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 08:08:50 GMT

Michael Zeleny (zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu) wrote:
> In article <BzDnKr.5F0@unix.amherst.edu> 
> jmfuchs@unix.amherst.edu (JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS) writes:
> 
> >Michael Zeleny (zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu) wrote:
> 
> >>jmfuchs@unix.amherst.edu (JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS) writes:
> 
> JMF:
> >>>	Oh, you know, it's pretty darn stupid of me, but, as I was distracted
> >>>by the aesthetics of abusing Mickey, I seemed to have forgotten my original
> >>>point. Of course, the blame probably shouldn't rest entirely on my shoulders,
> >>>since Mickey did absolutely nothing to answer it. 
> >>>	But anyway, Mickey, you still haven't answered why oral sex between a
> >>>male and female would be okay (assuming that you feel so,) but that oral sex
> >>>between two men is bad. I'm pretty sure you can't come up with a logical,
> >>>clearly stated reason - so sure, in fact, that if you can, I will give you
> >>>$1000 US, all my old G.I Joes, the complete set of ginsu knives, bla bla bla
> >>>bla bla bla bla bla. Act now - we have operators standing by. We have people
> >>>on hold. We have people holding operators...we have operators holding other
> >>>operators...my god, it's quite a scene.
> 
> MZ:
> >>The short form: because only in the former case, the partners can
> >>switch to a potentially productive venue within their union, at any
> >>time before the climax.  The long form will be found in my latest
> >>reply to Mike Morris.  I await my promised reward.
> 
> JMF:
> >	Sorry, Mickey, but, according to my definition (which is admittedly
> >subjective) that would count as foreplay, instead of Oral Sex. Maybe you don't
> >agree with this definition, and I can see why not, but when I ask for a 
> >reason that oral sex between a male and female is okay, I mean up until climax.
> 
> Possibility is more inclusive than its actualization.
	This is a very, very weird argument, but I will give you points for 
arguing it well. However, in the real world, why is possibility more 
inclusive? In both cases, there just ain't going to be any "sex," so why 
should it matter to anyone not merely treading in their own intellectual
waters?

> 
> JMF:
> >	By the way, what if they can't switch to the ol' bump and grind? For
> >instance, I have quite a few friends here at college who are going out with
> >female virgins. The women do not wish to lose their virginity at this point,
> >but are willing to give oral sex. By your definition, this would be bad. 
> >Sorry, Mickey, no ginsu knives...although there is the consolation prize of
> >a year's supply of Rice-a-Roni sitting here with your name on it.
> 
> Skippy, if you need me to tell you what's wrong with this picture, you
> have no chance of getting it straight anyway.
	I'm pretty sure that what you mean by "what's wrong with this picture"
is not the fact that these women won't have sex. But what is your definition
of the realm of possibility? The chances of a barren woman suddenly becoming
fertile during sex is about equal to the odds of a gay man suddenly growing
a womb and being able to bear children with semen entering through his mouth. 
True, in some possible world, this woman could be feritle - but in some 
possible world, we could also impregnate aardvarks. Does this make 
bestiality okay with you?
> 
> >>cordially,
> >>mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
> >>"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
> 
> JMF:
> >	Only cordially? But I feel like I know you like a brother. Or at least
> >that uncle that we kept locked up in the attic...
> 
> No deadbeat is a relative of mine.
	But in some possible world, I could be. And wouldn't that just be a
thrill for both of us.
> 
> >							Lard & Fishes,
> >								Skipp
> 
> cordially,
> mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
> "Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
					More fun than lots of things, up to but
					not including reruns of "Cheers,"
								Skippy
Xref: sparky talk.philosophy.misc:3033 rec.arts.books:22795 alt.politics.homosexuality:8165