UUs, Kinksters, Community and Diversity: What We Could Learn from One Another

This started with a question posted on FetLife, the social networking site for the BDSM community: How do your UU beliefs affect your kink, and vice versa? I’ve long said that our two communities could learn from one another, but seeing the topic put in print once more had made me think a little more deeply about two areas often discussed by both groups, but in different ways – community and diversity.

We kinksters often talk about “the community” without clearly defining it. Some even debate whether we really have a kink community, and I can see why. Compared to a Unitarian Universalist congregation, a local kink community often seems like nothing more than a bunch of folks gathered around the shared trait of non-vanilla sexuality. UUs really think through what we mean by community – what brings and keeps us together, how we get things done, how leaders are chosen and held accountable. One could say that, because we’ve had to address those issues for centuries, we’ve gotten it all down pat. And while I’d agree that’s a large part of it, we also have to consider that many of our congregations are relatively young, and our entire faith movement has been continually exploring the definition and praxis of community.

UUs also surpass kinksters in another important aspect of community formation. Ours is a thoroughly democratic tradition. I’m not just talking about electing governing boards, or debating and ratifying resolutions. Democracy is integral to our culture and ethos – we’re so used to it that to many of us it’s become second nature. Contrast that to the large number of local BDSM organizations run as so-called “benevolent dictatorships,” and the host of groups torn apart because inadequate governance procedures could not keep petty personal disputes in check.

Now, with all that being said, kinksters do have a considerable advantage over Unitarian Universalists. While we UUs talk frequently about embracing diversity, it seems to me that kinksters have a better approach in this area. Yes, UUs have plenty of workshops and documents and colorful PowerPoint presentations … but I’ve seen too many UUs who seem to think that, once they’ve gone through this or that workshop, they’ve earned their credentials and they’re done. If someone proposed having an educational program, and it turned out the congregation had hosted it two or three years ago, they’d wonder if it was worth a repeat performance. Kinksters would be saying: “Well, not everyone attended last time, and we’ve had a lot of new members who could benefit, and I know I could use a refresher course … let’s do it.” Not to mention deliberately repeating certain topics, like new member orientation or basic safety or CPR certification.

A large part of it is because “kink” or “BDSM” is not a single identity, but an umbrella for a wide diversity of consensual sexual expression. So, just as UUs have gotten into the habit of democratic governance, kinksters have gotten into the habit of educating one another about our different forms of eroticism, including really edgy, button-pushing topics. As education coordinator for the New England Dungeon Society, I was always pleasantly surprised at the turnout our classes had, especially with people who had no personal interest in the topic, but thought it was important to learn about what other kinksters were into. That, to me, seems a vital factor in embracing diversity – that understanding is a prerequisite for acceptance and affirmation. And that understanding is not like earning a graduate degree or professional certificate – do it once, and then you’re set. No, it’s more like first aid and CPR – you have to keep going back to get re-certified, because there are always changes and it’s always good to keep up on those skills; plus the importance of having as many people as possible learning those skills, so as many people as possible can benefit.

Unitarian Universalists have been able to sustain local democratic communities for generations – but we still have a ways to go towards the embrace of diversity.

Kinksters have learned that diversity requires continual education and growth – but many of our local communities are still wrestling with foundational issues of getting groups off the ground and keeping them going.

Come, let us learn from one another.

The Lady Heather Paradox

The latest buzz in books these days is 50 Shades of Grey, the kinky romance by author E. L. James. Not only has it hit the New York Times best-seller list and garnered a movie deal, but it has provoked all sorts of discussion on television and the web. Why, so many pundits wonder, would so many women be attracted to a story of a young lady being drawn to a sadistic dominant?

