From: jmfuchs@unix.amherst.edu (JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS)
Subject: Re: Morally good necessary possible sometimes possible reproductiveness
Followup-To: talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books,alt.politics.homosexuality
Organization: Amherst College
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 21:27:11 GMT

Michael Zeleny (zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu) wrote:
> In article <BzE9Aq.5vw@unix.amherst.edu> 
> jmfuchs@unix.amherst.edu (JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS) writes:
> 
> >Michael Zeleny (zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu) wrote:
> 
> >>jmfuchs@unix.amherst.edu (JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS) writes:
> 
> >>>Michael Zeleny (zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu) wrote:
> 
> >>>>jmfuchs@unix.amherst.edu (JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS) writes:
> 
> JMF:
> >>>>>	Oh, you know, it's pretty darn stupid of me, but, as I was distracted
> >>>>>by the aesthetics of abusing Mickey, I seemed to have forgotten my original
> >>>>>point. Of course, the blame probably shouldn't rest entirely on my shoulders,
> >>>>>since Mickey did absolutely nothing to answer it. 
> >>>>>	But anyway, Mickey, you still haven't answered why oral sex between a
> >>>>>male and female would be okay (assuming that you feel so,) but that oral sex
> >>>>>between two men is bad. I'm pretty sure you can't come up with a logical,
> >>>>>clearly stated reason - so sure, in fact, that if you can, I will give you
> >>>>>$1000 US, all my old G.I Joes, the complete set of ginsu knives, bla bla bla
> >>>>>bla bla bla bla bla. Act now - we have operators standing by. We have people
> >>>>>on hold. We have people holding operators...we have operators holding other
> >>>>>operators...my god, it's quite a scene.
> 
> MZ:
> >>>>The short form: because only in the former case, the partners can
> >>>>switch to a potentially productive venue within their union, at any
> >>>>time before the climax.  The long form will be found in my latest
> >>>>reply to Mike Morris.  I await my promised reward.
> 
> JMF:
> >>>	Sorry, Mickey, but, according to my definition (which is admittedly
> >>>subjective) that would count as foreplay, instead of Oral Sex. Maybe you don't
> >>>agree with this definition, and I can see why not, but when I ask for a 
> >>>reason that oral sex between a male and female is okay, I mean up until climax.
> 
> MZ:
> >>Possibility is more inclusive than its actualization.
> 
> JMF:
> >	This is a very, very weird argument, but I will give you points for 
> >arguing it well. However, in the real world, why is possibility more 
> >inclusive? In both cases, there just ain't going to be any "sex," so why 
> >should it matter to anyone not merely treading in their own intellectual
> >waters?
> 
> In fact, "the real world" gets very, very weird, if only the actual
> events are considered as making the basis for its description.  For
> instance, lacking access to the facts of the subject matter, there
> would be nothing in the actual world to allow you to favor in any way
> a consistent truth-teller over a consistent liar.  This is not just an
> epistemological issue, wherein only the evidence would be lacking, but
> a metaphysical one, wherein the lack of evidence would entail the lack
> of facts of the matter.
> 
> In other words, counterfactual reasoning can tell you more about the
> intrinsic nature of things, as opposed to the way they happen to be.
	This is a valid point in a philosophical context. However, I think
my point of "Yes, but who the heck cares?" still stands.
> 
> JMF:
> >>>	By the way, what if they can't switch to the ol' bump and grind? For
> >>>instance, I have quite a few friends here at college who are going out with
> >>>female virgins. The women do not wish to lose their virginity at this point,
> >>>but are willing to give oral sex. By your definition, this would be bad. 
> >>>Sorry, Mickey, no ginsu knives...although there is the consolation prize of
> >>>a year's supply of Rice-a-Roni sitting here with your name on it.
> 
> MZ:
> >>Skippy, if you need me to tell you what's wrong with this picture, you
> >>have no chance of getting it straight anyway.
> 
> JMF:
> >	I'm pretty sure that what you mean by "what's wrong with this picture"
> >is not the fact that these women won't have sex. But what is your definition
> >of the realm of possibility? The chances of a barren woman suddenly becoming
> >fertile during sex is about equal to the odds of a gay man suddenly growing
> >a womb and being able to bear children with semen entering through his mouth. 
> >True, in some possible world, this woman could be feritle - but in some 
> >possible world, we could also impregnate aardvarks. Does this make 
> >bestiality okay with you?
> 
> That's just the thing, Skippy, -- the chances are *not* the same, in
> light of what we know about the nature of sexuality.  I will admit
> that this modal theory is a weird thing, -- it has taken me several
> years to accept it as meaningful, and in my own work, I still like to
> investigate even more arcane alternatives.  But it does what it is
> supposed to do, i.e. illuminate its subject matter.
	Well, if it comes down to whether a barren woman becoming suddenly 
fertile is more likely than impregnating (let's use a slightly more likely,
less silly example) orangutangs, then I guess Zeleny and I will simply have
to politely disagree. I say they are equally likely -i.e. not at all. I guess
we just see things differently - I like to think that my argument makes more
sense, as I am not distracted by the apparent greater concievability of 
barren women becoming fertile simply because it seems less silly.
> 
> >>>>cordially,
> >>>>mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
> >>>>"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
> 
> JMF:
> >>>	Only cordially? But I feel like I know you like a brother. Or at least
> >>>that uncle that we kept locked up in the attic...
> 
> MZ:
> >>No deadbeat is a relative of mine.
> 
> JMF:
> >	But in some possible world, I could be. And wouldn't that just be a
> >thrill for both of us.
> 
> But the genotype is an essential property of our bodies, Skippy.
> Either we are relatives, or it is impossible for us to be related by
> blood.  Since in the actual world, as a matter of empirical fact, no
> deadbeat is a relative of mine, and since you are a _bona fide_
> deadbeat, it is impossible for us to be related.  Q.E.D.
	If you don't define two guys like us who spend *way* too much time
arguing over really silly things on usenet as being deadbeats, I don't know
what is.
> 
> >>>							Lard & Fishes,
> >>>								Skipp
> 
> >>cordially,
> >>mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
> >>"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
> 
> >					More fun than lots of things, up to but
> >					not including reruns of "Cheers,"
>  
> cordially,
> mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
> "Nothing can be said truly of what does not exist."
								-Skipp
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books,alt.politics.homosexuality