From the article in "the revealer" (see link above):
"Sexual violation is an interpretive process. Our experience of an encounter is conditioned by our socially embedded and embodied positionality. Even the language available to describe the experience is informed by our discursive context. Approaching this event in this light helps us to see clear distinctions between our interpretive framework and many devotees’ interpretive framework. For contemporary audiences (especially secular humanist critics), it is a clear case of sexual abuse. For devotees (or at least these particular devotees), it is the guru’s līlā (divine play) that affects positive spiritual transformation in ways beyond human comprehension. Of course, outsiders can choose to argue that this claim is merely a theological veneer for the nefarious aim of the guru’s sexual gratification, but we should not ignore these perspectives. Neither should we supplant them with our own moral standards. That which is deemed offensive and immoral is generated through discourse and shaped by our historical, social, and cultural context. Superimposing our own revulsions onto others, we lose vital explanatory components that would aid in understanding alternative worldviews. We also falsely presume that our own contemporary discourses of morality are universal."
Comments