Just today, a lay yogi who had read the booklet by Bhante Aggacitta below on the 5 precepts had a conversation with me about the range of 3rd precept.
The relevant pages are in the 3rd precept pages (40-54), and Appendix C (86-87) on Forbidden persons.
I just read that so before that, I always assumed that the gender thing in the wordings of precepts can just be gender switched and remains the same wording. However, according to the booklet, it doesn’t provide the same treatment for the two genders.
In particular the following two:
- The personal status of a male (his marital status, age, dependency, etc.) does not bar him from having sex with a female who is not in his forbidden list.
- For a female, there are no males forbidden to her if she is unmarried, unattached or not “protected by [law with threat of] penalty”. In other words, such a female who has reached the legal age—regardless of whether she is still protected by her guardians—does not break the precept when she has sex with any male.
Bhante Aggacitta claimed that this is based on the Pali scriptures (maybe commentaries?), is there any basis in it?
Cause the above two together says adultery in the form of a married male with a single, legal age female doesn’t break the precept, whereas gender switched it does.
Granted that there’s also social considerations to avoid such adultery, but I think it’s an unfair wording of the precept.
Also, the lay yogi I talked to said that rape is protection by law, so I asked if there’s a new country without law for rape, would rape then not break the 3rd precept in that country? He said no it doesn’t break that precept.
What do you guys (edit add on: and gals and whatever gender you are) think?