Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site pucc-h
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H:rsk
From: rsk@pucc-h (Rich Kulawiec)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Christianity, sex
Message-ID: <1216@pucc-h>
Date: Wed, 19-Sep-84 03:17:27 EDT
Article-I.D.: pucc-h.1216
Posted: Wed Sep 19 03:17:27 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 25-Sep-84 08:45:09 EDT
References: <171@usfbobo.UUCP>, <894@houxm.UUCP> <1180@pucc-h>, <1186@pucc-h> <1214@pucc-h>
Organization: Purdue, THE Indiana University
Lines: 29

>> From Rich Kulawiec (rsk@pucc-h)
>>	You know, Jeff, you have a marvelous flair for condemning entire
>> classes of people with a casual backhand swipe.  Do you really think that
>> folks who have casual sex have no "humanity" about them?...  As a former
>> lover put it, "There's a difference between making love and fucking; you
>> need to know how to handle both, and most people don't."
>
>From Jeff Sargant (aeq@pucc-h)
>I think your former lover answered the question, and I agree that there are
>different flavors of sex.  The thing is, as I understand it, the second of
>these ignores the fact that sex is intended as a total union between two
>people, not just as the stimulation of two bodies.  It is this second
>approach to sex which dehumanizes it.

	"...sex is intended as a total union..."

	Sez who?  or what?  I don't recall any instructions printed
on the label...

	As far as the #2 approach being dehumanizing in nature, I don't
feel that it necessarily must be; certainly the above-mentioned partner
and I don't feel dehumanized by this...although we can't prove it, I suppose.
-- 
---Rsk

UUCP: { decvax, icalqa, ihnp4, inuxc, sequent, uiucdcs  } !pur-ee!rsk
      { decwrl, hplabs, icase, psuvax1, siemens, ucbvax } !purdue!rsk

Not fade away...