Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site reed.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!tektronix!reed!purtell
From: purtell@reed.UUCP (Lady Godiva)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: wants vs needs, luxury vs necessity
Message-ID: <1779@reed.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 8-Aug-85 15:00:08 EDT
Article-I.D.: reed.1779
Posted: Thu Aug  8 15:00:08 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 12-Aug-85 02:38:43 EDT
References: <735@lll-crg.ARPA> <1742@reed.UUCP> <765@lll-crg.ARPA>
Reply-To: purtell@reed.UUCP (Lady Godiva)
Distribution: net
Organization: Reed College, Portland, Oregon
Lines: 86

In article <765@lll-crg.ARPA> bandy@lll-crg.UUCP (Andrew Scott Beals) writes:
>> From: purtell@reed.UUCP (Lady Godiva)
>>     Second, it seems to me that you are reducing the value of a hug to
>> something on the order of sentimental, cutesy or childish.
>
>The point is that all-y'all are the ones that are dropping down into the
>semi-mental cutesy and childish. (ie claiming that one needs N hugs per
>timeperiod) And you're expressing all of this in a public forum because
>you're afraid of expressing this in anything that could be construed as
>a "personal" manner.
 
   I never claimed that one needs N hugs per timeperiod. I don't
subscribe to that theory. I don't think that I've said anything cutesy
or childish. I don't think that I really understand what you mean by the
last sentence. If you mean, are we saying that everyone needs hugs
because we're afraid to say "I need a hug"? I don't think that we're
doing that at all. Let me remind you that the major point that I made in
this discussion was that I thought that it was necessary to be able to
hug, kiss, etc. friends without feeling sexual pressure, and hopefully
without raising any eyebrows. 

>> [...] I think that hugs are very necessary and important. People need
>> that kind of physical contact.
>
>This sort of physical contact is NOT important and is definitely NOT
>necessary. [``Kin yew say "hermit"? Iah knew ya could!''] It is purely
>a luxury, like eating chocolate or or not having to work on the weekend
>or having a *friend.


  Ok. It depends on what you mean by necessity. Sure there are hermits,
there may even be happy hermits (many people become recluses of their
own free will, but are certainly not happy with the situation.) But I
think that a good general statement (and I rarely make general
statements) is that most people need (yes - I said need) physical
contact. Many people are extremely unhappy because they don't receive
any kind of affection. And if to you a need is only something that keeps
you alive, then may I remind (or inform) you that many people commit
suicide each year for the very same reason. I knew someone that did.

>> People need to be loved and accepted like that.
>
>Again, posh. Some people who have warped their minds such that they will
>be Unhappy if they do not have this "love and acceptance" will invent
>an imaginary being that "loves" and "accepts" them. Sometimes these
>people will gather in groups and all fantasize about One Being.

   Oh you mean religious groups? Well, I'm a Christian, so I guess that
there's nothing that I can say to you to defend myself on this point.

>> I've
>> known all kinds of people: Christians, college students, street kids (I
>> was there once myself), very poor, very rich, very accomplished, etc.
>> etc. and
>> [...] I've never found a group of people under any circumstances, who
>> didn't need that kind of thing.
>
>Are you sure that you don't mean "appreciate"? "Need" is a very strong word.

   I said exactly what I meant. *NEED NEED NEED* Do you hear me -
*NEED*! I know that need is a very strong word. I could count on one
hand the things that I really feel that I need. But I must admit,
friends and affection would be on that list. 
   Since you seem to view hugs, and even friends as a luxury rather than
a necessity, may I ask, what exactly DO you view as being necessary? You
seem to think that discussing physical affection is "cutesy" to use a
rather nauseating term. Would you prefer to talk about various sexual
techniques? We could talk about oral sex vs. intercourse, or how to
"deepthroat" without choaking to death (hang your head over the bed and
remember to breath girls.) 
Would that strike you as less cutesy and more necessary? I'm
sure that there are just as many people out there who would contribute
to that discussion as this one. I must say that you remind me of a
little boy who won't kiss his sister because she has girl germs. I
don't mean to be insulting, but I really don't  understand why you seem
to find the topic so offensive. I assure you that I hate "cutsie" and
"childish" as much as the next person, but I guess that I just don't see
physical affection as being either of those things. 

   cheers -

  elizabeth g. purtell

  (Lady Godiva)