Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!think!husc6!panda!genrad!decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!wfi
From: wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly)
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: boycotting authors
Message-ID: <994@rti-sel.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 10-Sep-86 13:44:42 EDT
Article-I.D.: rti-sel.994
Posted: Wed Sep 10 13:44:42 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 11-Sep-86 06:01:21 EDT
References: <2420@phri.UUCP> <979@rti-sel.UUCP> <1067@hoptoad.uucp>
Reply-To: wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly)
Organization: Research Triangle Institute, NC
Lines: 64
Xref: mnetor net.sf-lovers:8342 talk.politics.misc:22

In article <1067@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes:

>Well, this isn't really germane to SF, but in response to a few challenges
>asking what DeCamp said that was so terrible:
>
>He said that the sexual revolution was a mistake.  ...
>
>Now what does this mean?  What was (and is) the sexual revolution?  It is
>very simple.  The revolution concerns freedom to love as you will, when you
>will, where and with whom you will.  Nothing else.  

And I also could claim the 'revolution' had many negative side effects 
in our society, and affected for the worse the nature of interpersonal
relationships in our society. You're defining the GOALS of the
revolution, not examining its effects. Although Tim Maroney might
claim there was 'nothing else' involved in the revolution, many of us
who lived through that period of time and who were affected by these
social changes would disagree. Guess that makes us bad people, huh?

>The revolution in
>attitudes is that no one should call someone else evil because of a
>disagreement with the other's sexual preferences and decisions.  

You're grossly oversimplifying a highly complex set of social changes.
Why should we believe everyone in 1986 would agree with Tim Maroney's
definition of what the revolution was all about, let alone his
definition of what it may have been about for people in 1966? You
don't write an algorithm for human behavior if you're a halfway
intelligent human being (yes, I'm implying what you think about half
the AI community :-).

>Opposition
>to the sexual revolution says that we should go back to the old days when
>living with someone out of wedlock or otherwise having sex without the
>ritual consecration of the genitals called "marriage" was a scandal and a
>crime.  It says homosexuals should be denied jobs or even jailed, [etc.]

What the bloody hell makes you think deCamp was advocating these sorts
of things? You people are living in a fantasy world and I doubt many
of you actually were THERE through the upheavals of the '60s. Guess 
it makes sense to post this kind of thing to net.sf-lovers, after all.

My experience of the 'revolution:' there were a lot of fanatics
running around screwing whoever and whatever they wanted in the name
of ideological purity. Folks whose relationships were destroyed by
such behavior and beliefs were sometimes told they were living in the 
19th century. There were also a lot of hangers-on just looking for a free
ride. You actually heard people verbally abusing married couples for
their engagement in an obsolete and exploitative relationship. The end
result was a devaluing of sexuality, its reduction in some cases to a
friendly greeting like shaking hands. All of this sometimes had negative 
effects on people who couldn't keep up with the changes: broken 
relationships, impotence, depression, anxiety was sometimes the result.
To say the 'revolution' was just about freedom to love is naive.

And marriage is more than a ritual consecration of the genitals. MANY
thoughtful and intelligent people in our society would agree with me.
How do you come up with this stuff? Sheesh.

>...  It is, in short, opposition to personal freedom and privacy.

Poppycock.

                        -- A Very Bad Person Indeed, Bill Ingogly