Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Wendy Shallit and "Sexual Modesty"

3 views
Skip to first unread message

Loren Joseph MacGregor

unread,
Feb 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/8/99
to
I'm undoubtedly a bit behind the times, as today's mention of
Wendy Shallit's book "A Return to Modesty" on MSNBC (see
http://www.msnbc.com/news/237631.asp) is the first mention I've
seen. The peice referenced in the above URL strikes me as
largely well-written and cogent, -but- I get the feeling that
this is yet another version of "The women must control their
sexuality; men cannot be expected to do so."

Anyone read about Ms. Shallit's book, or read the book itself?
If so, I'd be interested in comment.

-- LJM


Ailsa Murphy

unread,
Feb 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/9/99
to
In article <79nghr$i4k$1...@haus.efn.org>,

Loren Joseph MacGregor <lmac...@efn.org> wrote:
> I'm undoubtedly a bit behind the times, as today's mention of
> Wendy Shallit's book "A Return to Modesty" on MSNBC (see
> http://www.msnbc.com/news/237631.asp) is the first mention I've
> seen. The peice referenced in the above URL strikes me as
> largely well-written and cogent, -but- I get the feeling that
> this is yet another version of "The women must control their
> sexuality; men cannot be expected to do so."
>
Why can't women control their own sexuality because it's _theirs_, and let men
do what they want with their own? What one does with one's own body is in the
end something one does for oneself.

> Anyone read about Ms. Shallit's book, or read the book itself?
> If so, I'd be interested in comment.
>

Having read the exerpt, I will definitely buy the book. I've already got
_Doesn't Anybody Blush Anymore_ (I forget the author at preset, though). I'm
not shomer negiah at present, but I plan on becoming so when I'm a bit closer
to being done converting.

If anybody's read both, that'd be an interesting discussion too.

-Ailsa

--
But to explicitly advocate cultural relativism ailsa....@tfn.com
on the grounds that it promotes tolerance is to Ailsa N.T. Murphy
implicitly assume that tolerance is an absolute value. If there are any
absolute values, however, cultural relativism is false. -Theodore Schick

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

Loren MacGregor

unread,
Feb 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/9/99
to

Ailsa Murphy wrote:

> In article <79nghr$i4k$1...@haus.efn.org>,
> Loren Joseph MacGregor <lmac...@efn.org> wrote:
> > I'm undoubtedly a bit behind the times, as today's mention of
> > Wendy Shallit's book "A Return to Modesty" on MSNBC (see
> > http://www.msnbc.com/news/237631.asp) is the first mention I've
> > seen. The peice referenced in the above URL strikes me as
> > largely well-written and cogent, -but- I get the feeling that
> > this is yet another version of "The women must control their
> > sexuality; men cannot be expected to do so."
> >
> Why can't women control their own sexuality because it's _theirs_, and let men
> do what they want with their own? What one does with one's own body is in the
> end something one does for oneself.

I don't disagree, but this is one of the reasons I asked for second opinions;
there is ground where I am certain what -my- reaction is, but uncertain that
my reaction is accurate, given the preconceptions and past history I bring
to the table. I'll note also that my last sentence above may not, in fact,
reflect Ms. Shallit's opinion, but what I suspect will be the widespread
reaction to what she says.

> > Anyone read about Ms. Shallit's book, or read the book itself?
> > If so, I'd be interested in comment.
>
> Having read the exerpt, I will definitely buy the book. I've already got
> _Doesn't Anybody Blush Anymore_ (I forget the author at preset, though). I'm
> not shomer negiah at present, but I plan on becoming so when I'm a bit closer
> to being done converting.

I remember reading -- or hearing? -- someplace the comment, "He thinks
I'm blushing. Doesn't he realize I'm livid with anger?"

And here is a point where I'm curious. Does "shomer negiah" apply to
homosexual relationships as well? And, if so, what are the similarities to
heterosexual interpretation, and what are the differences? Is there any body
of work that discusses shomer negiah as it relates to the gay and lesbian
community?

> If anybody's read both, that'd be an interesting discussion too.

Yes, it would. I'll look up the latter book.

