(no subject)

There are people talking about group demonstration to protest what's described as a "continued silence of UUA leaders on issues of concern to kink-oriented people in Unitarian Universalist circles, including the silencing of kinksters and their allies." There's info about that here.

http://leatherandgrace.wordpress.com/silent-sunday-september-29th-2013/pledge-to-be-a-silent-witness/

I'm a bit unclear on the details of this silencing. I did a quick search of Google (which is kind of all I have time for right now) and found this blog post.)

http://ravenstonesreflections.blogspot.com/...

I'm analyzing my feelings about it. People are saying they want to be open about kink within their UU communities without feeling stigmatized. I assume this is a different matter for people for whom it is a "lifestyle" than for people like me for whom it's not a 24/7 thing. (Though I think the use of the term 'lifestyle' is problematic and fuzzy sometimes.)

One person in this discussion said that zie would like to be able to talk openly about zir "dominant" in the same way other people talk about zir husband or wife. I feel a bit uncomfortable about that, and I'm going to have to think about why that is and whether that discomfort is justified.

I feel as though partner/spouse/S.O. would be just as suitable, and doesn't involve referencing a power exchange arrangement. I guess I understand people for whom their role as a dom/sub/top/bottom/master/slave/etc., is a major component of their identity as an individual wanting more freedom to express that identity. That said, I can't imagine it ever being ok to talk about one's slave in casual mixed company, for instance. There's way too much baggage attached to that term.

Perhaps we could argue for the use of terms like submissive or bottom instead, but I see problems there. Identity politics are tricky. Some people who identify as slaves do not identify as 'bottom' or 'submissive'. Even if we publicly accept and validate identities as subs or bottoms, some people are likely still going to feel left out. It's also very hard for me to separate these terms, especially ones like bottom, from overt sexuality.

I think it's important to be able to talk about sexuality; there isn't enough open discussion of such issues. But as a society, we've collectively agreed that some places are appropriate for such discussions and some are not. I think what we're talking about here with the UU church may be a gray area. I also think that there's a lot of unpacking for people with either viewpoint to do about whether power exchange is inextricably tied to sexuality, how big a part of people's lives it is, and whether not being free to talk about such matters in a casual setting is truly discrimination or silencing.

I strongly feel that I ought to be able to go into work and say something about what my boyfriend and I did the past weekend. Should I be able to talk about what my dominant and I did, or my master and I, or my slave and I? I don't know. It will require some thought.

---

I'd like to learn more about the "issues of concern to kink-oriented people" that UUA leaders are accused of silence on.

(no subject)

Regarding the Unitarian Universalist protest: it looks like I was responding to very different facets of the issue than the person who brought it to my attention was. Zie gave me this link, which sheds some light on it. I'm glad to have a bit more information, and the "Silent Witness" response seems more warranted in light of it.

This is a story about couple being unfairly ostracized by their local congregation, and then having accusations of inappropriate behavior follow them to a new town due to leaders at the first congregation contacting the second to impugn them.

http://ravenstonesreflections.blogspot.com/2013/08/one-couple-two-congregations.html?m=1

That's a really unfortunate situation. The couple's former home congregation handled that very poorly. If there's evidence that that's a common issue among UU congregations, I think this idea of silent witnessing is a good response that's at an appropriate level. I'd think about participating in one at that congregation.

If it's less a systemic issue than a problem with fearful and uninformed individual congregations, I'm not sure if a demonstration at congregations that haven't had any issues like this is the best way to react. Maybe it would be even better for people to approach their individual ministers and say "Hey, I heard about this issue that happened at this other congregation. How does our congregation feel about these things? Are we informed and accepting?" That feels a little more cooperative than confrontational, and I really hesitate to be confrontational when I'm not convinced it's deserved. If I was a minister or a layperson at a congregation that I felt was already open and welcoming, I might be a bit defensive. If it was people from outside the congregation, I'd wonder why they felt they knew the situation well enough to take part in such an action. If they were from within the congregation, I'd wonder why they hadn't tried talking about it first.

Of course, for people who are dealing with the kind of ostracism and character attacks the couple in that story were, I'm all for a public, visible response! I don't have enough knowledge about UU in general to know which is happening here (systemic problems vs. individual ones), so to some extent I'll defer to those who do. On a personal level, I have some warm fuzzy feelings for UU that I have for very few others, so I'm inclined to be a little defensive of them. I recognize, of course, that there are individual bad apples, but I hope that that is all this is.

(no subject)

I called my grandmother to, among other things, talk about Riverview Park.

Riverview was a Chicago amusement park that opened in 1904 and closed 63 years later. I didn't really know anything about it myself, but the name struck a chord instantly. I remember seeing for years a frame on my grandparents wall that held ride tickets for many of the park attractions as well as a picture of the main entrance. When Curious City (a show/podcast that answers listeners' questions about the city of Chicago) did a piece on the park, I recognized the name instantly.

Curious City has created an online, interactive map of the park where you can click on rides or places and see pictures, watch movies, or hear oral history interviews about things like The Bobs (a roller coaster) and the picnic grove. It doesn't shy away from less savory parts of history either, with pictures of some of the freaks from the freak Show. They also discuss the history of "The African Dip," a dunk tank that, for much of the park's history, was known as "Dunk the Nigger". The people reminiscing about their experiences there are particularly interesting to me.

Anyway, I just thought I'd share the link to the map. This is the kind of oral history I find deeply appealing, and the format this public presentation of the project takes is so cool.

http://zeega.com/87757

My grandmother remembers some of these rides, and talked about goin gon the Pair-O-Chutes and into Aladdin's Castle!