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).