Another question I’ve yet to see or hear being asked: Why is this news? Years before, the recurring character of Lady Heather presented BDSM with nuance and humanity to viewers of the hit series CSI. Around the same time, Maggie Gyllenhaal and James Spader starred in the film Secretary, where Gyllenhaal’s Lee Holloway finds fulfillment and love as the submissive of Spader’s E. Edward Grey. Then there’s Rihanna’s hit song “S&M”, and the questions and controversy surrounding it as young people played it on their iPods and cell phones.

Still, there remains a paradox. While BDSM and fetishism have become more visible in mainstream media, it has yet to lead to a corresponding level of genuine awareness. More vanilla folks know that we exist, but not much more about who we kinksters really are. And we kinksters still remain huddled underground, bemoaning laws and attitudes that can cost us our jobs, homes, families and freedom.

Some would say it’s because so many kinkster revel in being part of an “outlaw” culture – wanting neither approval nor acceptance. But the kink community is large and diverse, and a more sizable group would prefer simply to be left alone. The problem is that neither rebellion nor isolation encourages the kind of change that would allow any given subculture to continue unencumbered. Such a desired state requires a sufficient understanding within the mainstream culture, which in turn requires mindful engagement on both sides. Outright rebellion often provokes reaction, while secrecy tends to breed suspicion.

Of course, many folks in the kink community will make the argument that secrecy is necessary. Given the current state of affairs, coming out to the world is risky – but this feeds a vicious cycle, because so long as kinksters don’t come out, the current state of affairs will persist. So once again we are caught in the paradox of letting fictional characters like Lady Heather speak for us, with the hope that it will lead to change, yet still lamenting the lack of change.

Others would argue that we do indeed have eloquent spokespersons, and that they convey a great deal through the news media. But take a closer look at who usually winds up engaging the media about BDSM – it’s usually prodommes talking about their clients, not soccer moms talking about their lives. Granted, prodommes have considerable expertise, but there’s also the fact that they convey a stereotypical exotic image, and thus maintaining distance between kink and the mainstream. So we may celebrate magazines like Salon interviewing dominatrices about “kink entering the mainstream” as progress, but in the end the very image those dommes portray reinforces the predominant view of BDSM and our community – and back we are in our paradox.

I’m not expecting a slew of middle-class and blue-collar kinksters to suddenly appear on news programs. Breaking a cycle so deeply ingrained takes a great deal of time and effort. The question is where to begin, and the best suggestion I can think of is our own neighborhoods. Just as the GLBT community engaged people one-on-one and in small groups of everyday people, kinksters can find ways to engage vanilla folks about who we really are and what we’re really about. From there we can truly move forward – but only if we’re willing to make the effort.

A Notice to the Mormon Church Leadership

As you may know, word has gotten out that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, otherwise known as the Mormons, have been baptizing deceased Jews, including Holocaust survivors. Worse, they’ve been doing so even after promising to stop the practice; in the case of Anne Frank, they did so nine times.

The news is now filled with discussion of the Mormon practice of “vicarious baptism,” especially with Mitt Romney’s campaign for President. And, quite frankly, I don’t think this is going to end so long as the LDS church continues to record people as members against their will.

So, with that in mind, I’ve decided to take a proactive approach. Below is a communication to the Mormon church leadership, transmitted through their website’s feedback form:

To the leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:

In light of your continued practice of baptizing deceased individuals into your church, and given my strong personal beliefs that religious commitment and affiliation demands fully informed consent, I hereby give notice that I am withholding consent to be baptized by proxy following my demise, and prohibit any and all members of your church from performing said rite on my behalf.

In the event that this notice is ignored by any member of your church, I hereby empower any and all concerned individuals to take action in response, up to and including legal action on behalf of my estate.

Please note receipt of this notice forthwith, including a summary of measures to be taken by your church to assure compliance with my wishes.

Most respectfully and sincerely,

Desmond Ravenstone

Now I’m sure there will be those who ask: “What possible good can this do?” At the very least, it will let them know that this person does not wish to be put on their membership rolls without consent. And if enough people do so, perhaps they will get get the hint and rethink how they do this practice, all good intentions aside.

