My take on the Jonmon thing

[kitchen_kink]

I figured this was relevant for the Examiner: isn't it my responsibility to talk about threats to our communities?

Enjoy.

Comments

[mzrowan.livejournal.com]

Interesting piece!

Just one comment: I can't figure out what you meant by, "Unfortunately, in both poly and kink contexts, a lot of things are overlooked in the name of consent." What were you trying to get at there?

[dietrich.livejournal.com]

Perhaps poorly phrased.

Essentially I meant that in our communities, we try to err on the benefit-of-the-doubt side of things. To use a kind of "well duh" example: if we see a man who is giving a woman orders, putting her on a leash, or striking her, we're going to respond differently than vanilla people would to the same thing. We might think it's inappropriate to do those things in, say, a restaurant, but we don't think it's inappropriate to do them at all. Or, if we see someone we know is married hitting on someone else, we're not going to assume the person is a slimy cheater.

One of the things I've come across in the online discussions of Jonmon are things like "ew, he wanted girls to come over and put on bondage clothes and whip him and all kinds of crazy sick shit." I want to differentiate between stuff that we know of as consensual kink/poly - which we don't want seen as "sick shit" - and the creepy ways that this guy is manipulating those ideas to his own ends.

[dietrich.livejournal.com]

I actually just added a sentence for clarity.

[trowa-barton.livejournal.com]

It was tax evasion, not money laundering.

My response, reprinted here for possible discussion

[uncledark.livejournal.com]

Hey, no one would think badly of someone who said of a playspace, "That chair looks like it's about to collapse," or, "the front steps are dangerous when it's wet out." Yet pointing out a dangerous person is risky.

I'd think that warnings like this should be OK, so long as the person doing the warning is willing to take responsibility for their words. This might mean providing proof, or a retraction should they be wrong.

But, hey, isn't personal responsibility supposed to be part of the scene?

Re: My response, reprinted here for possible discussion

[dietrich.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I tried to provide proof in the form of links wherever possible; I don't like to call people out unless I'm convinced, and I did not like this character one bit from the instant I met him. Everything that's happened since - part of it documented in the press and supported by arrest records - is further cushion for me to say this stuff publicly and hopefully in a way that further protects our communities.

Re: My response, reprinted here for possible discussion

[uncledark.livejournal.com]

You did a good job.

[plumtreeblossom.livejournal.com]

Good for you! This issue does need to be talked about. Glad you did.

[ivy]

From the outside, not knowing any of the people involved... yes, this. Covering up the creeps in our communities does not help us out in the long run. Having multiple sources that you can point to and examples makes your case stronger and more likely to be taken seriously rather than as having a personal axe to grind. So, yes, this, and good for you.

[satyrgrl.livejournal.com]

You said it. There are people who will abuse our community's open-mindedness. I would emphasize that those people are also taking advantage of our marginal status. The fact that our consensual conduct is widely condemned and criminalized makes all of us, but the most vulnerable members of our community in particular, less able to protect our/themselves from exploitation and abuse.

My passing personal encounter with the jerk in question was one of those experience that taught me to trust my instincts about people, even when I can't rationally justify them. I think my inability to rationally justify them initially is a good example of what makes this sort of person so dangerous. Now I do recognize the things that made me uncomfortable with him as giant glaring red flags, but only due to further reflection and experience.

The point I'm getting around to is that the problem with people like this is that they are, in my personal and professional experience, excellent at walking the line between acceptability and their own selfish agenda. They are smart people with education and resources, people who know how to martial both formal and informal systems in their defense (e.g. the-jerk-in-question's threats of litigation against anyone who tries to speak out against him). They usually know exactly how to exploit our sympathies, and will rely on us to think the best of people, to give them the benefit of the doubt, to take the kindest view of the situation possible. We have recognized this particular one for what he is and cut him out of our community, but smart money says he will suffer no negative consequences as a result of this. He will simply move away and start again.

I never recommend Martha Stout's The Sociopath Next Door because I it feels like sensationalist pop psychology, but it is also the only thing I have ever seen that even attempted to educate people about how to recognize this particular kind of predator. Maybe I ought to go home and dig out my copy...

[ling-tso.livejournal.com]

I'm fortunate enough never to have encountered this man, but thank you for documenting his sleaziness. The more of his potential targets you warn off, the better.