mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (01/31/85)
> Parsons: > This is where I disagree. I'm not, in this discussion, concerned with > satisfaction, etc. I'm saying that one of the differences between fully > human sex and a lesser kind of sex is the context of a relationship. > Anything less than what I have called "fully human sex" is, therefore, > in my opinion, degrading. > > Obviously, we are in an area of *opinion*. I am simply explaining why I > find pornography in all of its forms, degrading. Others may perceive > "human" as something other than I do. > No problem with any opinion, yours, mine or someone else's. However, much of the discussion has focused, not just on opinion, but on legal restriction. In other words, "MY opinion is better than YOUR opinion, and I will enforce MY opinion with the force of the law" In that absence of any kind of consensus on the alleged ill effects of pornography, that kind of approach makes me bare fangs. I welcome discussion, however. Which leads me to: Please define "fully human sex". If you mean it to say "sex in the context of relatively long term attachment", does that mean that a "one night stand" or other purely sexual relationship is inhuman? What if the partners both understand the relationship to be purely sexual? Does that still make it "less than human"? Marcel Simon