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend that people with multiple sexual partners should be screened every three to six months,</a> based on the best available medical studies; more frequent tests do not produce more reliable results. Nevada's legal requirements, relatively unchanged since 1937, are that women working in brothels are required to <i>weekly</i> medical exams, and at their own expense. With consistent condom usage, and STI rates reported at zero, where is the sense in having sex workers required to be tested at thirteen times the rate recommended by public health officials?
<br>
<br>
There is no good reason to impose such a requirement on sex workers when other people in similar circumstances are not similarly required. To impose such a burden is nothing more than discrimination, rooted in stigma and unnecessarily perpetuating it. Sex workers have long known how to minimize these risks, as proven by empirical studies. They need neither bureaucrats nor moralists to require anything further. If anything, the rest of us would benefit from listening to their collective experience.
Desmond Ravenstonehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11731355272768955344noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3503759181402329376.post-75942701145120712052016-12-12T06:00:00.000-05:002016-12-12T06:00:19.450-05:00The Question Anti-Prostitution Zealots Refuse to AnswerLike any well-organized endeavor, the movement seeking to do away with commercial sex has worked hard to come up with responses to various questions. When asked about people who say they do sex work willingly and happily, they will either accuse them of being brainwashed or dismiss them as "not representative". When called to account for distorting or fabricating evidence, they insist there's a "greater truth" that needs to be heard.
<br>
<br>
But there's one question I've <i>never</i> heard any prohibitionist address, even when they've been asked directly: <b><i>What about the repeated abuse of sex workers by police?</i></b>
<br>
<br>
As much as these so-called "abolitionists" keep trying to pin the blame on clients and people inside the industry, sex workers will tell you that they have more to fear from law enforcement – not just being arrested, but systematic harassment, assault, and exploitation. Elizabeth Nolan Brown of <i>Reason</i> magazine <a href="https://reason.com/blog/2015/10/17/sex-traffickers-in-blue">published a summary of almost forty cases of police sexual misconduct in the course of 2014 and 2015</a>. Brown's report is just the tip of the iceberg. There's also <a href="http://bigstory.ap.org/article/fd1d4d05e561462a85abe50e7eaed4ec/ap-hundreds-officers-lose-licenses-over-sex-misconduct">this Associated Press analysis</a> that almost one thousand law enforcement officers nationwide lost their badges over a five-year period over sexual misconduct, with one-third of those involving people under eighteen. <a href="https://www.themarshallproject.org/2016/08/16/what-the-doj-s-report-on-baltimore-teaches-us-about-cops-sex-workers-and-corruption#.FwvwSdW6b">From Oakland to Baltimore,</a> various public and private sources confirm what sex workers have been saying for years about cops robbing, raping and even pimping them out. And it's not just in the United States. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/dec/08/hundreds-police-officers-accused-sex-abuse-inquiry-finds">This report from Great Britain</a> shows that police in England and Wales have been sexually assaulting prostitutes and other vulnerable women there as well.
<br>
<br>
Police in Sweden and Norway – so admired by prohibitionists for their efforts to "crush the sex trade" by "ending demand" – have chosen a different tactic. They bully the sex workers' landlords, threatening to arrest them for pimping or brothel-keeping, unless they evict the women. <a href="https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/05/amnesty-international-publishes-policy-and-research-on-protection-of-sex-workers-rights/">Amnesty International's report</a> shared this particularly disturbing story from Mercy, a Nigerian-born sex worker living and working in Oslo:
<blockquote>A little guy came to the house with a knife. I answered the door. There were nine of us in the house. He threatened us with a knife and robbed our money and phones… He forced us to have sex with him. The police took two or three hours to come. They took us all to hospital and got us a hotel for two nights. Later, we went back to the house and, two days later, the landlord threw us out ... The police put pressure on the landlord. She gave us half a day to get out ... I had to wander around Oslo for hours with my bags until I found somewhere to stay.</blockquote>
It's not just that prohibitionists fail to check their facts. They are failing to check their privilege. White and affluent Americans tend to view police as public servants dedicated to keeping their communities safe, with abuses dismissed as individual aberrations. But among marginalized communities, police are seen as an occupying army sent to impose social control, not just with guns and handcuffs, but a variety of weapons and tools, both legal and extra-legal. Now, <a href="http://titsandsass.com/category/big-mother-is-watching-you/">take a look at the list of major prohibitionist leaders</a> – overwhelmingly white and wealthy. Privilege lays the foundation for denial, and the interdependence of the movement with law enforcement continue to pile upon it.
<br>
<br>
History, however, shows that such piles of denial inevitably collapse. That happened almost a century ago, when the American experiment with banning alcohol was abandoned as a failure. Despite repeated claims by advocates that it would lead to significant reductions in crime, the Prohibition Era actually saw criminal activity <i>increase</i> – including rampant bribery and corruption of police and public officials. The temperance movement, now dwindled to irrelevance, has paid the price for their denial. And I have no doubt that <i>this</i> prohibitionist movement will encounter the same fate as more people become aware of the facts.Desmond Ravenstonehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11731355272768955344noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3503759181402329376.post-36596818978376234842016-12-08T00:44:00.000-05:002016-12-08T00:44:03.147-05:00Sex, Science, and FictionThis past weekend, I watched a TV movie from 1994 called "<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110163/">Island City</a>" – a post-apocalyptic science fiction tale where an eternal youth drug had worked for some humans, while mutating many others into immensely strong and violent primal brutes. Many of the former live in a protected city, sending patrols to find other "normal" living among the brutish "recessives" in the "badlands" beyond. To avoid giving birth to more potential recessives, every adult inhabitant of the city has a special colored crystal implanted on their chest, and is only allowed to have sex with someone with the same color.
<br>
<br>
Forget how simplistic and gimmicky it seems, or that we're now beginning to understand the complexity of human genetics. Such a "solution" ignores the realities of human psychology. Did the writers of this story really think that everyone would just say: "Well, I like you, but I'm a green and you're a blue, so no dice"? Yeah, right.
<br>
<br>
It reminds me of a similar shortcoming in the <i>Star Trek: Enterprise</i> episode "<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0572191/">Cogenitor</a>" – an alien species treats members of its third sex as mere means to the end of procreation, depriving them of choices and education and even personal names. Imagine being the parent of such a child, wondering why they shouldn’t be able to make more of a contribution than simply being "assigned" to one couple after another. And as the series <i>Alien Nation</i> demonstrated <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0508910/">in its storyline</a>, it's not impossible to conceptualize a more respected social role for cogenitors.
<br>
<br>
As Isaac Asimov pointed out, a good science fiction writer must know science, and I would contend that this includes the so-called "soft" social and behavioral sciences. Human beings ultimately questions rules and find ways to work around the diverse barriers put in front of them. That is especially true when it comes to sexuality and intimacy. We may seek to find and create some rational and orderly way of choosing mates and expressing affection, but ultimately such decisions are impelled by passion and desire, even to the point of affecting what we perceive to be "rational and orderly".
<br>
<br>
There is no better real-life example than the disagreement over the hypothesized invention of "sexbots" for erotic release. Proponents see the potential for custom-made sexual partners, perhaps even doing away with sex trafficking and prostitution. Those opposed to this hitherto nonexistent technology, such as British academic Kathleen Richardson, speculate that the "unequal power relationship" between humans and robots would somehow bleed over into relationships between humans as well. Both extremes are to be congratulated for pushing the envelope of imagination, yet they do so by blithely ignoring the realities of technology, materials science, economics, and sexual psychology. Assuming that sexbots <i>were</i> to become a reality, it follows that they would be incredibly expensive, prohibitively so for most mere mortals. And while things like transportation and cleaning are made more efficient with cars and washing machines, erotic satiation and fulfillment demand a complexity and nuance which no artifice has come close to meeting.
<br>
<br>
Sex, like much of human and animal nature, is chaotic. That may not sound very scientific, and yet science has its own definition of chaos: <i>sensitivity to initial conditions.</i> Each individual is indeed sensitive to the conditions surrounding us, from birth to death, and no more so than when we interact with those around us. We may develop social and cultural structures to help us navigate, and science may provide data and insight, but in the end the course we take is our own choice to make.
Desmond Ravenstonehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11731355272768955344noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3503759181402329376.post-57689072473674286192016-07-25T16:48:00.003-04:002016-07-25T16:52:16.361-04:00Moral Solipsism: A Fugitive and Cloistered VirtueMy mother has often said that, given how she and my father raised me, I’m at a peculiar disadvantage. Both of them raised me to challenge and question preconceptions; in particular, not to merely accept that something is ethically right or wrong, but to ask <i>why</i> with an almost ruthless impartiality. The disadvantage here is that it’s not the way most folks engage in ethical conversation – and indeed, there are far too many who are simply not used to such engagement to begin with.
<br>
<br>
This seems a major reason why we’re presently seeing such polarized views. One group will assert that some version of divine law should be the basis for guiding our decisions and actions; others point to more general core values, and a desire to reduce suffering and expand happiness. Of course, there are those who equate the latter with the former, and who heed the prophetic call to “come let us reason together” for common solutions.
<br>
<br>
And then, there are the moral solipsists.
<br>
<br>
These are the folks who make their ethical views through the limited filter of their own life experience and internal dialogue. Their logic tends to run along the following:
<ol>
<li>My experience and/or emotional response to a given issue X is value Y.
