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:aeq From: aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Christianity, sex Message-ID: <1214@pucc-h> Date: Wed, 19-Sep-84 01:18:03 EDT Article-I.D.: pucc-h.1214 Posted: Wed Sep 19 01:18:03 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 25-Sep-84 08:37:09 EDT References: <171@usfbobo.UUCP>, <894@houxm.UUCP> <1180@pucc-h>, <1186@pucc-h> Organization: Tucumcari Divinity School Lines: 29 From Rich Kulawiec (pucc-h:rsk): > 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." 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. But thanks for telling me that I do SOMETHING well (that "marvelous flair"). > Besides, the focus during sex is usually not on oneself, but on one's > partner--sure, you may learn something from the experience, but if you > spend the entire time waiting for some great insight, you're most likely > going to forget just what it is you're doing. Actually, I meant that even as one approaches or considers sex, one can learn a lot about oneself from one's emotional reactions. One need not go so far as to actually consummate the act. -- -- Jeff Sargent {decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|seismo|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK (it couldn't stand it there any longer).