Bad Buddhist vs. The Third Precept
Aware of the suffering caused by sexual misconduct, I am committed to cultivate responsibility and learn ways to protect the safety and integrity of individuals, couples, families, and society. I am determined not to engage in sexual relations without love and a long-term commitment. To preserve the happiness of myself and others, I am determined to respect my commitments and the commitments of others. I will do everything in my power to protect children from sexual abuse and to prevent couples and families from being broken by sexual misconduct. — Thich Nath Hanh
| All right, yeeow, the Third Precept! The juicy one — sexual misconduct. Time for some bad Buddhism! So far my impression of the Buddha and his ultimate Guide for Dummies has been that he's basically right all the time. Not because a divine being or bush or birdie told him what to say, but just because he was good at seeing what kinds of things made people happy and what kinds of things made people miserable. He also took a long view: something might make you happy right now, this instant, but if the real cost of that indulgence makes you miserable the next moment — or, as is often the case, becomes a pattern that ossifies and systematizes into unhappiness in your life — or, worse, sucks other people in and creates an environment of distrust and disharmony for everyone around you — then he recommended abstaining from it. Period. As a matter of practice, so you don't even have to waste time on the "well, maybe I could just this once" trip. So when I read the third precept, I'm predisposed to agree. I don't need the Buddha to tell me that cheating is bad; I already thought so, wouldn't do it and wouldn't want my guy to do it. But I did read a letter in Andrea Nemerson's column recently that adds something else into the mix. The letter was from a woman who was pretty sure she never wanted to have sex with her husband again. The response was, basically, that the woman should therefore be prepared to turn a blind eye when her husband looked elsewhere for sexual contact. I've seen similar advice from Dan Savage, who advocates partners being "good, giving and game" — or else giving up their exclusive rights over their partner's sex life. So in these cases, cheating could be what allows two married people to stay married. I don't think that's what Thich Nath Hanh had in mind for "prevent couples and families from being broken." But what if the "sexual misconduct" threatening to destroy a family is one person's demand for the other's sexual nullification? And furthermore, regarding "not to engage in sexual relations without love and a long-term commitment" — isn't that nullifying single people? I guess this one comes down to the word "love," or more importantly, "without love." The Buddha saw that casual sex could be a way for people to exploit and hurt each other, and that's not good for people or communities. But if you treat your hookup du jour or booty-call-person with all possible caring, human decency and respect, then might that fulfill the notion of "sex with love"? (And what if the hookup or callee doesn't want you to care?) But all of this is just me skirting the real issue. I want the Buddha and Thich Nath Hanh to be right about this — to the letter — because that will give me permission to HATE THE ROTTEN LITTLE WENCH WHO KEEPS FLIRTING WITH MY BOYFRIEND. Well, actually, hating people isn't part of the deal. No permission there. But it would give me some fine-sounding words to spout as I try to justify my petty jealousy to myself. It's not that I'm worried she'll try anything. She also flirts with other guys (her other friends' boyfriends, unfortunately) and none of them appears to be an actual target. She's happily paired off (though I have to wonder what her guy thinks of all the flirting) and my guy is not interested (yes, I have watched for signs and even asked straight out). I'm not anti-flirting in principle. Flirting is good: it keeps conversation lively, it makes us feel witty and sexy and young (or witty and sexy and wise), and it's fun. It should be perfectly possible for couples, groups of friends, and other communities to accept and benefit from a range of flirtatious behavior, and to communicate disapproval to those who take things too far. No biggie. In my case, I just don't like what this woman's behavior says about her regard for me. I don't like it that she gets to appear friendly (as in, someone who behaves like a friend) to me while signalling that she wants special, semi-sexual attention from him. It feels like a violation of the girl code. She gloms onto him at parties even though she sees him frequently during the week; her body language (or "protean signals," according to researchers) can only be called a display. I try not to watch, but it makes me feel like I'm trapped in one of those movie scenes where someone has a weapon in someone else's back, and the person has to smile and look normal while being hustled out to the parking lot where they'll get beat up or shoved into a car. I feel crazy and stupid for letting it bother me — what, am I in seventh grade or something? Jesus. Grow up. And stop fantasizing about putting her in Third Precept Jail. There is no Third Precept Jail. None. |  In case anyone wants to brush up on technique  This handy guide, called Our Deportment: The Manners, Conduct and Dress of the Most Refined Society, published in 1882, has this to say about flirting: “It is only the contemptible flirt that keeps an honorable man in suspense for the purpose of glorifying herself by his attentions in the eyes of friends. Nor would any but a frivolous or vicious girl boast of the offer she has received and rejected.” See? I'm not crazy, right? Contemptible! Vicious! It says so right here! Of course, if I'm looking to the Victorians for moral support, I clearly have bigger problems than I thought...  But this one is pretty bad, right? I mean, if you saw this chick acting like that around your significant other, what would you think? Be honest. |
 SUBSCRIBE | VIEW MY PROFILE |
