From: rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz)
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk,alt.sex,alt.sex.stories.d,alt.industrial
Subject: Re: ROBO-COPULATION
Date: 11 Nov 92 12:38:34 GMT
Organization: The Armory

In article <1992Nov9.042959.25420@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> sgreever@nyx.cs.du.edu (Steven Greever) writes:
>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
-----------
Peace my ass, you shitfuck! I hope there are four year olds reading
this newsgroup. Nobody believes your shit anymore. You're a dying
abnormality on the face of a planet your kind fucked over. The Golden
Rule is stupid. You either have to take it to mean we should obey each
other's whims or inflict our own interests on others in the name of
doing them good. Whoever thought that one up never envisioned LA. The
bible is a farce. Even the poetry isn't as good as this net group's
erotica. And even the morality isn't as good as I have seen on here.
The bible's a wash. Go hose yourself, at 1000 psi. Up your ass,
butthead. Go wash your brain out with gasoline and light it. And sex is
the only consolation for putting up with this life and assholes like
you. And you don't even think that the most beautiful creation, orgasm,
is pretty! You're worshipping the wrong end of the force, there,
"Luke". If they don't have rampant sex and good food in heaven then I
don't want to go. The heaven you preach sounds boring. Being nice to
people has usually come in spite of the church, not because of it. I'm
about to puke all over the next *christian* fuck head I see. How dare
you think you know that we should abandon the one holy gift we got
from the Goddess, which is SEX! So FUCK OFF, asswipe, or we'll send
the demons after you!
- Have a nice day

(And if this guy is really drieux playing a funny, fuck you too,
drieux!)




-- 
* Richard STEVEn Walz   rstevew@deeptht.armory.com   (408) 429-1200  *
* 515 Maple Street #1   * Without safe and free abortion women are   *
* Santa Cruz, CA 95060    organ-surrogates to unwanted parasites.*   *
* Real Men would never accept organ-slavery and will prot
Xref: sparky alt.cyberpunk:5618 alt.sex.stories.d:406 alt.industrial:668 alt.sex:35583