Honesty in establishing common ground
Submitted by Heather on November 29 2000 15:59:44
In reply to Refining the definition of the board submitted by Forgiven on November 29 2000 14:31:42
|
Thanks to Forgiven for nudging my memory about this. I posted this a couple of months ago, but it was badly timed, so I asked Bach to delete it so that I could repost it at a better time. What follows is the post Forgiven referred to. * * * It was the first century A.D., and things weren't going well for the Christians. Paul had stopped "breathing threats and murder" upon the Christians, but others continued their attacks against the fledgling movement. We only hear in the New Testament about the people with nasty motives; no doubt many morally upright people opposed the Christians for good reasons. Yet there were enough villains around to make the Christians apprehensive. The church had been scattered because of persecution; men and women had been thrown into prison. Soon Herod would execute James and would also arrest Peter. And all through this time critics spread slanders against the Christians. "This man never ceases to speak words against this holy place and the law," said a group of nasty-minded men who couldn't stand the fact that Stephen was bettering them in argument. "We have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place, and will change the customs which Moses delivered to us." And because of their false witness, the Christian Church obtained its first martyr. Clearly, what the Christians needed was good PR. One can imagine the Christian leaders spreading the word: "For God's sake, don't say or do anything that could be used as a weapon against us by our enemies! Whatever you do, don't air our dirty laundry!" Or as Paul put it in his first letter to the Corinthians: "I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment." Amidst the Christians' concern about how they would appear in the eyes of the world, the apostle Peter had a horrifying vision. He fell into a trance and saw the heaven opened, and something descending, like a great sheet, let down by four corners upon the earth. In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. And there came a voice to him, "Rise, Peter; kill and eat." But Peter said, "No, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean." And the voice came to him again a second time, "What God has cleansed, you must not call common." This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven. One can imagine that Peter's horror was not simply confined to his worry over whether he had actually received the terrible command from God that he and the other Christians associate with unclean men. What must have been going through his mind was this: "What will the other Jews think? They already believe that we, the Christian Jews, are heretics. If I openly speak of this matter, won't this confirm their worst opinion of us? Won't we become the victim of more slanders?" I've been struggling with a similar question for the past few days while wondering whether to speak publicly about my concerns over the wording of CBF's "Statement on Abuse" and Paraklesis' editorial essay, "What is Boylove?" Let me start by reprinting those two statements (which, I should note, I had the opportunity to comment on before they were posted, so this is after-the-fact criticism). A Statement on Abuse The reason I feel the need to address this issue publicly (rather than write privately to the authors of these statements) is that I believe that these two statements are typical of the type of communication with outsiders that often occurs on the boylove boards, and in particular at CBF. It is a communication that is aimed at establishing common ground rather than dwelling upon differences of opinion that boylovers may have with non-pedophiles. As such, the statements concentrate on a shared belief between boylovers and people who may be critical of boylove: that the child's welfare is paramount, and that the behavior of the boylover must be in accordance with what brings benefit to the child. What concerns me is not the attempt to establish common ground, but the manner in which that common ground is established. For there are honest ways in which to discuss commonalities and there are dishonest ways. Let's look at how these documents go about their business. The "Statement on Abuse" begins by saying that the statement's belief is shared by CBF participants. Therefore what follows must be the belief of nearly everyone who posts here. And what is that belief? Firstly, that a distinction must be made between feelings and behavior. Secondly, that boylovers can "control and channel" their feelings. And thirdly, that the CBF participants oppose "the manipulation, coercion and abuse of children." Now, in many ways, this document is frustrating in its ambiguity. What does it mean to "control and channel" sexual feelings? What constitutes "abuse" of children? I believe that this ambiguity is deliberate, for reasons I'll return to. "What is Boylove?" starts out similarly. Paraklesis, we're told, makes a distinction between boylovers' feelings and behavior. "Boylovers, by our definition, do not molest boys," says the essay. Moreover, says the essay, boylovers can "control their feelings." Once again ambiguity arises: What does it mean to "molest" boys? What does it mean to "control" one's feelings? Unlike the "Statement on Abuse," "What is Boylove?" goes on to provide an answer. Boylovers, the essay concludes, "are able to control their behavior and maintain non-sexual relationships with boys." The clear implication is that controlling one's behavior, refraining from molestation, and refraining from sex with boys are synonymous. The feeling that any intelligent non-pedophile is likely to be left with after reading this essay is that Paraklesis, like the majority of the non-pedophile world, believes that it is morally wrong for men to have sex with boys. Yet the essays printed elsewhere in Paraklesis, as well as the statements that have been made by Paraklesis authors on the boylove boards, make clear that some of the people who write for Paraklesis do not hold this view, or at the very least that they question whether this view is true. As a result, the reader is left concluding that one of the following statements is true: 1) The editorial stance is not meant to embrace the contents of the magazine. 