User talk:Rinpoche/Buddhist sex abuse cases

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
  • Hope this is useful Rinpoche (talk) 23:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Having sex is not abusive in itself, even if a lama is involved. The whole article is far from being NPOV. I will delete the Nyahl section. - (talk) 19:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I note you have deleted the Nydahl section. I'm disappointed. I think it's very unskilful. Of course there is an issue involving Nydahl's sexual liasons with his students. I'm very sorry to see you take this action anonymously. That can only mean you're not prepared to debate the issue and reach a consensus. I shall accordingly open a debate on the discussion page of Ole Nydahl Rinpoche (talk) 14:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I would have to agree about the general un-NPOV-ness of this article. Something doesn't seem quite right about lumping people who knowingly spread HIV to their sexual partners, or were abusive, with people who simply don't think they have to be celibate in order to be a Buddhist teacher. Ole Nydahl might be an untrustworthy horndog, I really don't know. I am quite offended to see Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche's name on this list however as at least one of his sexual partners has posthumously described him as a caring and non-abusive lover and to my knowledge nobody is on record describing his sexual liasons as abusive. Hence I will be deleting it. Changchub (talk) 16:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I have reinserted Trungpa's entry. He is directly mentioned in Sandra Bell's paper. I ask you not delete material without discussing your reasons first and seeking consensus on this page.
Regarding abuse you are labouring under a very considerable misconception if you imagine the term is only applicable to sex with minors. It is a generic term which includes consensual sex between adults where one party is abusing a position of trust or power. See for example Sexual abuse # Positions of Power. Trungpa entered into a relationship with his eventual wife Diana Mukpo when she was 15 years old, marrying her directly she had turned 16 taking advantage of a recent change in Scottish law which allowed such marriages without parental consent (see her own testimony in the reference linked). Even then the relationship was thought scandalous and today it must be considered abusive. That the victim does not (or did not - Diana Mukpo is equivocal on the subject) think it abusive is not relevant and especially in the case of a teacher abusing his position - consider June Campbell's experience also referenced.
You describe yourself as a Rimé practioner of Tibetan Buddhism on your talk page. On Ole Nydahl's talk page you continue to defend a position where you claim a teacher can have non-abusive sex with his students but that simply isn't an acceptable position and you have no right to make these deletions because it offends your personal point of view. You should first seek that you have a consensus. Otherwise you open yourself up to accusation of covering-up the evidence. Rinpoche (talk) 02:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I can add that you plainly misunderstand the position regarding Ösel Tendzin. His behaviour was abusive in the first place because he was abusing a position of trust and power. It is not irrelevant that he spread HIV (he claimed Trungpa had told him he was 'tantrically' immune) but the abuse in the first place was possible because he was abusing his position. Rinpoche (talk) 02:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
It really seems to me that your opinion is by far the more personal and the more stubbornly held to. A teacher student sexual relationship MUST be abusive for you, and there's just NO question about it. You say "today such things must be considered abusive" with no reasoning why. This is NOT NPOV. My Uncle began courting my Aunt when she was still his student and 12 or 13 years his junior. They have been happily married for decades and nobody in their right mind would characterize even a bit of the relationship as abusive. So couldn't you maybe admit there probably are student/teacher relationships that it is inaccurate to describe as such? I did not "plainly misunderstand" anything, from what I know of Tendzin I would consider his liaisons inappropriate even in the absence of an STD. I never said anything about it only applying to sex with minors. Although that doesn't necessitate abuse either if you ask me. The 16 year old couple who choose to lovingly copulate are both having sex with minors after all.
This is a slippery slope if you ask me. If people have to be of exactly equal status in order to have sex otherwise the person down the ladder is automatically getting "abused" regardless of whether or not they feel they are, then almost every single sexually-active person has been both abused and abusive.
Wikipedia is full of pages that have shoddy use of the English language (which I would argue a sort of neo-Puritanical, PC relabeling of all sex between people of differing points on a power-structure ladder as inherently abusive is shoddy use) the Trungpa entry didn't seem up to standards to me. I'll leave it alone though since you obviously have a lot personally invested in this page of yours. Changchub (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I shan't fisk you. The article is not a personal investment of mine and contributions are welcome. I supplied it partly as a deliberate foil to Catholic sex abuse cases and also because I had come across Piya Tan's essay on inappropiate teacher-pupil relationships and was struck by the fact that practically every emerging Western Buddhist group since the 1960s that I could offhand think of has been tainted by sex abuse scandals, not just peripherally but at their very heart, and went on to study Sandra Bell's paper and thus to June Campbell's critique and thought the issue sufficiently sourced and notable to merit an article. Rinpoche (talk) 23:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Renaming of section heading 'Recent cases ...'[edit]

In deference to user Changchub's position above I have renamed the section 'Recent cases ...' to 'Recent alleged cases ...'. I hope this is more acceptable. Rinpoche (talk) 04:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Changchub's position that sex between a teacher (in this context a religious teacher) and a student is not necessarily abusive, I think it would be a good idea to include a notable, sourced defence of that position if one exists. I don't know of one myself. A section 'Defence of teacher/student sexual relations' could perhaps be added.

Ideally, I suggest, the defence should address Sandra Bell's, June Campbell's and Piya Tan's criticism referenced in the article. Rinpoche (talk) 05:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Ole Nydahl[edit]

As noted above the section on Ole Nydahl was removed by user without an account and I accordingly attempted to open a debate about the issue on Talk:Ole_Nydahl#Sexual_abuse and Talk:Diamond_Way_Buddhism#Sex_Abuse. These attracted no comments and I conclude the issue of Ole Nydahl sleeping with his students is not controversial.

User's justification is that sex in itself even with a lama is not abusive. However a lama is a teacher and the teacher/student relationship is not equal. Such sexual relationships are commonly held to be abusive by definition as maintained at the beginning of the article and at Sexual abuse # Positions of Power.

I have however, as noted above and in deference to Changchub, changed the section heading to 'Recent alleged cases'.

User's other justification was that the article is not NPOV. In the case of the Ole Nydahl entry however his justification that the relationship at coitus is equal is supplied.

I have restored the section and ask users to express any reservations on this talk page so that a consensus can be reached before unilaterally deleting the section. On the issue of whether student/teacher sexual relation can ever be non-abusive I have suggested above that a section 'Defence of teacher/student sexual relations' might be added providing of course that it is notable and sourced. Rinpoche (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The Ole Nydahl entry was once again removed without reference here as requested and I have reinserted it as I shall continue to do so. Rinpoche (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the article History I see that the user who deleted the content was one 'Prewster' but I can't find a userpage for this account. Is this a new account waiting auto-confirmation perhaps? It would be helpful if this user discussed his/her concerns on this talk page Rinpoche (talk) 10:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I have added Nydahl's defence against the charge he teaches 'Tantric sex' and I hope this is useful and prove more acceptable to those who have twice removed his entry. If it is helpful I can add a section on 'Tantric sex' and discuss whether Nydahl teaches it or not. Rinpoche (talk) 17:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)