nem wrote:From MN 41:
"Abandoning sexual misconduct, one abstains from sexual misconduct; he does not have intercourse with women who are protected by their mother, father, mother and father, brother, sister, or relatives, who have a husband, who are protected by law, or with those already engaged"
What is your understanding of the bold text?
I'm thinking of a certain 27 year old woman that I know, whose (Catholic) parents threaten to disown her if she has sex before marriage... even though everyone knows she must be. Even if she was 80 years old, and finally had sex but was not married, still her parents would want to disown her for this.
So by having sex with her in the context of a committed relationship, would someone be breaking the precept on sexual misconduct? From my perspective, the woman's parents are just control freaks, and what do their likes or dislikes have to do with sexual misconduct, or a fundamental precept in practicing the Dhamma.
In a literal sense....They could be opposed to her having sex within marriage, and still it could be said the husband is breaking the precept? Having sexual misconduct because he's having sex with his own wife and the family does not approve of him or is protecting her? They'll be protecting her with regards to being involved with men, her whole life, that is apparent. She's had only 3 boyfriend and had to hide the fact that she had them. Her parents assume that someone in going to come and sit in the parlor a few times, make small talk, and then marry her without even going out of the house with her (because, if she's out on the street with a man, then she must be sneaking off to have sex with him). Yes, I'm serious, that's how they think.
I think I'm missing something from Indian cultural context...what does it mean "women who are protected by their mother, father, mother and father, brother, sister, or relatives"?
that would possibly be someone who is under the parental guardianship. the law here as we understand it today is not what is being referred to, rather, it is someone who is still under guardianship.
However, if anyone wishes to engage in a full relationship with someone neither should not be pushed or pressured into anything, as that would still be sexual misconduct.
Whatever everyone else may think they know is irrelevant, particularly when it comes to what others think or do. What is relevant is that sexual lust is a gross hindrance, and a big issue in relationships lack of longevity. if someone wants to be with someone sex is far from the pinnacle of being with them.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.John Stuart Mill