Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Right livelihood?
NB1100
Explorer
Hi all,
As far as I'm aware selling clothes or fashion is not wrong livelihood, but clothing can be casual, sexy, formal, etc. therefore can this be considered wrong livelihood because it is promoting sensuality?
0
Comments
My thought would be that sensuality is not sexual misconduct, and therefore you are not promoting behaviour that's against the precepts. Being a brothel keeper or pimp would be a lot more dubious, I'd say selling sexy clothes is ok.
What makes you think promoting sensuality would be wrong livelihood? The benchmark is, does it do harm or take advantage of people's suffering. Selling sexy underwear or even sex toys does neither. A clerk working in a Victoria's Secret shop is providing a helpful service, harming nobody, taking advantage of nobody.
I don't think I'd be willing to take that absolute position.
Victoria's Secret promotes the concept of a "size zero" body image, when the average US dress size is 12-14. Women shopping in the store, or passing by it's store front, who don't fit that mold may get self conscious about their own bodies, leading to suffering. Is it the clerk who made the woman self conscious? Not directly. But the clerk did support an organization that did.
Victoria's Secret is also a symbol of sexuality. A woman wears a nice piece of underwear, bends over to pick something up, and a married man catches a peek and gets "unclean thoughts." Which may lead to an unfaithful husband, suffering, sexual misconduct . . . Is any of that the clerk's fault? Not directly. But the clerk did support an organization that made sexuality it's symbol. Does that make the clerk an indirect participant?
I've heard of the five types of business that are harmful to undertake, which are (1) business in weapons, (2) business in human beings (slave trading, prostitution), (3) business in meat, (4) business in intoxicants, and (5) business in poison (producing/trading in any kind of toxic product designed to kill).
Those five are, from what I've ready, the absolute "no's." Everything else is a spectrum. You have to find out where your ethics are on that spectrum.
One of the authors of Mindfulness and Money (https://www.amazon.com/Mindfulness-Money-Buddhist-Path-Abundance/dp/0767909143) runs Windhorse Trading, Inc., a company that employs buddhists to sell clothing, among other items. In the book, the authors talk about making sure they put the products they sell under the right lights, to make sure it isn't deceiving. They also make sure they talk to their customers about what items they really want, or need, and occasionally talk a customer out of buying an item if it isn't the right fit. All good, ethically responsible buddhist practices put into place in a clothing enterprise. So, the business of clothing generally can be fine, assuming you go about it the right way. Which is just about like everything else. An attorney can do alot of good in the world, or can do alot of bad. It's all about the practice, and less about the industry.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say people have brains and most of the time, they use them.
We need to apply this logic to this scenario also.
The onus is on the women shopping in the store. The arising of self consciousness is their arising.
Now THIS example really grinds my gears. The only person responsible for getting unclean thoughts, an unwanted boner and being an unfaithful husband is the husband. Blaming the clerk, the company or the woman wearing the "nice piece of underwear" is, quite frankly a load of bullshit and victim blaming and shame on you for even thinking this is a valid example to use.
As for "ethics on the spectrum", no one can even agree on whether the Precepts are absolutes or guidelines so good luck with that line of thinking.
....Open the Gates, @dhammachick's on a roll tonight.....
I once had a 15-minute rant at a family friend for his sexist remark one evening, and my then 82-year-old mother told me to "Calm your tits, darling".... I don't know what stunned him more. My rant, or my mother's cautionary comment.
FWIW, I agree with you, but .... you know......
Must be something in the air
I've pointed out before that a list of jobs made thousands of years ago, when the selection of jobs was extremely limited, should not be trotted out as Gospel and all you need to know to pick your right livelihood. How about payday loan lenders? That's not on the list of banned occupations but it directly preys on people's suffering. How about prison guard? They didn't have prisons back then. You got killed or mutilated and that was that. Come to think of it, the list doesn't include thousands of jobs we have today that in one way or another take advantage of people. On the other hand, was selling poison such a well known profession that it had to be on the short list of banned occupations?
Now, as to not dealing in meat. I have a local meat market. They get truckloads of meat products and are very popular. If I had to pay the bills and someone offered me a job there, this Buddhist would take it and think nothing of it. In the same way, if I had to, I'd take a gun to hunt and put meat on the table like I did as a teenager rather than let people go hungry and again see nothing wrong with it. I would not enjoy it. Neither would it be right to see people go hungry if I have the means to fix it. We are not monks. There is something wrong with a philosophy of religion that puts strict adherence to rules above living a normal life.
