Thoughts on the Proposed FSA - CPC Reunification

(Hi folks. This is probably not interesting to people not involved with the Free Spirit Alliance: just some Pagan Politics, and I'm using my blog as a convenient place to record some thoughts for review by others involved in the process. If that doesn't captivate you, you might want to move on to the next post.)

I first got involved in FSA politics (for good or for ill, I'll have to leave it to the FSA membership to decide!) ten years ago this past spring. This was back during the great "play party" debate that led to the FSA/CPC split. During that debate -- perhaps it would be more accurate to call it a flame-war -- some ignorant and slanderous things were said about the practice of BDSM and sacred sexuality in general. I learned that some teachers and leaders for whom I'd had a great deal of respect were disappointingly fearful and ignorant people. Perhaps, over the long run, that was a positive thing, to lessen my faith in "leaders"...but it was certainly an unpleasant learning experience.

I still have e-mail from those days in my archive. (I am a data hoarder.) Skimming back over it is both informative and depressing -- and in a few cases, given the ways some folks' opinions have changed over the years, amusing.

Perhaps it's a bit incongruous that I became a defender of the BDSM side of the debate. I never attended the "play parties" that were held at FSG back in those days. But BDSM was an important part of the spiritual practice of someone about whom I once cared a great deal. So I felt compelled to speak up for this person, and for those in the same situation.

And as I've been studying the history of the Pagan revival (blatant plug, see my forthcoming book Why Buddha Touched the Earth for more about that!) and learned about the use of binding and scourging in the historically important Gardnerian tradition, the less sense there seems in claims by self-identified Pagans about how these practices are wicked, evil, dangerous, no-good, and so on. I've become concerned about an almost prudish counter-tendency developing within Paganism, not just about BDSM but a fearful turn away from the power of sexuality in all of its manifestations as a magical tool. (Putting aside for now questions of whether BDSM is or is not "sexual".)

Now, I want to be clear that overall I'm pleased with the idea of reunification. But as we consider it, it's important to me to make sure that these practices are adequately respected, that FSA remains an open and welcoming community to practitioners of sacred sexuality, BDSM, binding, scourging, and the like.

With that in mind, I have always found the comparison in CPC's bylaws, and in the current language of point 18 of the reunification proposal, of consensual ordeal work with animal sacrifice to be highly objectionable.

I also object to singling out BDSM activities over other sexual content. A ban on dungeon play but not on a vanilla swinger's orgy is discriminatory. Our policies should be phrased to apply to all adult activities.

Furthermore, I'd like us to consider not using the term "family friendly" or "family attendance" in this proposal or in our marketing. It is ill-defined -- to many people, it seems to imply an environment where every activity is child-safe. But I would argue that a truly "family friendly" event would have something for every member of the family, from little Bobby to college-age Sue to Mom and Dad to Weird Uncle Lou. And rumor has it -- I can't verfiy this, but it's what the big kids say -- that Mom and Dad have sex, and might be interested in talking and learning about it. College-age Sue, too, though she might not talk about it with Mom and Dad. And Weird Uncle Lou? Oh, I won't even begin...

In short, people in families have sex. Some of them are interested in kink. (And in a world where "50 Shades of Grey" has become a best-seller, don't we need an honest and informed forum for them?) An accurate and literal reading of "family friendly" would portray that...but that's not usually what people mean by the term.

As we try to improve FSG attendance by the twenty-something demographic, we should consider this question: does marketing an event with the phrase "family friendly" really appeal to child-free adults? It's been a while since I was a twenty-something, but as a child-free guy, when I hear an event described as "family friendly" I usually picture something crawling with kids, and wonder if I'll have a better time somewhere else.

I would suggest that a phrase like "all ages" is better defined and more appealing.

Now, at any "all ages" event, there are some things going on that are not appropriate for everyone. A mead-making workshop is off-limits to those under 21. (A legal distinction we must abide by, however stupid we may think it.) A sack race may be off-limits to those over 12. (I will crush those kids if you let me in...)

With those considerations, I would suggest changing point 18 of the reunification proposal to something along these lines:

The Free Spirit Gathering will be promoted as an all ages event. Websites and fliers will mention the presence of adults-only programming (including but not limited to sacred sexuality, discussion or use of alcohol or other intoxicants, and physical ordeal work) only in general terms. E.g., "...featuring concerts, workshops, kids and teens classes, and for the grown-ups a homebrew beer tasting[*] and sacred sexuality programming". Such programming will not be listed in the main program guide, but in a separate program made available only to attendees 18 and over. Adult programming will be presented with discretion, including careful consideration of location and times and the posting of watchers to keep underage people away.

([*] Beer tasting? A man can dream.)

I don't have strong concerns about the other points of the proposal, but a few observations might be useful:

• Points 1 through 8 don't call for any action by FSA, so, no problems there.
• On point 9, adding the CPC treasurer as an FSA Trustee, it seems (I am not a lawyer, all standard disclaimers apply) that it conflicts with the method for electing Trustees specified in our Articles of Incorporation. While we can add more Trustees at will (the language says "at least four" but clearly allows for more) , I'm not sure that we can change their term. And the method of selection is specified to be election.

  I suppose that we could specify that a vote for the reunification proposal is also a vote for whomever the CPC treasurer is at the time, as an FSG Trustee; and this person could agree to resign in one year.

• On point 10, members already have the right to view all financial and business records. I support more openness and transparency but I suggest further discussion of this point to clarify what the intention is, and if any actual bylaw changes are needed.
• Points 11 and 12 provide more clarification, no issues there. (Though I would suggest that we might want to have a table at the Faerie Festival.)
• Point 13, great! We've been talking about rolling our own registration system, and if we go that way this would certainly help.
• Point 14, my understanding was that sweats were already planned to be included for 2014, so no problem there.
• Point 15, I would like us to continue the seasonal gatherings, definitely. They may be a small financial loss but that should be considered (practically, if not necessarily for tax purposes) as marketing and promotion.
• Point 16, the Trustees are already required to conduct an annual review. This requirement hasn't been followed, and I think we would have caught some problems earlier if it had been. (Blame for that goes to many, including me -- I should have familiarized myself with the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws during my two years as VP, and pushed for better adherence.) Corporate and tax laws already govern conflict of interest and "excess benefit" transactions; I would support clarifying such points in the bylaws.
• Point 17, same comment as point 10.
• Point 18, discussed above.
• Points 19-21 are trademark, recordkeeping, and financial housekeeping, no objections or comments.

Again, I'd like to say that I generally favor reunification. I think that with attention to these points, it could be a great benefit to our community.