On the uses and misuses of the term “Integral Sex Fascist.”

In January 2012, an Integral organization made history. It became the first Integral institution to my knowledge – and maybe first ever – to select one individual for a public rebuke of his statements about a hypothetical private, consensual, lawful, adult dating relationship he might choose someday. The possibility for the relationship in question to be ethical was defended in detailed essays and a lengthy blog post, which were never refuted.

The organization’s board said that he was not fit for leadership of an Integral organization and not welcome among them, though they would continue to exploit his work when it suited them. Furthermore, in doing so, they did not cite any moral principle per se, only the organization’s desire not to be subject to criticism from unspecified persons in the “background of the existing spectrum of cultural values.”

The organization offered no other rationale or principled explanations. Its deliberations were secret. The officials were unelected. Their public edicts were binding, unappealable, and exclusionary. They did not place their actions in an historical context. They could have just said nothing, but they didn’t. They focused their attention on the sexual views of others and their fear of “what people would say.” They did not speak to their possible shadows. Indeed, they denied ulterior motivations, even as there were hints of possible undisclosed, complex, political motivations in the air.

In this context, I published a critical and provocative blog post citing the organization’s move as a highly dangerous precedent that if followed will lead the integral movement down a terrible, self-immolating track. Privately, I told Ken Wilber that I can’t support an Integral movement predicated on regulating the sex lives of its leaders in a manner such as recently happened abroad.

Along the way, I introduced a term into the discourse which I defined as

“Integral Sex Fascism — the turning of Integral organizations into sex cops policing the lives of leaders and participants alike.”

I did not use it to describe any individuals or groups today, only a possible future which actions today might go if we do not turn back. I never used the term “fascist” itself, only the hybrid word, “Sex Fascist.”  (One person said my use of a graphic which contained the word “fascism” belies this point, which is something I hadn’t thought of.)

The term “sex fascism” isn’t original; it’s been seen in American progressive literature connected to topics such as sex education, AIDS prevention, and gay rights. It’s rhetoric used to draw a bright line in the sand between foes and supporters of institutionalized sexual oppression/regulation, so it’s bound to push buttons.

Indeed, more than a few good people said they didn’t feel it was a constructive choice of words. One spiritual teacher said just, “WTF?” And neither the organization nor the spiritual teacher who were involved in the recent controversy liked my use of the term. One, mistakenly claiming that I called him and his group “fascists” (not so), felt hurt and misunderstood. In a comment on his blog post, I apologized for any unintentional hurt.

Interestingly, few people that I heard from questioned whether or not the organization’s behavior invited the comparison to “sex fascism.” And most recognized that I never used the term “fascism” itself, but most only thought that my use of the term went “too far.” I must agree with those who think “fascism” is too strong per se, but suggest that that’s all in the nature of analogies. Analogies are imprecise, political analogies unusually so. And politics – surely this discussion has political dimensions as it is really about the way that Integral groups organize and govern themselves and set boundaries – can be rough and tumble, as they say.

While I regret that it was ever necessary for anyone to coin the phrase “Integral Sex Fascist,” nevertheless, the term is useful. It pointed to the truth of the situation with the Integral organization in a direct, forceful way that needed to be said. It helped to polarize the conversation in a constructive way, so that the id in the room could breathe. It highlighted the danger that organizations walk right up to the edge with when they insist that ethics requires the public regulation of sex, and imply that integralists are too stupid to discern for themselves which leaders and teachers are worthy of their attention.

Having exorcised the demon in the collective’s shadow as best I saw it, I see no need to go on injecting the “Sex Fascist” term into every conversation about sexual ethics in Integral organizations. It would be a misuse of energy to focus on the most extreme language when doing so would be a distraction, giving defenders of institutional sexual regulations an excuse to ignore the arguments of people with whom they disagree.

So calling out “Integral Sex Fascists” has been done and said, and regurgitating the meme with regard to the present situation would probably be counterproductive at this point. Indeed, I am choosing not to even mention the organization’s name in this post so that the underlying, principled issue can be better separated from the behavior of any one particular organization. In the weeks ahead, I do have a few related topics that I want to write about…but with the term officially retired (for now).

However, if Integral leadership continues to persist in this new and unprecedented fascination with regulating the sex lives of others, refuses to defend their actions with an Integrally-informed explanation, and takes actions to subjugate the individual conscience to the collective edict, this would be alarming. I’m sure that people such as myself will continue to draw a bright line in the sand between foes and supporters of “Sex Fascism” so that the community can clearly see the dramatic divide which stands before us. Hopefully, I’ll never need to use the word again.