Sluts for Choice

"So why does the media keep claiming the looming government shutdown is about 'abortion?' . . . In adopting this lazy shorthand, media outlets tacitly accept the Republican frame: PP’s main business is performing abortions, and the federal government—you, the taxpayer!—pays for them. None of this is true. Ninety-seven percent of PP’s business is providing birth control, basic gynecological care, treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, and the like. Its abortion services are not funded with taxpayer dollars. Thanks to the Hyde amendment, there has been virtually no federal funding of abortion since 1976. Next time, so-called liberal media, try these handy phrases: 'Birth control blocks budget agreement.' 'Government shut down looms over Pap smears.' 'Republicans to women: can’t afford cancer screening? Tough luck.'" ~ Katha Pollitt

As is typically the case, Pollitt is on the money. The 'policy riders' that the Republicans are pushing are about controlling women's health and sexuality. The protesters in the image here (shamelessly lifted from Bag New Notes) have the matter just right.
___________
Photo credit: Jewel Samad/AFP-Getty Images ~ Caption: Participants shout slogans and display placards during a rally to “stand up for women’s health” at the National Mall in Washington, DC, on April 7, 2011. Participants from across the country gathered in a show of support for Planned Parenthood, the family-planning group in the crosshairs of the budget battle blazing in Congress, where a federal shutdown is looming.

New Label ~ child porn?

Girl and Cat (1937) ~ Balthasar Klossowski de Rola.

I have posted numerous times here about the travails artists and photographers who have encountered censorship, formal and informal, justified by the fear of "child pornography." At Salon.com you can find this interesting slide show of works (some of which, I've noted in my posts) that have generated "controversy" along this dimension. Most of the images (including the one I've lifted here) are readily available on line. There is no doubt that that makes them available to perverts. But there is no doubt too that museums and media outlets and politicians are way too concerned about the sensitivities of everyday people. There are issues to be discussed and argued over in all this. But blanket censorship seems to me a poor substitute for such interactions.

Katy Perry -- That's Not My Belly Button!

If you missed it, Katy Perry, the singer extraordinaire, made an off color, dirty, yet funny joke at the end of her recent guest appearance on The Simpsons. To see the joke, watch the video below.




Oh, to be muppet Moe Sizlack!

Of course, The Simpsons were playing off of the old "That's not my belly button" joke that I heard growing up. There are many versions out it out there; here is one (this one from aardvarkarchie.com


"Class dismissed!" the teacher yelled but little Johnny doesn't go.
He walks to the teachers desk and says, "Teacher can i go home with you?"
The teacher says "No!"
Little Johnny says, "I'll tell my daddy."
So the teacher says, "Okay."
They get to the teachers house and she says, "Well i'm going to take a quick shower, you sit right here."
"Can i take a shower with you?" he asks.
The teacher says "No!"
Little Johnny says, "I'll tell my daddy."
So the teacher says, "Well okay, I guess."
So their in the shower and little Johnny says, "Can i turn off the lights?"
The teacher says "No!"
Little Johnny says, "I'll tell my daddy."
So the teacher says, "Okay."
So the lights are off and little Johnny says, "Can i stick my finger in your belly button?"
The teacher says "No!"
Little Johnny says, "I'll tell my daddy."
"Well okay." says the teacher, "JOHNNY!, that's not my belly-button!"
"Yeah? and that's not my finger eather!" 

I've also heard a version with a couple the night before their wedding, etc. 

Related articles

• Katy Perry Gets Raunchy on "The Simpsons" (omg.yahoo.com)
• Oral Sex Gag Takes The Simpsons' Katy Perry Muppet Parody Way Over the Line (mediaite.com)
• VIDEO: The Simpsons Go All Puppety With Katy Perry (bleedingcool.com)
• Katy Perry Hugs Mr. Burns, Sings 'The 39 Days Of Christmas' On 'The Simpsons' (newsroom.mtv.com)

Mario and Princess Fight over Sex

A little video from Seth Macfarlane -- Mario and Princess (from Super Mario Brothers fight over sex, and she gets eaten by Bowser. Enjoy!

Related articles

• 25 years of Super Mario Bros. in the Real World (wired.com)
• Be Sure To Wish Super Mario A Happy 25th Birthday Today (crunchgear.com)
• Jay Leno Makes Oral Sex Joke About Christine O'Donnell (newsbusters.org)

Putting Buddhist Leaders on a Pedestal.