-- LJM

Hal O'Brien

unread,
Feb 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/9/99
to
Ailsa Murphy, (ailsa....@tfn.com), was kind enough to say:

> In article <79nghr$i4k$1...@haus.efn.org>,
> Loren Joseph MacGregor <lmac...@efn.org> wrote:
> > I'm undoubtedly a bit behind the times, as today's mention of
> > Wendy Shallit's book "A Return to Modesty" on MSNBC (see
> > http://www.msnbc.com/news/237631.asp) is the first mention I've
> > seen. The peice referenced in the above URL strikes me as
> > largely well-written and cogent, -but- I get the feeling that
> > this is yet another version of "The women must control their
> > sexuality; men cannot be expected to do so."
> >
> Why can't women control their own sexuality because it's _theirs_, and let men
> do what they want with their own? What one does with one's own body is in the
> end something one does for oneself.

Do you realize one reading of Loren's phrase would be, "Women must
control their own sexuality; men cannot be expected to control
*their* own sexuality."?

I, myself, would still disagree with both premises... but
presumably this reading would be more palatable to you re "own"-
ership? :)

-- Hal

Loren MacGregor

unread,
Feb 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/9/99
to
Hal O'Brien wrote:

> Ailsa Murphy, (ailsa....@tfn.com), was kind enough to say:
> > In article <79nghr$i4k$1...@haus.efn.org>,
> > Loren Joseph MacGregor <lmac...@efn.org> wrote:
> > > I'm undoubtedly a bit behind the times, as today's mention of
> > > Wendy Shallit's book "A Return to Modesty" on MSNBC (see
> > > http://www.msnbc.com/news/237631.asp) is the first mention I've
> > > seen. The peice referenced in the above URL strikes me as
> > > largely well-written and cogent, -but- I get the feeling that
> > > this is yet another version of "The women must control their
> > > sexuality; men cannot be expected to do so."
> > >
> > Why can't women control their own sexuality because it's _theirs_, and let men
> > do what they want with their own? What one does with one's own body is in the
> > end something one does for oneself.
>
> Do you realize one reading of Loren's phrase would be, "Women must
> control their own sexuality; men cannot be expected to control
> *their* own sexuality."?

I hadn't realized until I read the above that my comments could be taken
another way. What Hal says is, in fact, the way I meant my comments
to be read. Or even, "Since men cannot control their own sexuality,
it is up to women to be responsible."

Note that I don't agree with that sentiment: it is up to every individual
to be responsible. Some people are better at it than others.

> I, myself, would still disagree with both premises... but
> presumably this reading would be more palatable to you re "own"-
> ership? :)
>

Dante wrote about people like you.

-- LJM

Ailsa Murphy

unread,
Feb 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/9/99
to
In article <MPG.112a13b16...@news.ware.net>,

arg...@earthlink.net (Hal O'Brien) wrote:
> Ailsa Murphy, (ailsa....@tfn.com), was kind enough to say:
> > In article <79nghr$i4k$1...@haus.efn.org>,
> > Loren Joseph MacGregor <lmac...@efn.org> wrote:
> > > I'm undoubtedly a bit behind the times, as today's mention of
> > > Wendy Shallit's book "A Return to Modesty" on MSNBC (see
> > > http://www.msnbc.com/news/237631.asp) is the first mention I've
> > > seen. The peice referenced in the above URL strikes me as
> > > largely well-written and cogent, -but- I get the feeling that
> > > this is yet another version of "The women must control their
> > > sexuality; men cannot be expected to do so."
> > >
> > Why can't women control their own sexuality because it's _theirs_, and let
men
> > do what they want with their own? What one does with one's own body is in
the
> > end something one does for oneself.
>
> Do you realize one reading of Loren's phrase would be, "Women must
> control their own sexuality; men cannot be expected to control
> *their* own sexuality."?
>
> I, myself, would still disagree with both premises... but
> presumably this reading would be more palatable to you re "own"-
> ership? :)
>

I read it as women must because men can't. But my argument is that people
should, male or female, for themselves, not because of what members of the
other sex might be doing. Men are also expected to be shomer negiah by
Jewish modesty laws, not just women, and the dress code applies to men as
well, it's just different because men are expected to wear different clothes.
(For precise details on this, someone drag Zev or Alter into this - they
probably know a lot more than I do.)

