From: sgreever@nyx.cs.du.edu (Steven Greever)
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk,alt.sex,alt.sex.stories.d,alt.industrial
Subject: Re: ROBO-COPULATION
Date: 9 Nov 92 04:29:59 GMT
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.

In article <1992Nov9.011229.11742@netcom.com> clarka@netcom.com (Andrew C
ark) writes:
>Note followup-to line.
>
>gallen@nyx.cs.du.edu (Geoff Allen) writes:
>>Denise.Turner@f160.n3603.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Denise Turner) writes: 
>>
>>>>>      illuminated spot on the ground.
>>>>>
>>>>>Woman (whimpers): No, NOOOOOOOOOOO
>>>>>
>>>>>F-34(engages cannons): You are powerless, so powerless......
>>>>>
>>>>>Woman, crying, rushes to the specified spot.
>>>>>
>>>>>F-34: Now lie down, bitch.
>>>>>
>>>>>Woman lies down.  A huge cylindrical metal hoist 
>>>>>springs up out of nowhere
>>>>>      and carries the woman to the appropriate place onthe F's
>>>>>      underside, where the collection of 10" missles resides throbbi
g
>>>>>      for action... Straps and chains engage, and the rest is left t

>>>>>      the reader's imagination...
>
>>>Ugh!!!!! Not to imping on anybody's art or anything, but aren't women 
>>>exploited, raped, tortured, opressed, etc. enough already?  I mean rap

>>>by a goddam airplane?!! that's ...well I dunno what it is but it's def
nitely
>>>not a good for women kinda thing. 
>>>Why do people think up/write this kinda thing? Somebody please tell me
cos
>>>I am lost. As if we didn't have enough to worry about being raped by
>>>obnoxious humans, now I can have nightmares about airplanes too, oh jo
! >
>
>>Now wait a minute... I was the one who wrote that story, and I did it f
r
>>a reason, basically because I agree with you. I simply chose to attack
>>the problem by writing a "relevant" parody of an alt.sex.story.  But do
you
>>read alt.sex or alt.sex.stories?  These people are seriously trying to 
e
>>arousing and all they can think up 96% of the time is rape, torture,
>>domination of women, etc.  I just thought it would be funny and exposit
ry
>>to juxtapose this parody with our fetishization of machinery.
>
>I subscribe to a.s.stories and I'd just like to point out that the
>majority of stories do NOT involve rape or torture.  However, there
>are some readers and writers who enjoy this material.  Why?  I don't kno
;
>non-consensual sex, rape, and torture disgust me.  
>
>While I disapprove of what they are discussing, I must regretfully
>acknowledge that censoring their activities would do more harm than good

>The entire idea of censorship strikes a sore spot in the hearts of
>alt.sex and a.s.stories readers, primarily because censors have gone
>after sexual material with depressing frequency :(   
>
>As for domination, there is a strong subculture on the Net (alt.sex.bond
ge)
>that plays with the issue of power and control as expressed in a sexual
>context.  Some of their erotic fiction ends up in a.s.stories; a quick s
im
>over the material can lead people to conclude that the a.s.b. crowd  
>consists of a bunch of lunatics.  They do play rough, but they are playi
g.   
>
>>But is mechanistic sex, sex with an airplane, sex with anything
>>necessarily "amoral" or "bad"?????? Well only if it is non-consensual..
.
>
>If we someday recognize machines as sentient, people will have sex with
>them.  People have sex with animals and inanimate objects now . . .
>I don't think it's possible to characterize any form of sex as good
>or bad, with two exceptions.  Non-consensual sex (including those 
>unable to give consent) is automatically bad, and anything a
>particular individual doesn't like is bad, FOR THEM. 
>
>I would say that the F-34 in the above example was bad.  
>
>Mechanistic sex isn't my turn-on, but there are doubtless people out
>there who do enjoy the idea.  I've seen the occasional story; one
>involves Edgar-209 from RoboCop, an urban terrorist group, and
>a propaganda video . . .  "OCP -- we know how to do it." 
>
>In a cyberpunk universe, there will be people who seek pleasure in
>any way possible.  Virtual reality will incorporate pornography;
>look at the history of erotica.  It started out as paintings, sculpture,
>and text.  When photography was invented, people immediately thought
>of taking erotic pictures.  Some of the first flip-action "movies"
>were pornographic, built into a dime-per-view machine for saloons. 
>Silent films, talking pictures -- each medium was immediately
>snapped up for erotic uses.  The development of the home 8mm camera
>and player (followed by the much cheaper VCR and home videocamera)
>has made it possible to make adult films at home.  On computers,
>we have alt.sex.etc and GIFs. 
>
>The next breakthrough in information processing (virtual reality)
>will also have its pornographic applications.  Imagine sexual
>input-output devices to match vision, sound, and smell . . . 
>Would that be mechanistic sex? 
>
>>I hold that we don't know enough about sexuality to even consider value
>>judgments....
>
>I think Elf Steinburg is on to something; his Journal Entries are bound
>only by the rule that sexual relations MUST be consensual.  
>-- 
>clarka@netcom.com     Andrew Clark     My ignorance is my own fault.
>"We have virtual reality today: Pete Wilson lives in it." | Bad cop! 
>"Macs are to computing what television is to journalism." | No donut! 
>Secondary account at aclark@UCSD.EDU -- prefer mail at netcom site.   


Please!!!! I don't mean to sound like flame bait but what kind of
drugs have you been all taking??  I find your discussions stupid and
offensive.  Sex can and should be only between mongamous partners
who can have children together.  Everything else is not sex; it is
SODOMY.  Please take the rest of your discussions to alt.sodomy, because
some of us with different sensibilities do not want to see this in our
other newsgroups.  I suppose there are people under 18 reading this board

too; such un-genteel discussion is NOT for their ears (or mine, for that
mater)  The Bible tells us the meaning of sex; why should we go against i
?

Peace,
Sgreever
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk