Xref: utzoo sci.bio:4090 alt.romance:5669 soc.singles:74559
Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!apple!netcom!barry
From: barry@netcom.UUCP (Kenn Barry)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,alt.romance,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Are Humans Naturally Monogamous?
Message-ID: <18194@netcom.UUCP>
Date: 6 Dec 90 07:34:52 GMT
References: <16791@netcom.UUCP> <17570@netcom.UUCP> <59598@microsoft.UUCP>
Organization: QQQCLC
Lines: 31

In article <59598@microsoft.UUCP> rodvan@microsoft.UUCP (Rod VAN MECHELEN) writes:
>As far as I can tell, I've formulated the most comprehensive definition
>which takes in not only rational love, but also irrational love.

	I'm sure your book will be of great interest to people who think
life and love can be reduced to a system.

>As for sex, I can think of all kinds of examples of both rational and
>irrational sex.  Can't you?

	No, I can't. I've never known a person with a rational sex
drive, though I've known some who insisted on rationalizing theirs.
Most who like sex with men don't like it with women; those who like it
with women don't like it with men. This is rational? Person A gets hot
for asses; B for breasts; C for cocks; D for domination; E for enemas;
F for frottage. I could go all the way through the alphabet, and I
would have only begun to cover the variations. Why does ear-nibbling
drive one person to distraction, and leave another unmoved? Where is
the rationality in all these diverse preferences?

>In article <17570@netcom.UUCP>, barry@netcom.UUCP (Kenn Barry) writes:
>> 	Beats the shit out of me :-).
>
>In other words, you don't know what you're talking about.

	You must be right. I mean, I've never even come up with the
"most comprehensive definition of love" ever invented :-).

-  El Amor Brujo  -                       Kenn Barry
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTRIC AVENUE:	                  apple!netcom!barry