Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!bcm!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: henning@acsu.buffalo.edu (Karl syllogistic Henning) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: sex, marriage, sin Message-ID: Date: 25 Mar 91 08:48:49 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: SUNY Buffalo Lines: 54 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu Brendan Mahony writes: >Karl isochronal Henning writes: >> [paragraph ofriction in long-term close relationships] >Whilst I cannot disagree with the text of this passage in isolation I >feel that in the context of the overall discussion (and especially the >next paragraph) the implication here is that close relationship should be >understood to mean close sexual relationship, whence the whole thing becomes >a bit unsettling. I was discussing relationships broadly, inclusive of but not restricted to sexual relationships. >> [paragraph on "Applied and Theoretical sex"] >There are many people who do not partake of sexual relationships who >are anything but socially inept and remain very capable of entering >into very close, ;ong-lasting and rewarding personal relationships. Certainly. I do not advocate sexual activity as a prerequisite for full personhood. >I would just point out that some would see the relationship as the point >of the exercise rather than the "awakening" of one's sexual awareness. While I [think I] understand you to use "point of the exercise" half-wrily, I veiw relationships simply as a sort of protocol between people (as opposed to an exercise, or the object of an exercise; and as opposed to an indepen- dent "thing"); that is, what matters is, not a relationship per se, but the people involved. This is not an objection, just a [possibly merely semantic] refocusing. Sexual activity is not ideally [IMHO, although both prostitution and numerous marriages provide curiously persistent counterexamples] the raison d'etre of any relationship; the relationship should be the occasion for the sexual activity (although I don't suppose /all/ relationships should :-). In the traditional view of xianity, the only proper occasion for sexual activity, is in relationships of a single, indissoluble heterosexual pair who undertake the socially (and often religiously) sanctioned contract of marriage. IMHO this "external contract" is usually of less concern than mutual commitment between two people; it is up to those two people to agree on their "contract" (or lack thereof). kph -- Doris: But without God, the universe is meaningless. Life is meaningless. We're meaningless. (/Deadly pause/) I have a sudden and overpowering urge to get laid. -- Woody Allen, "God (A Play)"