But it’s not just about peculiar practices or membership rolls. It’s also about respect for other people’s beliefs. Consider how the LDS church leadership has responded to the issue of marriage equality. No one wants to use government to force them to perform same-sex unions, but they feel it’s their right to use their church organization to raise millions towards imposing their prohibition on everyone else. Yes, I respect the right of Mormons or anyone else to believe what they wish, and to engage in the political sphere as fellow citizens. But respect is a two-way street, and it seems rather bizarre that I would have to give another church explicit notice to respect my beliefs even after I’m long dead.

So, if you’d like to join me, go to the official website of the Mormon church. Click on “Submit Feedback” in the lower left corner. Fill out the feedback form (for Feedback Type, choose “Suggestion”; under Regarding, choose “Other” at the bottom of the dropdown menu). Copy and paste the above notice into the message section, with your name at the bottom. Then press “Submit” and there you have it. Who knows? They might even listen!

UPDATE: MARCH 4th, 2012

Jusr received the following response in my email today:

Dear Desmond,

May I share the following statement made by the First Presidency regarding the baptism of deceased persons:

Baptism for the Dead
Jesus Christ taught that “except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). For those who have passed on without the ordinance of baptism, proxy baptism for the deceased is a free will offering. According to Church doctrine, a departed soul in the afterlife is completely free to accept or reject such a baptism — the offering is freely given and must be freely received. The ordinance does not force deceased persons to become members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or “Mormons,” nor does the Church list deceased persons as members of the Church. In short, there is no change in the religion or heritage of the recipient or of the recipient's descendants — the notion of coerced conversion is utterly contrary to Church doctrine.

Of course, proxy baptism for the deceased is nothing new. It was mentioned by Paul in the New Testament (see 1 Corinthians 15:29) and was practiced by groups of early Christians. As part of a restoration of New Testament Christianity, Latter-day Saints continue this practice. All Church members are instructed to perform proxy baptism only for their own deceased relatives as an offering of familial love to one’s ancestors — any other practice is not sanctioned by the Church.

Your request will be submitted to the individual in charge of such requests.

Thank you for your communication. We wish you the best in all your endeavors.

Idolatry

A kinky Episcopalian acquaintance once commented in an interview that the BDSM community's biggest problem isn't lust, contrary to what right-wing religionists would say. No, the bulk of us seem to have a good handle on that. The biggest problem, in her view, is idolatry. Too many kinksters seem ready to exalt one thing or another as the "one true way," even to the point of ignoring the harm such an attitude might cause. I've addressed that before regarding a BDSM organization here in Boston, whose members seem to extol the group as the center of all things, regardless of its many shortcomings. And I've mentioned idolatry in other posts as well, from Tiger Woods to iPhone apps.

Thing is, my understanding of this concept differs from "traditional" definitions of the term. How exactly does a Unitarian Universalist define idolatry? And, just as important, how do we deal with it?

From the traditionalist perspective, the best nutshell definition of idolatry is worshipping something unworthy of worship. This, of course, becomes utterly subjective, as it depends entirely on one's own particular religious allegiance. And what do you do when you consider yourself a religious humanist, given your devotion to critical thinking, not to mention how (or whether) you're willing to incorporate traditional religious terminology?

Many Christians use an alternate definition: putting the created above the Creator. But what happens when you don't believe in an anthropomorphic creator (which applies not only to nontheistic humanists, but many process theologians and pantheists as well)? Perhaps another way to word this would be to put:
-- the part above the whole
-- the immediate above the Ultimate
-- the hypothetical above the categorical
-- the means above the ends
This last wording, in my mind, not only touches upon the act of idolatry, but the very mindset behind it. When we extalt an object, person, group, idea or procedure above its proper place, we are in effect making it an end in itself rather than a means. Kantians would argue that persons ought to be ends in themselves, but I'm sure they would also agree that this excludes ranking particular persons above others.

