gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) (12/12/90)
In article <49937@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> (Elissa Feit) writes: >In article <93782@aerospace.AERO.ORG> (Hillel Gazit) writes: >>I'm sorry to disappoint you but >>S&M is a standard equipment on some models. Period. >By "standard" do you mean inherent, inborn, etc. ? What difference does it make? >Hillel, how do you KNOW that S&M is "standard"? Because I talked with several S&M people, including those who tried psychological treatments (that did not "cure" them...) >And please offer >something substantial so we don't get into the argument where you say >"person X is into S&M but was never exposed to ANY hurts/ abuses as a >child" and *I* respond "Yes, but how do you KNOW that person X hasn't >forgotten, since many people forget deep traumas?" etc... What difference does it make when and why the equipment became standard? >Since you might ask ME the same question, I suppose *I* think that >there are no human universals as far as being frozen into rigid >behavior patterns. People with this idea have tried to "cure" homosexual for a *long* time. (You know about Turing, don't you?) Why can't y'all *respect* people who say "this is a standard equipment in me, it can't be changed"? >Elissa Feit (feit@cs.buffalo.edu // {rutgers,uunet}!cs.buffalo.edu!feit) Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu "HERE WE ARE, AND HERE WE REMAIN. WE ARE NOT GOING ANYWHERE, NOT FOR YOU, OR ANY OTHER. IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, GO TO HELL." -- Clay Bond