wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) (09/10/86)
In article <1067@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: >Well, this isn't really germane to SF, but in response to a few challenges >asking what DeCamp said that was so terrible: > >He said that the sexual revolution was a mistake. ... > >Now what does this mean? What was (and is) the sexual revolution? It is >very simple. The revolution concerns freedom to love as you will, when you >will, where and with whom you will. Nothing else. And I also could claim the 'revolution' had many negative side effects in our society, and affected for the worse the nature of interpersonal relationships in our society. You're defining the GOALS of the revolution, not examining its effects. Although Tim Maroney might claim there was 'nothing else' involved in the revolution, many of us who lived through that period of time and who were affected by these social changes would disagree. Guess that makes us bad people, huh? >The revolution in >attitudes is that no one should call someone else evil because of a >disagreement with the other's sexual preferences and decisions. You're grossly oversimplifying a highly complex set of social changes. Why should we believe everyone in 1986 would agree with Tim Maroney's definition of what the revolution was all about, let alone his definition of what it may have been about for people in 1966? You don't write an algorithm for human behavior if you're a halfway intelligent human being (yes, I'm implying what you think about half the AI community :-). >Opposition >to the sexual revolution says that we should go back to the old days when >living with someone out of wedlock or otherwise having sex without the >ritual consecration of the genitals called "marriage" was a scandal and a >crime. It says homosexuals should be denied jobs or even jailed, [etc.] What the bloody hell makes you think deCamp was advocating these sorts of things? You people are living in a fantasy world and I doubt many of you actually were THERE through the upheavals of the '60s. Guess it makes sense to post this kind of thing to net.sf-lovers, after all. My experience of the 'revolution:' there were a lot of fanatics running around screwing whoever and whatever they wanted in the name of ideological purity. Folks whose relationships were destroyed by such behavior and beliefs were sometimes told they were living in the 19th century. There were also a lot of hangers-on just looking for a free ride. You actually heard people verbally abusing married couples for their engagement in an obsolete and exploitative relationship. The end result was a devaluing of sexuality, its reduction in some cases to a friendly greeting like shaking hands. All of this sometimes had negative effects on people who couldn't keep up with the changes: broken relationships, impotence, depression, anxiety was sometimes the result. To say the 'revolution' was just about freedom to love is naive. And marriage is more than a ritual consecration of the genitals. MANY thoughtful and intelligent people in our society would agree with me. How do you come up with this stuff? Sheesh. >... It is, in short, opposition to personal freedom and privacy. Poppycock. -- A Very Bad Person Indeed, Bill Ingogly
tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) (09/15/86)
In article <994@rti-sel.UUCP> wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) writes, responding to an earlier message by me: >And I also could claim the 'revolution' had many negative side effects >in our society, and affected for the worse the nature of interpersonal >relationships in our society. You're defining the GOALS of the >revolution, not examining its effects. Although Tim Maroney might >claim there was 'nothing else' involved in the revolution, many of us >who lived through that period of time and who were affected by these >social changes would disagree. Guess that makes us bad people, huh? I certainly have never said so, and frankly, Bill, I was somewhat surprised by your vehemence and emotionality in this message. May I ask that you turn down the flames a bit so we can talk like the friendly acquaintances we are? Now, to your points. The sexual revolution did not begin in 1966 and it did not end in 1971. It began in the late nineteenth century as a result of early "free love" advocates such as H.G. Wells, and flourished in the early twentieth century in the hands of humanists such as Margaret Sanger, Bertrand Russell, and Aleister Crowley. (Actually, if you like, I can trace it back to Rabelais, but it was only in the late eighteenth century that its "prophets" were able to gain any social legitimacy, however dubious.) It is anything but over; the chief battles being fought at present concern homosexuality, abortion, and erotic publications. Given this, I really doubt that you have lived through so much more of it than I have, although you are somewhat older. We have been equally affected by the ongoing revolution in sexual attitudes. I have no doubt that some people have come out worse from these changes. I surely have not. Birth control has been an enormous boon to me, and I have grown a great deal as a result of living with several different women, from age sixteen onwards. Had we been forced into marriage by old-guard attitudes, our growth would have been much less and our partings far more hostile and difficult. Any social upheaval produces its casualties, even such apparently all-good changes as an end to segregation laws or allowing people to pursue their sexual inclinations as seems right to them; but I will take freedom over prejudice and coercion any time. >>The revolution in >>attitudes is that no one should call someone else evil because of a >>disagreement with the other's sexual preferences and decisions. > >You're grossly oversimplifying a highly complex set of social changes. >Why should we believe everyone in 1986 would agree with Tim Maroney's >definition of what the revolution was all about, let alone his >definition of what it may have been about for people in 1966? You >don't write an algorithm for human behavior if you're a halfway >intelligent human being (yes, I'm implying what you think about half >the AI community :-). I find this paragraph to be nearly free of information content. In what way am I oversimplifying? And is it really necessary to impugn my intelligence? >>Opposition >>to the sexual revolution says that we should go back to the old days when >>living with someone out of wedlock or otherwise having sex without the >>ritual consecration of the genitals called "marriage" was a scandal and a >>crime. It says homosexuals should be denied jobs or even jailed, [etc.] > >What the bloody hell makes you think deCamp was advocating these sorts >of things? You people are living in a fantasy world and I doubt many >of you actually were THERE through the upheavals of the '60s. Guess >it makes sense to post this kind of thing to net.sf-lovers, after all. See comment on previous paragraph. >My experience of the 'revolution:' there