<ul>
<li><i>Positive example:</i> My experience of Christianity has been wonderful.</li>
<li><i>Negative example:</i> The idea of eating raw fish disgusts me.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>The value of X must therefore be Y.
<ul>
<li>Christianity must be wonderful.</li>
<li>Eating raw fish must be disgusting</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Universal moral action towards X must therefore conform with Y.
<ul>
<li>Everyone should become a Christian.</li>
<li>No one should eat raw fish, or serve it to other people.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>The fact that others view X is Y confirms this; any divergent opinion regarding X is erroneous and to be discounted.
<ul>
<li>I’m surrounded by other people who also love Christ and the Church, so it <i>is</i> wonderful; all of these naysayers have simply been led astray by Satan, or not willing to open their hearts.</li>
<li>I know plenty of people who tried raw fish and hated it, so it <i>is</i> disgusting; those people who say otherwise are either liars, ignorant, or just weird sickos.</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ol>
Moral solipsism thus goes beyond listening to one’s experience and emotions, and universalizes them to the near-automatic exclusion of other views. It is egoism and subjectivism taken to extremes. This is not to say that personal experience and emotional response ought not to guide us. It’s certainly valid for helping to determine personal preferences. But before we universalize them or make them permanent, they need to be compared to the experiences of others, and tested by reason and evidence.
<br>
<br>
The problem is that, once someone falls into the trap of moral solipsism, it’s very hard to get out. Thus we observe Americans of European descent who, because they universalize their experience of white privilege, angrily reject the ugly realities being exposed by Black Lives Matter and other groups. We may witness folks who embrace the atheist label purely because of their painful upbringing in one religious group, and never move beyond that. We may know of people who find the idea of providing erotic services for money so personally repellant that they refuse to listen to anyone who has found fulfilment doing so, and surround themselves only with those who share their views, crusading without question to “rescue” sex workers whether they want it or not.
<br>
<br>
We see the seeds of this in much of how we engage in ethical and political discourse, particularly the emphasis on personal experience and narrative. These are persuasive tools, but by relying too much on them, we risk confusing them with broader examinations of reality – and may even open ourselves up to being deceiving by another Somaly Mam or Chong Kim. We must always remember that one individual’s story is but a glimpse of the larger picture, and even several similar stories may only allow us to see but a pale reflection, when we must endeavor to see the whole more clearly.
<br>
<br>
The real danger in moral solipsism is its refusal to be tested. At best, it leads to fragmentation and paralysis, with claimants competing for followers. At worst, when one such claimant rises to authority, it leads to tyranny and suffering, all for the sake of an illusion of purity. But as John Milton pointed out centuries ago, purity is never obtained by closing oneself off to questions and challenges:
<blockquote><i><b>I cannot praise a fugitive and cloistered virtue, unexercised and unbreathed, that never sallies out and sees her adversary but slinks out of the race, where that immortal garland is to be run for, not without dust and heat. Assuredly we bring not innocence into the world, we bring impurity much rather; that which purifies us is trial, and trial is by what is contrary.</b></I></blockquote>
Desmond Ravenstonehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11731355272768955344noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3503759181402329376.post-11980340583227644222016-07-14T08:44:00.002-04:002016-07-14T08:44:35.664-04:00SWERFs and Other True BelieversBenjamin L. Corey commented in <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/formerlyfundie/why-the-anti-trafficking-movement-ignores-the-voices-of-sex-workers/">a recent post</a> how the growing movement against human trafficking had morphed into an "anti-sex-industry" movement. My own observation is that it has become hijacked by a longstanding "sexual purity" movement, with roots going to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Comstock">Anthony Comstock</a> and the more conservative elements of first-wave feminism. And like any mass movement, as Eric Hoffer observed, its members are willing to sacrifice critical thought in the name of a holy cause.
<br>
<br>
This movement's basic approach follows that of the religious revivalists from which it originally emerged. First, there is the diagnosis of some great <i>world-disease</i> preventing all of us from achieving some beatific or utopian state. From this, we deduce its presence in each person in the form of an <i>individual infection</i>, requiring radical <i>treatment and cure</i>. But it doesn't stop there, for now the convalescing individual must be recruited into <i>expansion of the cure</i>, continuing the cycle until the world itself is rid of the disease. This was also the logic behind the temperance movement, which diagnosed alcohol as the world-disease and prohibition as its ultimate cure.
<br>
<br>
The contemporary "purity" movement is sustained by conservative evangelical Christians and sex-worker-excluding radical feminists (SWERFs), both of whom exhibit their own variations on this foundational template. The evangelical will see Satan, sin, salvation and evangelism as the pillars of their mission; the SWERF will point to patriarchy, false consciousness, politicization and action; but both essentially crave the same goals, use similar techniques, and see symptoms of sickness in various forms of sexual nonconformity.
<br>
<br>
This purity movement also exhibits three paradoxical approaches to achieve its goals. Its leaders present moral absolutes, yet are willing to resort to intellectual dishonesty by twisting the facts to suit their purposes. Both religionist and SWERFs often denigrate science and reason as antithetical to their views, while also attempting to present elements of their message in the guise of science and reason. Lastly, their desire to impose a radical cure, such as eradicating prostitution, leads to methods that cause even greater harm than the supposed sickness, in this case robbing women of both agency and self-sufficiency.
<br>
<br>
As Hoffer observed, it is no surprise that such "true believers" come mainly from privileged backgrounds. While the poor and marginalized struggled to survive, the privileged struggle with boredom and lack of purpose. The current anti-prostitution movement has given many well-to-do white women the promise of helping others by eradicating what they perceive as a great evil. But that promise is an overly simplistic emotional appeal that ignores evidence and complex realities, and rejects practical means for reducing harm and respecting women's choices. It is indeed not only paternalistic, but <i>anti</i>-feminist, precisely because it leads privileged women to "other" marginalized ones. It is a faulty diagnosis, and a reckless course of treatment.
<br>
<br>
I would contend that the <i>real</i> disease to which we should devote our energies is the pervasive inequity made manifest in our economic, political, social, cultural and erotic realities. Instead of depriving sex workers of both income and safety, let's give them the space to unleash their power and help transform the world. Liberation is not to be imposed, nor is it achieved by ignoring the voices and experiences of those who seek it. Often the best way for the privileged to aid in the liberation of others is to get out of their way and let them take the lead. That, I believe, is the case here.
Desmond Ravenstonehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11731355272768955344noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3503759181402329376.post-47255893817553031702016-07-07T21:06:00.000-04:002016-07-07T21:06:09.575-04:00The Case for Decriminalizing PimpingRecently, the UK Parliament's Home Affairs Select Committee issued a recommendation to decriminalize certain aspects of prostitution. While some sex worker rights organizations and activists hailed the move, others have expressed caution. Too often, those who have advocated the so-called "Swedish Model" claim that it "decriminalizes sex workers" while supposedly tackling "exploitation"; in reality, this regime is best described as <i>asymmetrical criminalization,</i> with its real-world results being disastrous for the very people supposedly being "helped" by this approach. Is it any wonder that Norway's government actually stated in a report that the hardships meted upon sex workers in that country was considered a sign of success?
<br>
<br>
It thus bears repeating that what the vast majority of sex workers want is full decriminalization of their work, including their relationships with third parties. In response, those who wish to keep or expand criminal prohibitions drag out the tired trope of the "abusive pimp" – now labeled a "sex trafficker" – using manipulation and coercion to "lure" and "enslave" young girls into the trade. Even so-called moderates who support half-way measures for making prostitution legal wind up swallowing this blue pill; yes, they say, let people sell sex if they want, but let's keep the ban on those evil pimps.
<br>
<br>
There are two major problems with this, rooted in the dichotomous definitions given to the word <i>pimp</i>. The first is that the best research actually shows that the villainous stereotype is such an anomaly that <a href="https://maggiemcneill.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/3738/">some sex workers consider it a myth</a>. A goodly percentage of escorts are "independents" who operate as sole proprietors; in fact, many of these independent escorts are employers themselves, retaining the assistance of others for everything from website design to office administration to transportation and security.
<br>
<br>
This leads into the second problem with regard to anti-pimping laws. While the public has been given a narrow and loaded stereotypical definition, the law defines the act more broadly as deriving financial benefit from the prostitution of another. As a result, those employed by independent escorts are deemed to be "exploiting" them, simply because of the way the law is worded. Indeed, this overly sweeping definition may also be applied to anyone who receives any significant funds from sex workers, from those who rent or sublet apartments, to their children or other relatives. If we really wanted to take this to the extreme, we could consider any and all transactions done with "the profits of prostitution" to make just about everyone a pimp – newsstands, coffee shops, dry cleaners, even the neighbor holding a yard sale.
<br>
<br>
I'm sure those seeking a comfortable middle ground would advocate for a "reformed" anti-pimping law, where the focus is on abuse rather than mere financial gain. This raises the question of what constitutes abuse, and why new laws need to be created when current laws already address such problems. Using violence? We have laws against assault and battery. Taking money from someone who works for you? Laws against theft, and labor protection laws, also provide for that. Turf wars between pimps? Assuming this part of the myth is also true, that would fall under existing racketeering and anti-trust laws. Et cetera, et cetera. If the existence of these laws proves anything, it is that just about every business has some history of exploitative outliers. If the sex industry has more than its fair share, it seems more because of the stigma and lack of transparency which comes from continued criminalization.
