Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!qantel!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm
From: kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Re: Boys vs. Girls, and vs. condoms (really about sexual morality)
Message-ID: <4016@ut-ngp.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 21-Sep-86 01:51:02 EDT
Article-I.D.: ut-ngp.4016
Posted: Sun Sep 21 01:51:02 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 28-Sep-86 18:28:12 EDT
References: <3893@ut-ngp.UUCP> <1491@mtx5a.UUCP>
Organization: UTexas Computation Center, Austin, Texas
Lines: 69

[]
>> >Can you say abstention?  Can you say groin control?  These methods are 
>> >100% safe.  [Ray Frank]
>> 
>> Can you say "no fun?"  Or is that the point of your debased morality?  [me]
>
>My dictionary lists ``debauch'' and ``deprave'' as synonyms for ``debase''.
>Now, by the conventional meanings of the word, a morality which claims that
>sex is moral if you feel like it, whatever the other circumstances, is
>debauched wrt one which claims that sex belongs in a committed, monagamous
>relationship.  Or is Ray's morality debased because he protests debauchery?
>[Mark Terribile]

One of the meanings my dictionary gives to "debase" is "to lower the
intrinsic value of a coin."  Ray's morality, at least as I see it via
his Usenet postings, appears to me to have no intrinsic value.  (See
below w.r.t. anti-sexual moralities.)  I used the verb "debase" with
intent to build an analogy between a morality I find to be worthless
and bad money.  (BTW, this leads me to a paraprase of Gresham's law:
"Bad moralities drive out good ones.")

>[...]
>But then they laughed at people who said that people shouldn't slaughter
>buffalo (alright, North American Bison) for fun.  They laughed at people who
>said that whales were being taken in numbers that could lead to the destruction
>of the whales.  They laughed ...
>[MT]

What on earth do any of these have to do with the topic under discussion,
namely, sexual morality?  Why do you (if I understand correctly) think you
are being laughed at?  I take with the utmost seriousness people who would
attempt to limit my free exercise of my rights... and you seem to be one such
person, judging from many of your postings of late.

>It may be that those ``old superstitions'' had a better understanding of human
>nature, or of divine nature, than we find convenient right now.  [...]
>[MT]

They might well have been better for people in the time in which they came
into being...  But there have been major technological advances in birth
control over the last few tens of years.  These advances have invalidated
the only basis I can see for an anti-sexual morality: it serves as a very
crude sort of birth control, albeit one that works in a rather haphazard
manner.  Thus such moralities have lost whatever intrinsic value they might
have had.

"Divine nature"?  What/which divinity?  Why?

I don't understand what your clause "than we find convenient right now" means.
Are you trying to say that morality should necessarily be inconvenient?  Or
are you just attempting a cheap-shot denigration of people who disagree with
you?


Any morality which puts strict limits on sex such as Ray's appears to, is,
in my final analysis, anti-sexual.  Since such moralities have no other
apparent point, I must conclude that they exist nowadays so that some people
can try to feel important by attempting to stop other people from enjoying
one of the peak experiences available to human beings.

--
The above viewpoints are mine.  They are unrelated to
those of anyone else, including my cat and my employer.

Kenneth J. Montgomery  "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs"
[Charter?] Member, Heathen and Atheist SCUM Alliance, "Heathen" division

...!{ihnp4,allegra,seismo!ut-sally}!ut-ngp!kjm  [Usenet, when working]
kjm@ngp.{ARPA, UTEXAS.EDU, CC.UTEXAS.EDU}  [Old, New, and Very New Internet]