Yudhishtira wrote:I feel the mistake BKs have made with sex/relationships is by adopting the Christians puritanical attitude rather than just seeing the thing for what it is. Fear and judgement. The things that are strangling this organisation.
Historically, both specifically within the BKWSU and generally within India of that time, I think there are very good grounds to agree with this theory. I do not know from where but there are distinct Christian influences onto Lekhraj Kirpalani's thoughts; the alleged Christ souls himself (of whom there is more evidence to suggest that he may not actually have existed historically), the monotheism, the Millenarianism. I'd lay a bet down that Lekhraj Kirpalani was influenced by some local Christian evangelists, although I have no evidence to support this at present. Church spires dominating Pakistan’s major cities are legacies of British rule. Lekhraj Kirpalani, from his dress etc was obviously heavily Anglicised. Could he have been impressed by visits to local churches?
It was St Augustine that said, "
Nothing is so powerful in drawing the spirit of a man downwards as the caresses of a woman". He also denied the heterosexual companionate marriage, arguing that, if marriage were intended for companionship, men would marry other men. The Victorian British certainly exported their sexual prudishness and hypocrisy to the overtly sensual India. But in all this discussion, and I ask time and time again, the one input we are missing is;
• what is or was the general sexual activities/enjoyment/pleasure/role of the average Indian women at the time of Lekhraj Kirpalani and through the early period of the BKWSU?
In the BKWSU, propagated by the virgin crones within the leadership we have; men filled solely with sexual intent, portrayed as insensitive rapacious beasts, sex as an equal or greater crime than murders, the penis symbolized by knives or swords stabbing and wounding the honorable, innocent, pure goddesses of women. Have any of these Indian or BK women ever actually enjoyed sex or even affection?joel wrote:The early popes were pretty indulgent, so they say.
As far as the Popes go, yes, Joel is right and probably thinking of Pope Innocent the VIII. I think it might have been a ironic name.
Whilst commissioning the inquistors to squelch the power of Satan in Northern Europe, publishing the Malleus Maleficarum "A Hammer for Witches" which lead to the deaths of anything between 10,000s to millions of women, he found time to get on with squelching of his own and fathered "eight boys, and just as many girls, so that Rome might justly call him Father ... towards whom his nepotism had been as lavish as it was shameless" (Encyclopaedia Britannica). On his deathbed he was given blood transfusions from three young male children who died in the process. It corruption, especially financial and political, was endless.
Mr Green wrote:Why bother judging others? ... It's all OK, it is your life ...
Actually, the reason why there is no point in judging other people - or even less in telling them what to do - is because it is a pointless waste of energy ... they are not going to listen to you anyway even if you are right.
Objectively, its
not all "OK" (although granted we have not yet sat down and worked out which bits are and are not). Objectively what ever you chose to do personally effects us as the society in which you care contained. As with our rights to not have to ingest passive smoking or the negative effects of unseen pollution; society has a right not to inject the effects of passive sexing and is certainly effected by sexual pollution, e.g. extreme manga leading to horrific sexual attacks.
If society is canted out of order by, say, an excess of pornography then it is other individuals than just the producers and consumers that are effected. Sex, sexual activity, is both a commodity and an industry who production requires energy and resources, has by-products and creates waste. These require analysis and management.
We exist upon a finite planet with finite resources onto which other activities also have conflicting demands on the atmosphere. We cant have everything we want and what you want cuts into what I might have.di wrote:Would it not be a wonderful thing if the BKWSU could moderate the 'it can only be this way' teachings, and incorporate a system where people with commitments, people without commitments, people with families, everyone, could find a place in the belief system and gain benefit and become more spiritual and closer to God, a far less 'them and us' mentality ... but then I guess it would no longer be true BK then would it?
No, not at all and we would not want that. Indeed, they are already - hypocritically and dishonestly - attempting to.
The problem is their power lust for power and numbers ... more followers ... more subjects ... more status in the Golden Age achievable through serving (read exploit) the ignorant us ... more money ... more property. To achieve and sustain this they are hiding the truth of their beliefs and practises. My suggestion is that what we want is absolute, upfront honesty from them ... and a massive Duty of Care policy that would protect family as in your case.
Put simply, an individual like your partner should not be allowed to engage on the BK path and certainly not supported - as they do - to renounce his life commitment and responsibilities. The BKWSU should not be allowed to interfere with and eat up the lives of individuals that are not free to commit social and familial suicide to die alive.