Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!qantel!hplabs!tektronix!reed!psu-cs!omepd!max
From: max@omepd (Max Webb)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Boys vs. Girls, and vs. condoms (really about sexual morality)
Message-ID: <148@omepd>
Date: Wed, 24-Sep-86 20:34:04 EDT
Article-I.D.: omepd.148
Posted: Wed Sep 24 20:34:04 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 29-Sep-86 00:39:09 EDT
References: <3893@ut-ngp.UUCP> <1491@mtx5a.UUCP>
Reply-To: max@omepd.UUCP (Max Webb)
Organization: Intel Corp. Hillsboro, Oregon
Lines: 46

In article <> kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP writes:

>Any morality which puts strict limits on sex such as Ray's appears to, is,
>in my final analysis, anti-sexual.

I can think of several medieval writers, members of the clergy, who advised
married couples to use sex to 'ease the burden of their cares'. In
other words, recreation. This would be hard to classify as 'anti-sexual'.
The old testament has a strict code of sexual morality. But sexual love
is celebrated in the Song of Solomon. The new testament also describes a
strict sexual code, but married people (as i've posted before) are commanded
not to withhold sex from each other. Your statement that *all* sexually strict
moralities are antisexual just doesn't hold water.

>  Since such moralities have no other apparent point(meaning birth control),
>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.

Why do you insist on attributing hateful motives to everyone with a morality
different than yours? That's hardly tolerant. Why not look for the 'points'
described by the people that hold the view?
   a) The claim is made (whether you believe it or not) that indiscriminate
      sex causes people to be hurt or used.
   b) The claim is made (whether you believe it or not) that indiscriminate
      sex cut's us off from God.
   c) It makes the development and spread of sexual diseases impossible.


>...Ray's morality, at least as I see it via
>his Usenet postings, appears to me to have no intrinsic value.

You mean Ray's morality (value system) evaluated in terms of your value system
(morality) has no value. So what? Shall I evaluate your morality to see
whether it satisfies my christian morality? You would be angered by that,
but you do the same thing here.

>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?

You have just accused all people who have a strict sexual morality of
wanting the thrill of controlling others.

Careful with the poison pen, bro - you just blackened yourself.