<br>
<br>
Like any group of service providers, prostitutes don't always work in isolation, even when they do so as sole proprietors. They depend upon various support services, as well as supporting both biological and chosen family members. Decriminalizing sex workers while criminalizing those connected to them in this way is just as asymmetrically unworkable as the criminalization of their clientele. And before we attach the stigmatized label of "pimp" to those so connected, let's remember how deep those connections may run – even to ourselves.Desmond Ravenstonehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11731355272768955344noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3503759181402329376.post-73565049878713090732016-07-01T20:51:00.000-04:002016-07-01T20:51:18.249-04:00Guest Post: "Not All ... "<i>Last year, during my recovery from surgery, I met an insightful fellow named Carl, and mentioned him in <a href="http://ravenstonesreflections.blogspot.com/2015/07/are-we-becoming-protest-church.html">this blog post</a>. Now, in response to <a href="http://ravenstonesreflections.blogspot.com/2016/06/more-radical-than-thou-toxicology-of.html"> my most recent post</a>, he engaged me in an intriguing conversation, leading to his reflection below.</i>
<br>
<br>
I thank Desmond for providing me the space to print this essay, with the hopes that it helps in all of our efforts to bring to reality the Dream that Martin Luther King shared with America so many years ago. At times, I have felt that we may never get there, not just because of the persistence of racism and bigotry, and the robbery of dignity and justice which they bring. No, it is the polarization into combative camps, and the cycle of wounding and scarring by all kinds of folk, even when there is good intention.
<br>
<br>
When I was growing up, in the wake of the era of Civil Rights, people of all backgrounds were cautioned to avoid stereotypes of each other, even good ones. We were to be seen as human beings instead of as categories, and while this did not mean we were to ignore skin color or gender or other differences, we were not to link them prejudicially. Not all Blacks are lazy, not all women are bad with math and science, not all gays are flamboyant, and so on and so forth. Human beings, individuals, embracing differences both between and within our diverse communities.
<br>
<br>
Now we're seeing this reversed, and it upsets me, not least of which because I've been guilty myself of this change. I heard other Black folk talk in generalizations about Whites, or other GLBTQ folk talking negatively about straights as a group, and I've found myself nodding and responding to the call, even when I know plenty of whites and straights who don't fit what they're saying. Meanwhile, as a man, I am tempted to respond to negative categorizations of men by women, yet trying my best to understand what is being said in those messages, just as those similar messages about whites and straights have resonated within me as someone proudly Black and gay.
<br>
<br>
"Not all men … "
<br>
<br>
"Not all Whites … "
<br>
<br>
"Not all heterosexuals … "
<br>
<br>
My thoughts here, however, are as much about the responses to these responses, and the assumptions behind them. Those who voice a "Not all … " find themselves accused of "taking it personally," or of "derailing the conversation," and silenced just as women, Blacks, GLBTQ folk and others were often silenced. But is it always about that? Could it be about what psychologists call cognitive dissonance, where progressive-minded folk who have learned not to stereotype and categorize then hear what seems like sweeping stereotyping and categorizing of <i>them</i>, and, just as they would argue against it for anyone else, feel compelled to do so for the group to which they identify? I do not mean to deride the impact of sexism, racism, homophobia and other oppressions on our collective soul, but to question the language that is used in trying to bring those truths to light, language which seems as a proud sister once cautioned to be "using the master's tools to dismantle the master’s house."
<br>
<br>
As a counselor and educator, working for conflict resolution, I have thusly endeavored in my own choice of words to avoid attaching traits to distinct groups, not so much to avoid offending, but to better speak truth to power, to illuminate that oppression entraps us all, and to encourage all of us to finds ways to escape that trap towards more justice. Our culture and social structure teaches those in privileged groups to talk about, think about, and act towards those "outside" in certain ways, and even those with good intentions will repeat unconsciously those patterns. How do we break the cycle, instead of merely reflecting it back on one another?
<br>
<br>
I am sure there are folk who will argue that we must "comfort the afflicted, and afflict the comfortable." By the same token, I would argue that each of us are all afflicted to some degree, and enjoy some degree of comfort. As a gay person of color, I am daily afflicted by racism and homophobia; as a cisgender man, I am comforted by the privilege of my gender in relation to women and transfolk. Shall we sit and compare notes to see who is more oppressed than whom? Or shall we work together to remove those shackles, however long it takes?
<br>
<br>
<i>Thank you, Carl.</i>
Desmond Ravenstonehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11731355272768955344noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3503759181402329376.post-38250811105000751482016-06-26T14:10:00.000-04:002016-06-26T14:11:35.762-04:00"More Radical Than Thou"?: A Toxicology of Social Justice AdvocacyI've been meaning to write this post for some time, even before my departure from UU-dom. By doing so now, I'm sure I'll face accusations of betrayal, even personal attacks and insults. More's the pity.
<br>
<br>
What I've observed in so-called progressive circles – both secular politics and theological communities – is a poisoning of language and relationships that is driving too many individuals to disillusionment and desertion. Just as many women have abandoned the feminist label while still embracing its basic values and goals, I foresee an increasing number of folks leaving the organizations and networks established by social justice advocates, not because they have given up on the ideals of social justice, but because they find the means being employed as harmful to both the collective ends and individual psychology.
<br>
<br>
The major tendency behind this toxic environment is an increasing <b><i>demand for perfectionism.</i></b> It's no longer enough to work for a better world; activists must now work for utopia, and settle for nothing less. The mentality of the "Bernie or Bust" tendency is an obvious example of this, but I've witnessed even more insidious manifestations. As one former activist recounted to me: "Nothing is ever good enough. The slightest thing will get you thrown under the bus, even the way you apologize for what you've said or done, or failed to say or do." This attitude, I believe, stems from the goal of "overcoming false consciousness" – first promulgated in Marxist circles, then within radical feminism, and now more widely. Gone, however, is the patience required to facilitate such changes; just as utopian goals must be achieved all at once, utopian consciousness must be similarly adopted.
<br>
<br>
This has in turn led to a <b><i>culture of constant criticism</i></b> within activist circles. I'm not speaking of criticism in the academic and political sense, but the vernacular sense of negative fault-finding. This is employed not only in seeing the outside world almost entirely as "intersectional systems of oppression," but directed internally at one another, even at oneself. Nothing escapes such persistent fault-finding, and rarely are constructive alternatives given. Regardless of the intended political and/or theological goal desired, such an environment inevitably causes psychological harm. For one thing, the barrage of criticisms eventually begin to contradict one another, leading to double binds and cognitive dissonance. This is assuming, of course, that the individual in question hasn't decided: "If nothing I do or say is ever good enough here, why am I bothering to stay?"
<br>
<br>
Just as criticism may be well-intentioned, <b><i>excessive use of jargon</i></b> by social justice advocates is rooted in the intention of expressing this community's ideas and values in convenient shorthand. Unfortunately, just as technical language in other areas may create a barrier between its users and those "outside," so the jargon of social justice tends to set them apart from so-called "ordinary" folks, especially when using words and phrases which sound overly academic. Even worse, when combined with the tendencies of perfectionism and constant criticism, certain terms of art become used to attack, belittle and silence people. Thus "privilege" may be misused as a synonym for "arrogant" or "clueless"; any male who attempts to answer a question put to them may be accused of "mansplaining"; or merely leaving to go to the bathroom gets one "called out" for their "microaggression", and the explanation rejected as "white/male/cis/hetero/ableist fragility".
<br>
<br>
In the past, I've half-jokingly referred to religious liberals embracing the idea of "<b><i>protest as sacrament</i></b>"; now, I fear it's become all too serious. Engaging in protest has become less about strategy and tactics, or even about sending a message – it has become an end in itself, and participation in protest an essential test of commitment. Thus the contradiction is created when someone who uses their connections and influence to affect genuine change are ignored or even looked down upon, while those who picket and chant are lifted up even if their actions lead nowhere or serve only to alienate.
<br>
<br>
I don't question the intentions or desires of those in the social justice community who have fallen into these traps. I believe they are sincere in their shared vision for a more equitable and sustainable society. Why, then, have these issues come about, and why do they persist? If I may hazard a guess, they are rooted in three problems of approach:
<ol>
<li>a lack of understanding of human psychology, especially regarding motivation and communication;</li>
<li>a lack of patience, leading to high demands for both personal and social change;</li>
<li>a confusion of means and ends, specifically where adopting the terminology and behavior of other activists in order to fit in diverts attention and resources.</li>
</ol>
Over thirty years ago, I was sitting in a room of other progressive student activists, listening to a seasoned grassroots organizer sharing experience and insight. "Always remember," the elder activist imparted, "that your goal is a better world, not competing to see who's more radical." If those who seek justice and acceptance are not more just or accepting of one another, and less willing to question the effectiveness of their methods, how is that better world to come about?Desmond Ravenstonehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11731355272768955344noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3503759181402329376.post-72480547814155714002016-05-02T20:20:00.001-04:002016-05-02T20:20:52.851-04:00Putting Away a Childish Argument against Sex WorkI have a friend who is doing a kind of work that, as a young girl, she never thought she'd be doing. She started, albeit grudgingly, because she considered it her least-worst option. Over time, she began to see benefits to doing this work, such as flexible hours and the ability to choose her clientele. As a result, it has become a major source of income, and even with its down sides, she considers it a good job.
<br>
<br>
No little girl dreams of doing medical coding and billing.