It isn't a secret that some in the west have an infatuation with Buddhism. It is still relatively new to the majority of Americans, having only really been absorbed by the white populations that make up most of the country since the 1950s. So, it still is in a bit of a honeymoon phase where for some in these white populations put the teachers on pedestals. For my non-American readers that means thinking that a certain person is perfect, so much so that you're willing to look past obvious faults because you're blinded by hero worship.

This is fueled I believe in large part by the false perception by some in the west that Buddhist teachers are all enlightened and that thus, they can do nothing wrong. This leads to schisms in some Buddhist communities between those who are deluded by the charm and title of a monk, and those who see that same teacher's obvious bad behavior. I won't go into the particulars but a prime example of this in the Zen Buddhist community is the case of Eido Shimano.

Since Buddhism in Asia has been around for millennia, it seems a healthy dose of skepticism and discernment has fermented. Take for example the case of the morally bankrupt monk, Osel Tendzin as brought to us by Katy Butler's great article titled, "Encountering the Shadow in Buddhist America," Pressure from the community is very important in controlling behavior in Tibetan communities," said Dr. Barbara Aziz, an internationally known social . . . who has spent 20 years doing fieldwork among Tibetans. . . . "In Tibetan society, they expect more of the guy they put on the pedes­tal . . . if such a scandal [as Osel Tendzin's] had happened in Tibet [he] might have been driven from the valley."

Furthermore, Tibetans may "demonstrate all kinds of reverence to a [teacher], but they won't necessarily do what he says. I see far more discernment among my Tibetan and Nepali friends," (said Dr. Aziz, in the Butler article), "than among Westerners."

These quotes were used in an excellent article by Russ Wellen found on The Buddhist Channel website. Ms. Butler goes onto add a quote by the Dalai Lama about Sangha teachers and monks that I think should be read by all western Buddhists, "I recommend never adopting the attitude toward one's Spiritual teacher of seeing his or her every action as divine or noble. . . . if one has a teacher who is not qualified, who is engaging in unsuitable or wrong behavior, then it is appropriate for the student to criticize that behavior."

I am reminded yet again here of the beautiful, yet simple and widely applicable Kalama Sutra that forms the foundation of my Buddhist practice. In particular, Buddha's charter on free inquiry. It is what grounds me when I find myself getting too caught up in the dogma and cult of personalities that sometimes form in Buddhist circles:

It is proper for you, Kalamas, [the people Buddha was addressing were the Kalamas] to doubt, to be uncertain; uncertainty has arisen in you about what is doubtful. Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.' Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are bad; these things are blamable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill,' abandon them.(emphasis added by James).

Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.' Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and abide in them.

The commentary from the Sinahlese monk, Soma Thero, that prefaces the charter adds additional reasoning as to why the Kalama Sutra is so fundamental for myself and many Buddhists today who come to the practice from a tradition of the scientific method. For it is difficult sometimes to access the validity of a belief system without a standard to judge it by. The charter in the Kalama Sutra provides just that to seekers:

"The Kalama Sutta, which sets forth the principles that should be followed by a seeker of truth, and which contains a standard things are judged by, belongs to a framework of the Dhamma; the four solaces taught in the sutta point out the extent to which the Buddha permits suspense of judgment in matters beyond normal cognition. The solaces show that the reason for a virtuous life does not necessarily depend on belief in rebirth or retribution, but on mental well-being acquired through the overcoming of greed, hate, and delusion."

UPDATE: Of course, this is not to say that we shouldn't expect our leaders to adhere to moral standards but that we shouldn't allow the misdeeds of some leaders to drive us away from the Buddhadharma. It is the Dharma that is enlightened--not necessarily teachers and monks. It is a reminder as well to maintain a healthy degree of skepticism when evaluating Dharma teachers before we submit to their advice and authority.

~Peace to all beings~

Sex, Sin and Zen: A Buddhist Exploration of Sex.

I was honored to review a copy of Brad Warner's new book titled, Sex, Sin and Zen: A Buddhist Exploration of Sex from Celibacy to Polyamory and Everything in Between. I have yet to finish the book but it's a page turner, eye opener and refreshing expose on the confluence of Buddhism and sexuality. As someone who has long had sexual scars from the upbringing of the religion of my youth; I have long contemplated upon how as a Buddhist I should approach sexuality.

Until this book, most of what I have read about Buddhism and sexuality has come from celibate monks and nuns. These monastics are some of the most enlightened people on Earth yet it is still difficult for me to take sexual advice from someone who has probably never known sexuality in much of any form.

