Dear NvT,
I was more than a bit taken aback by James Langley's notice about "Sexual
Treachery" in NvT #33. To me "undertakes to instigate conflict" sounds a lot
like New Age jargon for "threatens to pick a fight".  That seemed to me a bit
over the top for a journal of nonviolence, so I searched for some explanation
of what sort of "Sexual Treachery" could raise him to such a pitch of
righteous anger.

It turns out that James is not concerned about male activists "bonking" more
than one partner, only about their lying to one sex partner about the
existence of the other.  This includes lying by omission (in other words, not
confessing straight away, the same day).  James feels that he can't trust a
person who would tell such a lie, and questions their place in the movement.

Sexual infidelity has a pretty long history, and so does lying about it. 
Neither is it confined to the male sex, even if James hasn't heard of any
such occurrences.  Most people would be reluctant to rush in to such a
private area as the relationship between lovers.  By taking up the cudgels in
defense of the sexually deceived, James succeeds in making himself look like
a sort of White Knight of Monogamy, or perhaps a Big Brother of the Bedroom.

I'm concerned that this sort of immoderate rhetoric can give an impression of
cultism or fanaticism about nonviolence in general.  For myself I am quite
unconvinced about the linkup of sexual dishonesty with patriarchy and/or
disempowerment.  If people feel that unrealistic and abnormal standards of
sexual conduct apply in the movement, and that they risk being confronted
about behaviour which would be considered extremely private elsewhere, then
they won't participate and the movement will be the poorer for their absence.
Brian Currie



Dear NvT,
I really feel I must respond to James Langley's letter in NvT #33
"instigating conflict" with those who commit "sexual treachery".

The tendency of those in the pure nonviolence movement to take up positions
above the clouds, in terms of morality, has been something I have found to be
hypocritical and embarrassing.  James' facination in the sex lives of people
in "the south of this land" draws me to conclude he is a sexual pervert of
some description.  The complexity of sexual relations at this time deserves 
a lot more sensitivity and understanding than James' "notice".

I am, according to James' morals and definitions, a sexual treacher, and I do
stress James' morals.  My advice to James and others of his ilk who want to
thrust their morals on those who neither adhere to or are interested in his
way of life, is to stop wasting time, come down from above the clouds, back
onto the ground where you are needed.
Charlie Daniels