Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.7.0.10 $; site uiucdcs
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!mcewan
From: mcewan@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: Other than that?
Message-ID: <26600159@uiucdcs>
Date: Fri, 14-Feb-86 16:26:00 EST
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.26600159
Posted: Fri Feb 14 16:26:00 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 16-Feb-86 04:40:48 EST
References: <1338@ihuxn.UUCP>
Lines: 23
Nf-ID: #R:ihuxn.UUCP:1338:uiucdcs:26600159:000:899
Nf-From: uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU!mcewan    Feb 14 15:26:00 1986


>>>> When you and
>>>> your honey boink away, you're doing what the doggies do.  If that
>>>> upsets you, then the problem doesn't lie with sex itself, it lies
>>>> with your perception of what makes human beings special.
>
>>> Apparently you see no differences between dogs and human beings....
> 
>> Other than intelligence and the obvious physiological differences,
>> neither do I...
>
> Other than that?  As in, "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did
> you like the play?"

I guess I misunderstood the comment. I thought that some difference, other
than the obvious, was being postulated. If not, then my question is:
why should we have a different view of sex because of these differences,
especially considering how slight the difference in sexual equipment is?

			Scott McEwan
			{ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!mcewan

"What? That? It was just a filthy demon! It wasn't even from this dimension!"