You've become Fartbrain again.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain <no_re...@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@>
> 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.
> > >
> >
>