Craig Levin

unread,
Feb 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/9/99
to
In article <79nghr$i4k$1...@haus.efn.org>,
Loren Joseph MacGregor <lmac...@efn.org> wrote:
>I'm undoubtedly a bit behind the times, as today's mention of
>Wendy Shallit's book "A Return to Modesty" on MSNBC (see
>http://www.msnbc.com/news/237631.asp) is the first mention I've
>seen. The peice referenced in the above URL strikes me as
>largely well-written and cogent, -but- I get the feeling that
>this is yet another version of "The women must control their
>sexuality; men cannot be expected to do so."
>
>Anyone read about Ms. Shallit's book, or read the book itself?
>If so, I'd be interested in comment.

The Salon Magazine (www.salonmagazine.com) review and Paglia's
own review (also at Salon) seem to agree with you. Shalit's more
or less giving the traditional line in a great deal of Western
culture-one cannot help but recall the troubadours singing that
their ladies' unbound hair was the sheerest incitement to love.

--
http://pages.ripco.com:8080/~clevin/index.html
cle...@ripco.com
Craig Levin

Hal O'Brien

unread,
Feb 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/9/99
to
Loren MacGregor, (churn...@eugnpop1.eugn.uswest.net), was kind
enough to say:

> > I, myself, would still disagree with both premises... but


> > presumably this reading would be more palatable to you re "own"-
> > ership? :)
> >
>

> Dante wrote about people like you.

Dante? You mean the character in "Clerks"? <scritch head>

Actually, I don't think I look anything like Signor Alighieri's
Beatrice at all... But thanks anyway.

-- Hal

Marty Helgesen

unread,
Feb 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/9/99
to

In article <79pnf5$d69$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, ailsa....@tfn.com (Ailsa Murphy) says:

<SNIP>

>Having read the exerpt, I will definitely buy the book. I've already got
>_Doesn't Anybody Blush Anymore_ (I forget the author at preset, though).

It's _Doesn't Anyone Blush Anymore? by Manis Friedman.
-------
Marty Helgesen
Bitnet: mnhcc@cunyvm Internet: mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu

"A sneer is a distortion of the face that reflects a worse
distortion of the soul." -- F. J. Sheed

Support H.R. 1748 Anti-Spam bill. For further information see
http://www.cauce.org/

Mary Kay Kare

unread,
Feb 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/9/99
to
In article <MPG.112a13b16...@news.ware.net>,
arg...@earthlink.net (Hal O'Brien) wrote:

> Ailsa Murphy, (ailsa....@tfn.com), was kind enough to say:


> > In article <79nghr$i4k$1...@haus.efn.org>,
> > Loren Joseph MacGregor <lmac...@efn.org> wrote:
> > > I'm undoubtedly a bit behind the times, as today's mention of
> > > Wendy Shallit's book "A Return to Modesty" on MSNBC (see
> > > http://www.msnbc.com/news/237631.asp) is the first mention I've
> > > seen. The peice referenced in the above URL strikes me as
> > > largely well-written and cogent, -but- I get the feeling that
> > > this is yet another version of "The women must control their
> > > sexuality; men cannot be expected to do so."
> > >

> > Why can't women control their own sexuality because it's _theirs_, and
let men
> > do what they want with their own? What one does with one's own body
is in the
> > end something one does for oneself.
>
> Do you realize one reading of Loren's phrase would be, "Women must
> control their own sexuality; men cannot be expected to control
> *their* own sexuality."?
>

That's certainly how I read it. I too read the article in question and it
made me highly uncomfortable. I don't think anyone anywhere would ever
have defined me as modest, as Ms Shallit uses the term. But hey, I'm
pretty happy you know. I don't know if I've got that twinkle she talks
about, but...

MK

--
Mary Kay Kare

Abandon hope all ye who
Press Enter Here.

Vicki Rosenzweig

unread,
Feb 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/10/99
to
On Tue, 9 Feb 1999 20:22:56 GMT, pci...@otherworld.std.com wrote:

>In article <79pnf5$d69$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,


>Ailsa Murphy <ailsa....@tfn.com> wrote:
>>>
>>Why can't women control their own sexuality because it's _theirs_, and let men
>>do what they want with their own?
>

>The fact that at least 90% of men are heterosexual complicates things
>somewhat. Men can't simply "do what they want", because "what they want"
>is women.
>
I'm not sure if the error here is grammatical or philosophical.
In either case, though, I'll note that gay men, like heterosexual
men, ethically cannot just grab and have sex with anyone they
find attractive, even though by your analysis "what they want" is
"men" and they are "men."

