--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltabl...@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote:
> >
> > Male-male (and female-female) bonding ("cosmic" or mundane)
> > that has nothing to do with sexual attraction has been
> > around as long as human beans (or at least as long as the
> > Hebrew Bible--e.g., David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi).
> > MMY's views on homosexuality were objectionable in the
> > extreme, but to accuse him of hypocrisy on the basis of his
> > relationship with Guru Dev is so idiotic as to defy comment (especially
> > given the flak about his purported
> > relationships with women).
> >
> > If you've never had an intense but wholly platonic
> > friendship with another man, Curtis, you've missed
> > something that's part of the human experience.
>
> Sure I have but it never resulted in me desiring to
> sleep in their bed with them or to talk about him in
> the over-the-top terms that Maharishi uses.
And because *you* haven't had the kind of relationship
that led you to talk about the other guy in over-the-top
terms (sleeping in the same bed was Yogananda, I believe,
not MMY), therefore that's the standard?
> And for idiotic, I'll give you the assumption that
> religiously repressed gay men never sleep with women.
> Especially in the use and discard style that his
> accusers reported.
I wasn't making that assumption. See if you can figure
out why I mentioned it.
> And using characters from scriptures is bogus because
> it doesn't offer the kind of detail we would need to
> know to determine if there was a gay aspect to it.
This is a whole 'nother topic, but there is in fact
a good deal of textual evidence that David/Jonathan
and Ruth/Naomi had very deep but straight friendships
that were recognized as such by the biblical writers.
> Look at Plato's dialogues to see how there was not
> always a very clear line historically.
>
> To believe that his complete attraction and devotion
> to Guru Dev which he himself describes as love at
> first sight (before he knew his personality enough to
> be in love with that) requires a whole set of beliefs
> that I don't share.
Such as?
> The fact is that neither of us know the nature of
> their relationship, we are both guessing from what we
> have heard from him. So you call it your way and
> I'll call it my way.
Might want to reread your recent post on how we know
what we think we know, which concludes:
"It is the ability to notice the quality of evidence
that I consider 'being thoughtful.' Which way you lean
after that seems to be more a of an emotional rather
than an intellectual issue."
In the post I was responding to, you wrote:
"The absurdity of a man like Maharishi sticking to his
fundamentalist anti-gay religious oppression when his
relationship with Guru Dev can only be characterized
as love between men is so absurd and hurtful to gay
men everywhere."
"Can only be characterized as" sounds like a lot more
than a "guess" to me.
> In either case his stance on homosexuals was abhorrent
> with or without the hypocrisy added.
Granted. But you felt you just *had* to add the hypocrisy
charge. His homophobia didn't reflect badly enough on him
to suit you, even on top of (you should excuse the
expression) his fooling around with women.
> But I'll tell you as a man, whenever a man has started
> a friendship quickly with me based on must meeting me
Again the assumption that *your* experience and behavior
are the standard, even given the marked cultural and
contextual differences.
, and if they ever start using the kind of term of endearment Maharishi uses
about his feelings for Guru Dev, they turned out to be a gay attraction. My
close male friends, some who have been my close friends for decades never
express themselves in that way. It has nothing to do with how much we care
about each other, it is a straight version of friendship and it really isn't
hard for a man to know the difference. I love you man is a lot different from
I love love you man.
