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!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H:aeq From: aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) Newsgroups: net.singles,net.social Subject: Re: Meeting the Parents Message-ID: <1521@pucc-h> Date: Thu, 29-Nov-84 09:13:39 EST Article-I.D.: pucc-h.1521 Posted: Thu Nov 29 09:13:39 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 1-Dec-84 05:49:17 EST References: <643@pucc-k> Organization: Purdue University Computing Crypt Lines: 65 >> = me > = Laurie Sefton >> The obvious difficulties in [living together with one's SO] arise from this >> not being the best of all possible worlds: a) the temptation to go ahead >> with sex would be there, and would probably be very strong; b) even if you >> didn't give in to that temptation, you'd have a tough time convincing >> outsiders of your celibacy (particularly parents, I suppose). > Uh, let's answer b) first. It is none of anyone's business *what* > goes on in the privacy of my abode.... I suppose I should have restricted part b) to parents. I agree that other outsiders ought not to try to control what you do in your home. (Note that I said "control"; I didn't say suggestions were entirely out of order....) > My word, man, do you think we all go around, gritting our teeth, > crossing our legs, and hoping that we won't ravish the next person > of the appropriate sex? Actually, the general impression I get of this society is that people go around hoping that they *will* [1/2 :-)]. > This puritan privation garbage is just that--garbage. I don't even intend > to get my jollies out of putting on a hair shirt and congratulating myself > on what a pure and holy person I am. Or what unpure and unholy people > everyone else are. Now, that's *neurotic*. I'm not so sure I agree with your first sentence. From my minimal (but nonzero) experience (the net registers shock), I have come to the conclusion that chastity is really a good thing. If your experience doesn't teach that, O.K.; things like this really have to be either discovered or accepted on faith, and despite all my net.religion postings, I'm really a sufficiently obstinate sort that I usually have to learn things by discovery.... This doesn't say chastity is an *easy* thing, and that I sometimes don't get envious of those who allow themselves easier access to sex; but that does not mean that contemning those who are thus active is part of my credo. > When you stop thinking of sex as something to be avoided, and > something that is inherently evil, then sex isn't the massive > problem you have made it to be... Sex, in and of itself, is neither "to be avoided" nor "inherently evil"; after God created man and woman with physical bodies and sexual desire, He saw that His creation was "very good". Sex out of the context of commitment, however, is another question. Clearly you and your SO have some degree of commitment; this gray area is one I cannot address from experience; but I do still question whether sex outside a *lifetime* commitment is a good thing. > Really Jeff, for someone who holds no respect for the social > sciences, you try awfully hard to be a sociologist/psychologist. Moi? Disrespect the social sciences? On what do you base this? As to my being an amateur psychologist, I doubt that many people have studied their most intimately available psychological subject (themselves) nearly so much as I have studied myself (a mildly abnormal subject and not fond of that, so I've been getting repairs made). I haven't a lot of training, but I have a fair amount of experience. -- -- Jeff Sargent {decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq Clearing /tmp