There are plenty of things that heterosexual men can do with their
sexualities. One of those things is to let it be known, in various
polite ways, that they're looking for sex with women. Another is
to go home with a magazine.

That the class of people you're attracted to doesn't overlap the
class of people you define yourself as being part of (I put it
that way because I'm fairly sure that there are categories, such
as "human" and "speaks a language you do" where you do fall into
the set of people you'd consider having sex with) doesn't somehow
relieve you from the obligation to act as an ethical adult. For
that matter, that the class of people I'm attracted to *does*
overlap the class of people I define myself as part of doesn't
excuse me from that same obligation.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig | v...@interport.net
r.a.sf.f faq at http://www.users.interport.net/~vr/rassef-faq.html

Lise Eisenberg for DUFF!

Terry Frost

unread,
Feb 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/10/99
to
As an unabashed but considerate libertine, I find all of this weird.

Terry


On 9 Feb 1999 20:01:54 GMT, cle...@ripco.com (Craig Levin) wrote:

>In article <79nghr$i4k$1...@haus.efn.org>,
>Loren Joseph MacGregor <lmac...@efn.org> wrote:
>>I'm undoubtedly a bit behind the times, as today's mention of
>>Wendy Shallit's book "A Return to Modesty" on MSNBC (see
>>http://www.msnbc.com/news/237631.asp) is the first mention I've
>>seen. The peice referenced in the above URL strikes me as
>>largely well-written and cogent, -but- I get the feeling that
>>this is yet another version of "The women must control their
>>sexuality; men cannot be expected to do so."
>>

Zev Sero

unread,
Feb 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/10/99
to
On Tue, 09 Feb 1999 09:18:36 -0800, Loren MacGregor
<churn...@eugnpop1.eugn.uswest.net> wrote:

>And here is a point where I'm curious. Does "shomer negiah" apply to
>homosexual relationships as well?

Not as a matter of law. If someone feels it appropriate to observe it
in hir own case, that's up to them.


> Is there any body of work that discusses shomer negiah as it relates
>to the gay and lesbian community?

No. It's only now that the people who would write about the matter are
slowly coming to realise that there are in fact lots of people who care
about the matter. Till now it's been assumed in those circles that
homosexuality doesn't exist in the frum community.
--
Zev Sero Imminent death of the net delayed, Film at 12.
zs...@bigfoot.com - Joe Greco

Ailsa Murphy

unread,
Feb 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/10/99
to
In article <79q47i$qnr$1...@gail.ripco.com>,

cle...@ripco.com (Craig Levin) wrote:
> In article <79nghr$i4k$1...@haus.efn.org>,
> Loren Joseph MacGregor <lmac...@efn.org> wrote:
> >I'm undoubtedly a bit behind the times, as today's mention of
> >Wendy Shallit's book "A Return to Modesty" on MSNBC (see

> The Salon Magazine (www.salonmagazine.com) review and Paglia's


> own review (also at Salon) seem to agree with you. Shalit's more
> or less giving the traditional line in a great deal of Western
> culture-one cannot help but recall the troubadours singing that
> their ladies' unbound hair was the sheerest incitement to love.
>

Camille Paglia hates it? Cool. I knew I was going to like it.

-Ailsa
traditional Western culture isn't always wrong

Ailsa Murphy

unread,
Feb 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/10/99
to
In article <F6wLy...@world.std.com>,

pci...@otherworld.std.com wrote:
> In article <79pnf5$d69$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> Ailsa Murphy <ailsa....@tfn.com> wrote:
> >>
> >Why can't women control their own sexuality because it's _theirs_, and let
men
> >do what they want with their own?
>
> The fact that at least 90% of men are heterosexual complicates things
> somewhat. Men can't simply "do what they want", because "what they want"
> is women.
>

Badly stated, obviously. I control my sexuality for _me_. Its effect on men
is at times unfortunate, but I'm not doing it for them, not doing it because
if I don't control myself, well, of course _they_ have no control, or
anything of that sort. I'm doing it for myself, because that's what I want
to do.

Could be that the young woman writing this book is also suggesting modesty as
something you do for yourself because it makes you happy, not something you
are doing for or about men. As the guy who wrote _Omaha, The Cat Dancer_
said, your most important sexual relationship is with yourself.