<br>
<br>
I bring up this story because, if you replace the job description above with "prostitution", then you have one of the most specious arguments for continuing to criminalize and stigmatize sex work. It is an example of the moral solipsism of so-called "abolitionists": since <i>they</i> view the selling of sexual services with displeasure or disgust, then they project that <i>every woman</i> must share that view, and certainly our innocent children. To them, a youngster's hopes for the future are somehow equal to an adult's real-life attempts to find a job that pays the bills.
<br>
<br>
There are many reasons why children imagine themselves in certain jobs and not others. Ballerinas and movie stars appear more glamorous than cashiers and telephone operators. Likewise, firefighters and police seem more heroic and respected than garbage collectors and street sweepers. Other jobs are simply unseen and thus unknown by younger folks – warehouse stockers, sewer workers, call center managers, and so forth.
<br>
<br>
There's also a reason why young people begin to change their minds about what jobs they want to do. They may become aware of the risks that come with the job, and determine that they are not worth assuming. Ballet dancers, for example, require years of rigorous training and practice, often leading to multiple injuries, all in a highly competitive environment. A cashier, on the other hand, is able to start with simply training, with opportunities for advancing to management and above. Also, young people learn that, in order to make money and gain experience in the work force, they need to start by working in jobs they wouldn’t otherwise choose.
<br>
<br>
The pressures of parents, peers, and society not only affect people's job choices, but also the attitudes they assume about themselves. We lift up doctors, lawyers, actors, professional athletes, and that sense of prestige is reflected in their pay. We look down on minimum-wage workers, often seeing them as interchangeable as machine parts, even useless, while still relying on their labor whenever we order a hamburger or buy new clothes. This doesn’t always correspond, of course – look how we speak of the noble calling of teachers, while paying them so little – but how we look at different jobs often becomes a mirror for those who hold them.
<br>
<br>
The argument of "abolitionists" is that sex work does not qualify as work. If, as Barbara Ehrenreich says, "work is what we do for others", and transactional sex involves providing pleasure and companionship to others, then their proposition makes no sense. They might retort that sex <i>shouldn't</i> be work, because it "ought to" involve caring and intimacy, but this in turn ignores the caring and intimate work of nurses, nannies, and other professional caretakers, as well as the actual interactions between many sex workers and their clients.
<br>
<br>
What bothers me most when I hear or read that "no little girl dreams of becoming a prostitute" is how it perpetuates archaic gender attitudes. We assume that boys must grow into men, and endure the rough and dirty path in that direction – but girls must somehow remain virginal and pure, even if we must paternalize and infantilize them well past puberty.
<br>
<br>
Women and men make choices that they would not have considered as girls and boys. Their reasons are likewise as varied and nuanced as adulthood itself. Our approval is not the issue; assuring their safety, and affirming their humanity, is what matters.
Desmond Ravenstonehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11731355272768955344noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3503759181402329376.post-63341774924880879072016-04-07T07:45:00.000-04:002016-04-07T07:45:02.360-04:00The Self-Perpetuation of "End-Demand" FantasiesFrance has now joined the list of countries who have adopted the so-called "End-Demand" approach in opposing prostitution, by criminalizing the clients of sex workers in the vain hope that the steady drop in demand will lead to the eventual eradication of "white slavery". Forget that Sweden, which first adopted this approach in 1999, has seen no measurable drop in either supply or demand. Forget that this may only be enforced with highly intrusive surveillance and harassment of sex workers and clients alike. Forget that this whole thing is being propagated by extremist ideologues who concoct spurious research based on their lurid fantasies instead of actual empirical data.
<br>
<br>
Let's imagine a large island nation, governed as a federation of five states. A plant grows there -- we'll call it "Gudstoff" -- which, when its fruit is consumed, produces a moderate and temporary state of euphoria and relaxation. Some citizens are overly concerned about this plant, and spread myths about it being addictive and causing psychotic breaks. Legitimate scientists see no harm in moderate consumption, and perhaps even some benefits. But, like all politicians, the leaders in all the regions decide that the sale, purchase, possession and consumption of Gudstoff will be misdemeanors punished by fines.
<br>
<br>
Eventually, a split develops between the political parties. One is led or influenced by anti-Gudstoff ideologues, who push for these offenses to be upgraded to felonies, couples with eradication procedures. The other, after paying attention to empirical research, favors legalizing Gudstoff and deriving tax revenue, paired with education to address potential abuses. Three of the regions are won by the "anti" party, who institute their strict measures, while the other two become "legal" states.
<br>
<br>
Anyone with a basic understanding of economics would see that, as the supply of Gudstoff becomes less accessible in the "anti" states, those demanding Gudstoff will simply travel over the border to obtain it in the "legal" states. Result: a seeming increase in demand within the "legal" states, which is met with howls of "we told you so" by those who think Gudstoff is poison. Now I deliberately said "a <i>seeming</I> increase" because, in fact, it is merely a shift in where demand is met, based on local efforts to restrict commerce. The <I>overall</I> demand in the entire island has not changed. But, that doesn't matter to the "antis"; they see Gudstoff sales spike in the "legal" states, and they are quick to blame legalization.
<br>
<br>
This is exactly what we have seen in Europe when Sweden and Norway cracked down on sex workers and their clients (and make no mistake, they <I>are</I> targeting sex workers), and with France now making the same mistake, we should see that trend continue as more French and Scandinavian sex work clients travel to "legal" states like Germany and the Netherlands. And if the militant "antis" get their way, and they convince more countries to adopt this approach? Making it harder to buy or sell something doesn't make it go away; it only leads to changes in strategy.
<br>
<br>
It's time that those concerned with the harms connected to prostitution to change <I>their</I> strategies, before they cause even more harms. These harms, if not directly linked to criminalization in any form, are exacerbated by them. This has been noted by a wide range of groups that embrace decriminalization, from the sex worker rights movement to the World Health Organization and the Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women. Decriminalization is not a complete solution in itself, but it opens the doors for real solutions to happen. And if we want real solutions, it's time we listened to both the empirical evidence and the experience of sex workers themselves -- not misguided prohibitionists.Desmond Ravenstonehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11731355272768955344noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3503759181402329376.post-51260471296861796382015-12-12T09:36:00.003-05:002015-12-12T09:36:59.691-05:00Love Isn't EverythingA friend of mine writes erotica (or, as I prefer to say, "high-quality smut") and is currently working on a novel about a woman who joins a sex-positive new religion. As Rikki is not that familiar about such matters as ecclesiology and theology, I'm serving as her consultant on such matters. I drafted an outline for the "Free Spirit Connection," listing four "core values" for the group: <i>love, truth, peace, bliss</i>.
<br>
<br>
"Why four?" she asked. "Why not just say it's all about love, like the John Lennon song?" It’s likely that Rikki was asking rhetorically, fishing for ideas to incorporate in her work, but the answer is important in itself.
<br>
<br>
Very simply, love may be a universal value, and the emotional starting point to an ethical life … but it's not enough. Love devoid of other values is empty sentimentalism.
<br>
<br>
When Rikki heard this, she then continued to question (as an <i>advocatus diaboli</i>, perhaps?) why the other values I listed were not merely extensions of love itself. And my two-fold answer: I've not only seen people who loved without embracing these other values, but I've seen people embrace the others even when love was not present.
<br>
<br>
I've known people who sincerely loved, yet who were dishonest with themselves and others, even deliberately misleading people and ignoring facts. And I've also known people who were scrupulously honest, committed to accuracy and clarity, regardless of whether they had affection or compassion for those with whom they interacted.
<br>
<br>
I've observed people who, as much as they loved, still found themselves drowning in conflict, unable to resolve it, either because they ignored the reality of the conflict, or because they persisted in trying to intimidate and coerce others into subordination. And I've also noticed people who are exemplars at conflict resolution, as well as preventing unnecessary conflict, even with those whom they disliked.
<br>
<br>
I've been aware of people who would actually deprive their loved ones of joy and pleasure, or even inflict suffering, ostensibly "for their own good." And I've been equally aware of people dedicated to helping others to be happy, or at least not getting in their way, even for dispassionate utilitarian reasons.
<br>
<br>
And yes, I would include under the rubric of bliss the pleasures of erotic fulfillment. Too often traditional moralists have demanded that a high standard of romantic love precede any enjoyment of sex, even leading to a confusion of the two. We stigmatize sex workers for entering into provisional covenants with paying clients, no matter how honest or consensual or delightful they may be, simply because they involve sex without love, yet we don't demand love from the barista down the street or the online merchant who takes our order over the phone.
<br>
<br>
We could debate the configuration of these values – whether dedication to truth, peace and bliss proceeds from love, or whether each is a corner of a "quadrilateral of virtue" – but the fact remains that the mere evocation of love is not enough to create the life and world we desire. If I had to choose, I'd prefer those dispassionately dedicated to truth, peace and happiness, than to those who say they love me and nothing more. It's not just simple arithmetic that three-fourths is better than one-fourths. It is that living decently makes a better world than professing sentiment.
Desmond Ravenstonehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11731355272768955344noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3503759181402329376.post-38075633997520370242015-10-27T17:00:00.000-04:002015-10-27T17:00:00.668-04:00This is GoodbyeFifteen years ago, a growing awareness of my sexuality led to my embrace of kink and polyamory. Ten years ago, I began to reconnect with Unitarian Universalism as a home where my sexuality and my values intersected, and where I was convinced that others would be able to do so as well. Indeed, many other kinksters and polyfolk are found in UU congregations and organizations, and shared with me the hope that the radical hospitality they had provided to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender folks would be extended to us. Now, after much effort, and some serious reflection on recent events, I've come to another conclusion:
<br>
<br>
<b>I was wrong.</b>
<br>
<br>
I've often talked about the difference between "UUism" and "UU-dom" with others, much like when some radical Christians distinguish their values and ideals from the practices of institutional <I>Christendom</I>. I had thought that the discordance between the values of UUism and the practices of UU-dom would somehow decrease. Instead, I've seen them grow much worse.
