[net.religion] Christianity, sex, shoes

rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/20/84)

Jeff Sargent on Rich Kulawiec's distinction between "making love" and
"fucking":
> the second of these ignores the fact that sex is intended as a total union
> between two people, not just as the stimulation of two bodies. 

Something being "intended" as something implies an "intender".  (Which,
of course, gets us back to central point of argument in this newsgroup.)
As I've mentioned before, preconceptions, like beliefs in what things are
"intended" for, lead one to irrational conclusions.  Don't assume sex is
"intended" for anything.  It's just there.  Somewhere...

> It is this second approach to sex which dehumanizes it.

No more or less dehumanizing than being "treated like a number by large
corporations" or any number of other instances of dehumanization.  Not
all interactions between people are fully "humanized".  Nor should they
all be.  Some people prefer that form of interaction.  Whether or not it's
"best" for them is none of my business.  And whether or not they're acting
in a way that they were "intended" to act is irrelevant in the absence of
an intender, no?

Actually, there is nothing about the topic of shoes contained in this article.
-- 
Now I've lost my train of thought. I'll have to catch the bus of thought.
			Rich Rosen    pyuxn!rlr