-Ailsa

Ailsa Murphy

unread,
Feb 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/10/99
to
In article <kare-09029...@ppp-asok02--096.sirius.net>,

*laugh* Whereas I read it and thought, oh my, I'm trendy, who'd'a thought?

Loren MacGregor

unread,
Feb 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/10/99
to

Zev Sero wrote:

> On Tue, 09 Feb 1999 09:18:36 -0800, Loren MacGregor
> <churn...@eugnpop1.eugn.uswest.net> wrote:
>
> >And here is a point where I'm curious. Does "shomer negiah" apply to
> >homosexual relationships as well?
>
> Not as a matter of law. If someone feels it appropriate to observe it
> in hir own case, that's up to them.

While I have you on the line, I've been asked in a separate e-mail to
define "shomer negiah," and despite some fairly extensive research
last night (in between episodes of running outside for a snow ball
fight with Lauryn; we don't get much snow in Eugene), while I
feel I've learned a lot about it, I -don't- feel qualified to offer a
definition. Is there some place to which you can point me that
-might- have an adequate definition or, failing that, could you
offer a definition yourself?

> > Is there any body of work that discusses shomer negiah as it relates
> >to the gay and lesbian community?
>
> No. It's only now that the people who would write about the matter are
> slowly coming to realise that there are in fact lots of people who care
> about the matter. Till now it's been assumed in those circles that
> homosexuality doesn't exist in the frum community.

This is interesting to me, because I can see where it would have been
a useful concept in my "dating days" in the gay community. Not for
everyone, certainly, but for a certain subset of people who were
clearly looking for ... words fail me, but I'll suggest for want of
better "a sense of commitment."

I clearly have more reading to do.

-- LJM

Loren MacGregor

unread,
Feb 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/10/99
to

Ailsa Murphy wrote:

> Badly stated, obviously. I control my sexuality for _me_. Its effect on men
> is at times unfortunate, but I'm not doing it for them, not doing it because
> if I don't control myself, well, of course _they_ have no control, or
> anything of that sort. I'm doing it for myself, because that's what I want
> to do.

Yes.

> Could be that the young woman writing this book is also suggesting modesty as
> something you do for yourself because it makes you happy, not something you
> are doing for or about men. As the guy who wrote _Omaha, The Cat Dancer_
> said, your most important sexual relationship is with yourself.

I certainly think that -could- be the case; note that I am basing my comments
only on the excerpt appearing on the MSNBC site, and that my reactions
were to -that- piece and not to the book.

By the way, the "guy who -created-" Omaha, the Cat Dancer was (and is)
Reed Waller, and almost from the beginning "the guy who wrote" Omaha
was Kate Worley. I'm not sure which of the two wrote the comment you
cite.

(And I -want another issue of _Omaha, the Cat Dancer_,- dammit!)

-- LJM

Loren MacGregor

unread,
Feb 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/10/99
to

Mary Kay Kare wrote:

> In article <MPG.112a13b16...@news.ware.net>,
> arg...@earthlink.net (Hal O'Brien) wrote:
>

> > Ailsa Murphy, (ailsa....@tfn.com), was kind enough to say:

> > > In article <79nghr$i4k$1...@haus.efn.org>,
> > > Loren Joseph MacGregor <lmac...@efn.org> wrote:
> > > > I'm undoubtedly a bit behind the times, as today's mention of
> > > > Wendy Shallit's book "A Return to Modesty" on MSNBC (see

> > > > http://www.msnbc.com/news/237631.asp) is the first mention I've
> > > > seen. The peice referenced in the above URL strikes me as
> > > > largely well-written and cogent, -but- I get the feeling that
> > > > this is yet another version of "The women must control their

> > > > sexuality; men cannot be expected to do so."


> > > >
> > > Why can't women control their own sexuality because it's _theirs_, and

> > > let men do what they want with their own? What one does with one's


> > > own body is in the end something one does for oneself.
> >

> > Do you realize one reading of Loren's phrase would be, "Women must
> > control their own sexuality; men cannot be expected to control
> > *their* own sexuality."?
> >
> That's certainly how I read it. I too read the article in question and it
> made me highly uncomfortable. I don't think anyone anywhere would ever
> have defined me as modest, as Ms Shallit uses the term. But hey, I'm
> pretty happy you know. I don't know if I've got that twinkle she talks
> about, but...