Idolatry is not merely making a means into an end, however; it is transposing means and ends. When Jesus condemned the legalism of religious leaders, he wasn't just talking about how they imposed numerous rules upon people -- he was pointing out how they were exalting the "letter of the law" (the means of maintaining right relationship) above the spirit which was its foundation (the desired end of a just and compassionate society).

We can see such examples of idolatry all around us. Holding a grudge places one's anger and sense of self-righteousness above the need for reconciliation. Restricting where all "sex offenders" can live and work, even for the sake of public safety, can harm individuals who pose little risk to society. Embracing a political or social case, to the point of neglecting one's personal life, in the end serves neither the cause nor oneself. Seeing a given organization as virtually infallible, and mindlessly denouncing anyone who would question or critique it, can undermine the very purpose for which the organization was created.

We can even make idols of selected aspects of our religious and spiritual communities. Legalism can place rules of conduct and discipline above compassion and discernment. Ritualism can elevate selected expressions of outward worship above the inner spiritual life. Proselytism can overemphasize qualitative growth and retention of membership above quantitative growth in relationships. Devotion to a specific form of polity can stifle attempts to improve how a movement can resolve issues in ever-changing circumstances.

And while hypocrisy can be one consequence or expression of idolatry, dogmatic adherence to codified beliefs can likewise lead some to ignore the harm such hidebound attitudes can bring to others. A hard-core libertarian's devotion to the "free market" can blind them to the darker aspects of capitalist excess, while staunch leftists are oft unaware of Clarence Darrow's admonition that "even the rich have rights." Perhaps these are the "foolish consistencies" of which Ralph Waldo Emerson cautioned us to avoid.

It is indeed a difficult thing to remain mindful of our core values, especially our need to promote right relationship. To reach that ideal, we create institutions to guide us along the path. Sometimes those institutions work, sometimes they don't, and sometimes they are only partial or temporary solutions. Yet institutions often have a habit of taking on a life of its own, thus making it harder to question whether we continue to need them, and how best to craft new means to better reach our desired ends. This is especially true when people become intensely passionate about something they helped to create -- or something they feel the need to destroy.

Avoiding idolatry is indeed a hard thing, not least of which because our culture and politics are so thoroughly enmeshed in the confusion of means and ends. At the very least, we must always ask ourselves: "What good will this do -- and at what cost?"

The Ethics of Outing

Since joining Arlington Street Church, I've found that I'm not alone there in terms of being kinky. There are two fellows who each hold different leadership positions, and who have also mentioned to me in private that they've attended Leather events. And the couple who moved to the suburbs, but decided not to go to another church because, as one whispered to me, "we're glad to see one of our own on Sunday worship."

You'll notice the emphases. Yes, I'm not alone as a kinkster at Arlington Street Church -- but I do seem to be the only one willing to be open about it. Still, it is not my place to "out" my fellow pervs, even within a kink-friendly environment like ASC. Despite the benefits to our community to have more people come out to friends and family, I believe that the process of coming out is primarily an act of self-determination.

But just as the GLBTQ community has had to face the likes of John Paulk, Ted Haggard and George Rekers, as BDSM and fetish sexuality becomes more visible -- and more a target of attack -- it is also likely that we will encounter someone who openly opposes us while secretly indulging in the very same behaviors they condemn and try to suppress. This is certainly something I have had to personally consider, as a new organization for Unitarian Universalist kinksters takes shape.

What, then, must we do?

Some within the BDSM community hold to a "never-ever" rule, that we should under no circumstances out anyone for being kinky, no matter what. Others believe it is justified to expose an opponent's hypocrisy, just as the anti-gay activists cited above were exposed in the media. One kinkster noted in an online discussion that the "never-ever" camp seems to be primarily or exclusively heterosexual, while the more "strategic outing" camp is predominantly GLBTQ.

