--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > While it is certainly boorish behavior and I do not > > > support it in the least, the ladies can say no. > > > > That apply to Maharishi as well? > > Why would it not?
That was my question to...hmm, you seem to have deleted the attribution. Peter, I think. I wondered if he would make the same point with regard to MMY. > I know a standard theme revolves around "unquesioned obediance to > the guru" and all. Yeah, but I haven't seen it suggested here that MMY *ordered* women to have sex with him, even by the most cynical. > Which may not be your point. Nope. More wondering whether there were some double standards floating around. > But on that theme, > in reality, almost all teachers did lots of things MMY said not to > do, and did not do lots of things he said to do. In the 1970-75 > era -- when a lot of stuff allegedely happened, there was a lot of > questioning earlier on -- hour after hour of people on the mike > asking and questioning all sorts of things. Perhaps a bit less as > time marched on in that era. But lots of "slippage", lots of > "disobediance" on small things and large. The woman I knew in the > inner circle at that time were smart, capable, strong willed > women. I was never around him, but what you describe is certainly in accord with my impressions from what others have said. Even from some of the Q&A sessions on videotape shown on courses, for that matter. > There was not a strong, prevailing coercive absolute ethic at that > time where a woman could not say no to anyone, including MMY if > propositioned. > > In the past several years on this list, I have explored and argued > the coercive, authority, unequal power POV. I am rexamining that. > Not disregarding it. But looking at it, I think some women did say > no. Some said yes. I believe the latter had motives to do so that > were independent of strong coercion. Some motivations may have > included: access, curiousity/interest/ senses of service, > affection. And some may have felt some or all such motivation and > sttll said no. I'd be very surprised if that weren't an accurate analysis. But there's coercion and coercion. It doesn't have to involve a demand for obedience to be coercive when the power relationship is unequal. On the other hand, I can conceive of a woman saying yes because of the chance to exert her own power over an authority figure, to turn the tables, as it were. If you have power over someone who's powerful, that makes you *very* powerful. Men aren't the only ones with a drive for power. I suspect that may well have been involved with Lewinsky and Clinton, in fact. It's very complex. You can't dump it all in one compartment and slap a single label on it. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