First, I don't think the concept is for everyone. Second, I think
formalized ritual in -some- form is good for many people, providing
a sense of structure and design into which one can fit one's own
individuality.

Here is where I think the orthodoxy of many religions is of help
to people. We all use ritual to a greater or lesser degree; the
separate thread defining Goths notes in passing, though I don't
recall that anyone has explicitly -said- this, that there is an
intense adherence to ritual in much of the Goth culture.

In researching a story at one point, I read a great deal of
material about Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, and the
internalized rituals that seem common to many of the
people suffering from OCD. It struck me then that when
there is a -lack- of recognized ritual in one's life, it may
sometimes be necessary to invent; it is when the invention
becomes compulsion that problems result.

I certainly do not know enough about shomer negiah to
make any conclusions -- this is why I'm reading up on it,
and why I am asking questions here -- but it strikes me
that shomer negiah is -one- way of providing structure.

(In trying to locate information about shomer negiah,
by the way, I came across references to "Taharat
Hamishpachah," but nothing that would tell me the
implications of this post-marriage set of rules. I
ask for information about this as well. I will
likely go to newsgroups where the information
may be more readily available, if someone will
tell me where and what FAQs I should read.)

The thing is, if one feels that -any- set of
rituals will make life more tolerable, it is at
least worth exploring. Maybe we -already-
have a set of tools that will put that twinkle
in our eyes.

-- LJM

Marty Helgesen

unread,
Feb 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/10/99
to
Thank you. I had seen a mention of that book a while ago but had
forgotten the title.

When I read the excerpt on the web I was particularly struck by this
passage:

In her book Last Night in Paradise, Katie Roiphe devotes her
final chapter to Beverly LaHaye, founder of the Christian group,
Concerned Women for America. After interviewing Beverly LaHaye's
press secretary, a young woman who has sworn off sex until mar-
riage, Roiphe allows that she "does have a certain glow," one
that resembles happiness, but she concludes that really it owes
to "something more like delusion." As for herself, she writes,
she is "infuriated" by this woman: "I suddenly want to convert
her more desperately than she wants to convert me."

Why? If one may freely cohabit these days, why can't one postpone
sex? Why is sexual modesty so threatening to some that they can
only respond to it with charges of abuse or delusion? After all,
empirically speaking, one woman we know of who has had sex with
her father is Kathryn Harrison, and she's not exactly observing
Orthodox modesty law. (In a 1997 Elle profile she wore a lovely,
but nonetheless notably short, skirt.)

Why, indeed, do some people find other people's sexual abstinence so
objectionable? I suspect one reason is that those who choose to
exercise self-control are proof that it can be done.

Brenda Daverin

unread,
Feb 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/10/99
to
In article <kare-09029...@ppp-asok02--096.sirius.net>,

ka...@sirius.com (Mary Kay Kare) wrote:

> In article <MPG.112a13b16...@news.ware.net>,
> arg...@earthlink.net (Hal O'Brien) wrote:
>
> > Do you realize one reading of Loren's phrase would be, "Women must
> > control their own sexuality; men cannot be expected to control
> > *their* own sexuality."?
> >
> That's certainly how I read it. I too read the article in question and it
> made me highly uncomfortable. I don't think anyone anywhere would ever
> have defined me as modest, as Ms Shallit uses the term. But hey, I'm
> pretty happy you know. I don't know if I've got that twinkle she talks
> about, but...

I just read the article, and I'm fascinated by the whole concept and where
it may be arising from. The problem I'm seeing is that we've been working
very hard on throwing away old paradigms and haven't figured out new ones
yet. This transition stage society is in accordingly brings up the
confusions. It's only natural that people will look backward in an attempt
to fix the problems caused by moving ahead. I do agree very strongly that
people, male and female, should not be forced into thinking they need to
have sex just to be considered adults. The problem used to be that people
who had sex "too early" were looked down on. Now it's people who have sex
"too late." A stronger respect for individual tastes and timing is called
for, I think. Let those who wish to be modest be modest. Let those who
prefer to be otherwise do so. Neither is better nor worse, I say, and it
does no good to insist on one or the other. If Ms. Shallit seeks to
encourage those too timid to buck the "let it all hang out" trend, she
should do so and I applaud her. If she instead would prefer that all
people should be so restrained, I would prefer her to accept a bit of
diversity. I can't tell from that snippet of her book which way she is
going, but I certainly can't fault her for liking the concept when it
works.

