Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!husc6!panda!genrad!decvax!decwrl!amdcad!amd!pesnta!peora!codas!mtune!mtuxo!mtgzy!ecl
From: ecl@mtgzy.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,net.sf-lovers,soc.singles
Subject: Re: L. S. de Camp/WorldCon
Message-ID: <1988@mtgzy.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 17-Sep-86 18:29:50 EDT
Article-I.D.: mtgzy.1988
Posted: Wed Sep 17 18:29:50 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Sep-86 02:36:47 EDT
References: <422@inuxm.UUCP> <1085@hoptoad.uucp>
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Labs, Middletown NJ
Lines: 59
Xref: mnetor talk.politics.misc:192 net.sf-lovers:8575 soc.singles:4
Cc: ecl



Sorry about the quotes; I've tried to condense.

> > [De Camp--more or less]
>   [Tim Maroney]

> > [De Camp had said that TIME condesned his letter and then proceeded...]
> > He then offered a defense of his position, which I will attempt to summarize
> > here. ...  He noted that the human mating patterns which
> > evolved in a primitive hunter-gatherer culture did not work very well in
> > more settled societies, and that a considerable variety of alternatives have
> > been tried by various cultures, none of which have been altogether
> > satisfactory.  It is his opinion that the "hedonistic" pattern which emerged
> > in the '60's is working especially badly.  He did note that it is possible
> > that he would change his opinion if he could look at society 50 years from
> > now.

>           Concerning L. Sprague de Camp's justification for his Time letter,
> saying that the sexual revolution was about a change to a
> polygamous/hedonistic mating pattern: nothing could be further from the
> truth.  First, as I have already stated, the sexual revolution was about
> sexual freedom and sexual privacy regardless of orientation, monogamous or
> polygamous, gay or straight (not that there's any real difference, but
> people think there is, so...).

Well, who died and left you God?  Just because *you* "have already stated" that
the sexual revolution is X doesn't mean that everyone else or even anyone else
agrees.  In particular, it doesn't mean de Camp agrees.  And since he defined
what he meant (though TIME apparently cut that part), you can hardly fault him
for being unclear.  Now, if you want to criticize him for not using the
language according to your strict definitions, fine, but that's hardly reason
for a boycott.

>                                 Second, hedonism and polygamy are not
> related.  A person who feels stifled by years of a single monogamous
> relationship, suppressing all sexual feelings outside the relationship, will
> find his or her sexual desires tending more and more toward the suppressed
> forms of sex, and so will tend to link pleasure-seeking with polygamy; but
> in fact there is just as much pleasure to be had in one partner over a
> thousand nights as in a thousand partners each for one night.  Pleasure is
> what hedonism is about; it has nothing to do with multiple partners.

De Camp doesn't mention polygamy at all.  He mentions hedonism.  So why do you
bring polygamy up?  *You* obviously connect the two.  I can think of many
alternatives to the primitive hunter-gatherer mating patterns that do *not*
involve polygamy.

> Warning!  Dogmatic responses will be ignored, or, more likely, insulted.

I will not, therefore, comment on your dogmatic remarks about De Camp's
personal sexual preferences or feelings, particularly since they have
absolutely nothing to do with his beliefs as expressed in his letter.

					Evelyn C. Leeper
					(201) 957-2070
				UUCP:	ihnp4!mtgzy!ecl
				ARPA:	mtgzy!ecl@topaz.rutgers.edu
				BITNET:	mtgzy.uucp!ecl@harvard.edu
An authority is a person who can tell you more about something than you
	really care to know.