The Minister in the Bedroom

It started while attending the opening service at the Mass Bay District's annual meeting, listening to the sermom being given by a longtime UU minister. It was a rallying cry of sorts, and part of that was celebrating what he thought was right and good about Unitarian Universalism. And one of those things was that our ministers stay out of people's bedrooms.

Since then, I've heard other folks -- ministers especially -- use similar phrasing. And it's always led to my fiendish brain kicking in: What if I want my minister in the bedroom?

I'm not being literal here, as I'm sure that minister was not. But I can see how this exhortation to "stay out of the bedroom" might be misapplied -- how a minister who feels uncomfortable or unprepared on sexual matters could use it as a reason to refuse to counsel one of their parishioners on the subject. I don't think that's what this fellow intended, and it sure doesn't sound like good pastoral care.

I'd rather we say that ministers -- whether UU or any other tradition -- do not intrude into people's sex lives. May seem like a picky semantic thing, but there's a huge difference. Saying you won't intrude leaves open being able to provide guidance and support to someone facing an ethical or existential crisis around sex, just as pastors do so for many other events in our lives. It calls for a healthy respect for boundaries, both for the minister and the person being counseled. And it calls for ministers to be prepared, not only by being informed, but also in dealing with their own questions and comfort levels.

Right now, Unitarian Universalists across the continent have been engaging in conversations about the ethics of food production and consumption. That includes ministers preaching on the topic, and giving counsel to their parishioners. I've not heard anyone saying that our ministers should "stay out of" our kitchens and shopping carts -- but we also don't want them to cross the line and impose a list of rules on the rest of us. We turn to them for guidance when needed and invited, and expect that guidance to be suitably informed.

I'd like to see more of the same about sex. I'd like to see more real conversations about the value of consent, mutuality, and healthy boundaries. I'd like to hear more thoughtful sermons on sex and sexuality. I'd like more folks to come out to their ministers -- not just LGBTQ folks, but kinky, polyamorous, asexual and intersexual -- and more ministers giving people permission to do so. I'd like us to be more proactive in welcoming, engaging and supporting one another in this vital aspect of our lives.

Yes, I want my minister in the bedroom -- when needed and invited, to help with healing and discernment.

To Jim Wallis and Sojourners: Welcoming Gays Is a Social Justice Issue

You've probably read on the news that Believe Out Loud, a project of Intersections International, attempted to purchase ad space on the Sojourners website for a short video. The ad's message was elegantly simple -- see for yourself:



Sojourners decided to turn them down. In a statement posted on the group's site, Sojourners founder Jim Wallis said that, while the group does support civil rights for GLBTQ people, and calls for churches "to be loving and welcoming to all people," the issues raised by the ad "have not been at the core of our calling." Sojourners has always been recognized as a social justice ministry, and has never shied from being controversial before. If this video showed an interracial family, or an obviously impoverished family walking into an affluent church, would this ministry have remained silent? So why now?

I'm thinking -- and hoping -- that the reason for this decision is that the folks at Sojourners have yet to wrestle with the issue themselves. Yes, as many have pointed out, this ad isn't about same-sex marriage or the ordination of openly gay clergy. But it's also been raised that raising one issue inevitably leads to the other, and that's very true. The real question that the folks at Sojourners needs to ask is whether it's consistent with their faith and calling to avoid having that discussion.

When Paul affirmed that Gentile converts should not require circumcision, the early church did not avoid the issue. They heard him out, debated the matter, and made a decision. Perhaps they considered when Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman, or commended the faith of a Roman centurion. Or Phillip's baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch. Perhaps Peter recounted the vision he had before a group of Gentiles was introduced to him, eager to hear the Gospel message.

Margaret Chase Smith pointed out that the right way is not always the easy way. For Jim Wallis and Sojourners, having this discussion is not going to be easy. But it is a discussion that Christian communities across the country are already having, because it's the right thing to do. And it's time for Sojourners to join in.

In Praise of SlutWalks

When I was in college, there would be a Take Back the Night March every year. Simple idea -- women walking together to protest sexual violence, and to assert their right to go where they choose and when they choose.

Now, a similar action is being done: SlutWalks

It started in Toronto, in response to a police officer's comment: "Women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized." And women responded by marching together against both sexual violence and the flippant victim-blaming attitudes which hinder real efforts at dealing with the problem.

Since then, there have been SlutWalks all over Canada and the United States -- and more to come, including London, UK. It's also prompted commentary, both print and online. Unfortunately, some of that commentary has consisted of old-school feminists decrying the reclamation of the word "slut." The most noted of these is an opinion piece by Gail Dines and Wendy Murphy, in which they tsk-tsk the women leading this effort. Their rote ideological justification is that the word is so beyond redemption "that trying to change its meaning is a waste of precious feminist resources."

