You can't do your program in the dome, set foot on campus, ever go on a course again because we heard you visited Ammachi/Karunamayi/Dr. Ladd/read FFLife/know Rick Archer and Doug Hamilton (who are wonderful people) WHILE I can go to the dome and I have slept with married women whose marriage I may have broken up and whose husbands have donated a lot of money to the movement and who I used to be friends with
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The following excerpts raise some interesting questions. (Some > excerpts are grouped by theme and not in their original order. > Apologies if any critical context is lost.) > > > * Does any group of humans, particularly age cohorts, deserve or > require special treatment and/or care relative to others? > > > Unc: A few days ago I did nothing more than suggest that children > are no more entitled to decent treatment > than any other human being > > Spraig: Actually, you said quite clearly that non-consensual sex > with children was no worse than non-consensual sex with adults. > Protection of children, especially from sexual preditors, is a pretty > universal thing to expect, at least in Western societies. > > > > * Qualifying sex as "non-consensual" implies that the argument is not > true for "the other half" of the general category. Does the above > imply that consensual sex with children is worse than consensual sex > with adults? > > * If not, why was the qualification made: is the point being made > uncategorical, "(all forms of) sex with children was no worse than > (all forms of) sex with adults." ? > > * If consensual sex (by adults) with children is deemed to be worse > than consensual sex between adults, how does that effect the premise > (above) that "children are no more entitled to decent treatment than > any other human being " > > * Is consensual sex between older adults (40 -60) and younger "adults" > aka "legally able to consent" (18-25) "bad" in all instances? > > * Are there situations where the above could be good? For both parties. > > * What are the criteria for "good" and "bad" in this context? > > * Is consensual sex "bad" if both parties do not find benefit from the > relationship regardless of age? > > * Is consensual sex "bad" if one or both parties find some benefits > and some downside from the relationship regardless of age? > > * Should "outside" others be concerned, judge, comment, confront > and/or gossip on what they view as inappropriate sex between > consenting adults? > > * Regardless of age? > > * Should "outside" others be concerned, judge, comment, confront nd/or > gossip on sex between a consenting adult and a legally consenting > minor (18-21 in many states, 16-21 in some states)? > > [Hence forth the term adult refers to those at or above age 21. The > term "adult" refers to those of legally consenting age.] > > > > Spraig: What licentious behavior and why do you care? > > Anonymousff: Bevan and Hagelin are infamous womanizers. They > have not limited themselves to single women, they have no scruples, > or at least they didn't for a looong time, about whose wife they sleep > with. It has been going on for years, it has been talked about for > years, it has been hashed and rehashed, it is not rumors, marriages > have broken up over it. And no one says anything or cares about it. > > > > * Is sex between consenting adults or "adults", regardless of age > differentials, acceptable absent some situations such as: adultery, > large power differentials (economic, evaluation or grading, > psychological, teaching relationship, etc), incest, prostitution? > > > > Rick: Yeah, but it's the old thing of a charismatic, powerful > man wowing out an impressionable younger woman. Whether or not Monica > came on to him, Bill acted irresponsibly. > > > * If Clinton were divorced and out of office, and had a relationship > with a woman of Monica's age, would this still be "irresponsible"? In > other words, does the irresponsibility have to do with adultery, > having sex in the oval office, large power differentials (including > employer power)? Or is basically any consensual sex irresponsible > where there is a large age differential? > > > > Shempmcgurk: Obviously, women should lose the vote. They are > not full human beings with free choice. > > Peter: While it is certainly boorish behavior and I do not > support it in the least, the ladies can say no. > > Sparaig: Women aren't stupid. They're generally well aware of > what kind of guy they are sleeping with by the time they are 18-20 or > so. Why is it your concern? > > Rick: A friend of mine who is a respected, long-time MUM > faculty member said that even recently young coeds have been coming to > him in tears, because Hagelin has slept with them and then dumped > them. So it still goes on. > > > > * Do women of consensual age need "protecting"? > > * Do men of consensual age need "protecting"? > > * Should women (or men) of consensual age be allowed to make their > own "mistakes" and learn from them? If not, at what age should they be > able to? > > * If the younger woman (or man) is as, or more, sexually experienced > as the older