From: kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu (Keith A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 01:53:08 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.185131.22860@liebe.uucp> kevin@liebe.uucp (Kevin Brawley) writes:
>jbrindle@nwnexus.WA.COM (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
>
>>franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) asserts:
>
>>>The end result, the child has
>>>lost priority and is often forgotten. That's what having sex is
>>>for dude.
>
>>Jesus H Christ, dude.  The primary purpose of sex is NOT to procreate!
>>If god wanted it that way, he wouldn't have made it so we could, or even,
>>WANT sex at any other time except when conception was possible.
>
>>Get off your religion and start THINKING.
>
>
>Hey dudette, I think you need more schooling.  The "Primary" purpose
>of sex could be procreation and the SECONDARY purpose could be fun.

If that was the case, then I would assume that you'd have more kids then
orgasms...

>Logic wins again.

You wouldn't know logic if it came up and gave you a business card...

>
>>>And I'm going to try not to be rude, but don't you EVER treat abstinence
>>>as an insult again. Lemme guess - you obviously didn't wait till marriage
>>>for sex, but do you wait till Christmas to open your presents? There's
>>>a time and a place for everything, and promiscuity is sure presenting
>>>us with a hell of a problem now isn't it?
>
>>I don't think anyone on this forum is against abstinence.  Abstinence is
>>quite proper for all of us at some time or another.  I think you took the
>>remarks in question as an insult because you are extremely sensitive.  
>>Not that there's anything wrong with sensitivity, women find it an attractive
>>trait, but on this forum, you can't wear your heart on your sleeve.
>
>Why shouldn't he be sensitive?  This group is full of insensitive
>boneheads who continually ridicule him for his belief in abstinence.
>I for one, am proud to see someone stand up for their unpopular
>(in this forum) belief.

Mr. "I Don't Have The Beginnings Of A Clue" tries reading comphrension again.
He fails again.

>
>>I also think you're equating lack of abstinence with promiscuity.  While in
>>some cases, that is true, it is not always, nor is it the norm.  Most people
>>practice serial monogamy (as I've written to you in email, and you couldn't
>>be "bothered" to reply).  Serial monogamy is not the same as promiscuity, nor
>>is it bad.
>
>"Serial Monogamy" is PC promiscuity.

No, "Serial Monogamy" is when you have sex exclusivly with your spouse.  You 
get a divorce.  You get remarried.  You have sex exclusivly with your [new]
spouse.

I think you need to send in 50, not 40 box tops for your free Clue...
>
>>>   Incedentally, I don't think there is a shred of insecurity in me.
>
>>He he. As a psychologist, I can tell you that statement is a red flag to your
>>insecurities.  A person who is unwilling to admit frailties is most boring
>>and most frail.
>
>As a psychologist, why do you hide behind PC?
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu   |  !uunet!nyx!kcochran  |  kcochran@isis.cs.du.edu  =
=B(0/1/2/3) f- t w- c- d- s++(+) m e++ r(-) p k(+) <--My BearCode, if you care=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  Ok???=
=Ex-Girlfriend of Rocker, Susan, Linda, and Larry.  Damm Proud Of It, And FWA!=