From: utzoo!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhtsa!alice!npoiv!npois!houxm!ihnp4!ihuxq!dopey
Newsgroups: net.singles
Title: not about birth control
Article-I.D.: ihuxq.233
Posted: Thu Apr 14 16:18:49 1983
Received: Mon Apr 18 23:29:26 1983


The recent talk in net.singles about birth control among
singles started me thinking about the values I was brought
up with.

One that was kind of important was "chastity;" i.e., sexual
intimacy is something which is best reserved for people one
really cares about, such as wives and mistresses.  While I
don't always live up to the "wait until" ideal, it's
something I try working towards.  That sex feels good makes
it harder to do this; I'm not sure that feeling cheap and
used afterwards makes a difference or not.

That last paragraph makes my view sound bad.  To clarify:
the very few times that I have participated in intimate
interactions with somebody wonderful have left me feeling
neither cheap nor used, but rather, they've left me feeling
both loved and loving.

What I'm wondering is whether chastity is a relic of the
past, whether it's a figment of my incurable-and-I-don't-
want-to-change romantic nature, whether everybody's really
chaste but the definition's changed, or whether people still
believe it's important, and I just don't notice it.

Wouldn't mind being chased, either
James C Blasius
ihuxq!dopey

PS - As one illinois politician might say, "I am not a prude!"