partner, does that change any of the above? > > * To what extent to J and B's sexual and "dating" reputation preceed > them? Are there any/ many women who "date" them who are unaware of the > reputation and what they are getting into? > > * Its postulated that various "segments" of woman might consensually > sleep with a figure such as JH: i) really likes and admires him, > always had a crush on him, ii) loves his mind, want to be around him > iii) looking for a good Saturday night fling with no attachments, iv) > curious as to "how he is", v) wants a good story to tell peers, vi) > feels proximity to J may give her special status and access in the > TMO, vii) wants to marry J. > Do women in any of the above segments need "protection" from being > "used and dumped"? > > * To what extent does the "gatekeeper" role of J and B (and others), > that is "access to higher levels of TMO activity and knowledge, give J > and B unfair leverage? > > > > Sparaig: So why do YOU care? Were you one of the women? One of > the men who was cuckolded? > > Anonymousff: Why would I care? Hmm, let's see...perhaps > because of the unbelievable pompousness of HE the Honorable Dr. Morris > when he arrogantly enforces policy that he creates while he seems to > feel he is immune from the > basics of respectful behavior as in please leave the wives of others > alone and stop calling ladies into your office and propositioning them. > > Spraig: Sounds pretty hypocrtical to me, yes, but why can't you > just laugh it off as one of life's little ironies, and move on? > > TurquoiseB: I don't care. But some do. And they feel that > having leaders of the movement that they were part rules might bring > the validity of that movement into question. > > "sparaig": Then they expect more of the TMO leadership then > they expect of most other people. > > TurquoiseB: .They *should* expect more from the TMO leadership. > They should expect *at least* the same dedication to the teachings > that they displayed in their lives. They *should* expect that people > who stand up in front of the world and claim that practicing TM will > result in "ideal behavior" should demonstrate *some* semblance of > "ideal behavior" in their lives. They should expect *exemplary* behavior. > > TurquoiseB I'm trying to get you to see that this is rather an > emotional issue for a lot of people here, in > ways that it is NOT an emotional issue for you because you haven't put > your money where your mouth is in the way that they have. > > "jyouells2000": Wow, is that a long way around, just for > 'leveling'. No just better than unethical, immoral and illegal. ... > It's really not complicated. It's about integrity. Does that lack of > integrity spill into what they are teaching? As a leader, do they walk > the talk? > > "markmeredith2002: The talks by TM leadership unequivically > state that the practice of MMY's programs by an individual create > "ideal behavior" and "total support of the laws of nature" leading to > the "inability to make a mistake" and "unlimited progress and success" > and on the broader level "invincibility to the nation", "heaven on > earth", and the "elimination of all problems on earth" and so on, > Given the above statements, you might look to the effect of these > programs on the lives of the people who have been practicing them the > longest and with the most dedication to verify the claims. You would > also look to the organization itself to gauge the broader societal > promises. If there's a large discrepency, then that's called hypocrisy. > > > > > * How does hypocritical behavior of others, outside of an > organizational context, effect you? > > * Does the above require or warrant our judgement, comments or actions? > > * Does that change if it is within an organizational context that is > leaders not walking the talk? If so, how does it affect you? > > * How can / should it be dealt with? What are your options? > > > > Peter (re: Do you think that Bevan and John engage in lecentious > behavior and why do you care?) Well, they do or they did. That is > quite well known. However your last question, if phrased, ..."why do > we care?" is very interesting if not used simply as a defensive > posture. Why do we care? Why do we hold Bevan, John and MMY > accountable to a certain standard? It is apparently much more of an > idealized fantasy that we have than an authentic need that they have. > > > > * Is the condition of "older guys NOT having consensual sex with > younger women" a criteria of "ideal behavior" (irrespective of > organizational "hypocrisy" issues) ? > > * Is it (above) a necessary criteria of "enlightenment? Is it a > universal truth? > > * Is consensual sex between younger and older partners a "relative > value", dependent on social context? > > * What are other things about consensual sex between younger and older > partners that bother you? Is there deeper issues you are dealing with > respect to this issue? > > > * And finally, are your responses to all above questions internally > consistent? Want to revise any? ------------------------ 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/