<br>
<br>
UUism is presented as being centered on love and reason, but UU-dom is more fixated on money and image. UUism is presented as being a community seeking common ground and radical transformation, but UU-dom is run like a business conglomerate which plays off various factions like checkers on a game board. UUism is presented as extending radical hospitality for all, but UU-dom cherry-picks who is really welcome while squirming with discomfort in reaction to the rest.
<br>
<br>
I still believe in the values espoused under UUism. I am no longer able to put up with the practices of UU-dom.
<br>
<br>
At the beginning of this journey, I would have enthusiastically told anyone identifying with kink and/or polyamory to check out their local UU congregation. Over time, I've heard from too many such people who have either fled or been driven out, sometimes because they were met with hostility, sometimes over other problems. I've heard from too many leaders within the UUA who will praise my work and encourage me to keep going, but only in private and off-the-record, and with no meaningful support beyond that. As for the pushback experienced in recent months, I won't burden you with the details. Suffice it to say that, with all the dysfunction and dissembling I have witnessed, my only honest answer to what I thought of UUism would be: "Great in theory, but far too few real-life examples."
<br>
<br>
Perhaps, one day, UU-dom will come closer to UUism's values. But I don't see that happening in my lifetime. So it is time for me to take a different path, and to say ... <b><I>Goodbye.</I></b>Desmond Ravenstonehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11731355272768955344noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3503759181402329376.post-43681405531262153302015-10-10T16:46:00.002-04:002015-10-10T16:46:51.427-04:00Thoughts on "Atheist Churches"Ask many Unitarian Universalists what they think of <a href="http://sundayassembly.com/">Sunday Assembly</a> -- the growing network of communities offering "all the best bits of church, but without the religion, and awesome pop songs" -- and the response will seem politely dismissive, often wondering why these folks don't just join <I>us</I> instead of "reinventing the wheel."
<br>
<br>
You're about to read a dissenting view.
<br>
<br>
Yes, there's much that Sunday Assembly (and another US-based movement, called <a href="http://www.usoasis.org/">the National Oasis Network</a>) could learn from UUs. But I would contend that the relatively rapid growth of these so-called "atheist churches" also shows that UUs might learn more from them. Such as ...
<ol>
<li><b>Keeping the message simple:</b> The Oasis Network holds to five basic principles, beginning with <a href="http://www.usoasis.org/about-oasis/">"People are more important than beliefs."</a> Sunday Assembly's philosophy is expressed even more succinctly as <I>"Live Better, Help Often, Wonder More."</I></li>
<li><b>Including without diluting:</b> Both of these networks were started by committed secularists and atheists, yet they also welcome and include the full range of people who would not fit into a traditional religious communities. The emphasis is less on bashing religion (like the "New Atheists") or mimicking it, and more on building an alternative community around shared ethical concerns and psychological needs.</li>
<li><b>More egalitarian:</b> Linked to both their inclusion and freethought roots, the communities in these networks are less reliant on professionals and experts, even drawing on models from Quakers and more radical "emerging" church groups.
<li><b>Meeting people's needs:</b> Atheist and Humanist groups have previously focused on intellectual needs, almost to the exclusion of emotional and aesthetic ones. Sunday Assembly and Oasis are attempting a more holistic approach.</li>
</ol>
If the rate of growth for these groups is any indication, they would appear to be doing something right. And, if they are to be accused of "reinventing the wheel," allow me to contend that there are times when that is necessary.
<br>
<br>
People will find ways to meet their needs, even if it means sidestepping "official" channels. I've seen it in my work as a medical equipment specialist, where families are willing to pay out of pocket for walkers or electric beds rather than wait for doctors to fulfill the cumbersome requirements of Medicare, or endure the waiting lists of our competitors. When you need a wheel, you find a way to get one, even if the only "legitimate" supplier tells you to fill out a form and wait for their staff to get to it. Same thing for the kind of "alternative" community offered by Sunday Assembly, Oasis Network, or UUs.
<br>
<br>
Where the efforts of these newer groups will lead, I don't know. But my impression so far is that Unitarian Universalists will not learn from what success they've garnered so far by ignoring or dismissing them.Desmond Ravenstonehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11731355272768955344noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3503759181402329376.post-64382266351485409532015-07-23T22:28:00.000-04:002015-07-24T20:44:03.659-04:00Are We Becoming "the Protest Church"?As I was recovering from surgery recently, the friends I was staying with introduced me to someone who would seem open to Unitarian Universalism. An openly gay African-American man, progressive and well-educated, interested in spirituality but not committed to any single tradition.
<br>
<br>
And yes, he'd heard of UUs. "Oh yeah – the Protest Church."
<br>
<br>
That led to a couple of conversations during my first week of recovery, followed by another last night. I don't know if Carl's perspective of is typical of the "Nones" who avoid UU churches, but it's worth considering.
<br>
<br>
Carl generally agrees with our principles, and our non-creedal approach. But how he sees us currently engaging the world bothers him. While he's glad to see UUs on the picket lines on various issues – immigration, voting rights, Black Lives Matter – he still has reservations about what he considers an "overly reactive" approach. To him, UUs seem to "jump into" a movement, and then into another, and then another. He does admire the commitment and compassion around this, and he also remembers our leadership around LGBTQ rights, especially marriage equality. But when I consider his career path, I begin to understand where he's coming from.
<br>
<br>
Carl took a master's in psychology, and would employ it in diversity training and conflict resolution. He made an effort to help build bridges – and mend fences – between the LGBTQ community and people of color, then with police and other first responders, and so on. He took the time to learn more about the kink and polyamory communities, and had begun efforts to educate others as well. From one-on-one mentorship to speaking in front of groups, what struck me the most was <b><i>he didn't wait for disaster to strike, or for a particular issue or cause to make the headlines.</i></b>
<br>
<br>
I'm sure many UUs, especially ministers and other leaders, will respond with a sense of indignation. "Hey, we do that, too! We do all sorts of things like that!" But I had to remind myself that this wasn't about Carl not knowing these details. It was about what he was able to see of UUs engaging the world, by marching in picket lines with matching yellow shirts and attention-getting banners – "the Protest Church."
<br>
<br>
What Carl told me has prompted a good deal of questions. I'm still struggling with the answers.Desmond Ravenstonehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11731355272768955344noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3503759181402329376.post-80687894008265132912015-07-03T06:49:00.000-04:002015-07-03T06:49:00.601-04:00SCOTUS and the Rest of UsAs Americans waited for the Supreme Court’s decision on same-sex marriage, most who knew and watched the court anticipated that the final outcome would rest with Justice Anthony Kennedy. During oral arguments, he had posed some challenging questions to Mary Bonauto (attorney for the plaintiffs seeking marriage equality), revealing that he might still be wrestling with the issue. In the end, the majority opinion he wrote included a thorough survey of precedent, analysis, and history in arguing that, just as the institution of marriage had evolved to assure greater equity and individual choice, so it must do so again with regard to same-sex couples.
<br>
<br>
Antonin Scalia, on the other hand, wrote the most scathing dissent of the four submitted, garnering about as much attention and commentary as the majority view itself. Not only did he dismiss the careful analysis that Kennedy presented, his tone was more scolding than scholarly. Perennial court watchers mused that, had a liberal like Ruth Bader Ginsberg written the opinion, this would not have been the case – but to have a supposed conservative like Kennedy break ranks was too much for him to take. And while Roberts and Alito raised the question of whether the court was moving too far too fast, Scalia seemed to be saying that the court had no purview at all to decide such a matter. To him, the issue is settled, and how dare anyone disagree.
<br>
<br>
It has often been said that the Supreme Court frequently reflects the larger society. The difference between Kennedy and Scalia – not only in their opinions on this issue, but the approach and attitude of each – likewise reflect the divisions we see in America today. Some people will summon the ability to question, reflect and come to a new understanding; others hang on desperately to the comfortable and familiar, regardless of the consequences.
<br>
<br>
Yet even we Unitarian Universalists are not immune to such foibles. How often do we resist change or cling to tradition within our congregations, then wonder why our membership numbers stagnate or shrink? How many causes have we embraced as soon as our leaders call for it, yet balk at reasoned appeals for similar issues? How many times do we denounce the zealotry of the Christian Right, only to mirror their militancy when committing to our own "just causes"?
<br>
<br>
When I studied philosophy in college, a professor once told us: "Epistemology precedes everything, because when we assert our certainty or doubts about anything, we must ultimately ask and answer the question: 'How do we know?'" For this reason, I've come to believe that our fourth principle – the free and responsible search for truth and meaning – is the linchpin upon which the rest are held. Our search must be <i>free</i> from the shackles of dogma and bias, yet <i>responsible</i> in avoiding the pitfalls of fallacy and hypocrisy. Yes, when pursuing justice, we need the fire of passion – but tempered so that we don't find ourselves consumed as our own burnt offering.
<br>
<br>
Anthony Kennedy is to be lifted up, but not merely because he agreed with us on marriage equality. It is the manner in which he came to that position, and the reasoned eloquence with which he put that position forward. As we move forward, both in engaging the world and searching our own souls, may we follow his example.