were a lot of fanatics >running around screwing whoever and whatever they wanted in the name >of ideological purity. Folks whose relationships were destroyed by >such behavior and beliefs were sometimes told they were living in the >19th century. There were also a lot of hangers-on just looking for a free >ride. You actually heard people verbally abusing married couples for >their engagement in an obsolete and exploitative relationship. The end >result was a devaluing of sexuality, its reduction in some cases to a >friendly greeting like shaking hands. All of this sometimes had negative >effects on people who couldn't keep up with the changes: broken >relationships, impotence, depression, anxiety was sometimes the result. >To say the 'revolution' was just about freedom to love is naive. But it was, Bill. The consequences you cite are inevitable consequences of an increase in freedom. Crowley has written at some length about the usual response of people to a release from restriction, and I have amplified his comments elsewhere. For here, let me just say that the usual response is to swing to an opposite extreme from the former restriction. Only an unusual degree of self-awareness (or lucky conditioning) allows a person to resist this effect. (And to forestall your inevitable response: no, I do not feel that I have either of these attributes; I was fortunate enough reach puberty in a centrist time which gave me few restrictions which would have provoked such a violent counter-reaction.) The 1960's were not particularly known for introspection; rather more for emotional fervor and immense self-conviction, common consequences of psychedelic drugs, under which any revelation, no matter how trivial, acquires the force of divine writ. The 1960's mating pattern was one of the swings of the pendulum toward an illusion of freedom which was actually just an equal and opposite restriction. I would cite in particular their extreme sexism; a "good chick" was one who let anyone fuck her at a moment's notice, and washed the dishes when her vagina wasn't in use. Dogmatic polygamy is just as bad as dogmatic monogamy; but it was, at the risk of repeating myself, an inevitable phase of the ongoing revolution in sexual attitudes. Its net result was increased freedom for those people whose natural inclinations are non-monogamous. It also hurt people whose natural inclinations are monogamous; but the latter effect has vanished, while the former effect remains. Sexual attitudes swung back toward the center in the 1970's, and have now swung all the way towards the old restriction again. Fortunately, each swing leaves more people in the center, and so there actually is an improvement overall. For instance, contrast modern tolerance for sex out of wedlock and homosexuality with the attitudes of the 1940's and 1950's. There is still a long way to go; but today we are a lot freer than we were at any other time in modern Western civilization. But further change will not come without more dogmatic swings to illusory freedom. I wish such things would not happen, and I do my best to demonstrate tolerance of all orientations to combat this trend, but I know too much about human nature to expect otherwise. The point is that mooning over emotional damage done to some people in the pursuit of freedom for *everyone* would leave us forever stranded in the Dark Ages. It is itself an over-reaction against restriction, in this case the restriction to multi-partner intercourse. People suffered much more terribly as a result of the rejection of slavery than by the polygamy of the 1960's, but everyone agrees that it was worth it, because everyone was more free after some of the dust settled. >And marriage is more than a ritual consecration of the genitals. MANY >thoughtful and intelligent people in our society would agree with me. >How do you come up with this stuff? Sheesh. Marriage is many things to many people and many ages. In many cultures, it has been essentially a business contract with no real relation to either sex or love (e.g., Roman times). In others it has been seen as a transcendent bonding of two souls before God (the Chivalric ideal of marriage, and some modern attitudes). I prefer to go back to first causes and examine the origins of marriage as a way of controlling human reproduction and establishing ownership of children. This seems to have happened during the Age of Agriculture, though it is difficult to be sure. If so, then examination of the religious patterns of the time, and the ways in which fertility was controlled in crops and herds, will show why I called it a "ritual consecration of the genitals". But you are right in that this is only one of the many things it is. >>... It is, in short, opposition to personal freedom and privacy. > >Poppycock. > > -- A Very Bad Person Indeed, Bill Ingogly Yes, Bill, if you want to think we all hate you, then that is your right, but I can't help feeling that discussion would be easier without such attitudes. I know that cordial disagreement is not alien to your nature, and I'm looking forward to it in the future. -- Tim Maroney, Electronic Village Idiot and Self-Assigner of Pretentious Titles {ihnp4,sun,well,ptsfa,lll-crg,frog}!hoptoad!tim (uucp) hoptoad!tim@lll-crg (arpa) "Mister Spock succumbs to a powerful mating urge and nearly kills Captain Kirk." TV Guide, quoted in National Lampoon's True Facts
wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) (09/24/86)
In article <1094@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: >I certainly have never said so, and frankly, Bill, I was somewhat surprised >by your vehemence and emotionality in this message. May I ask that you turn >down the flames a bit so we can talk like the friendly acquaintances we are? I won't respond in full to your article for this reasons: someone has pointed out to me that you have flamed me for not responding to this thing yet. Many of us have other things to do, Tim, than sit at a terminal all day/night writing convoluted responses to convoluted news articles. I have been very busy lately, and as I point out in my other article, I've been very offended by your flame. As offended as I am by the condescension in your flame and in statements like: >> -- A Very Bad Person Indeed, Bill Ingogly > >Yes, Bill, if you want to think we all hate you, then that is your right, >but I can't help feeling that discussion would be easier without such >attitudes. ... What makes you think I feel this way? Do you seriously think other people on the net believe I feel this way? You seem to be into psychology: ever hear of projection? I think we're seeing a classic case of it here. -- Bill Ingogly
robert@weitek.UUCP (09/26/86)
If you're using rn to read news, you can start your very own personal
boycott. I suggest that you start small with:
/tim@hoptoad.UUCP/h:j
Add it to your KILL file, and articles from that silly person at hoptoad
will no longer be presented to you.
-- Robert
--
Robert Plamondon
UUCP: {pyramid,turtlevax, cae780}!weitek!robert
Disclaimer: It's not my fault!