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...