Desmond Ravenstonehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11731355272768955344noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3503759181402329376.post-32027689637642285112015-06-24T23:24:00.000-04:002015-06-24T23:24:05.580-04:00Taking Down Flags ... and Other ObstaclesThe horror at Emmanuel AME Church has stirred a wave of reaction, including efforts to get rid of the old "stars and bars" flag of the Confederacy. Would seem like a simple step towards progress, to consign this symbol of a racist regime to history displays, yes?
<br>
<br>
Well, I've been reading some who have argued that this "purely symbolic" act would do little or nothing to address more fundamental issues around racialized identity. Others has commented that the growing list of companies choosing to pull Confederate flag merchandise from their shelves is only doing this to avoid boycotts and appeal to a growing segment of the marketplace.
<br>
<br>
I've observed this tendency a great deal among UUs and others seeking a more just and inclusive world – the deprecation of partial solutions, especially when done out of expediency or pragmatism instead of enlightened principle. This is not to say that we shouldn’t continue to call for and strive towards something better. But I do thing we need to ask: <b><i>Does it make sense to demand perfect motives and perfect actions from imperfect people living in an imperfect society?</i></b>
<br>
<br>
I've seen such perfectionism tear movement organizations apart, as their members schism over which solution they consider the "correct" one to follow. I've seen once idealistic friends become hardened cynics because the process of change failed to follow their best-laid plans. And I've seen once promising groups become paralyzed, wondering and worrying which course to take.
<br>
<br>
When I find myself witnessing such, or slipping into that mode myself, I think of one of my favorite films … <i>Miracle on 34th Street</i>. Yes, Kris Kringle is the seemingly hopeless idealist, trying to revive the spirit of Christmas in an age of growing commercialism and cynicism. But he manages to succeed, not because everyone else suddenly adopts his worldview, but comes to see some practical reason for doing supposedly selfless acts, from the department stores helping people find what they want at another store, to the tired postal workers sending eighteen bags of "Dear Santa" letters to a New York City courthouse.
<br>
<br>
And in the end, that's ultimately how life works. People don't always do the right thing for the right reasons, or even for the same reasons as others who do them. Actions which may seem trivial to some may be transformational to others. Republicans like David Brooks and John Huntsman, for example, didn't come to support marriage equality for the same reasons as Evan Wolfson or Margaret Cho, nor does the average person commit as much time and energy in expressing their support as a politician or celebrity. But we still welcome them into our movement – don't we?
Desmond Ravenstonehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11731355272768955344noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3503759181402329376.post-51908008990558377392015-06-03T23:31:00.000-04:002015-06-03T23:31:50.913-04:00The Courage to Commit, and Yet be Free<blockquote><i>"If we commit ourselves to one person for life, this is not, as many people think, a rejection of freedom; rather, it demands the courage to move into all the risks of freedom, and the risk of love which is permanent; into that love which is not possession but participation." ― Madeleine L’Engle</i></blockquote>
<br>
I want to thank Jordinn Nelson Long for bringing attention to a conservative Christian blog called "Biblical Gender Roles," and in particular the May 23rd entry: "8 steps to confront your wife’s sexual refusal." When the link was first posted on the UU bloggers' Facebook page, there was an immediate visceral reaction.
<br>
<br>
Yes, there's reason for Unitarian Universalists and other spiritual progressives to be concerned about this. It's easy to say: "Well, if that's how these couples want to live their lives, then so be it." Unfortunately, the mindset behind this author's prescriptions isn't limited to the bedrooms of conservative Christian couples, or their churches.
<br>
<br>
First, here's a summation of what this fellow (and, I'm sure, many more like him) believes:
<ol>
<li>While he makes it clear (in huge red letters) that he draws the line at violence and outright coercion, he believes it's justified for men to browbeat and intimidate their wives into "willingly (even if grudgingly) yield[ing]" to their demands for sex.</li>
<li>While he acknowledges that women may have "legitimate physical or mental health reasons" to refuse to have sex with their husbands, he also asserts that <b><i>husbands have a right to sex, and wives have a duty to provide it.</i></b></li>
<li>A husband should "discern" whether his wife's reason for not having sex is "legitimate," not by listening to her or consulting a trained professional, but by prayer.</li>
<li>If a husband determines that his wife's sexual refusal is not "legitimate," then he has the right to "discipline" her in escalating steps, from "rebuking" her to denying her date night and other "little things," and finally divorce. Mind you, our author makes it clear this is not "manipulation" because that's what you do to an equal or an authority figure, <i>but since "husbands have authority over their wives" this is therefore Godly "discipline."</i></li>
</ol>
Now there's the obvious issues around linking authority with gender, and using religious faith to justify male privilege and entitlement. Is it any wonder how marriage equality – not just same-sex marriage, but the paradigm of equal partnership which it exemplifies – remains such a palpable threat to this brand of Christian? But this model of hierarchical authority has tainted their worldview much more broadly.
<ul>
<li><b><i>There are no equals.</i></b> - God has ordered people into a chosen few with authority over others.</li>
<li><b><i>Do as you're told.</i></b> - God wants us to obey those in "rightful" authority; to question said authority is rebellion, and rebellion is sin.</li>
<li><b><i>Right for me, not for thee</i></b> - For the sake of preserving the order of God's plan, double standards are justified.</li>
</ul>
Of course, you wouldn't expect an organized group to blatantly admit: "Yes, we believe that some people deserve more authority and rights than everyone else." Nor would you expect the vast majority to assent to such an approach. But, with enough obfuscation, manipulation and deception – including <i>self-</i>deception – just about anything is possible.
<br>
<br>
What is more insidious, however, is the persistence of these attitudes within so many of our institutions, even in our progressive faith. Yes, we're proud of how we establish "checks and balances" in our governance systems, and our legacy of skepticism and heresy. But do we know when and how to use those systems wisely? Do we fully understand and consistently apply the principles of critical thinking which we so often praise? Most importantly to our covenantal faith, are we able to debate and disagree with respect and the goal of right relationship?
<br>
<br>
It’s easy to recoil from that which is our opposite. The true challenge is building authentic alternatives. Many people have created such paradigms of equitable relating in their marriages and intimate partnerships. These give me hope that our broader covenants may similarly evolve into something better.
Desmond Ravenstonehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11731355272768955344noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3503759181402329376.post-392422974711999602015-05-03T19:41:00.000-04:002015-05-03T21:18:39.421-04:00Sermon: Tending the Sacred Fire of Eros<i>Sermon delivered May 3rd, 2015 at <a href="http://www.firstparishcambridge.org">First Parish in Cambridge, Massachusetts</a></I>
<br>
<br>
As we move towards summer, and life and love abound, so we kindle the fires of Beltane, spreading warmth and light to all.
<br>
<br>
Fire is a powerful and primal symbol, often evoked to represent both spiritual energy and sexual passion, two vital elements of human experience often seen as diametrically opposed to one another.
<br>
<br>
But what if religion and sexuality are not so opposed? What if we heeded the words of Virginia Ramey Mollenkott, and sought to reclaim Eros as a spiritual urge?
<br>
<br>
It seems fitting that I propose this here, in a Unitarian Universalist church, during the pagan festival of Beltane. Both UUs and contemporary pagans are known for an openness to new ideas, and for challenging conventional wisdom. The Wiccan Rede prescribes: “An it harm none, do what ye will”; while the Charge of the Goddess proclaims: “Behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals.” Yet even heathens and heretics may find ourselves struggling to live up to our own hopeful ideals and vision. Even today, for example, some pagans insist on attributing special significance in their rituals to male and female identities, unaware how they exclude people who don’t fit into the gender binary.
<br>
<br>
This is but one example of the dualistic mentality we must challenge if we are to embrace the spiritual significance of sexuality. From the earliest days of European civilization, the division of reality into polarized categories – often with one category deemed “superior” to another – is a construction we find ingrained in our thinking and behavior to this very day. Other examples of this hierarchical dualism, specific to our religious traditions, include: God versus Satan, angels versus demons, Heaven versus Hell, saved versus damned, saint versus sinner, orthodox versus heretic, and, of course, spirit versus flesh.
<br>
<br>
This carries over into our view of sexuality, gender and relationships: male <i>over</I> female, procreation <i>over</I> pleasure, heterosexual monogamous marriage over every other form of loving relationship. Even love itself is dissected and sorted, with a purely “spiritual” <i>agape</I> on top, and <i>eros</I> relegated to the bottom. And while most are quick to blame European Christendom, in fact the roots for this dualism may be found in the ancient cultures of Greece and Rome, and other religious movements like Manicheanism, all of which influenced prominent theologians like Augustine. You may remember the famous prayer attributed to him: “God grant me chastity and continence, but not yet!”
<br>
<br>
How, then, do we overcome this construct of dualism, and learn to embrace more fully the diversity of our sexualities, gender identities and relationship patterns – queer and straight, monogamous and polyamorous, vanilla and kinky, male, female, genderqueer, intersex, asexual, and more – in unity with the creative spirit of Eros? To meet this challenge, let me suggest that the principles and values of our Unitarian Universalist faith may guide us in this path of transformation.
<br>
<br>
If we believe in the inherent worth and dignity of every person, then let us affirm in word and deed alike that each of us is deserving of love, joy and pleasure. Sounds easy enough, but how often we forget to affirm this – including for ourselves.