The other obstacle I have had difficulty navigating at times when dealing with sexuality and Buddhism is that it is often intertwined with traditional Asian culture, which sometimes makes it confusing for a western Buddhist (and when I say "western Buddhist" I include westerners of Asian backgrounds that might feel they can relate to their western culture sometimes more than their Asian one. Not that all do, or should. I'm just pointing out that not all "western Buddhists" are white). Anyway, It's not that I find Asian culture inferior in the least. It is a beautiful culture that I admire deeply and happily learn from daily. In fact, in many ways I find much of what Asian culture has to offer to be desperately lacking in western societies like here in America.

Still, when it comes to sexuality it was very helpful (for me) to hear it talked about in western terms, with western references to western pop culture--and from someone of my generation, Brad Warner. It's just the culture that I understand most. Please don't think I assume that only westerners understand sexuality because that's not my intention. I'm simply talking about in the way I understand most--keep that in mind. I don't mean to insult someone, so if you find anything in this post offensive; please forgive my ignorance. Something to note from the book, (I'm not dishing out all the saucy stuff here -- you have to buy the book--sorry) Warner is coming from Zen Buddhism, which sometimes is less rigid about sexuality than perhaps some other sects. In addition, it is Zen from Japan, which Warner reminds us often allows monastics to marry. So, keep that context in mind when deciding if to read it or not.

Also, a quick warning to those who might have "virgin ears" (to throw in a pun) when it comes to sexuality. This book doesn't speak about it in medical terms, and thankfully, so to those of us who aren't doctors. Warner, refreshingly, for me, uses modern terminology and examples that permeate the younger generations today. Yes, it is sometimes makes you blush but since when did sexuality become a subject you could address properly without a little sensual feeling? I adore the monks but when I hear them talk about sexuality it's been so denuded (sorry, another pun) that you can hardly tell if what they're addressing is in fact, sex!! It seems that sexuality is one topic that some Buddhists feel is taboo or unimportant. Notice I said, "some" Buddhists--not all, of course see it this way.

This book reminds me of the old, American, book, "Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Sex but Were Afraid to Ask" that taught a lot of Americans about sexual intimacy. Except that this is the Zen Buddhist, modern punk version!! Warner addresses everything from "Are Zen Buddhists allowed to masturbate? Are they allowed to look at pornography? Is there wiggle room with celibacy? Or, Sex and Karma, Sex and Suffering, Sex and No-Self. As well as, Zen Dating and Marriage Advice. And even talk about "mindful sex!!" Incidentally, I like Warner's take on mindfulness in this book where he says perhaps a better phrase is "being present" as, "When you say, 'I am mindful of (fill in the blank),' you are already creating separation between you and your activities. True mindfulness is when you let go of the idea of mindfulness and just do whatever it is you happen to be doing" (emphasis added by James).

Warner believes as I do that it isn't the sex itself that's a problem but the clinging to sex. Or becoming so attached to sex that you can't enjoy anything else in life. Too often sex gets thrown out at the same time as the desire for it but sex can be engaged in with total awareness of everyone involved and based on the middle-way. His teacher, Gudo Nishijima Roshi rephrases the third precept as, "Do not desire too much" rather than "Do not misuse sexuality." Bodhidharma, the fifth-century Buddhist monk traditionally cited as the founder of the Zen school, said, "There is nothing to grasp. Not giving rise to attachment is the precept of not misusing sexuality."

The last thing I want to address before leaving you swirling with sex and Zen in your mind is that not all of this book is just about sex. It's so much more than that. It's above all a book of how to enjoy sexuality as a Zen Buddhist and do it with doing the least amount of harm as possible to you and others. This is where Right Intention comes in. If your intention toward sexuality is out of love and not pure selfishness then enjoy!! Buddhism isn't just austerity and reverence after all!! Believe it or not, (after seeing some of the dour, serious and painful faces on some American Buddhists in sanghas) Buddhists do allow for fun and happiness!! If someone tells you that Buddhism is no fun at all and nothing but pain then I might recommend you read Brad Warner's book.

That's all I can say because I want you to get the full barrage of Warner's nod to the sensual side of Zen Buddhist life. To give away any more of the saucy bits would be to ruin the fun!! I highly recommend this book to anyone with a sense of humor, the ability to not take life too seriously and a sincere desire to better understand sexuality in Zen Buddhism. I give it a 9.5 out of 10--one of my favorite contemporary Buddhists books in a long while.

~Peace to all beings~

Self-Censorship and the Uses of Discomfort

From: Immediate Family. Photograph © Sally Mann.

In The Guardian today this a review by Sean O'Hagan of a newly opened retrospective of work by Sally Mann. (You can find an earlier notice here.) Here are two interesting passages. The first addresses an early series of images Mann calls Immediate Family.

"It featured black and white images of her three children, often naked or partially naked, as they played and posed in the woods, lakes and rivers around her home in rural Virginia.

The images, some of which are on show here in the 59-year-old American's first British retrospective, are by turns beautiful, disturbing and unashamedly sensual. Perhaps more problematically, all of them are, to one degree or another, staged. [. . .]

"Many of these pictures are intimate, some fictions and some fantastic," Mann said of the series, "but most are ordinary things that every mother has seen." Well, maybe, but not every mother has restaged and then rendered them in such a darkly beautiful and ambiguous ways. Intriguingly, none of the more outrightly provocative photographs have found their way into this show, which is an edited version of a bigger retrospective exhibition that has already toured Europe. Whether this is down to lack of space or fear of public – or tabloid – outcry is anyone's guess, but one could argue that something has been lost in this excised version of the series: the sense that Mann is walking a tightrope between reflecting childhood sexuality in all its lack of self-consciousness and staging it in often dramatic reconstructions. This, in effect, is where the true power of her art lies.

I will give O'Hagan the benefit of the doubt here and assume he is simply being ironic. Of course the reason the "more provocative" images in the series are not being displayed is that the gallery and/or photographer anticipated public complaints. So, instead of censorship we get anticipatory reaction. If I don't show you the provocative images I won't have to worry about being forced to remove them from the show. In other words, the censors have done their work effectively before the exhibition is even mounted.

Here is the second passage, this one a typically hand-wringing worry about what we have a "right" to show or to see.

The other, even more disturbing series on show here is entitled What Remains (2000–04), which approaches death and dying head on. Mann gained access to the University of Tennessee Forensic Anthropology Centre, a place that would not seem out of place in one of Chuck Palahniuk's darkly humorous short stories. Here, bodies that have been donated to science are left outside in the woods so that the process of organic decomposition can be studied by forensic scientists.

Mann's close-up images of these rotting corpses are not for the faint of heart, but, again, the prints – made by an old-fashioned chemical method called the wet-plate collodion process – have a Victorian feel that is almost painterly. One does, though, feel like a voyeur when looking at images such as this. They raise the ethical question of whether a person's decision to donate their body to science gives scientists the right, at a later date, to grant Mann permission to photograph that – decomposing – body. (And whether the result should then be displayed as art. )

From there O'Hagan quickly turns to the safe subject of photographic technique. Apparently it would be OK for a crime novelist to describe rotting corpses. And it is OK for forensic scientists to study them. And it is OK for us to watch the various CSI programs on television. But Mann's images (stylized as they are) are somehow beyond the pale?

Perhaps, I am wrong, but is O'Hagan here hinting that we ought to self-censor more than we already do? It is difficult to tell since he lauds Mann for her creativity and courage and seems to esteem her work despite "all the uncomfortable issues it raises." Doesn't Mann's work stand as an indictment of censorship and self-censorship? Doesn't it suggest that what we need is to see what photographers show and then engage in critical argument about where the bounds of taste and morality are located? Then photography can contribute in useful ways to self- and social and political exploration and discovery.

Sexual Abuse Isn't Just a Catholic Issue.

I may be wrong on this but it seems rare to hear of a sexual abuse scandal in the Buddhist world but there has been one brewing for some time now in the American Zen circle:

"This article, among other revelations, presents a face of Zen not ordinarily visible to the general public. That is, how well known Zen rōshis and leading Zen figures spoke and acted; or failed to speak and act, in the face of deeply troubling allegations and really severe problems. Thereby, the article also points to the underlying interests of these rōshis.

The letter makes it clear that the teachers have heard first hand reports of Eido Shimano's activities directly from a number of the women involved. The repetitive nature of the allegations over a three decade period during which these alleged transgressions occurred without any formal public investigation or adequate resolution was so great that it motivated eight prominent Zen leaders from across America to sign the document, in the name of the greater North American Zen Maha-Sangha."

James: These are some of the allegations that really seem to show the Roshi as having acted highly inappropriately. If true, (and they seem true) he has also defaced and mocked the American Zen tradition. As well as Buddhism in general:

Over the past three decades, we have interviewed many former students of Shimano Roshi. Their stories are consistent: trust placed in an apparently wise and compassionate teacher, only to have that trust manipulated in the form of his sexual misconduct and abuse. Some of these students elected to continue their practice with us; most of them wanted nothing further to do with Zen Buddhism.

James: This is extremely serious. This trusted monk was supposed to show people how to liberate themselves from suffering--not increase their suffering!! What an appalling perversion of Buddhism!! And he allegedly did it multiple times over DECADES!! He not only allegedly abused them but he has also lead people astray from the path, which is a very egregious action in Buddhism. And if other Zen teachers knew of these transgressions and did nothing about it are just as culpable in my view. A lot of Buddhists believe it is rare to find the path of the Buddha and to lead people astray from it is to hold the enlightenment of fledgling beings in the palm of your hand and then tossing that into a deep, dark and muddy hole. The karma that such a false leader incurs must be enormous.

There is a saying in a Jataka which can be summarized as follows: “When a herd of cattle is traveling, if the leading bull strays, the whole herd goes astray. So it is with the people. If the appointed leader practices adhamma or unrighteousness, the multitude will also practise it. The whole nation will suffer if that one fails to abide by the Dhamma. When a herd of cattle is traveling, if the leading bull keeps to the proper course, the whole herd will do the same. So it is with the people. If the appointed leader abides by the Dhamma, the multitude will do likewise. The whole nation will be content if the leader upholds the Dhamma. This Buddhist saying is quite clear. The behavior of the leader is of great consequence to the masses as they will inevitably follow his example."

James: The Vinaya, which is a body of rules of monastics states, "Like a person, whose head is cut off, is unable to live with that mutilated body, a bhikkhu having associated with sex becomes a non-samana and non-sakyan-son (i.e. loses his monkhood and the membership among the Buddha’s sangha)." It might be tempting by some to ignore this uncomfortable issue but if we truly believe the essence of Buddha's message was to help others over-come suffering then we owe it to these victims, and even the Roshi himself to address this completely. It is so sad that this drove some people away from Buddhism but regardless, I hope that they find the peace and relief from suffering that they deserve.

~Peace to all beings~

Does Tiger Woods Practice Booty-ism or Buddhism?

Today is the day that Tiger Woods finally turns back to golf but of course the media won't stop talking about the scandal, so I figured I might as well take another crack at it myself. I'm not interested in the sexual escapades as that's his business. I try not to get involved with other peoples' sex lives. No, I'm talking about the Buddhist issue, which I guess in this instance sort of relates to the sexual issue but that's not my main point. My main point is about the use of Buddhist terms in relation to pop culture. Well, anyway, today someone thought it would be funny to fly a plane over the golf course with a banner that read, "Tiger, are you sure you didn't mean Booty-ism?"

Booty-ism of course being a mangling of the term "Buddhism." Booty, for all you none American English speakers is what some Americans use as slang for the butt. It's used in American street slang in the context of a "Booty call." That is a term referring to when one someone calls a "friend" on the telephone to meet up for sex. So, they're trying to be clever in making his religion, Buddhism sound similar to a sex term because of his past struggles with infidelity.

I'm not really offended over this one but the reason I am writing about it is to show how for all our intelligence, skills, education and rearing we humans are very childish. As I read on the great, "The Worst Horse," blog it's very sad that someone actually paid money to pay for that banner. This is the same kind of behavior I had to put up with in school with a last name like, "Ure." It's pronounced phonetically as, "Yewur" but the kids use to call me "Urine" as in the bodily fluid. Haha--very funny. I figured they were just jealous because I have a unique name with only three letters.

The point is that there are times to defend Buddhism and how it's used in our societies but we (or at least I) need to pick our battles. Otherwise, if we get upset over every bit of misuse of something Buddhist related we'd all be in the mental ward. That said, I enjoy dissecting a good "Dharma Burger." Speaking of which, Tiger is said to be getting Buddhist sayings on his Blackberry and asking for privacy in his hotel room for meditating. So, it's great to see Tiger walking the path again. I wasn't interested in his foibles as much as the Buddhist angle to the story. I'm not perfect, I have my weaknesses, I'm not a moral guide exactly so I leave that up to him and his wife. I mean, come on. Is his sex life really any of our business anyway?

~Peace to all beings~

Dalai Lama: Tiger Woods? Who's that?

Besides the obvious advice of cultivating self-discipline, I think the best thing about the Dalai Lama's comments in regard to Tiger Woods and Buddhism was that he needed to be told who Tiger Woods was in the first place!! I think the Dalai Lama's ignorance about celebrities and their lives is a good thing--it's a good example to put forth. So many of us are obsessed with celebrities because we find our own lives unsatisfactory, boring or inadequate in one way or another. This obsession is a craving for a different life, one where we are famous, beautiful and/or rich. Anything but our "ordinary selves."

The world of celebrity looks glamorous and ideal but it's a facade for fellow, flawed humans who are just as miserable as anyone else in this sea of samsara. Because when we peel back the layer of glitz, glamour, make-up and good acting skills we see that they live very flawed lives of sex, drug and money addictions amongst many other chains of suffering that bind them. Our obsession is a form of escapism in a desperate but futile search for happiness in the material world. Yet once we return from the movie or finish reading the celebrity magazine we must face our lives again. The waves of reality come washing back in like a tidal wave to inundate and knock us over with the suffering that we tried to ignore.

This is why, like the Dalai Lama, I generally am not very interested in the lives of celebrities. I appreciate their art but I don't see them as examples of how to live a life with less suffering. One of the only "celebrities" that I think does that is the Dalai Lama himself.

~Peace to all beings~

Buddhism and Homosexuality.

According to the ancient Indian understanding, homosexuals were thought of simply as being 'the third nature' (tritiya prakti), rather than as perverted, deviant or sick. With its emphasis on psychology and cause and effect, Buddhism judges acts, including sexual acts, primarily by the intention (cetana) behind them and the effect they have.

We will now briefly examine the various objections to homosexuality and give Buddhist rebuttals to them. The most common Christian and Muslim objection to homosexuality is that it is unnatural and "goes against the order of nature". There seems to be little evidence for this. Miriam Rothschild, the eminent biologist who played a crucial role in the fight to decriminalize homosexuality in Britain, pointed out at the time that homosexual behaviour has been observed in almost every known species of animal. Secondly, it could be argued that while the biological function of sex is reproduction, most sexual activity today is not for reproduction, but for recreation and emotional fulfillment, and that this too is a legitimate function of sex.

Theravada Buddhist countries like Sri Lanka and Burma had no legal statutes against homosexuality between consenting adults until the colonial era when they were introduced by the British. Thailand, which had no colonial experience, still has no such laws. This had led some Western homosexuals to believe that homosexuality is quite accepted in Buddhist countries of South and South-east Asia. This is certainly not true. In such countries, when homosexuals are thought of at all, it is more likely to be in a good-humored way or with a degree of pity. Certainly the loathing, fear and hatred that the Western homosexual has so often had to endure is absent and this is due, to a very large degree, Buddhism's humane and tolerant influence. This has not always been the case though as the Dalai Lama and Tibetan Buddhism has had a different view on homosexuality.

At a press conference in 1997 the Dalai Lama said; 'From a Buddhist point of view (lesbian and gay sex)...is generally considered sexual misconduct.' As soon as he realized what he had done he immediately back-peddled. He called a meeting with gay and lesbian representatives, during which he expressed the 'willingness to consider the possibility that some of the teachings may be specific to a particular cultural and historic context'.

The truth is that while the Dalai Lama is one of the kindest people imaginable, he is also a very traditional Tibetan in many ways – and traditional Tibetan culture, like most cultures, has very skewed and confused ideas about homosexuality. Tibetan Buddhism does not derive its ideas about homosexuality from the earliest teachings of the Buddha but from Mahayana sutras and sastras, the earliest of which dates from approximately 500 year after the Buddha. By this time Indian Buddhists were being influenced by various popular Indian notions and incorporating them into their understanding of the Dhamma; sometimes with not very happy results. One such notion was the idea that sexual acts could be judged right or wrong depending on 'place, person and orifice.'

Exactly how does the law of kamma distinguish one orifice from another? Other problems arise when we realize that many male homosexuals practice intercural sex and mutual masturbation rather than penetrative sex. And exactly which sexual organ do lesbians use to penetrate the vagina of their partner? The Dalai Lama is also reported to have said that he had difficulty imagining the mechanics of homosexual sex, saying that nature had arranged male and female organs 'in such a manner that is very suitable...same-sex organs cannot manage well.'

With all due respect to the Dalai Lama, and I do have the highest respect for him, this statement shows both his ignorance and naivety concerning sex, and I might add, of some aspects of the Dhamma as well. What on earth have Buddhist ethical judgments got to do with two body-parts fitting together 'properly' or not? I often clean my ear with my finger despite it not fitting into my ear canal very well. Does this mean I make negative kamma every time I clean my ear?

James: And we must remember that monks have their own sexual code that has more restrictions than for the laity.

~Peace to all beings~