From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revisited
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 19:07:59 GMT

In <BzMI8D.L4H@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>In article <bob1.724607266@cos> bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
>>In <BzB858.6EL@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>
>>>In article <1gg7lvINN5mk@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>>>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>>>Are you actually so parochial that you think that any person who
>>>has a one-night stand, who breaks up after a year-long relationship,
>>
>>I guess I must be. In love with someone you met three hours ago in a
>>bar and have just jumped in the sack with?

>How does "three hours ago" compare to "year-long relationship."

Well, I would hope that within the space of a year, some meeting of
minds could take place. Also, in such a time period the minds might
have 'thought' they met, only to discover it was not the case.

>Do you suggest that any man who sleeps with a woman before a year 
>has passed is guilty of moral turpitude?

No. Simply so in need of physical sex that he is willing to grab the
nearest chance. But then, that's just the way I am - mileage may vary.

>What about the woman?

Again, my personal preference - she is not my cup of tea (but then I
don't imagine she would lose any sleep over that :-/)


>>In love
>>with a child I helped produce? Yes, I can understand that, I can even
>>understand loving a child I raised whether it had my genes or not.

>Do you support Michal's position that you have "fled the scene"
>if you didn't pursue the woman you were in love with but broke up with 
>after a year or three?  And therefore should have no parental rights?

Depends. Did you both stay together those years? Were both involved in
raising and supporting any off-spring? See, fleeing the scene after
marriage is either divorce or desertion - both cost you money when
done or caught.

>>Don't get me wrong, I don't care whether two people get churched or
>>not, but there needs to be a commitment, a meeting of minds and
>>spirit, or what is different about it than two animals rutting in
>>a field?

>To contrast your image of animals rutting: the person you're supporting
>suggested cunnilingus as a natural way to preserve a man's reproductive 
>rights -- is that the kind of "meeting of minds" you're looking for?

Where in hell did you find this in my post? Shit, another Nyikos who
reads words in the white space! Maybe I just got damn lucky, but the
kind of meeting of the minds we have is closer to telepathy than any-
thing I've ever experienced. Besides, I've never seen the white-tails
in our backyard doing that, rutting is much the most frequent method
and then only in season.

>>Guess I'm just too old-fashioned, but if this crap is the 'Brave
>>New World', I'll keep my tired old one thank you very much.

>Keep it.  But don't legislate my children (intended or accidental
>or unknown) away from me because of it.

I have no intention of legislating anyone's children away from them.
It strikes me that the persistent theme of this thread is 'Don't
legislate any of my children (i, a, or u) into my areas of fiscal
responsibility. Any father, no matter how he gained that estate, who
wants to look after his children has my support.

>Don
>-- 
Bob.
>beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky soc.men:21630 soc.women:21794 soc.singles:34583