How is this any different than the person brewing beer, or distilling liquors, knowing (with a fair amount of certainty) that a percentage of the people purchasing your products will die as a result (alcoholism, drunk driving), or others will die (domestic violence, drunk driving).
Yes, people have brains. Yes, it's easy to blame other people. No, it isn't easy not contributing to the cause.
Woah. Blame? Shame? Really? Who's victim blaming? Just because you interpreted it that way doesn't make it so. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with it. If it makes the woman feel good, comfortable, and happy with herself, all for it. But all our actions have consequences, whether to yourself or other people. The example could easily be used by a guy wearing a muscle tshirt. No difference really.
You may not like the message. I don't see the need to blame the messenger. But if it makes you feel better, so be it. I hope you get out of it what you desire.
Actually predatory lending was very much alive at that point in history. Why didn't it make the list? Who knows.
Oh sure they did. I think you're viewing it too narrowly. In any event, how is that not a form of "business in human beings"?
Who said the list was exhaustive?
And if it's a spectrum, and you found where you exist on the spectrum, why are you upset at the writings?
Personally, I'm no different than you. If forced, I'd probably break four of those (I wouldn't be willing to do a business in human beings) in an attempt to survive and make ends meat (pun intended). But that's me. I haven't been known to be the "best" buddhist.
Deleted - not worth it.
Moderator note
Let us establish first of all that this thread is talking about Right Livelihood, not uniquely the 'sex trade' (in the broadest possible sense of the term).
Secondly, the sex trade is a contentious subject matter, because there is a voluntary aspect and an exploitative aspect. There is a 'Light Side' and a Dark Side' and all too often the edges blur.
However, one thing is very clear and apparent: At the centre of either side, is the focus on the objectification of women, and the exploitation of their bodies.
The objectification of women and the detrimental use of their sexuality, and their bodies, is a sore subject for many women, because regarding the darker side of the "Sex Trade" there is very little doubt that the vast majority of those exploiting women, using them, selling them and abusing them, are men.
Moderator interjection ends.
So, @specialkayme you will forgive the resentment and rebuttal of your comments, because women, undoubtedly view things in an entirely different perspective to the way men do. And as has so often happened in ANY sphere of discussion, there comes a point where the male member of a discussion doesn't "get it".
Paraphrasing, you say that @dhammachick read an implication that wasn't there, and that if she saw it, it was her problem not yours.
I would ask you to review the comment in question and look at it from the feminine perspective.
The insinuation of blame, is there.
I think the fault lies not so much in your Intention, but in your phrasing.
I don't think you intentionally implicated the woman as the source of the lustful and inappropriate desire on the part of the husband, but reading the comment, it could be interpreted that way.
A woman sees things of this nature more acutely than a man does.
After all, men have been doing it for aeons, and women have been at the short end of the stick.
Rightly or wrongly, we're sensitive to such opinions, intentionally voiced or otherwise...
There is a list of occupations and lifestyles of living historical Buddhas on this page ...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahasiddha
For me it would depend on the company. Do they offer petite and plus sizes? If they don't then they are contributing to body shaming and working for them would be wrong livelihood for myself.
My company offers those sizes, but we need to understand that there is no such word as average. Give a size 12 pair of jeans to 10 ladies who all wear size 12 jeans, to try on, and I guarantee, it will not be a good fit for well over half of them. One garment - of whatever size - will never fit all the people who are classified as that size.
so "body shaming" in this instance is an inaccurate term.
You know what I'm saying.
Indeed we do, hence the difference of opinions shall we say....
If you needed a job badly and were offered one at a clothing store, you'd actually turn it down because it doesn't offer plus sizes? How about taking the job and then working to convince the store to stock plus sizes, while making sure any customers you serve that can't find their size knows it's the store's problem and you're working to change it?
On the other hand, a person could take a job at a "big and tall" clothing shop and show by their attitude and words they think the customers are freaks and fatties and cause suffering that way. My whole point is that I don't think it's the job, it's how you do it that matters. I think that list in the sutras was a mistake by the monk who wrote it. If you're a Buddhist and develop compassion and a clear view of human suffering, there are jobs you won't be able and willing to do, but not because they're on some list. Almost any situation is a chance to help all beings if you have the desire.
It really only takes a little common sense and listening to our own inner "angels and demons" to know if it's a good choice or not. If you look far enough, almost any job in the world can be questioned. Not everyone is able to be something like a social worker (and often times social workers and the like take poor care of themselves and end up really burned out and emotionally drained). You do the best you can to take care of yourself and your family and decrease harm you cause. That doesn't mean you can eliminate it.
Is working at Victoria's Secret really worse than working at McDonald's? What about Walmart? Gas stations? Mining? Factories? What do you think your ideal
Buddhist job would be?
If you are concerned that your job might not be living up to your own Buddhist standards, then it's time to consider something else (if you can). If not, then I wouldn't worry about everyone else. They are just trying to feed themselves, their kids, working through college, etc. Buying something in Vicky's Secret might be supporting a cooperation whose values you don't like. So don't buy anything if that's the case. But the person working there has a life they are supporting, too, and they need the job or they wouldn't be working.
It would be a pretty weird world if the only job I could get was at a women's clothing store, lol.
And for any women that think I'm coming at this from a male perspective, I'm basically voicing my wife's opinion. I didn't know Victorias Secret catered to certain size women until the other day when she mentioned it felt uncomfortable just walking past.
Who here can honestly say the fashion industry doesn't have at least a bit of responsibility for body shaming?
Come on, lmao.
There are a lot of people who bear some responsibility. But what can we do about any of them? If I feel uncomfortable, is that my problem to investigate or should I blame a faceless fashion designer, a magazine, Hollywood? The latter is certainly easier. That doesn't mean the others do not have culpability. But I can not do anything about them.
Though reality is full of grey areas and not really black and white, I think the definition of Right Livelihood as explained in the suttas is pretty clear:
Other means of earning one's living which fall under the category of wrong livelihood include professions where we practise "deceit, treachery, soothsaying, trickery and usury"
(MN 117)
According to Bikkhu Bodhi, "one should acquire [one's wealth] only by legal means; peacefully, without coercion or violence; one should acquire it honestly, not by trickery or deceit; and one should acquire it in ways which do not entail suffering for others."
Does any of these conditions apply to the garment industry?
In my humble opinion, labelling the fashion business as wrong livelihood because it promotes sensuality is unnecessary hair-splitting.
Dirt is in the eye of the beholder.
A very good summation. I do not believe my words were intended the way they were perhaps perceived. But the way they were perhaps perceived isn't irrational, based on the wording and phrasing I used. My apologies, and I'll try to do a better job of selecting my words.
Thank you for the opportunity to allow me to grow as a person.
I think the term "Right Livelihood" implies to some people that there can be a right and wrong livelihood, or that all jobs fall within a black and white checkered pattern.
I'm sure there are a few jobs that would be considered Right Livelihood. There are probably a few jobs that would be considered Wrong Livelihood. 99% of the jobs probably fall between the two. Is your job Right Livelihood, or is it just "Right-er Livelihood" than the next job you compare it to? The point is self improvement, thereby making the world a better place. If what you want to focus on is the job you have, and it gives you concerns that you aren't contributing to a better world, there's probably always room for improvement. If your job isn't doing harm (or enough harm to really be concerned about it) and you'd rather focus on some other areas of your life to improve on, imparting greater happiness into the world and better improvement onto yourself as a person in the process, so be it.
In a perfect world, we could fix everything at once. I for one realize I have greater issues with Right Speech, Right Action, and Right Mindfullness and chose to spend my time improving on those before I work on Right Livelihood (with my understanding that my job probably causes some suffering, but isn't an inherently "bad" job).
But as always, your mileage and path may vary.
I am blessed to have been home with my family for the past 7 years. But I have worked some awful jobs in the past, including cold-calling telemarketing. When I had to do something, anything, to take care of food, rent and the bills, I didn't even have an ability to question whether my job was good for anyone or anything else. It is only when we become stable in those basic areas of life that we can begin to look at such things. I am lucky to have the financial freedom and the support of my husband not to return to work until I find a job that truly suits me. But if the tables were to turn, I would still take any job I had to, to take care of my family. My husband though works in the tax collection division of our state department of revenue. So depending how you view that, it may or may not be right livelihood. But his job has amazing health care and with a diabetic kid, that will always be a very important point for us even if the job is less than desirable.
Yes well, so is cleanliness.
The only person that can draw your line in the sand is you. Then it is on you if you cross it.