There are few absolutes in life, as evidenced by the fact that I'm hetero and a supporter of the latter position. But I also believe that our community will need guidelines for determining when and how to implement such a decision. And this I am grateful for the work of many in the GLBTQ community who have given much careful thought to the issue, especially Virginia Ramey Mollenkott.

The rationale for "strategic outing"

Some may see a double standard here: How is it that I will not out my fellow kinksters in our kink-friendly church, but I will out kinky people if they do something bad?

First, let's be clear that we are not talking about members of the BDSM community, but people who openly oppose us. Just because they may engage in bondage, flogging or some of the others things that we do, does not automatically entitle them to community membership. If someone learned Spanish in secret, read and enjoyed Spanish literature in secret, and secretly thrilled to the sound of a Spanish-speaking voice, that doesn't mean they are part of the Spanish-speaking community -- even more so if they publicly insult Spanish and those who speak it, or try to get Spanish banned in public places.

Second, we're also not talking about "doing something bad" in general, but of specifically targeting and attacking kinksters. If a member of the BDSM community had done some questionable things within the community, then I believe it right that such conduct should be addressed within the community. And even if they had engaged in unethical conduct in their vanilla life, I don't see how outing them to the vanilla public serves any purpose.

Third, we're definitely not talking about punishing someone for secretly engaging in kink. We're talking about exposing hypocrisy, and for the expressed purpose of reducing and/or stopping their harmful actions towards us -- the equivalent of using reasonable force in self defense. If an anti-kink crusader justified their attacks on us based on "moral purity," and it turned out that same person was engaging in sexual infidelity, that is also hypocrisy, and the same rule applies. I believe the only time a person should actually be punished for their sexual conduct per se is when it is nonconsensual or otherwise abusive.

Suggestions for guidelines

If sexual minority communities are going to consider the option of strategic outing to defend ourselves from harm, then we will need ethical guidelines for determining when, why and how. I would like to propose three general principles:

1) Clear proof -- If we are to "speak truth to power," then we must be sure that we are indeed speaking the truth. Hearsay and innuendo are not evidence, any more than regarding Marcus Bachmann's so-called "flaming behavior" as evidence. And even when evidence is presented to us, we need to examine it carefully. Are there alternate explanations? Is it recent, or so far in the past as to be explained away? Could it even be a setup. Only when there is clear and reliable evidence should we even consider bringing it forward, lest we risk a considerable backlash.

2) Right motivation -- Our reason for doing this should also not stem from malice or a desire for revenge. Our goal is not to humiliate or punish an individual, but to address and put an end to harmful actions. If outing someone will only serve to do the former instead of the latter, then I believe it would be better to back off. This also connects to the next guiding principle...

3) Fair warning -- The person facing possible exposure deserves to at least be told that there is evidence of their hypocrisy, and to be provided both the options and the chance to change the course of their conduct for the better. Every effort should be made to engage the individual in question into dialogue, to present the evidence obtained, to explain our own motivations, and to propose alternate courses of actions. If the individual simply promises to refrain from further attacks against us, then there is no reason to expose them. If they choose to abandon their course altogether, and consider actually joining our community, then we should provide what support and guidance we can. And if the person chooses to out themselves, perhaps attempting to explain away their behavior, then the ball is now entirely in their court.

But if they refuse to engage in dialogue, or decide even afterwards to continue to do harm to our community, then I believe it is justified to present the evidence to reliable media outlets, along with an explanation of the the process of ethical discernment and engagement leading to that point. I hope indeed that the number of times such actions are deemed necessary are few -- but I also hope that we do so mindfully and with respect both for truth and for all people involved.

Dispelling Another Anti-Choice Myth

The returns suggest that Mississippi's voters are rejecting a proposed amendment to their state constitution, which would have declared that fertilized human ova are legally people.