With all due respect to Dr. Dines and Ms. Murphy ... Balderdash!

Words are what we make them to be. Otherwise, a whole host of words would remain off-limits. And let's not forget that, just as language and culture are complex realities, so is the definition of words. Just open any dictionary and see how many have multiple, nuanced meanings.

Besides which, you are ignoring the core message of this movement: It does not matter how a woman dresses, or what she chooses to call herself, or even how many sex partners she's had. What matters is her right to say yes or no at any given moment -- and the responsibility of men to hear and respect that.

Keep marching, women. Keep getting the message out, even when some continue to try to silence or dismiss you. Even if Dines, Murphy and others don't get what you're saying, there are those of us who do -- and who will stand with you every time you don your fishnets and stilettos to take to the streets.

What's In A Name?

Guy Baldwin, an iconic figure in the Leather/BDSM community, has been making waves recently, first with a speech at the Leather Leadership Conference, and then another keynote for the National Leather Association International. There's been much discussion and debate about the remarks he's said at those events. This post is a respectful disagreement to one of his statements.

At the annual meeting of NLA-I, Baldwin pointed out that none of that organization's founders used a Scene name. He then remarked about the number of people he'd seen at leadership events who did go by Scene names, and posed the question: "How can you lead from the closet?"

Now that's where I have a problem -- the automatic presumption that the only motivation for taking a different name is shame or fear. And since no one who is ashamed or frightened can be a leader, then soon we'll be disqualifying for leadership anyone who prefers to be known by a name other than what's on their birth certificate or driver's license.

Let me offer a counter-example. A woman given the birth name of Miriam Simos is well-known as an author, speaker and activist in Pagan, ecofeminist and social justice circles. Thing is, she prefers to be called by her craft name: Starhawk. And while one of the reasons why many Pagans adopt craft names is protection from discrimination, she doesn't hide her legal/birth name. She has simply chosen a name which reflects her spiritual and political identity. She's hardly in the "broom closet" -- but the logic of those who insist on "legal names only" for leaders would reject that reality.

Similarly, many in the BDSM community embrace Scene names to affirm the sense of transformation they experienced. Some people's Scene names were simply nicknames bestowed by others. Meanwhile, I've also known folks who never took Scene names, but who are definitely closeted about their kink. And let's not forget people who change their legal names out of genuine fear for their safety, or shame over being related to someone nefarious.

Not good enough for other kinksters, however. To them, you're either completely out or you're totally in hiding. There's no continuum, no freedom to choose -- it's as simple as black and white. Which, unfortunately, is the same mentality of those who oppose us. Just as right-wing religionists would deprive us of civil rights for not adhering to strict rules about sexuality, so there appear to be some in our own community who would deprive others of the opportunity to serve for not adhering to their own narrow beliefs about names.

I understand the need for our leaders and spokespeople to be honest and unashamed. But one can do that and embrace a new identity as well, just as Starhawk has done. To reduce leadership qualifications to a simplistic "either-or" test, without any concern for the person's actual talents and energy, sounds too much like the employers who would fire or refuse to hire someone just for being kinky. In our fight for freedom and dignity, the last thing we should be doing is behaving like our opponents -- especially towards our own people.

"Come Follow the One True _________."

Blame my parents for my raging skeptical streak. My father the physicist insisted that my brother and I learn all we could about science, while my mother took a more Socratic approach to cultivate both critical thinking and a respect for clarity of language.

And the one thing they succeeded in teaching us? Be wary of anyone offering the "one true way" of doing something.

From college to adult life, whenever I encountered "one-true-wayers" of any kind -- fundamentalists, Trotskyists, Ayn Rand devotees -- I quickly became the bane of their existence. My parents trained me to openly question their claims, and often they were not prepared for those questions. Pretty soon they would lose their cool and attach some conveniently dismissive label on me. And with that, the so-called discussion ended.

When I came into the BDSM Scene, I quickly learned that we had our own category of "one-true-wayers," mostly supposed dominants who prescribe a narrow idea of being a "real dom" or "true Master." Uh huh. And I suppose there's an infallible scripture to go along with that?

It doesn't stop there, however. Here in Boston, there appears to be a class of people who believe a particular organization is the "one true way." Their answer to every question regarding kink and our community is to come to the group's board meetings, or attend one of the group's classes, or help the group raise money for some cause (usually the same one every time). But I also notice another similarity with other "true believers": A lack of imagination and creativity, and a blindness -- sometimes even hostility -- to any other approach.

