Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1997, page 48
who stayed and worked for him by saying they were on their eighth out of nine lives, while
the men were only on their sixth or seventh. Hence, the women could take on more
responsibility, give more. One of the leader‟s highest compliments was to tell a woman that
she was becoming more like a man.
Dominance and Submission
The everyday exercise of dominance and submission is so integral to our culture that we
barely see it. Built on the foundational belief of a basic flaw in the submissive, usually the
woman, and the perfection or mastery of the dominant, usually the man, this inequality
justifies one person‟s dominance over another.
While the dynamics of dominance and submission affect both men and women, they hit
women particularly hard, for more often women tend to be on the submission side of the
equation. As much as people talk about both parties being hurt by abusive relationships, the
one who is forced to submit feels the immediate pain of humiliation, self-doubt, craziness,
rage, and fear. For the perpetrator, the longer term effects of dominating --hardness, lack
of empathy, isolation, a narrow self-centeredness, close-mindedness, and illusions of
grandeur --develop only gradually. The immediate experience for the one in control is that
of power, strength, and self-confidence thus, exercising power over others gives immediate
satisfaction. In this dynamic, the humiliation of the submissive brings the sense of life-
enhancement to the dominator. While the addiction metaphor may be overused, in the short
run, abusive control brings --not unlike an addictive drug --a hit of reinforcing pleasure,
while only the longer term need to withdraw from the habit brings the pain. Why then
should the person living psychologically on control give up the high?
On the other hand, why doesn‟t the one on the receiving end of abusive control get away
from her tormenter? This is the question, of course, that most interests us. This same
question comes up repeatedly in reference to battered women. Why don‟t they just leave?
Thoughtful answers lead us into the thorny territory of the fearful, autocratic mind, a mind
that is cultivated through Western education, the media, religion, and the patriarchal family.
Though we pride ourselves on producing free thinkers, our cultural institutions forge
invisible chains between the sexes made of images of male glory (Rambo) and female
invisibleness (Sleeping Beauty) or subservience (Snow White), which lead too easily to both
psychological and physical violence.3
The Lesser Sex
Subtly imbued with sex-role stereotypes and gender inequities from an early age, women
are subjected to systematic training to be second best, taught that their worth and survival
depend on physical attractiveness and pleasing men. (Think of the myths alone that our
children hear: Cinderella, Rapunzel, Rose Red, The Little Mermaid, to name just a few,
where the passive, beautiful heroine in distress is rescued by her prince). Women are raised
to be susceptible to dominant men, to expect to be saved by men, and to project their own
power and image of God onto men. Men, meanwhile, are vaunted in history, myth, and
science as natural leaders, thinkers, competitors, and creators. And they are socialized to be
oblivious to the abuse they perpetrate through this culturally privileged position and the
unconscious dominance and denigration of women (and the “feminine” in themselves) that
it inculcates.
Let us face, at last, the implications of this worldview, let us face them head-on. In the
Western intellectual tradition, woman is viewed as less than man. This view is supported by
science through the hierarchical ordering of biology by religion through the creation myths
and by a philosophy that since Socrates has contrasted the objective, rational mind of the
masculine with the subjective, feeling body of the female. (Both female and body are
posited therein as an impediment to knowledge). These prejudices are woven so deeply into

Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1997, page 49
the fabric of our perceptions, our thinking and our sense of self, that we take them
completely for granted.4 As we discuss how coercive control relies on dominance and
submission, we will see how easily this view of woman as an inferior being plays into
authoritarian environments.
“Feminine” Sources of Knowledge and Power
Women‟s unique sources of power and creativity have been maligned and denigrated over
the centuries. Our closeness to the rhythms of nature through sexuality and the
reproductive potential of our bodies have been turned against us, cited as an excuse for our
absence from the spheres of cultural achievement long dominated by men. In our group the
denigration of the emotions and the common perception of the body as a major block to
enlightened behavior played roles of paramount importance. The body and sexuality, anger
and intuition were especially controlled and devalued, effectively silencing the voice that
emerges when we have full access to these aspects of ourselves.
Sexuality and the body. Being present to each moment was the ostensible raison d’être of
the community. Unfortunately, presence, as we learned it, included but minimal attention to
the body. Rather, we learned mainly a mental operation born of “divided attention.” Divided
attention, or non-identification, was the heart of the practices that sustained and united the
community. This practice produced evocative altered states, but also often effected a split
from the body. This dissociative split encouraged us to believe that we were conquering our
pain, suffering, and difficult emotions by passing into more exalted states of consciousness.
In fact, we systematically numbed ourselves to body sensations by this practice. Most of us
adhered to typically Judeo-Christian attitudes about bodily impulses as enemies to be
conquered in the quest for enlightenment thus, we isolated ourselves from those instinctual
sources integral to the embodied, awakened heart and mind. We believe this may be
especially true for women in whom body and mind connections are stronger because of our
predominant role in bringing in the next generation.
As usual in such groups, myriad exercises surrounded sexuality. As mentioned earlier, sex
outside marriage was prohibited. Though not everyone complied, marriage was strongly
recommended for those in the “inner circle” others might pursue clandestine escapades but
were always subject to being turned in. Homosexuality was forbidden until recently. Women
were often viewed as sexual predators whose activity had to be monitored. Dowdy richness
--Victorian cameos, Gucci scarves, little stacked heels, midcalf straight skirts --was the
preferred norm for years, a 50-year-old matronly look was rewarded and encouraged.
Meanwhile, charges of the misuse of sex were leveled at those who wore short dresses,
tight blouses, laughed too loudly, or flirted.
It gradually came out that the leader was involved in an ongoing series of sexual encounters
with young male devotees. Amazingly, in this highly controlled environment, it was
exceedingly difficult for this information to be taken in. Let us remember that coercive
control includes thought control. The implications of the leader‟s involvement with his
followers were simply not permitted to take hold in the minds of those of us who were
captive to his worldview. Those outside a group always want to know: how did we manage
this? Some excused it by saying the leader was still evolving, that sex was the last obstacle
that he was working out through these loving relations with his followers.
More importantly, in certain states of consciousness, which we had learned to create in
ourselves through various meditative practices, it is possible to experience the three-
dimensional world of everyday reality as unreal, as maya, an illusion, or “a play.” In these
states of mind, the dreamlike quality of everyday life becomes apparent. Along with these
perceptions comes the sense of a certain delightful connectedness to everything, sometimes
an infusion of love or beauty or sweetness accompanies these prayerful states of mind. We
do not believe these states of mind are so different from the results of contemplative