I'm happy and relieved, and not just because it takes one more weapon away from those who would deny women's reproductive rights. It's simply absurd to reduce human personhood to our genetics. Many folks may not be aware that, between the world wars, there was an active eugenics movement in the United States. Some states even passed laws barring certain people from getting married, including epileptics. Yup, had my father lived in Connecticut instead of New York, he might not have been able to marry my mom.

But, that's not the real reason for this post. During the comments on this "zygotic personhood" amendment, several people kept commenting that it would not only ban abortion, but certain forms of contraception, including "morning-after pill."

In short, pro-choice people have been buying into the anti-choicers lie that this form of emergency contraception is a form of abortion.

So here we go, folks -- two basic facts. You can check them yourself...

FACT NUMBER ONE: Emergency contraception only works within 72 hours of intercourse.

FACT NUMBER TWO: The time it takes for sperm to travel from the vagina to the fallopian tubes is 72 hours.

Do the math.

Now, I don't know whether the anti-choice crowd are ignorant of these facts, or they are wilfully misleading people. I don't care. The point is these are people who are willing to say and do anything to deny a woman this option, regardless of whether the reason she's seeking it is a broken condom or a brutal rape.

And to my fellow pro-choicers ... please let's not fall prey to this. We can and should do better. Please let's do our homework, and let's not be afraid to expose how they mislead and frighten people to get what they want -- and to deny others their right to decide for themselves.

Atheists, Fundamentalists, and the Rest of Us

I wonder if anyone else has noticed that the vast majority of people who debate on religious issues tend to sit at the extreme ends -- the militant atheist who snidely dismisses all religion, and the devout fundamentalist who likewise regards liberals and modernists as warmed-over secular humanists.

And the rest of us? Perhaps it's the thought of being caught in their crossfire which makes us shy away from engaging them. Or perhaps the extremes are so fixated on one another, emotionally as well as intellectually, that we just fade from view.

But I'd like to propose that these two ends of the continuum are in fact more alike than they realize -- not merely in their zeal, or their sense of being outsiders, or their all-or-nothing dismissal of anything moderate, but in their logic.

Yes, logic. Fundamentalism has its own appealing logic, albeit a closed and empirically starved variety. For all their talk of faith, they take great pains to demonstrate in debate the superiority of their position.

Then they run headlong into the logic of the equally unwavering infidel. Where fundamentalists distort or ignore evidence (or the lack thereof) to uphold their belief system, atheists value evidence with equal vigor. Atheists accuse fundamentalists of ignoring obvious facts, and fundamentalists respond that atheists are ignoring the biggest truth of all.

Having read and heard all the arguments from each side, here's my conclusion: They're both right, and they're both wrong. Both are so caught up in their own logical presuppositions, nothing else matters or makes sense. At times, they each appear so focused on defining what they are against that it's hard to tell what they are for. And when someone else steps in with a different perspective ... well, you get the idea.

Allow me to dare suggest that the problem is not merely their respective systems of belief, but the common manner in which they reach those conclusions. Logic has its role in life, but even the most valuable tools have their limits. Logic may be essential as the foundation for science and mathematics -- but what of art, beauty, love? When someone entralls us with a story, where is the point of ranting about imperfections in grammar? This seems the tragedy of atheist and fundamentalist alike -- the failure to fully appreciate the poetic narrative of spirituality, because they persist in reading it with mathematician's eyes.

Take, for example, the story of Jesus feeding the five thousand. Fundamentalist logic starts with the presumption that the Bible must be literally true, and so the story is also true, as a sign of Jesus' power over nature. The logic of the skeptic begins with the presupposition that natural law cannot be broken, and so the story itself must be dismissed as fantasy. But there is another way to read the tale, where its factuality is not as important as how it resonates within the reader. Think of the image of this impoverished, itinerant preacher willing to share what little he and his companions had with a multitude of strangers. What would motivate him to do so? And what, by this example, are we called to do?

There is more to belief than mere precepts. There is what we value in the world, and in ourselves. And if all we value is being right and righteous, what then?