From: desiree@netcom.com (Desiree Champagne)
Subject: Duck and Jive (was Re: Pre-Sex Contract )
Summary: My MasterCard is maxed out.
Organization: Sitting Ducks
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:08:28 GMT

<Bong! Round 2>

In his most recent article, The Tickle Creature, has stated:

>I said in yesterday's ballistic blast:

[nesting of other quotes deleted -- if you need it for reference to
understand the context -- tough]

> If the above quote makes you want to puke, then go right ahead.

	Thanks, I did just that.  Made a terrible mess of my 
keyboard though and the cat did not like the overflow.  But thank you
for giving me permission.  I feel so validated now.

>>	Has the thought occured to you that perhaps she's reevaluated
>>the sitatuion given a "today scenario" and realized that the stupid
>>contract you've (basically) forced her to sign isn't realizable given
>>a new set of circumstances (i.e., a bun in the oven)?

>     If you would have read with more attention, then you would have
>noticed I wrote "agreement", not "contract".  By the way, the agreement
>would be negotiated and agreed by both of us.  If she does not want
>to have an agreement, then she has the free will not to participate
>in an agreement.

	Okay, replace "agreement" with "contract" in my statement.  And
my query still stands:  Has the thought occurred to you that perhaps
she's reevaluated the situation given a "today scenario" and realized that
the agreement isn't realizable given a new set of circumstances?

	Don't weasle, wiggle or otherwise squirm -- just answer the
question.  (Je sais, it's difficult with all that muck around, but
just try, 'kay?)

	And put aside the bullshit about if she doesn't want the agreement
in the first place.  People do have the right, do they not, to change
their minds -- particularly about something like popping a kid?  Or
is that concept too much for your rigid mind to allow?  

>     Lets say that the situation is reversed.

	Ohhh you mean butt sex?  LJBFing at its finest... Or do you
mean that she's going to fuck you, instead of you fucking her?  Please,
don't give me any straight lines -- I'm a junkie I cannot resist.  And
you really do make too easy of a target.

>  Instead of adoption I will
>use abortion.

	<I will not say it...I will not say it> (Mantra from the 12 Step
Program for Straight Line Junkies...)

>  She and I agree that there will be an abortion if an
>unplanned pregnancy occurs.  After she gets pregnant, I change my mind and
>say that I want the child.  Legally, she can ignore my wishes and have the
>abortion.  She does have the abortion.  Do you see the double standard?
>Would you express the anger that you expressed at me at her?  I venture
>to say that you would not.

	It's a double-standard of life, Beasty.  Until men can conceive,
carry and give birth to a child -- then they just plain and simply
don't have the right to demand what a woman does with her body.  Get it?

	I am grossly tired of men that whine about double-standards
in this here life.  Yes, I understand that are plenty of double-standards
that we as a society have introduced.  And we all should be attuned to
those "false" double standards and strive to rid ourselves of them.  But
the bottom line is:  there are natural double standards over which
we shouldn't have any control.  

	And you mistake my anger, Oh Critter of the Night. It's not
over your wanting her to do this or that -- it's the facade you project
with "her lieing" to you.

>>	It's oh-so-easy to hide behind that "but you lied to me"
>>facade, isn't it?  Makes life real easy.

>     And you let people lie to you and you ignore the lies?  That is
>hard to believe.

	I didn't say that, now did I?  As difficult as I understand it
is, don't slip out on me here.  I accuse you of hiding behind a facade.
Address that issue, if you can.  (But I won't hold my breath -- I smoke
too much and I just don't have the lung control anymore...)

>     "If any one of you is without sin, let him/her be the first to
>throw the first stone...."

	Thanks, but as I've already stated, my pop owns (er owned) a
glass company and when my panes get broken I replace them.  Do you?

>     The negotiated agreement shows that a woman and I take
>responsibility for our past actions.  Legally, since she does not have
>to be sensitive to my changing needs if she wants to abort and I want to
>keep the child, why should I be sensitive to her changing needs?

	Watch it -- your shit is oozing again. 

	I'm going to say this as simple as possible -- clean your
glasses and read carefully --

	There are some things in this life that are not equal.  The
world is not equal.  If it were, we'd all pee standing up.  

	As far as the inequality goes about you wanting the child,
but her not -- as soon as you can figure out how your body will play
host to the baby, your body will nurture and grow stout with the
endeavor and your body, mind and emotions are involved in the action
of childbirth -- then you have a cause of action.  Until then, it is
a double standard -- and it's one that we *cannot* fix.  Get it?

	Shall we now sequeway in the moaning cries of "but then
the woman can come after me for childsupport?"  In a nutshell,
my response is "tough shit".  If you aren't prepared to take the
responsibility for that -- then keep your hose secured.  There is a
reason that the system is fucked boys.  Think about it.  

>>	You're a sanctimonious prig. And don't give me this drivel about
>>that being an ad hom attack.

>     No, not at all.  I just have high standards for myself and others
>which apparently you do not have.

	As I said, you're a sanctimonious prig and you are deeply 
enmeshed in a narrow-minded rigid world.  I've known other men --
intimately -- that had "high" standards for themselves too.  I laugh in
their face! Ha!  Take that you Creature and be off with you!  (To
repeat one of my more memorable statements to you: Rigidity belongs
(and is desired and cherished and worshipped) in the southern
hemisphere -- not the northern.) [Gawd, I amuse myself]

	And don't try to accuse me of not having high standards --
you simply don't know enough to make that accusation.  Nor will I play
into that game with you.  Just peddle off...

>    Since there is no reason that I can see to take your advice, I
>won't.  I am not disputing the fact that I am not a net.personality.
>The last half of the last sentence is only your opinion which I do
>not care about.

	Oh goodie goodie gum drops. But apparently you do care enough
to comment on it, non?  

	Go sharpen your pencils, you bore me...


Desiree



N.B.  Yes, that was me on the couch.  Scary huh?