Regarding the period of MMY's known sexual activity, it's fairly clear that it spans a period going back to the early 60s up until perhaps 1975 or '76.
Joyce Collin Smith in her book "Call No Man Master" makes reference to MMY starting the habit of taking young female disciples into his room at the London Center in the early 60s and locking the door. It was noticed because up until that time, he had let it be known that his door "was always open" and that disciples were welcome to visit. That stopped once the door locking with young females started. Judy, I doubt that guilt stopped him in the mid 70s. (When did MMY EVER express guilt over anything he did?) I suspect that, as you say, more pragmatic matters of age, had more to do with it, along with the sheer hassle and risk involved. There's another incident that a few of us here are aware of that would shock many to their very toes. This one would have been around 1970. But that one must remain quiet unless the person involved ever decides to speak up publicly about it. --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], tartbrain <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > <snip> > > > For that matter, someone who's been sheltered from normal > > > social relationships with the opposite sex for as long as > > > MMY was isn't likely to think about it either. > > > > Large assumption perhaps. Did he start his activity in > > the 70's? or the 50's? Or, as nabulous said, he did not > > comment even if Purusha took a getaway weekend. Maybe > > he could relate. > > Could be, but all the stories are from the '70s, as far > as I'm aware. And in any case, even if he did mess > around earlier, it still wasn't in a normal social > context. > > > > It's a mug's game to try to figure out how MMY felt about > > > anything, but I'm really curious. From what I've read, it > > > seems the dilly-dallying took place during a specific > > > period--I have the impression it was a decade or less--and > > > then stopped. Your typical philanderer *doesn't* stop. So > > > why did MMY? Conscience? The pragmatic aspects? > > > > Why the philanderer image? > > "philander, to have casual or illicit sexual relations > with a woman or with many women" > > Sounds on the nose to me. > > > Its surprising to me that many here seem to have this > > rogue image of the man -- it was all exploitive -- little > > red riding hood and the big bad wolf. Perhaps. But so > > many other possibilities. While some will differ, those > > are not the qualities I found in the man. > > But I explicitly drew a contrast with the *typical* > philanderer. Did you miss that? > > > And as far as age, there were some quite attractive > > mid-30's women around. (and some school marms -- its > > not a universal observation) Would mid 30's cosmopolitan > > European women have been OK? > > Maybe not so bad, but not really OK if they were > disciples, again because of the power differential. > > > > > The difference in authority and power between MMY and the > > > > women, however, is another issue > > > > > That's the biggie, IMHO. It really changes the consensuality > > > equation. > > > > > It would with any powerful man who holds a lot of > > > authority over a younger woman, but *especially* with a > > > supposedly enlightened spiritual teacher and a disciple. > > > > I used to think along those lines. But I don't now. One > > can paint a picture of and image power sex, but I don't > > see it. I don't see him forcing himself on anyone, using > > power as a coercive threat. > > Neither do I, nor was that what any of the stories I > read suggested--to the contrary. But that's just the > point, a powerful man often doesn't *have* to do any > overt coercing. Coercion is implicit in the power > differential, at least to the extent that, as I said, > it changes the consensuality equation so it's no > longer balanced; it isn't a level playing field. > > > As I have said, its quite plausible to me that it was > > more the inverse of that, if anything -- but I don't > > think anyone was forcing anyone. What was he saying -- > > if going down the former road "I am am going to withhold > > enlightenment to you if you don't do me?" > > And as I have said, I didn't see anything in the various > stories that suggested he did anything along those lines, > although it's very common in similar stories about other > gurus. > > > I have been shaken by relations -- particularly those > > that went south. Basket case for a bit. The world is > > full of stories of men and women having a rough patch > > when or as relations end. Most people understand this > > when entering relations. > > I think you might want to read some of the clinical > literature on how these kinds of relationships--i.e., > with a guru/authority figure--affect the women involved. > It just doesn't work the same way, especially if the > guru is viewed as holy/enlightened. > > <snip> > > How did J or others think it was going to end? To be > > the Mrs MMY? To be a consort for 30 years "in the palace"? > > Raise a family? I believe that is a naive, condescending > > and simplistic view of her. > > Gee, you're really not reading what I write. I'm suggesting > they weren't thinking that far ahead. I sure didn't when I > was their age, and I got myself into some messes as a result > (fortunately not of this type). > > <snip> > > > One thing I *haven't* encountered, that I can recall-- > > > somebody correct me if I'm wrong--in any of the stories that > > > *is* a feature of many similar stories about other gurus is > > > the promotion by the guru of the idea that having sex with > > > him is going to further the woman's spiritual evolution. (Of > > > course, that's an assumption the women may have adopted on > > > their own.) > > > > If so, then those women were out for themselves -- or I guess > > themSelves. > > My guess is some of them may actually have felt sorry > for him. Or that may even have been his pitch--"It's > so lonesome here at the top..." > > <snip> > > > The sense I get of the overall picture is that MMY was just > > > pathetically *naive* about the whole business. He knew it > > > had to be kept quiet, but other than that, he really didn't > > > know what he was doing, especially emotionally, or have any > > > idea of the possible psychological repercussions, on the > > > women or himself. > > > > Sounds like millions of other affairs, not limited to M. > > But this idea of coverup and shhhh gotta keep it quiet > > seems off base to me. What about discreetness and privacy > > as motives instead of something sinister? > > "Sinister" isn't quite the word, but if you think it never > occurred to him that many if not most of his followers > would have been thrown for a loop if they'd found out, > there's a real nice bridge I could offer you. > > > Why did you keep your affairs quiet and private in the > > 70's? I kept my relatively private because they were not > > anyone else's business. > > How many hundreds of devoted followers did you have who > assumed you were so spiritual you had transcended sexual > needs? > > > > > (why not a woman saint more his own age?). > > > > > > That would have been tremendously difficult to arrange, > > > given the box he'd put himself in. And it would probably > > > have been even harder to keep quiet than fooling around > > > with selected disciples. > > > > While match making for the master is a nice parlor game, > > he went down the path he wanted to go down. > > As I said, I think he put himself in a box and then > found out it was more uncomfortable than he was willing > to deal with--but he wasn't willing to give up the box > either, or couldn't figure out what to replace it with. >
