SWERFs and Other True Believers

Benjamin L. Corey commented in a recent post 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 Anthony Comstock 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.

This movement's basic approach follows that of the religious revivalists from which it originally emerged. First, there is the diagnosis of some great world-disease 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 individual infection, requiring radical treatment and cure. But it doesn't stop there, for now the convalescing individual must be recruited into expansion of the cure, 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.

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.

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.

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 anti-feminist, precisely because it leads privileged women to "other" marginalized ones. It is a faulty diagnosis, and a reckless course of treatment.

I would contend that the real 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.

The Courage to Commit, and Yet be Free

"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 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.

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.

First, here's a summation of what this fellow (and, I'm sure, many more like him) believes:

1. 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.
2. 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 husbands have a right to sex, and wives have a duty to provide it.
3. 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.
4. 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, but since "husbands have authority over their wives" this is therefore Godly "discipline."

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.

• There are no equals. - God has ordered people into a chosen few with authority over others.
• Do as you're told. - God wants us to obey those in "rightful" authority; to question said authority is rebellion, and rebellion is sin.
• Right for me, not for thee - For the sake of preserving the order of God's plan, double standards are justified.

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 self-deception – just about anything is possible.

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?

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.

Core Values ... or Puritanical Legalism?

You'd have to be a hermit in the tundra to be unaware of how conservative Christians have upheld opposition to abortion, contraception, homosexuality and sex education other than "abstinence-only" as going against their beliefs. What you may not have heard is how it's been ratcheted up. These positions aren't just beliefs, or even "deeply-held religious beliefs" -- they are now deemed "core values."

So now we have a conservative Christian university student claiming a right to refuse to counsel openly gay clients because she claims it would contradict the "core values" of her faith.

On the flip side, a nun who approved an abortion to save a critically ill woman's life is not only fired from her post at Saint Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix but excommunicated from her church, because Bishop Thomas Olmstead apparently holds as a core value of Catholic faith that "the mother may in fact die along with her child."

When Jesus was asked: "What is the greatest commandment?" he did not talk about carrying pregnancies to term, rejecting anything outside of heterosexuality, or more generally talking about sexual purity. All of that was secondary. He answered the question about the greatest commandment -- the core value of his day -- thusly:

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind." This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, "You shall love your neighbor s yourself."

Let me go further, and give an example of how Jesus put this into practice. That would be when a Roman centurion -- not just a gentile, but an active participant in the military occupation of Judea -- comes to him asking that he heal his servant, who is seriously ill. And not just any servant. In the extant Greek, the centurion describes him specifically as his pais and entimos duolos -- denoting not just any male slave but one obtained to share his bed as his lover.

What did Jesus do? Did he tell the centurion: "Sorry, but helping a gentile oppressor, and a homosexual to boot, goes against my core values"? No, he said very simply and clearly that he would go to the centurion's house to heal the young man. And when the centurion asserted his belief that Jesus had the power to heal without having to step into his house, Jesus praised him for his faith, and did so.

The very phrase core value depends on the concept that certain beliefs and principles are dependent upon others. Belief in prayer, for example, depends upon the belief that you are praying to some entity or power worthy of receiving those prayers. And the belief that one should help those in need regardless of their station in life depends in turn on the core values that each human being, created in the image of the Divine, is worthy of respect and love -- even a sinner or an enemy.

To hold up specific doctrines about sexuality above the more central value of compassion is more than mere legalism. It is virtual idolatry. It is confusing means with ends, giving more weight to selected issues than to the central message of one's faith, and in that process, distorting that faith beyond recognition.

Jesus condemned Pharisees and Saducees for doing much the same thing. What would he who healed the "honored slave" of a gentile soldier, and without hesitation, say to those who would refuse to do so today?

For All the Kinky Christians Out There...

I originally posted this on Myspace and Fetlife; many on those sites have responded positively, so I thought I would share these thoughts with a wider audience...

Being kinky is hard enough. Being a kinky Christian can really be a burden, when even the most liberal of theologians still cling to the idea that sexuality needs to follow some prescribed set of rules. It's amazing how people will roundly condemn the legalism of others, yet ignore when they themselves cling to their own.

My own observation is that many liberals take a "case-by-case" approach to questioning traditional rules about sexuality. They question whether you have to be married to be sexual with someone, or whether gays and lesbians can be good Christians, but fail to question the whole basis for the various rules we've inherited. Or, they simply discard the whole set of rules, not so much out of a sense of genuine liberation, but as if saying: "I give up! It's all a mystery, so I might as well do what I want and leave the rest to God!"

Well, let me offer some thoughts on that...

In my reading of the New Testament, the most transformative and liberating passage on ethics comes from Paul, in First Corinthians: "'All things are lawful for me,' but not all things are beneficial. 'All things are lawful for me,' but I will not be dominated by anything." (1 Cor 6:12)

Now often this verse is used to caution people against an "anything goes" approach (frequently called antinomianism). Yet this ignores the full context of the message. Paul is not saying: "Go back to the rules, but for a different reason"; he's saying to rethink what we've learned in the light of our experience and needs.

"All things are lawful" -- More specifically, all things are allowable. We have the liberty to choose whatever we do, rather than follow the prescriptions of old.

"But..." -- How, then, are we to determine what to do? Can we really do whatever we want, without fear of punishment? Of course not. George Bernard Shaw said that liberty means responsibility, which is why so many people dread it. So while liberty frees us from the burden of someone else's rules, it gives us in its place the burden to choose wisely.

"Not all things are beneficial" -- Imagine a rule which said that everyone had to eat three peanut butter sandwiches a week. Well, what if you're allergic to peanuts? Or you like peanut butter sandwiches so much, you'd like to eat more? And does the rule allow for additional spreads, like jelly or Fluff? Is half a sandwich six times a week okay? Or spreading peanut butter on a slice of bread and rolling it up? Now discard the rule and go by what is beneficial. If you like peanut butter sandwiches, go ahead. If you don't like them, or you're allergic, then you don't have to. And don't worry about who eats them or who doesn't, or how many, or what other stuff they put on them. If it works for them, let them be; and if someone else tries to impose their standards on you, ignore them.

"I will not be dominated by anything" -- Let's switch back to the "three peanut butter sandwiches a week" rule. Remember all those questions we were asking? That's what happens when you hold up a rule as an end in itself. It takes over a good chunk of your life, if not your entire life; you've let it dominate you. Now imagine someone who was forbidden by their parents or church to eat peanut butter sandwiches who then discards that and goes hog wild. They are still letting it take over their lives, just in a different way. Mindless obedience and mindless rebellion are fraternal twins, born of arbitrary authority. And authentic liberation comes from being mindful and loving in all that we do.

So how does this apply to sex, especially the unconventional? Often religious groups teach us to simply follow a set of rules; some have a long list of very strict rules, others have a shorter list of general guidelines. More often than not, BDSM and polyamory are on the "no-no" list, albeit with different reasons given (if reasons are given at all). But, if "all things are lawful" then we have to rethink these. Can they be beneficial? For some, certainly. Should we therefore do them? Well, only if they are beneficial to us. And how do we know whether they will be? By being mindful of ourselves and our partners, of what we truly need and desire.

Kinky Christians deserve to be relieved of the burden of legalistic dictates against unconventional sexual expression. More important, they need to be able to show how such expression is consistent with the love ethic of their faith. Perhaps then they can join others in their faith towards a genuine transformation, a true metanoia, of the approach towards sexual ethics.