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 08:23:56 GMT

Michael Zeleny (zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu) wrote:
> In article <1992Dec17.034920.23498@spdcc.com> 
> dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:
> 
> >In article <1992Dec16.215746.18586@husc3.harvard.edu>
> >zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
> 
> MZ:
> >>I see no reasonable systematic way to construe a sex act, so as to
> >>allow for a change of partners *within* the same act.  See my
> >>discussion with Mike Morris for more details.
> 
> SD:
> >Sp[l]itting pubic hairs again, Misha?
> 
> Your witty repartee forcees me to revise my estimate of your professional
> prospects.  Perhaps in a mere twenty years, you'll be ready for MC-ing in
> a poof retirement farm.  Once again, the making of the nauseatingly
> predictable cruel jest concerning the statistical prospects and probable
> circumstances of such retirement, is left to the esteemed Clayton Cramer.
> 
> SD:
> >I suspect you haven't been in many N-way orgies, where N > 1.
> 
> I fail to see the relevance of my sexual _curriculum vitae_ to the matter
> at hand, and I do mean *your* hand.  But since you insist, I'll own up to
> having been found attractive by more than one woman at a time.
	Go Mickey.
> 
> SD:
> >The idea that there's "an act" which can be isolated and subjected
> >to this dreary philosophical harangue is wonderfully quaint and dusty,
> >reminiscent of old missionaries and old missionary positions, and more
> >than a bit unreal.  But we knew that already.
> 
> Within any freely chosen human activity, there is an act subject to being
> isolated and analyzed.  It is neither necessary, nor reasonable, to
> maintain that each such activity involves no more than one intentional
> act.  But I shall not continue this disquisition, for fear of provoking
> your Complacent Superficiality into troublesome reflection.  Interested
> parties will find further information on this subject in _The Will_, by
> Brian O'Shaughnessy.
	Yes, but your analysis of the situation is silly. I have no argument
witht he idea of separating indivdiual acts, but that would mean we would
have to separate the act of oral sex between men and women from any other 
sex they might have. When separated from the rest, this is just as bad as
oral sex between two men. 
	By the way, if the only legitimate purpose for sex is reproductive, I 
have to ask (assuming you do not): Why don't you cut a hole in a sheet, put 
your penis through that, and have that be the only contact between you and 
your woman, as I hear the Amish do? To quote my Philo prof, "Wild Bill"
Kennick: "Has anyone, in the history of the universe, ever thought of having
sexsolely for reproductive reasons? I have two children, and rest assured, the 
thought has never come close to crossing my mind."
> 
> >-- 
> >Steve Dyer
> >dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
> 
> cordially,
> mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
> "Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."

							-Skippy
					"You have enough work to keep you off
					 the street this weekend. I have enough
					 to do to keep me off the street this
					 weekend. I don't expect to be meeting
					 you on the street this weekend."

						-William "Wild Bill" Kennick
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books,alt.politics.homosexuality