I'm pretty sure the thread is just calling for personal opinion and I don't think anyone is blaming their feelings on anyone else.
Plus there is plenty of room to distinguish between healthy and unhealthy fashion in such a diverse industry so it's really unhelpful to assume they are all either Calvin Klein or Osh Kosh.
@David of course there is, but in this case we are dealing specifically with "sexy" clothing that may bring about sensuality. Not OshKosh. I didn't suggest anyone was misplacing blame. I suggested that instead of assuming the problem lies solely with the industry it is also a problem of our own minds, as is always the case. I was addressing the OPs question, so I'm not really sure how you got any of what you said from my post when considering that. Nor did I suggest no one else was entitled to an opinion on the matter. I was simply sharing mine.
I had to think about this actually, and I came to the conclusion that clothing does nothing of the kind. People do.
People promote sensuality.
SENSuality is different to SEXuality, of course.
Sensuality is a slightly different ball-game. It includes luxury, refinement, exclusivity, elegance, style and class. Sensuality arouses other pleasures, not only sexual, although people tend to gravitate towards that line of thinking when the term sensual is used.
But clothing is the biggest visual determiner there is. We all too often, even unconsciously, make up our minds about a person's appearance, before they've opened their mouths.
As the saying goes, "you never get a second chance to make a first impression".
So clothing that is sensual AND sexy, is both popular and global.
But it's not the clothes that make the person sensual or sexy.
It's the person.
See what I mean....?
Ok, well that was really a humorous look at how one garment can look very different on different people.
But I wanted to illustrate that while clothing can be promoted as exuding sensuality, it's really the contents that make it look that way.
Models and mannequins can fill the garment, but when it's in a box or a bag, it's just a pile of fabric.....
Sensuality, is what 'you' have.
Clothes just bring it to the surface for admiration....
I'm probably not being clear at all and I didn't mean to come off as argumentative. I was just kind of going off of what you said.
When I hear the question "Who do I blame?" my automatic response is "nobody".
Sorry if it sounded like a personal attack as I prefer casual banter or whatever.
I should have said 'historical Living Buddhas'
http://www.tsemrinpoche.com/tsem-tulku-rinpoche/buddhas-dharma/vajradhara-and-84-mahasiddhas.html
All sorts, including professional thieves, shoe menders, prostitutes, beggars, kings etc. Today they might be anything - including the sellers of wikid garments ...
We'd be naked without clothes, which would exacerbate the issue or at least not be less of a promotion.
Actually I think the guy in the red one piece is kinda hot, and I'm not even gay. Tell me I'm wrong?
Erm.... ok..... By the way, I'm typing naked....
N... a... k... e... d...
Yup.
That's 'naked'.....
This has got to be the most unusual Buddhist board on the internet. Just saying.
As for the OP's question .... If it makes you feel 'uncomfortable' selling those type of clothes ie, sexy.... then don't do it...
However.... If knowingly you buy or sell items of clothing (regardless of whether or not they look sexy) that have been made by men, women and children (who are paid peanuts) in sweat shop/death-trap factories in 3rd world countries, well that's a no-brainer...It is "unethical" so I would say this is definitely not "Right Livelihood"...
Hello, glad I found this topic as this has been preoccupying my thoughts for awhile now.
I work in Security (Bouncer) at venues which operate in the intoxicant trade (bars/clubs)
And also the poison trade (restaurants selling cancerous food)
Although I am not directly selling the drink/drugs/food I am profiteering from it in my position.
My role I justify alongside my Buddhist principles by using self defence martial arts skills which I have acquired over the years.
So I won't beat people up who cause trouble, but often find myself stopping negative people from harming others, which I think is good karma.
I could be completely wrong however.
You could only be completely wrong (and we're talking IMMORALLY 'wrong', here....) by assessing what you do through they eyes of others. And that is not their call, nor your duty.
You HAVE to do what is comfortable and right for you. "Wrong" is for others to decide, but you should not permit that to affect your own evaluation.
That's the way, uh huh, uh huh
We liiike it, uh huh, uh huh.
It's frustrating that you have to decide, isn't it? But if we look closely enough, few jobs in today's world can be said to be absolutely, totally for a business that cannot be said to cause some sort of suffering. If you sell cars and you always give the customer a good, honest deal, that customer might still be spending money he or she can't afford and should buy shoes for the kids instead.
Most retirement homes these days over charge, under staff and do only so much as the laws require.
Just an example of a gray area.