<br>
<br>
If we believe in justice, equity and compassion, then let us speak out against both discrimination towards sexual and gender minorities of <I>all</I> kinds, and sexual abuse and exploitation; let us further temper our attitudes and actions with compassionate concern, not only for the victims of these wrongs, but for their perpetrators as well.
<br>
<br>
If we believe in accepting one another as we are, then let us affirm each person's self-determination in how best to fulfill their desires, encouraging one another in a sexual ethic governed by honesty, respect for oneself and others, mutual consent, awareness of risk, and the affirmation of pleasure. In her book <i>Sensuous Spirituality</I>, Virginia Ramey Mollenkott recalled that one of the greatest gifts of inspiration she received was the advice to avoid condemning any other person's attempt to relate, however imperfect we may find it to be.
<br>
<br>
If we believe in a free and responsible search for meaning and truth, then let us continue to speak up for comprehensive education on sexuality, not only for our children and youth, but as part of a continuous and lifelong process of growth, as a way of furthering our understanding and appreciation of the myriad ways of loving human relationships and erotic pleasure.
<br>
<br>
If we believe in democracy and the right of conscience, and the goal of a just community with liberty for all, then let us provide safe spaces for people to discuss their questions, concerns and desires regarding sexuality, whether with an intimate partner, or in the context of community.
<br>
<br>
And if we believe that we are a part of an interdependent web of existence, then let us be mindful that our erotic selves are an integral part of our whole selves, and as such, one with a vital spiritual component. Let us not only infuse our respective sexualities with spiritual values and practice, but in return enliven our spirituality with a celebration of the sensuous and erotic, recognizing and affirming as the late John O'Donohue noted, the "secret relationship between our physical being and the rhythm of our soul," that "[t]he body is the place where the soul shows itself."
<br>
<br>
Above all else, my friends, let us not be complacent. It is easy to compare ourselves with those holding more conservative and puritanical approaches, patting ourselves on the back for being so much more welcoming and open-minded. But the challenge of our progressive faith is that we must constantly question and challenge one another. We must not only speak our truths in love, but listen when others do the same, and be mindful that doing so also means speaking truth to power – including the "powers-that-be" amongst us.
<br>
<br>
Beloved friends: As we celebrate Beltane, let us tend the sacred fire of Eros ... that its warmth may comfort us, that its light may guide us, that its energy may empower us to forge new ways of relating, and that we may – all of us – dance together in the circle of life.
AMEN, ASHÉ & BLESSED BE
Desmond Ravenstonehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11731355272768955344noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3503759181402329376.post-40298316805962409852015-02-24T12:21:00.000-05:002015-02-24T12:21:28.236-05:00On Contracts, Covenants and SexUUalityOne of the major elements of the "Fifty Shades" story is the contract Christian presents to Anastasia. Some people have praised it, as an example of the level of communication expected in BDSM from which many other folks could benefit.
<br>
<br>
I'm not so sure.
<br>
<br>
The whole process comes across to me more like a one-sided business acquisition – he wants her, he sees she’s attracted to him, he imposes a ready-made list of rules, he insists he knows what’s best for her.
<br>
<br>
Then again, the same could be said for many vanilla relationships …
<br>
<br>
Religious people often talk about the "marriage covenant"; indeed, such covenants existed well before governments required couples to obtain a license at some official location. Among many conservatives, such "covenants" seem as one-sided as the Fifty Shades contract, even if the rules are not as detailed. In both cases, one person presumes to have power and authority over another, and any negotiation is over what the former will grant the latter.
<br>
<br>
Some may talk about "equitable" contracts or agreements, but in my opinion there's a much more foundational issue here. Not the same way conservative Christians see "covenant" as a completely different category, but that covenantal agreements have a different basis and approach from other forms of contractual arrangements.
<br>
<br>
Business contracts and other such arrangements tend to be <i>transactional</i>; they focus on an exchange of resources, of what the participants are expected to do – "You give me X, and I give you Y." Covenants, on the other hand, tend towards the <i>relational</i>; they focus on a sharing of resources, intangible as well as tangible, and on who the participants are and what they bring in coming together. While this is not a strict dichotomy – covenants may include transactional arrangements – I see this difference as essential in the formation of any agreement between two or more people, whether in an intimate relationship or an intentional community.
<br>
<br>
Christian seems to view his potential relationship with Ana almost entirely in transactional terms: He gets to control her, do all sorts of things to her, and she in return gets him. (If you haven't read the book or seen the movie, I'm not oversimplifying; it's explicitly put that way in the dialogue). He doesn’t seem to care what she wants or has to offer, and even pushes her away (literally as well as figuratively) when she offers or seeks genuine intimacy with him.
<br>
<br>
Both my own experience, and that which I've heard from others in the BDSM or kink community, would tend more towards the covenantal. Before any play begins, there is a sharing of desires and expectations. Prospective partners begin with the premise that each has power, and that the flow of such power from one to another relies upon trust and understanding. Even when there are breaches of such agreements, it’s not merely "she did this thing that I didn't want" or "he told me he wanted this but he really didn't"; the transgression is described in terms of miscommunication, crossing boundaries, and violating trust. Sometimes, the breach is enough to cause estrangement – but other times, it leads to coming together once more to restore and strengthen right relationship.
<br>
<br>
Too often, our consumer culture reduces sexuality to what we do – from conventional intercourse to role-playing in fetish garb. We forget that what we desire to do is inextricably linked to who we are as unique persons, and how the doing may affect our being. May we remember who we are, and what we have to bring, whenever we come together.
Desmond Ravenstonehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11731355272768955344noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3503759181402329376.post-87633627031093620762015-02-21T22:51:00.000-05:002015-02-21T22:51:48.054-05:00Guest Post: You're Talking About My Dad<b><i>The following is a post from a fellow UU blogger, who wishes to remain anonymous. It was written in response to <a href="http://www.uuworld.org/life/articles/298744.shtml">this UU World article "Offenders Among Us"</a>, and as part of the #sexUUality initiative taken up by UU bloggers. It will be difficult for some to read … but it also deserves to be heard, which is why I have given it space here.</i></b>
<br>
<br>
When you say that those monsters shouldn't be allowed in the doors of the Church, that you would never shake the hand of someone "like that", please remember that you are talking about my dad. My dad who started out the same as all of us – feeling attracted to kids because he <i>was</i> one, and who didn't ever grow out of it. Who kept those feelings a secret and felt he had no choice but to manage it all on his own. Who was unable to find resources … <i>any</i> resources… that offered him anything more useful than vitriolic and unequivocal condemnation. My dad who rejected that story, and had nothing to replace it with other than a determination to just have enough will power.
<br>
<br>
You are talking about my dad, who lived with urges that most of us cannot judge or understand because we <i>don't have them.</i> My dad who thought he could be strong enough to overcome it on his own.
<br>
<br>
My dad, who fought a hard fight. And who mostly succeeded.
<br>
<br>
Who kept his struggle (and mine) a secret because he was afraid. Who rationalized his actions and convinced himself he wasn't harming me, because it was too easy to discredit the dominant voices of the day that painted him as a monster. My dad, who I protected. And am still protecting.
<br>
<br>
I have always been so jealous of the children of alcoholics, of orphans, or even of those who were beat up as kids. They can tell their stories – sometimes heartbreaking, sometimes inspiring. I can't tell you mine. Not with my name attached. I can't tell you about the damage, or about the redemption. About how common it is for abusers (particularly non-violent abusers molesting children they know well) to be able to come to understand the damage and learn new skills and never offend again. About abusers who come forward voluntarily, and about all that they endure to find the help they need. About potential abusers who have never abused because they recognized their urges early on, and sought treatment.
<br>
<br>
I want to tell you about my father, who was a good man who failed and was failed, and the damage of it. But I will not, because I don't believe he deserves what you would do to him if I told the truth.
<br>
<br>
I am not at peace with this choice. It breaks my heart. Because I am aware every day of the children out there who desperately – <i>desperately</i> need to hear a story … any story … that is not dominated by a villain who is an evil, ravaging monster. The vast majority of children who are molested are not molested by force – they could speak up, they could say no, they could tell someone. And they don't. We need to start asking why that is.
<br>
<br>
I didn't know, when I was a child, that I was a victim of sexual abuse. Because the monster paradigm was not something I was able to recognize as applying to my loving, kind, witty, and creative dad. I knew he could not possibly be a child molester because they were all evil, conscienceless creatures – so I thought it was me that was broken. I wanted him to stop touching me, I pleaded and begged for it. I told my family – who didn't believe me, because my dad is a good man – and endured their vitriolic responses. When I couldn't stop what was happening, I left. I endured foster homes and homelessness and many things that were much worse than the family I could have had if my cultural context had been different.
<br>
<br>
My father was born the way he is. But the rest – the not having the support or treatment that was needed, the years of silence, the torturous discrediting when I spoke up, the years without a family – <i>all of these things could have been prevented.</i>
<br>
<br>
I am not saying that evil, sadistic abusers do not exist. That story absolutely happens, and we need to validate it. But we need to leave room for other stories – stories like mine. In my case – and in many cases like it – the pattern was evil. The man was not.
