Does Scientology make girls frisky???

[Teanntás]

In 1972, I had read the Dianetics book and come into FCDC and started a course. Shortly thereafter I decided to move into the city from Virginia. That afternoon I asked my Reg, Abby Bregman if she knew of any cheap places to live. She immediately said "sure!" then "I'll show you over dinner break."

Abby was such an exuberant, alive girl, with a huge mass of jet black, unruly, curly hair that looked like she had given up trying to tame. She always had a big smile on her face, but with her eyes she'd look at me as if she was holding back a secret.

That evening Abby and I went a couple blocks down "S" Street to an apartment house. Up on the second floor we entered an apartment and she showed me around. I asked where I would sleep and she pointed to a mattress on the floor. I said OK . I asked her "where do you sleep?" Abby pointed to the same mattress and said nothing. She just looked at me and smiled. I hesitated for a moment until what she was implying filtered through and then smiled at her and said "OK." We went back to the org without saying a word.

Course time went by pretty fast for me that night. Abby was a great reg....(tongue in cheek)

I had heard that she was a top reg at FLB for years now. (Don't know if she's still there, assume she is). Don't know her married name. Anyone know how she's doing?

I haven't had time to read all the posts in this thread. Something I have wondered about is that it seems that women are way over-represented as auditors. Every time I look at a Scientology magazine 70% or more of the top auditors shown are women.

 

[Enthetan]

I haven't had time to read all the posts in this thread. Something I have wondered about is that it seems that women are way over-represented as auditors. Every time I look at a Scientology magazine 70% or more of the top auditors shown are women.

In real life, most HGC auditors seem to be women. Anybody here have different observations?

 

[TheOriginalBigBlue]

In real life, most HGC auditors seem to be women. Anybody here have different observations?

Just a theory but I think it would make sense that there would be more women more active in non-Sea Org positions because their living requirements are being subsidized by husbands allowing them to spend more time on auditing and training, etc.

 

[Enthetan]

Just a theory but I think it would make sense that there would be more women more active in non-Sea Org positions because their living requirements are being subsidized by husbands allowing them to spend more time on auditing and training, etc.

That was the case in the past, but I've been hearing (some past posts here on ESMB) that there's been a movement against "external influences", discouraging marriages and relationships between staff and public.

Anybody with relatively recent org experience have any info on how staff/public relationships are treated these days?

 

[Teanntás]

Just a theory but I think it would make sense that there would be more women more active in non-Sea Org positions because their living requirements are being subsidized by husbands allowing them to spend more time on auditing and training, etc.

The photo that prompted my post was from Source magazine showing "Elite staff" in Flag (it also appeared in the IAS (now called ISN) magazine) - it showed 10 women and 3 men in this "Special Flag Unit"

 

[TheOriginalBigBlue]

The photo that prompted my post was from Source magazine showing "Elite staff" in Flag (it also appeared in the IAS (now called ISN) magazine) - it showed 10 women and 3 men in this "Special Flag Unit"

It may just be my own perception but for a long time my impression is that women outnumber men in group photos. This may be a function of Church PR in staging photos - using young attractive people with sex appeal. Another factor may be that foreign countries are still very difficult for women - getting a good job and old cultural biases against single women are still present. More recently women may be joining staff and being brought into the US on religious visas in greater numbers out of hope for a better life elsewhere.

When I was in the SO I don't recall matchmaking being promoted by the Church or in recruitment. In fact, I'd say the Church's self interests were opposed to the forming of couples because that required more couple's berthing which was considered an extravagant utilization of space and it resulted in children for whom the Church was poorly equipped and unwilling to accommodate. Couples also have their own priorities that constitute a diversion and competition to Church loyalty and labor.

I used to think that the Church was one place where women were treated with equality in regard to post placement, responsibility and advancement but now with the benefit of a historical perspective the treatment and fate of prominent women in the Church looks very grim and although men didn't fare much better it was still another male who ended up running things, and like LRH's wife, his wife's fate didn't turn out as a shining example of Scientology's promises either.

 

[Enthetan]

When I was in the SO I don't recall matchmaking being promoted by the Church or in recruitment. In fact, I'd say the Church's self interests were opposed to the forming of couples because that required more couple's berthing which was considered an extravagant utilization of space and it resulted in children for whom the Church was poorly equipped and unwilling to accommodate. Couples also have their own priorities that constitute a diversion and competition to Church loyalty and labor.

I think the last part was a big consideration on the part of top management (LRH and DM). They did NOT want Sea Org members to have anybody who they might feel personal loyalty to, higher than LRH/DM

 

[TheOriginalBigBlue]

I think the last part was a big consideration on the part of top management (LRH and DM). They did NOT want Sea Org members to have anybody who they might feel personal loyalty to, higher than LRH/DM

From a practical standpoint it complicates everything and increases risk. If you comm-ev or fitness board one spouse, you risk losing or alienating two staff members. Reversely, if you do something to benefit one spouse you increase the probability that the other spouse will stay on staff and perform well. But the chances of treating one spouse poorly in this environment are greater than the chances of treating them well.