Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!mtxinu!rtech!hoptoad!asylum!sharon
From: sharon@asylum.SF.CA.US (Sharon Fisher)
Newsgroups: alt.sex
Subject: Re: DATE RAPE?  A TRUE STORY.
Message-ID: <9617@asylum.SF.CA.US>
Date: 15 Jan 90 16:17:17 GMT
References: <1722.256DE44C@fidogate.FIDONET.ORG> <25886@cup.portal.com>
Reply-To: sharon@asylum.UUCP (Sharon Fisher)
Organization: The Asylum; Belmont, CA
Lines: 74

In article <25886@cup.portal.com> EZ-as-pi@cup.portal.com (Bruce Robert Gilson) writes:
>...........new paragraph ..........
>(Some people have criticized my post-
>ing in one large block. I guess they
>can't read my paragraph divisions. I
>am not calling THEM idiots, though!)

Look, the 40-width columns make it hard enough for people to read your
postings.  Is it too much to ask to make your ideas easier for people
to read?  Jeez.

>Is it a requirement for posting on
>alt.sex that you share a particular
>"liberated" attitude toward extra- or
>nommarital sexual intercourse? First
>of all, it would appear that this is
>a discussion group, and the fact that
>my opinions differ from yours should
>not preclude my getting my two cents
>in. 

There's a difference between "I believe premarital sex is wrong and so
I don't do it" and "I believe premarital sex is wrong and nobody
should do it."  As far as I can recall, nobody's telling you to go out
and fuck like a bunny if it makes you uncomfortable.  However, we
don't appreciate being told what we should be doing.

>(1) Do you believe that consent is the
>only barrier to pleasure; i. e., that
>anyone can do anything at any time 
>as long as he/she has the consent of
>any other persons involved?

Let's say "informed" consent, so we don't end up with things like
people having sex with eleven-year-olds because the kid said "yes."
Add that word, and yes, I do agree with that.

>(2) Do you believe that the words 
>"right" and "wrong" have no place in a
>discussion of sexual activity?

Other than as related to (1).

>(3) If your answers to (1) and (2) are
>both "yes", then of course we have no
>basis for logical discussion. 

Oh, shucky-darn.

>OK -- let me repeat where I stand:
>Yes, I do believe in G-d. I do not be-
>lieve, however, that forcing one's
>RELIGIOUS ideas on someone is right.

But that's what you're doing.

>I think that one's actions should be
>based on their consequences versus the
>costs. 

Absolutely.

>If no contraceptive is 100% safe
>then why take the risk when you can 
>surely be 100% safe by sticking to 
>oral and manual stimulation? 

Hey, *life*'s not 100% safe.  Do you drive a car?  Do you know how
dangerous that is?  It's much safer to stay in your house.  But you
miss out on a lot.

-- 
She began coming, making noises like a small animal in pain. "Ouch!
Ow! My paw! Ouch!"