Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxn.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhuxl!mhuxm!pyuxi!pyuxn!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxn.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Sex, Hermaphrodites and Equality
Message-ID: <334@pyuxn.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 31-Oct-83 19:16:25 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxn.334
Posted: Mon Oct 31 19:16:25 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 3-Nov-83 07:31:13 EST
References: <1743@gatech.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs, Piscataway
Lines: 18

> Are you for real?  Withhold sex until marriage in order to force
> the man to be a better mate?  I don't know about anyone else, but
> *I* for one would not marry anyone who used sex (or any other form
> of coersion) to try to make me change.  It just doesn't seem to be
> good grounds for a relationship to me....

Why is refusing to have sex coercion?  I always thought sex was a consensual
act between two people (remember "consenting adults").  This says something
about attitudes towards sex and marriage.  Since when is one's partner
*required* to "provide" sex, where failure to do so is called coercion?

I think the original point was that in these modern sexually liberated times,
men have no reason to commit themselves to a relationship because sex is
"available" to them without commitment.  Commitment seems to be very high
on the list of things that women desire in a relationship, while it is not
quite so high on men's lists (or so it would seem from the original article).
Thus, women who choose not to have sex prior to marriage (or some level of
commitment) are doing so to achieve that level of commitment in a relationship.