2) The essay is misleading the reader into thinking that the authors contributing to the magazine hold views that not all of them do. Without being able to read the mind of the essay's author, I would guess that the latter statement is true. I think that the essay is framed in such a way to lead the reader into thinking that the authors contributing to Paraklesis will all be morally opposed to man-boy sex, when in fact this is not the case. Looking back at the "Statement on Abuse," we can see the same sort of technique being used. Anyone who has been at this forum for any length of time knows that its participants include members who are morally opposed to man-boy sex, members who are opposed to man-boy sex for reasons other than morality, members who are uncertain as to whether man-boy sex is wrong, and even members who argue in favor of man-boy sex. It would certainly be fair to say that there is a larger concentration of morally celibate boylovers at this forum than there is at any other boylove forum. Yet the "Statement on Abuse," which entices the reader into thinking that all of the members here are morally opposed to man-boy sex, is quite simply a misleading document. What both of these writings remind me of is a statement made to me by a child advocate – a cynical statement but one that nonetheless had a grain of truth to it: "You'll never get a boylover to admit that he has abused a child. All that he has to do is change the definition of abuse." Now, to a certain extent, this charge is unfair. If the California judicial system declares that a sixteen-year-old boy who has had sex with his willing fourteen-year-old girlfriend is a child abuser, my disagreement with that judicial system does not constitute sly manipulation of the term "abuse"; rather, I am expressing my honest disagreement with the definition. Yet there are various ways of disagreeing with another person. Let me present, by contrast with the above documents, the Free Spirits mission statement. Free Spirits makes no bones about the fact that many of its members disagree with society's definition of abuse. It starts in the same way that the two CBF statements do, by establishing that the members of BoyChat share common ground with their critics: "BoyChat is a forum in which boylovers can explore issues related to their sexuality and provide mutual support and companionship – to learn to lead productive lives in ways that help children rather than harm them." However, it then goes on to make clear that many of its members hold unconventional views on what constitutes harm of children. Free Spirits doesn't have official positions [on child sexual abuse] because we only exist to provide web sites and foster communication. There is an ethical consensus among the BoyChat community and the keepers of the sites, however, that all forms of non-voluntary sexual contact are to be condemned. The statement is clear and unambiguous. BoyChat's members condemn child sexual abuse, but some of its members do not believe that voluntary sex between an adult and a child is abusive. (Incidentally, I hope you notice the reference to the view of morally celibate boylovers, which Free Spirits recently added.) Now, as it happens, I don't like the Free Spirits mission statement. I don't like it because it contains a number of statements I believe to be false, and I don't like it because I think it fails to succeed in communicating to the people it's aimed at. It doesn't do a good enough job of establishing common ground before it leaps into a discussion of boylovers' disagreements with society; it's a document that is likely to antagonize outsiders rather than educate them. By contrast, I agree with what the two CBF statements say, and I also believe that they are much more successful in establishing common ground and helping to educate outsiders. Yet if I were to meet my Maker today, and I were asked which of the three statements I was most comfortable associating myself with, I would have to say the Free Spirits mission statement. I say this, not because I agree with the statement or think that it is an effective means of communication, but because I believe that the Free Spirits statement is honest, while the CBF statements are not. In saying that the CBF statements aren't honest, I don't mean to imply that the authors aren't honest or that the statements were not intended to be honest. On the contrary, I think the statements were valiant attempts to establish common ground while at the same time remaining truthful. Unfortunately, I think they fail in their purpose. I think that the two statements – especially "What is Boylove?" – mislead the readers into thinking that Christian boylovers hold certain views, when in fact not all Christian boylovers hold those views. Let's look at "What is Boylove?" again. First of all, I should say as a side note that I am deeply disturbed by the sentence, "Boylovers, by our definition, do not molest boys." This smacks too much of the anti-boylove sentiment: "Christians, by definition, do not post at boylove boards. If you post at boylove boards, you're not a Christian." Even if the critics should be right that participating in the