roy@gatech.UUCP (10/27/83)
Are you for real? Withhold sex until marriage in order to force
the man to be a better mate? I don't know about anyone else, but
*I* for one would not marry anyone who used sex (or any other form
of coersion) to try to make me change. It just doesn't seem to be
good grounds for a relationship to me....
And what *if* Jesus was a hermaphrodite? There is a species of
toad (the Surinam, I believe) whose unfertilized eggs will develop
to term if some sort of shock is applied to them (such as agitating
the water the are in). Scientists believe that such "virgin" births
*are* possible in humans, but are very improbable. With the current
population of the earth, they estimate that ~3 people alive today
had no father. But, since they have only 1 chromosome (an X), they
would be female.
Finally, I would just like to say that I would find it extremely
odd if men and women thought alike. Science 83 (or 82) had an
article about evidence that seems to indicate that people who
learned Japanese as their initial language process information
in different parts of the brain than non-Japanese thinking people.
I would be very surprised if language can affect the brain, but
sex does not. But really, what is wrong with being different?
Difference isn't the point of contention. It is the *right* to
be different that we should be fighting for.
--
"Roy J. Mongiovi"
USA: School of ICS, Georgia Institute of Technology. Atlanta, GA 30332
CSNet: Roy@GaTech ARPA: Roy.GaTech@UDel-Relay
uucp: ...!{sb1,allegra,ut-ngp}!gatech!roy ...!duke!mcnc!msdc!gatech!royrlr@pyuxn.UUCP (11/01/83)
> Are you for real? Withhold sex until marriage in order to force > the man to be a better mate? I don't know about anyone else, but > *I* for one would not marry anyone who used sex (or any other form > of coersion) to try to make me change. It just doesn't seem to be > good grounds for a relationship to me.... Why is refusing to have sex coercion? I always thought sex was a consensual act between two people (remember "consenting adults"). This says something about attitudes towards sex and marriage. Since when is one's partner *required* to "provide" sex, where failure to do so is called coercion? I think the original point was that in these modern sexually liberated times, men have no reason to commit themselves to a relationship because sex is "available" to them without commitment. Commitment seems to be very high on the list of things that women desire in a relationship, while it is not quite so high on men's lists (or so it would seem from the original article). Thus, women who choose not to have sex prior to marriage (or some level of commitment) are doing so to achieve that level of commitment in a relationship.
woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (11/06/83)
Two points: I'll be brief. Firstly, at least after marriage lack of sex is
legal grounds for divorce in most states, thus wives (and husbands too!) are
in fact legally required to "do their duty". Secondly, not all men are afraid
of/do not want commitment. I for one would have no difficulty making such a
commitment with the right woman (whatever that is).
GREG
--
{ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!brl-bmd | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!kpno}
!hao!woodsdave@rlgvax.UUCP (Dave Maxey) (11/14/83)
In regards to commitment in a relationship: I think that if asked men to
temporarily disregard the question of sex in a relationship that most of them
would discover, to their surprise, that they want commitment in a relationship
just as much as women do. I know that commitment is high on my list even if I
do see through a sexual fog, i.e. immediate sexual attraction. I simply chose
to regard it with less importance when making decisions that could affect the
rest of my life. If any woman finds that a man is holding the subject of sex
before marriage over her (pardon the visuals), she should dump him before they
get hitched.
- Dave Maxey (alias tbm)
{seismo,mcnc,brl-bmd,allegra}!rlgvax!dave