This group, under the direction of an unelected board which fills vacancies by a mysterious process of appointment, just seems to do the same things over and over again. Their "open board meetings" have strict rules about who can speak, and about what. And just how is this board held accountable? Well, don't you dare raise such questions, or you'll be branded as a troublemaker who is "hurting the community."

Perhaps my parents trained me too well, because I really don't see the attraction of belonging to such a closed group. When you have no elections, no accountability, and very little transparency, how can you be sure the leaders do their jobs? And without open and honest discussion, how do you come up with the creative solutions needed for the group to adapt to change?

Whether it's personality, ideology or loyalty, I've come to see overzealous belief in a "one true way" as a form of idolatry. The traditional definition of idolatry is "worshipping a creation as the Creator." I would rephrase it as transposing means and ends. It means that the original vision and core values of the community are subsumed into glorifying a leader, upholding a dogma, or simply defending the group itself for its own sake.

Worst of all, it means that the real needs of real people must take a backseat to the demands of blind faith. And whether those needs are the basics of food and shelter, the comforts of companionship, the fruits of freedom, or the ability to imagine a better future for ourselves and bring that vision to reality, I'd rather be branded a troublemaker for keeping those goals in sight.

Is Being Kinky a Sexual Orientation?

During the recent Board meeting for the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom, someone proposed a way to deal with discrimination against members of the BDSM community: Claim kink as a sexual orientation.

Problem, of course, is that even within our community, there’s no real consensus on that. Not surprising, as a similar debate occurred within the GLBTQ community earlier on. And given the potential consequences – good and bad – it’s a question which deserves attention.

First off – What do we mean by “sexual orientation”? Most people define it very simply as which sex or gender someone is attracted to. More importantly, it is seen as an inborn and enduring aspect of who we are. This is what distinguishes it in many people’s eyes from a simple “preference” for hair color, behavioral traits, and so forth. But is it really that simple? Many of our preferences, tastes and habits seem to be rooted in factors over which we have little control: genetics, neurology, psychosocial influences. This is not to say we don’t have control over our lives, but it does speak to so many questions about ourselves. Why do some folks crave novelty, while others gravitate to the comfortable familiar? How is one meal delicious to some, disgusting to others, and bland to a few more? Perhaps we should therefore consider that sexual orientation is more complex than whether one likes boys or girls, but also about how one prefers to interact with a prospective partner, what particular forms of expression speak to us, and so forth.

Second – Does being kinky qualify? While few reliable studies have been done on BDSM folk, the ones which have been done indicate that, like being hetero or homo or bi, no single factor seems to correlate with what it is we are drawn to. That jibes with what many kinksters say when asked to explain why we do what we do. Some will attempt to explain, others don’t even bother, but ultimately it boils down to what speaks to us at a deeper level. In response, many will remark that there’s a difference between being attracted to someone and wanting to do a certain set of activities. But is there? Desire is desire, whether for particular personal attributes, or for a particular mode of expression and sensation.

Of course, none of this is conclusive, and it’s sure to provoke other questions as well. But it would suggest that what we find erotic defies simple answers, and is as much about identity as it is about choice. Likewise it affirms the place of community not only in developing one’s sense of identity, but in cultivating ethical means of expressing that identity and the desires in which they are rooted.

Will any of this lead to understanding kink better, or establishing ways of dealing with discrimination? The only way we’ll know is by continuing the discussion – both speaking and listening.

Why I'm Signing Change.org's Petition to iPhone

Recently, Exodus International has released an iPhone app which makes it easier for people to send "help" to young folks questioning their sexuality. Translation: If you want to scare and shame a teenager you know into a so-called ex-gay ministry, there's an app for that.

Now if any group wants to offer an app, that's their right. But for Apple to rate such a feature as having "no objectionable content"? I beg to differ.

At best, the claims of these groups to "cure" homosexuality through prayer and/or "reparative therapy" is incredibly dubious. Many of these ministries don't even do long-term follow-up studies on the effectiveness of their programs.

And that's the best you can say about them. From what many men and women who have endured those programs have reported, the potential for psychological harm is very high and very real.

From a spiritual perspective, it seems to me that the whole basis of ex-gay ministries is a legalistic dogma -- that being gay and being "right with God" are mutually exclusive, based on a biased reading of six Bible passages. Now we can debate the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek, and the context of those passages, but instead I'll just pose one simple question:

If you believe that all things are possible with God, then why not the possibility that there's nothing inherently wrong with same-gender love?

The Exodus app is at the very least false advertising, and at worst it is selling poison as medicine. Please join me in signing Change.org's petition, and demand that Apple stop supporting the Exodus app.