--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltabl...@...> wrote: > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain <no_reply@> wrote: > > <snip> > > > I just can't buy 100% into this victimhood stigma > > > you wrap these women in. > > > > Not that he doesn't deserve the lion's share of > > blame. > > Legally he gets all the blame if he is an employer.
That doesn't sound right. If an employer uses coercion related to employment status, position or salary/benefits -- or related factors, he/she is guilty of sexual harassment. "Sexual harassment is intimidation, bullying or coercion of a sexual nature, or the unwelcome or inappropriate promise of rewards in exchange for sexual favors.[1] In some contexts or circumstances, sexual harassment may be illegal. It includes a range of behavior from seemingly mild transgressions and annoyances to actual sexual abuse or sexual assault.[2] Sexual harassment is a form of illegal employment discrimination in many countries, and is a form of abuse (sexual and psychological) and bullying." I don't believe its illegal nor can a civil case be made if there is an affair that has no such coercion. While a jaded one might say that is impossible, that the coercion is always there, implied, I beg to differ. And affairs can happen when people work intensely together -- the best of each may shine in intense projects -- and attraction ensues. Stupid yes -- always illegal, no. > > But depriving the women of any agency at > > all creates an equation that's out of whack. > > Again, I'm not seeing this in anyone's discussion. This aspect may not be the > most reliant issue in play so it may not have come up. I think it misses the > point actually. > > And > > it dehumanizes MMY by suggesting that he himself > > never felt even a shred of remorse. Maybe he > > didn't, but we don't know that. > > I couldn't care less about his remorse, neither do the ethical standards and > laws. From Judith's book he seemed to feel some remorse about how the sex > effected his "energy." No discussions were recorded concerning how he was > feeling about her except to blame her for wrong thinking when she tried to > get out from under his control. > > The second post here is much more troubling because this person refused. I > hope she will post some of the ramifications of that "choice" so we can more > accurately focus on the side of the relationship the ethical standards and > laws are meant to protect. > > You've been pretty consistently both supportive of these women and willing to > take a hard look at Maharishi the person. I think some of the differences in > focus for some posters comes from having been around the guy or not. For > anyone who has the negative implication of turning down his advances is > unfathomable. We stayed up all night for the guy, traveled around the world, > laundered money, whatever it took to "fulfill the desires of the master." Ha! Come on. You followed every single directive, direct and general, of MMY? Went to bed immediately after lecture, always took a cold shower, never overate, never had an affair outside of marriage, always spoke the sweet truth? Went to bed before 10, did asanas EVERY time before TM, never ate garlic or onions, never looked at a non-TMO book, on and on. You were in the movement maybe 5-10 years after me -- so I can't really speak for your experience. But from my view of things in my time NO ONE obeyed every single thing. Not course leaders, not inner circle, not staff. Particularly in the days of of Judith and Jennifer etc. Maybe 10 years later it really had become storm trooper like. I doubt it, but perhaps that was so. > When you are around him that IS your technique and you do it before you even > meditate, sleep or eat. And as Judith says in her book,he seemed to turn down > the woman who were obviously trying to seduce him in favor of women he could > pursue. Their "choice" is the least relevant aspect of what went down IMO. > > > > > Finally, there's a lot of hypocrisy floating > > around. There are people on FFL who are not just > > narcissistic and insensitive but actively, > > persistently sadistic. They know who they are, > > and they really ought to STFU with their > > condemnation of MMY. They'd do well to get some > > professional help as well. Sadists are never > > happy, balanced people, no matter how spiritual > > they may believe and portray themselves to be. > > >
