From: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Morally good necessary possible sometimes possible reproductiveness
Date: 17 Dec 92 17:21:11 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Dec17.122113.18612
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <BzE9zw.8Cy@unix.amherst.edu> 
jmfuchs@unix.amherst.edu (JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS) writes:

>Michael Zeleny (zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu) wrote:

>>In article <1992Dec17.034920.23498@spdcc.com>
>>dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:

>>>In article <1992Dec16.215746.18586@husc3.harvard.edu>
>>>zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

MZ:
>>>>I see no reasonable systematic way to construe a sex act, so as to
>>>>allow for a change of partners *within* the same act.  See my
>>>>discussion with Mike Morris for more details.

>[some phatic speech omitted]

SD:
>>>I suspect you haven't been in many N-way orgies, where N >1.

MZ:
>>I fail to see the relevance of my sexual _curriculum vitae_ to the matter
>>at hand, and I do mean *your* hand.  But since you insist, I'll own up to
>>having been found attractive by more than one woman at a time.

JMF:
>	Go Mickey.

SD:
>>>The idea that there's "an act" which can be isolated and subjected
>>>to this dreary philosophical harangue is wonderfully quaint and dusty,
>>>reminiscent of old missionaries and old missionary positions, and more
>>>than a bit unreal.  But we knew that already.

MZ:
>>Within any freely chosen human activity, there is an act subject to being
>>isolated and analyzed.  It is neither necessary, nor reasonable, to
>>maintain that each such activity involves no more than one intentional
>>act.  But I shall not continue this disquisition, for fear of provoking
>>your Complacent Superficiality into troublesome reflection.  Interested
>>parties will find further information on this subject in _The Will_, by
>>Brian O'Shaughnessy.

JMF:
>	Yes, but your analysis of the situation is silly. I have no argument
>witht he idea of separating indivdiual acts, but that would mean we would
>have to separate the act of oral sex between men and women from any other 
>sex they might have. When separated from the rest, this is just as bad as
>oral sex between two men. 

Nothing can be separated from the possibilities which inhere in it.

JMF:
>	By the way, if the only legitimate purpose for sex is reproductive, I 
>have to ask (assuming you do not): Why don't you cut a hole in a sheet, put 
>your penis through that, and have that be the only contact between you and 
>your woman, as I hear the Amish do? To quote my Philo prof, "Wild Bill"
>Kennick: "Has anyone, in the history of the universe, ever thought of having
>sexsolely for reproductive reasons? I have two children, and rest assured, the 
>thought has never come close to crossing my mind."

Skippy, the fact that the only *moral* purpose of sex is reproduction,
does not in any way forbid, prevent, or enjoin you from using it to
attain other ends, -- as long as you do not deliberately forswear,
abjure, and abandon the said purpose.

>							-Skippy
>					"You have enough work to keep you off
>					 the street this weekend. I have enough
>					 to do to keep me off the street this
>					 weekend. I don't expect to be meeting
>					 you on the street this weekend."
>
>						-William "Wild Bill" Kennick

						Why do people who advertise
						themselves as "wild", always
						sound so bloody boring?
cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Nous donnons la mort, nous saurons la subir."
Xref: sparky talk.philosophy.misc:3024 rec.arts.books:22730 alt.politics.homosexuality:8141