--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "L B Shriver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "L B Shriver" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > on 12/2/05 10:03 PM, authfriend at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Were these women highly educated and established > > > > > > in professional society at the time they were > > > > > > allegedly victimized by Maharishi? > > > > > > > > > > Well educated relative to their age at the time. > > > > > > > > > > >Or is this something they achieved after that? > > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > So their alleged victimization didn't seem to get > > > > in the way of their having successful careers, at > > > > any rate. > > > > > > > > And most victims of incest, by the way, are young > > > > girls, not adult women. > > > > > > ******** > > > > > > Your mastery of context could be slipping. Cult > > > members generally are in a relationship in which > > > the leader or guru is in the parental role, and > > > usually a perverted parental role at that. > > > > I'm not sure what you think this has to do with > > what I've been saying, L.B., or why you think my > > "mastery of context" could be slipping. Care to > > elaborate? > > > > As I've already indicated, I have no problem with > > the concept of the leader/guru taking a parental > > role. That was never what I objected to. > > > > Perhaps you should do a little checking of the > > context yourself. > > > @@@@@@@@ > > Here is the context: > > > > > And most victims of incest, by the way, are young > > > > girls, not adult women. > > True enough, except that the "incest" we have been discussing in > this thread is the variety known as "spiritual incest" (a term > which you have argued against previously in this thread, if I > recall correctly).
Right. That most victims of incest are young children rather than adults is yet another reason why the term "spiritual incest" is inappropriate. > > If I may be permitted a small digression: the term "spiritual > incest" cannot be correctly understood by exactly parsing its > constituents. It has a special meaning which applies most > clearly in the cult context. You have argued against its > application here based on your parsing, including the argument > quoted above regarding the ages of the victims. No, actually what I've been arguing is that borrowing the term "incest" for that phrase acts as a thought-stopper, invoking the reaction of horror and disgust people normally have to incest in a very different kind of situation to which that kind of reaction may be inappropriate. It's an example of using emotionally loaded language to bypass the critical thinking process. Rather than responding to what you go on to say, I'll just refer you to the quotes from my contributions to the alt.m.t discussion I posted earlier, which address your points directly. <snip> > Another small digression: Many people have commented in this forum > that they think MMY's alleged infractions amount to "no big deal". > However, for the reasons I have referred to above, such abuses are > universally condemned in civil society. As well they should be. However, I'd suggest that the degree and intensity of the condemnation should probably *not* be universal; some instances of such behavior are distinctly worse than others, so it makes sense to consider them on a case-by-case basis. Which is another reason why I object to the "spiritual incest" phrase. It tends to evoke the same intensity of revulsion to *all* such instances, when it may not be at all appropriate for some of them. > This is the context in which our discussion is relevant. Your point > about the ages of the victims applies to "ordinary" incest, not the > variety we are dealing with here. Yes, that *was* my point. The intensity of the reaction to incest is at least partly a function of the fact that the victims of incest are physically and psychologically so vulnerable. Not that victims of sexual abuse by spiritual teachers are not also vulnerable, but there are significant differences in the *nature* of their vulnerability, among other reasons because they're typically much older. Consider the difference in the reaction to a father having sex with his adult daughter, and a father having sex with his 12-year-old daughter. There are common elements, but there are also marked differences. The term "spiritual incest" fuzzes over those differences. I'd be pleased to continue this discussion with you if you're so inclined, but again I'd ask that you read my earlier post so you have a better idea of what my arguments are without my having to repeat myself to set you straight on the context. ------------------------ 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/