<br>
<br>
I beg you – on behalf of the child I was, the adult I am now – to have the courage to attack the <i>pattern.</i> I beg you on behalf of the child who is <i>in your congregation right now watching your reaction and measuring your level of compassion</i> - to have the courage to be part of something better. I beg you to stop acting based on what alleviates your <i>own</i> suffering – making you feel safer or like you have taken a stand – and to start acting in research based, carefully thought out, empathetic ways. To center your response and your narrative unequivocally on a single priority – the kids. And that means we have to interact with that abuse in <i>whatever way protects and heals the most kids.</i> Part that is that we must stop asking these children to choose between enduring abuse and shattering their families. It means we need to provide treatment options. It means we need to make it possible for pedophiles to come forward and be treated <i>before they abuse.</i> It means that we need to acknowledge that social support reduces recidivism and start providing whatever we need to provide to <i>protect and heal the most kids.</i> And it means we need to do these things wisely – recognizing the genuine risk of reoffending, and also the need to be in constant conversation with those people in our congregation who have histories of abuse so that they understand our motives and our process.
<br>
<br>
The world is not divided into two options: Take abuse seriously by demonizing and quarantining abusers … or be "soft" on it by allowing them to seek treatment and reintegrate into society. Validating the pain of abused children does not require demonizing abusers. It requires direct validation of the pain – by taking recidivism seriously and putting safeguards in place, and by acting on the potential that <i>any</i> person has to molest. By telling stories in which a person comes forward and the outcome is something other than shattered lives. By preaching about why you must never say to your child "Oh, just kiss Uncle Harold – he’s a nice man", and teaching parents real skills. By role modeling in tiny ways the idea that boundaries get crossed, and demonstrating that being remedied. By living this stuff out in day to day examples right in our congregations. Observing "Actually, I’m not a hug person" followed by "Oh, I’m sorry, I won’t do that again" can open the door in a child’s mind for a non-adversarial way of coming forward and finally protecting themselves.
<br>
<br>
We validate the boundaries of children by directly validating those boundaries. Not by attacking abusers.
<br>
<br>
Do not think that by refusing to shake my father's hand, you are fostering my healing. You are not. You are walling me into silence. You are forcing me to relive and remake all the unspeakable choices that filled my childhood. You are preventing healing – of abusers and their victims by oversimplifying a whole spectrum of complex and nuanced situations.
<br>
<br>
An abused child does not see you punishing a monster, they see you punishing a <i>person.</i> A person who is very similar to someone in their own life. Maybe someone they love, maybe someone they are afraid of. Maybe someone who is the only person who has ever made their mom smile like that, or the person who helps them with their homework and takes them to swim class. And they don't see you punishing that person because they are a child molester.
<br>
<br>
They see you punishing that person because somewhere, at some point … <i>some kid told.</i> They see one thing: "This is what happens when you tell". They see "this is what we will do to your father, your mom's boyfriend, your sister … "
<br>
<br>
Make no mistake: What feeds sexual abuse is secrets, and what feeds secrets is fear and shame. What feeds fear and shame is <i>us.</i>
<br>
<br>
Let's starve it, instead. Let's create a better story. Something a kid could reach for, rather than live in fear of. Let's let go of the idea that by letting acknowledged offenders in, we lose our safe and quarantined congregations, and acknowledge that we never had them. Let's let that go, and focus on what we stand to gain.
<br>
<br>
We stand to gain an awareness of the potential for abuse in every situation. You cannot quarantine abusers out of any congregation – they are always there – and gaining that awareness is part of the process of putting necessary safeguards in place. We stand to gain a role model for the people in your congregations who are abusers and are looking for a way out – by modeling effective treatment. We stand to gain a role model for people who were abused, and who cannot quite accept the story that all abusers are evil – but at the same time need to heal from the deep pain inflicted by their history. We stand to gain a validation of the pain of abuse – by having active, alive conversations about prevention that focus on the needs of children. And, we stand to gain a new kind of hope.
<br>
<br>
On some level, the congregation that proceeds with caution and compassion in this area speaks to, on behalf of, and in defense of the child who is currently choosing between silent endurance and shattering the life of a loved one. That congregation embodies another option – a hopeful vision in which the child can speak up and see their abuser treated and their abuse ended. That congregation trailblazes not just respect for the worth and dignity of abusers. They trailblaze for the abused. They are part of creating a new option for kids everywhere. A safe way out. A <i>real</i> way out.
<br>
<br>
That's something worth reaching for. It's time to extend our hands.Desmond Ravenstonehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11731355272768955344noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3503759181402329376.post-59884780492017137842015-02-13T00:39:00.001-05:002015-02-13T00:40:30.690-05:00Movie Review: "Fifty Shades of Grey"For this blog post, I've chosen to do a video blog. And why not? What better way to review a movie than by using a similar medium?<br>
<br>
<iframe width="400" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/g9VZq1r-NB8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>Desmond Ravenstonehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11731355272768955344noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3503759181402329376.post-35292103974244048772015-02-06T18:22:00.000-05:002015-02-10T07:18:20.065-05:00Why I'll Be Watching "Fifty Shades"One might think that I’d be avoiding the motion picture version of <i>Fifty Shades of Grey</i> with some ambivalence. On the one hand, the response of many in the BDSM/kink/fetish community has been to dismiss it as “trash”, either because that’s how they see the book, or because they expect Hollywood to misrepresent us, or a combination of both. On the other hand, there are Unitarian Universalists like myself who are at least curious about this, and avoidance is the least likely way to satisfy one’s curiosity.
<br>
<br>
The fact is that I had long ago planned to see the movie. I already acquired a ticket via Fandango for an early showing here in Boston, and scouted out the area around the theatre for restaurants.
<br>
<br>
But I’m not going for the reasons many people might think.
<br>
<br>
Yes, I’m overly critical of this franchise. There are books and films which represent kink far better, and with greater artistry. The trailers I’ve seen so far do not inspire me much, especially the acting of Jamie Dornan.
<br>
<br>
For me, it’s a question of fairness. My personal experience has taught me to mistrust anyone who critiques something – whether it’s artistic, scientific, or simply the reality of another’s life – without striving to know about it first. It’s that commitment which led me to Unitarian Universalism, especially the principle of a <i>free and responsible search for meaning and truth,</i> with an emphasis on the <i>responsible</i>.
<br>
<br>
Already there is a movement to urge a boycott, even before the movie has been shown. There is a presumption about its “message”, and about BDSM generally. I admit being critical of how <i>Fifty Shades</i> misrepresents BDSM, but that’s a far cry from presumptively denouncing the film from a similarly superficial understanding that sees <i>any</i> representation of BDSM as inherently bad.
<br>
<br>
Aside from being a UU and a kinkster, I consider myself a movie buff, almost a “cinematic anthropologist”. Motion pictures are a major sources of narrative for our culture, perhaps even displacing the printed word. Given that the book is written primarily in the first person, and with a great deal of internal dialogue on the part of Anastasia, I’d expect the film version to present this story very differently. Not to mention the tendency of screenwriters, directors and actors to put their own mark on any work in which they are involved.
<br>
<br>
I’m not saying that I expect the film to be better than the book. Truth be told, I admit to being skeptical about that. But before I say either way, I’d need to know more. And given the impact <i>Fifty Shades</i> has already had on the kink community to which I belong, the sooner the better.
Desmond Ravenstonehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11731355272768955344noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3503759181402329376.post-14175880808028917822015-01-15T08:02:00.001-05:002015-01-15T08:02:31.356-05:00The Love I Grew Up WithWe use the word "love" a great deal in UU circles. Standing on the side of love. Loving the Hell out of the world. Love being greater than fear. Love, love, love.
<br>
<br>
And I've begun to wonder just what kind of love it is that so many UUs are touting here.
<br>
<br>
The love I grew up with was demanding, calling on us to do our best, to rise to our potential. It didn't demean by labeling the other person "worthless" or "stupid," but it did challenge by expecting better.
<br>
<br>
The love I grew up with was responsive, listening and adapting to needs. It started by setting boundaries, then allowing those boundaries to be tested and stretched, and options to be made available. When my brother and I asked a question, for example, my parents didn't just give us the answer, or dismissively bark at us to "go look it up"; they’d walk us over to the bookshelf and say: "Let's find out."
<br>
<br>
The love I grew up with was trustworthy. When my parents said something was so, you could rely upon it. When they said: "You'll get desert when you finish dinner," or: "We're leaving the house at six to see that movie that just opened," that's exactly what happened. Likewise, if we made promises or commitments, we were expected to keep them.
<br>
<br>
The love I grew up with was also a love of language. I was raised to believe that words have meaning, just as people have value. Language was important for conveying feelings, exchanging ideas, or asking for help. If we said something that was vague or incomplete, we were asked to make it more clear and precise. Yet we also learned to appreciate the dance of prose and poetry, and the sideways logic of a good joke.
<br>
<br>
The love I grew up with said: "Don't put anyone down just because they’re different." And my parents meant <i>anyone</i>. If you shouldn't put down someone for having another shade of skin color, you don't put another person down just for being white. A person's attraction to one or the other gender, or none at all, has nothing to do with their ability to be a good friend, do a good job, or hold public office. When I learned in college about how racism, sexism and other oppressive "isms" permeate our society and culture, my mother responded by saying: "Yes, but cultures change as people change, and your task is to ask yourself what kind of society you want to live in, and set the example."
<br>
<br>
The love I grew up with was many things – and <i>not</i> many things. It was not sentimental. It was not overly indulgent. It was not about surface politeness.
<br>
<br>
The love I grew up with led me to see in the principles and values of Unitarian Universalist how my parents wanted me to live. And yet, when I see other UUs use the word "love," I sometimes wonder …
Desmond Ravenstonehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11731355272768955344noreply@blogger.com0