boylove community is indeed sinful, that does not disqualify Christian boylovers from being Christians. For it should never be forgotten that all of us, Christians and non-Christians, boylovers and non-boylovers, are sinners. All have sinned and fallen short. Likewise, I believe, a boylover who, in a sinful moment, molests a boy, does not cease to be a boylover by that very act. He would only cease to be a boylover if he ceased to hold certain moral beliefs that boylovers are expected to hold. And what are those moral beliefs? I've spent two years trying to encapsulate them in a definition, and I'd be crazy to try to do so here. I think that the "Statement on Abuse" does as good a job as any of describing them. But note that every word in the "Statement on Abuse" could be agreed to by a sexually active boylover. And I don't think this is an accident. The fact is that the participants of this forum do not agree on what constitutes child sexual abuse, and the "Statement on Abuse" reflects this. So I don't fault the statement for being ambiguous; I fault it for being misleading. I fault even more "What is Boylove?" for being misleading, for it goes out of its way to create the impression that Paraklesis' authors are all morally opposed to man-boy sex. One might ask: What's wrong with that? Can't we start by establishing the common ground that all of us are opposed to child sexual abuse, and go on to argue what abuse is at a later date? As you can judge from my comments on the Free Spirits mission statement, I have a lot of sympathy with this view. Yet there's a difference between setting aside differences to be discussed later and giving the impression that no differences exist. All too often at CBF I've seen the following scenario take place: A non-pedophile arrives at this forum and says, "You all want to have sex with boys!" A dozen replies are posted, most of them saying, "No, we're opposed to man-boy sex." When this exchange goes well, the critic is mollified – for the moment. But if she sticks around for a while, something unpleasant happens. She discovers that "opposed to man-boy sex" does not necessarily mean here what it means in the outside world. Some of the members here certainly do opposed man-boy sex for the same reason that most people in the outside world oppose it: because they believe that it is always morally wrong. But some other members do not. Some of them oppose man-boy sex only because they believe they should not break the rules of the Law and the Church, and they would give strong consideration to having sex with boys if the Law and the Church changed their rules. Some Christian boylovers, in fact – we cannot ignore that they post here and are members in good standing – argue that it is morally permissible for a Christian boylover to have sex with a boy now, regardless of what the Law and the Church say. When such messages are posted, the result is one very unhappy non-pedophile. I think that the non-pedophile's anger is aroused not only because she has discovered that others here don't share her views (which is understandable though regrettable) but because she believes that she has been lied to. She believes that she has been manipulated into thinking that all Christian boylovers are morally opposed to man-boy sex, when this is not the case. So that even if she were willing to forgive the CBF members for their (in her eyes) sinful views on man-boy sex, she is unwilling to forgive them for their sin of false witness. I don't believe that anyone here intends to give false witness. Some members here are unaware that other members do not share their view that man-boy sex is always morally wrong. Others are making a genuine attempt to establish common ground, rather than follow Free Spirits' error of discussing differences too quickly. Yet I believe that the hurt non-pedophile is right in believing that false witness has been given. Some of the worst sins are unintentional. It seems to me that any form of effective and ethical communication between two parties who disagree must include the following elements: 1) It must establish common ground. 2) It must be honest about the fact that differences exist. Free Spirits succeeds with the second element and fails with the first; the CBF statements succed with the first element but fail with the second. Lest I be too negative in this post, let me provide an example of a statement that I believe manages to capture both these elements. We often get the impression that each person's struggles are his or her own. Open Hands attempts to change that by giving a voice to people searching for answers about themselves and the world they live in. Note what a good job this statement does at establishing common ground between minor-attracted adults and non-pedophiles: the desire of both parties to establish an ethical framework for minor-attracted adults. Yet look how honest it is about the fact that Open Hands' members do not agree on what those ethics should be. The statement's use of questions is an especially non-threatening way in which to do this, since it makes clear that any contributions that a new participant wishes to make to the dialogue will be welcomed by the present participants. I would recommend that CBF reword its "Statement on Abuse" and its Paraklesis essay to remove the misleading elements and to make clear, in a non-threatening manner, that there is no absolute consensus among Christian boylovers on such matters as what constitutes sinful living and what constitutes ethical behavior. As St. Peter well knew when he chose to raise publicly the issue of associating with unclean Gentiles, the danger is that honest statements will be used by unscrupulous critics as a weapon of attack. The rewards of honesty, though, lie in heaven.
|
Follow ups: