Religions on sexuality: same-same, but different (the Dalai Lama and Buddhism edition)

by Furry Girl

02.22.10

Today in long-standing annoyances: the left's schizophrenia about religion- namely, which beliefs are chic and which beliefs are deplorable.

As a whole, lefties/liberals love to point out that they're better than those normal people and the silly dogmas of the desert religions, but often embrace their own interpretations of eastern and indigenous religions.  Lefties picket Mormon churches for their support of Prop 8, but squeal at the chance to see The Dalai Lama live in person.  They'll look down their noses at those nutty Catholics taking the Eucharist, but love buying homeopathic tablets from Whole Foods for their subjective ailments.

Since every single religion has anti-woman, anti-queer, and anti-sex rhetoric as major core values, why are some religions slammed as "oppressive" and "sexist" and "made-up nonsense", and other religions are exempt from criticism?

I don't have anything particularly against eastern religions or white folks' selective appropriations of the beliefs of Native Americans, but it fascinates me that it's liberal blasphemy to refuse to create a special safe haven for the "cool" religious beliefs when you're talking about the absurdity religion as a whole. "Religion is patriarchal nonsense invented to control women and keep the poor oppressed through promises of an afterlife in exchange for obedience!... except for, you know, Buddhism, because it's about nonviolence, or karma, or something."

In my two and a half years on Twitter, nothing has elicited more angry replies than the few times I've pointed out that His Supreme Magicalness The Dalai Lama is a homophobe.  People react as though I'm stomping on kittens if I point out his own statements about how any form of non-procreative sexual behavior is wrong.  (For more of such kitten-stomping, see these bits from Wikipedia, Michael Parenti, SkepticBlog, and Q-Notes.)

One of my favorite things I've seen on the topic was a piece from "John Safran VS God", where the Australian comedian quizzed people on the street about whether certain statements on sexuality were said by the Pope or the Dalai Lama.


Does The Dalai Lama dictate dogma to Buddhists, like the Catholic Pope?  No.

So, what do other Buddhists think about sexuality?  It's not a religion with a Bible or a set of precise rules that one can refer back to, but the gist of the religion is that one achieves true happiness/peace/nirvana only though renouncing pleasures of the senses (sex) and ceasing desires.  That doesn't sound like a faith that's poised to look kindly on me starting my day with a vibrator- even if there is no official writ denouncing doing so.

Buddhism is a religion of vagueness, one whose non-commandment commandment to "avoid sexual misconduct" has been interpreted in a lot of different ways by different cultures.  I might not have a Buddhist "hell" to go to for engaging in my active/deviant sex life, but I also won't achieve enlightenment, and may well get knocked down the ladder in my reincarnations.  (It's a very passive-aggressive faith, don't you think?)

When I went to Thailand, one of the first things impressed upon me, as a woman tourist, was to never touch the Buddhist monks you see all over the place.  Ever. If I were to so much as accidentally bump into one on public transportation, my inherent sordidness as a woman was so powerful that I would cause serious damage to his sacred good karma.  I've never been admonished of my dangerous sinful lady-powers when I've been to areas populated by a lot of Muslims, Mormons, Catholics, or Baptists.

(Thailand also burst my bubble that Thai Buddhists were trans-friendly and incredibly accepting of transwomen/kathoey in their culture.  Looking into the topic more, I found that it wasn't so much that the culture accepted trans people so much as it felt sorry for them.  Apparently, in order to have been born trans, you must have screwed up really badly in your last incarnation to have such an unpleasant station in this life, so Buddhists should be compassionate towards those former sinners.  Pity is not exactly my vision of queer liberation.)

I won't claim to be an expert on Buddhism, and like the nice liberal Christians who gloss over the violent horrors of the Bible in favor of saying that Jesus loves everyone, some of you can no doubt counter me with a lot of cute platitudes about how the faith is about tolerance.  From what I can see from the outside, though, Buddhism's anti-pleasure core value neither appeals to me, nor approves of the life I - and most people I know - lead.

I don't understand why so few other people take issue with Buddhism.  (I guess they're too busy gushing in awe when The Dalai Lama utters another one of his third-grade-reading-level versions of "be nice to each other", like they're really unique insights.)  It's nice that Buddhists aren't trying to take over the world through violence, but I think that's a pretty lousy metric for deciding if a group is "good" or not.

I'd like to close with a snippet from the excellent "Holier Than Thou" episode of Bullshit!.  After the show talks a bit about the brutal theocratic rule of Tibet under the Dalai Lama, Penn produces scales of evil, with China on one side, and The Dalai Lama on the other.

"Since Mr. Lama has been run out of Tibet, the Chinese have introduced secular education, running water, and electricity.  So, maybe life is a bit better on the ground there.  Of course, the Chinese have also thrown thousands into labor camps and prisons, stomped on as much free speech as possible, and then there's that whole fucked up communism thing. But if you ask Tenzin Gyatso - DBA "Lama", what is it with these holy people and their alias? - his holiness will tell you that he must return to power for the good of his people.  In this case, "good" may translate into his people living in squalor and his government condoning slavery.  Remember: the lesser of two evils is still evil, and the enemy of my enemy is not my friend."

[After months of this blog post being out there, I'm sick of getting comments from random people who've never read my blog before and are looking for some place to fight about why they think their religion is awesome.  Go whine about it in your LiveJournal.  I will not be publishing any more comments from people who's "contribution" is to try and have the same cliche debate with me about why they love religion and/or the Dalai Lama.  I've more than addressed everything I'm going to address, but if you want to keep debating religion with me, you can pay me $240 an hour to do so on iFriends, since that's what gets you off.  It's not that I can't rip your tired old arguments to shreds, it's that it bores me to do so.]





16 Comments

  1. My understanding of Buddhism is that it’s not so much about renouncing pleasures as renouncing attachments. Although traditionalists will be traditionalists, it’s not clear, in the abstract, that traditional sexual practices are any more consistent with this ideal than freer contemporary practices. (If anything, more the other way around.) I’m sure the Dalai Lama wouldn’t approve of your vibrator, but I don’t think it’s particularly inimical to the core values of Buddhism. No more so than television, football, or watermelon, anyhow.

    Comment by dclaudekatz — February 22, 2010 @ 10:30 pm

  2. A very thought-provoking post. I find certain aspects of Zen Buddhism interesting and perhaps even "enlightening" (it brought us Kerouac's writing and John Cage's music, didn't it?), but the basically uncritical attitude that so many Western liberals adopt toward anything eastern is endlessly annoying. (Part of me wants to invoke the "white guilt" concept, but the better part of me balks at the obviously ad hominem nature of that argument.) Isn't it fashionable to quote Lao Tzu from behind the counter of a Starbucks!

    Anyway, I've been following your blog for a while now, and although I'm young and inexperienced I have to say I always find your posts engaging and enlightening. I want to thank you. I used to be an anti-sex Christian myself, but have been converted over the past few years (not an easy process I can tell you). Yay for experimentation!

    Comment by Lane Powell — February 23, 2010 @ 1:07 am

  3. This lefty agrees with Karl Marx: "religion is the opiate of the masses." And, as far as I'm concerned, all sex between consenting adults is great fun and wholesome and valid.

    Comment by Ed — February 24, 2010 @ 12:10 pm

  4. "From society's point of view, mutually agreeable homosexual relations can be of mutual benefit, enjoyable and harmless."

    - Tenzin Gyatso (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_topics_and_Buddhism#Tibetan_Buddhism)

    I'm not convinced that Buddhism is homophobic, or that the Dalai Lama is particularly homophobic, or that either is homophobic to any degree that's really a problem. Maybe I'm wrong. But you've made such fundamental misunderstandings regarding Buddhism that I really don't believe anything you have to say on the subject. "Anti-pleasure principle..." and "I might not have a Buddhist "hell" to go to for engaging in my active/deviant sex life, but I also won't achieve enlightenment" are two notable howlers. As references, you use only other wannabe iconoclasts. Not that iconoclasm is always bad.

    By all means call for sexual reform in Buddhist societies - it looks like the chances for change are good. But don't wade in with ill-researched screeds on things you don't understand. It makes you sound like Fox News. Stick to bashing wooly-minded liberalism and homeopathy!

    Comment by Bill S. Preston Esq. — February 28, 2010 @ 9:20 am

  5. "Bill": Yes, I am aware that on occasion WHEN IT POLITICALLY SERVES HIM, the Dalai Lama will say something neutral or even supportive of gays. Saying "the right thing" when you're trying to win the support and money of liberal westerners doesn't count, in my book. And if you can summarize Buddhism as anything other than having as its core focus of the goal to cease all desires, passions, and worldly pleasures (like fucking), I'd love to hear your radical re-interpretation of the religion.

    Comment by Furry Girl — March 1, 2010 @ 7:27 pm

  6. "Furry": I did wonder, after writing that comment, why I felt the need to be a bit dickish to someone who is clearly a force for good. Trolling Fox News themselves would be no fun - you can't argue with sick minds. Perhaps I should have just shut up.

    It would be really nice if I could briefly sum up Buddhism, wouldn't it! But, amazingly, I can't. The issue I have with what you say in your article (but not in the comment, where you specify "worldly" pleasure) is that you don't acknowledge the possibility of pleasure in Buddhist practice itself. And we are, sometimes, talking about an awful lot of pleasure. The difference being that this pleasure is a by-product of practice, not the goal of the practice.

    It's great that you have your wonderful and varied sexual outlets, and I agree with you that they should be available for all. But speaking for myself, sometimes I just don't get what I want. And when that happens, do I want to let my attachment to sex make me miserable, or do I want to try and examine it and see what's really going on inside me? Is that sex-negative or sex-positive?

    "Saying "the right thing" when you're trying to win the support and money of liberal westerners doesn't count, in my book". Of course it counts. It's a whole lot more than Ratzinger's ever done. If the DL is, indeed, a filthy black-hearted homophobe, then getting him this far is a good first step. Let's keep going, not start a witch-hunt.

    Comment by Bill S. Preston Esq. — March 2, 2010 @ 5:33 pm

  7. Getting someone to say "the right thing" in front of one crowd in order to get their money and support, and then say otherwise everywhere else, is NOT actually a success. Lying to people to fleece them of cash is hardly a noble trait. And if the best thing your Dalai Lama has going for him is that you think he's less anti-gay than the Pope, well... fine, you "win". Congratulations on your awesome religion. *rolls eyes*

    Comment by Furry Girl — March 2, 2010 @ 5:38 pm

  8. I agree with Bill. What people in Buddhist cultures actually do in practice is what it is, but Buddhist teachings call on people to renounce attachment, not pleasure.

    Attachment, as I understand it, is like addiction; there's nothing wrong with having money as long as having money isn't so important to you that you cannot be happy without it. Having sex - of any sort, with whomsoever you choose - is great, as long as you can be happy without it as well. I love my vibrator, and it's better than a coffee to put me in a good mood for the morning, but if I don't have it with me, that's ok too. If I couldn't get out of bed in the morning without that vibe, or if doing so left me in a bad mood all day, then it would be attachment, and no healthier than an "attachment" to cigarettes or cocaine.

    As for the Dalai Lama being homophobic - one of the other core Buddhist teachings is to not take anything on faith, no matter who says it. To think for yourself, and show compassion to all. The Dalai Lama says some very insightful and wise things, and if he also says some hateful and unwise things, then surely we can learn to take the good and ignore the bad? His own religion and writings demand that we do no less.

    Comment by Dani — March 15, 2010 @ 5:39 pm

  9. "Surely we can learn to take the good and ignore the bad?"

    That's the worst defense of religion (or anything else) that I have ever heard. Do you have that attitude about, say, drugs that have been shown to kill too many patients in trials, or food that's gone rotten, or wars where lots of civilians are killed? Slavery? Oppression of the many to benefit the few? Climate change because powerful nations enjoy living excessively?

    Yes, let's always ignore bad things and only acknowledge good things. If there's a negligible and highly-debatable "upside" to anything, that's all that matters.

    Comment by Furry Girl — March 15, 2010 @ 9:46 pm

  10. I like the the refreshing no bullshit tone of this blog. This piece is probably the best example of that.

    The Lama rule of Tibet was one where class oppression was heavily enforced. Its ironic that the western left are so quick to yell "free Tibet" and follow the Dalai Lama - when Lama rule meant slavery and total lack of freedom for 95% of that country's population.

    Comment by Nick Kelly — March 18, 2010 @ 12:42 am

  11. Great post. I spend a fair amount of my intellect compromising when I know that the person I am compromising with would gladly smash me to rhetorical or actual bits if given the chance. I've got a friend who says so many crazy things about his holiness and what every peyote based god crap she can that I refuse to see her anymore. Now I may wade back into those waters infused with your refreshing irreverance. Thanks!

    Comment by vskwitness — March 24, 2010 @ 2:17 pm

  12. Just found this blog through Belle de Jour - as someone 'from the East', I find it endlessly irritating when white/western/anglos/whatever will tolerate Buddhism and not Christianity. So thank you.

    In theory you could make up a whole lot of bullshit about how Christianity is all about the love and only the New Testament and only about what Jesus and his disciples say, but that's theory, not practice. In theory Buddhism is all happy nirvana-seeking attachment-denying goodness, but in practice it's just as narrow-minded as any brand of Christianity I've seen. And let's not forget the endless religious wars fought in the name of Buddhism. (Just look at what happened to the Manichaens in China during Buddhist rule, or for a more relevant and contemporary example, the Buddhists who burn Christian effigies and loot Christian shops in South Korea.) Sure, a few practitioners could come up with their own vanilla-flavoured white-washed version of Buddhism, but Buddhism practiced on a wide scale, Buddhism that believes in manifestations of bodhisattvas and such doesn't strike me as any more enlightened or tolerant than any other religion.

    So anyway, thank you.

    Comment by cici — April 15, 2010 @ 8:29 pm

  13. Of course you must know about Angie ( http://angietheantitheist.blogspot.com/ ) but on the off chance you don't...

    Comment by lovesickrobot — June 9, 2010 @ 5:25 am

  14. Right on, being a horrible Leftie/anarchist/whatever I believe as long as its ecologically based really - this religious fluffiness comes to bother me near every time I hang out with anyone else from the Greenie culture. At least someone else sees what I do.

    Comment by Dave — December 18, 2010 @ 12:34 am

  15. Comment by Trackbacks — May 18, 2013 @ 4:00 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Furry Girl: a good time not yet had by all.

Activism

My adult sites

More of me online

Enjoy my writing? I enjoy presents!

Buy SWAAY shirts:

Browse by topic

New to my blog? Some favorite posts

Favorite sex/ho blogs

Videos and podcasts

Sex workers' rights info

Search

RSS