--
Brenda Daverin bdav...@best.com
The Unravelled Ferret - http://members.aol.com/lysana/
"Usenet is just email with witnesses." -- Rob Hansen

Ailsa Murphy

unread,
Feb 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/10/99
to
In article <36C1BC5A...@eugnpop1.eugn.uswest.net>,

churn...@uswest.net wrote:
> Ailsa Murphy wrote:
>
> > Badly stated, obviously. I control my sexuality for _me_. Its effect on men
> > is at times unfortunate, but I'm not doing it for them, not doing it because
> > if I don't control myself, well, of course _they_ have no control, or
> > anything of that sort. I'm doing it for myself, because that's what I want
> > to do.
>
> Yes.
>
> > Could be that the young woman writing this book is also suggesting modesty
as
> > something you do for yourself because it makes you happy, not something you
> > are doing for or about men. As the guy who wrote _Omaha, The Cat Dancer_
> > said, your most important sexual relationship is with yourself.
>
> I certainly think that -could- be the case; note that I am basing my comments
> only on the excerpt appearing on the MSNBC site, and that my reactions
> were to -that- piece and not to the book.
>

I think my reactions are only to the piece, but I am mistaken, I know,
because I already have a history wit that topic, so what I read in the piece
is different than what you will read.

> By the way, the "guy who -created-" Omaha, the Cat Dancer was (and is)
> Reed Waller, and almost from the beginning "the guy who wrote" Omaha
> was Kate Worley. I'm not sure which of the two wrote the comment you
> cite.
>
> (And I -want another issue of _Omaha, the Cat Dancer_,- dammit!)
>

Me too. I use past tense because I have a horrible feeling that there never
will _be_ another issue. But Reed Waller was who I was reaching for. I have
a book of his erotic art, and he has a short essay on solo sex.

-Ailsa

--
I want a new .sig Ailsa N.T. Murphy
One that does what it should ailsa....@tfn.com
One that don't make me look too bad
One that don't make me look too good Spam is traif

Marilee J. Layman

unread,
Feb 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/10/99
to
In <36C1B79E...@eugnpop1.eugn.uswest.net>, Loren MacGregor
<churn...@eugnpop1.eugn.uswest.net> wrote:

>
>
>Zev Sero wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 09 Feb 1999 09:18:36 -0800, Loren MacGregor
>> <churn...@eugnpop1.eugn.uswest.net> wrote:
>>
>> >And here is a point where I'm curious. Does "shomer negiah" apply to
>> >homosexual relationships as well?
>>
>> Not as a matter of law. If someone feels it appropriate to observe it
>> in hir own case, that's up to them.
>
>While I have you on the line, I've been asked in a separate e-mail to
>define "shomer negiah,"

Oops. I hit the wrong button. I meant to post to the group, not to
you. To put it in the right place:

Can we get a definition of shomer negiah first?

I didn't mean you to do so much research!

(post & email)

--
Marilee J. Layman Co-Leader, The Other*Worlds*Cafe
relm...@aol.com A Science Fiction Discussion Group
Web site: http://www.webmoose.com/owc/
AOL keyword: BOOKs > Books Community > The Other*Worlds*Cafe (listbox)

Brenda Daverin

unread,
Feb 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/10/99
to

> (And I -want another issue of _Omaha, the Cat Dancer_,- dammit!)

You, me, and everyone else who wishes Reed and Kate were still working
together and Reed wasn't battling that damnable cancer. *sigh*

Randolph Fritz

unread,
Feb 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/10/99
to
On Wed, 10 Feb 1999 09:00:54 -0800, Loren MacGregor
<churn...@eugnpop1.eugn.uswest.net> wrote:
>
>In researching a story at one point, I read a great deal of
>material about Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, and the
>internalized rituals that seem common to many of the
>people suffering from OCD. It struck me then that when
>there is a -lack- of recognized ritual in one's life, it may
>sometimes be necessary to invent; it is when the invention
>becomes compulsion that problems result.
>

Hi, Loren!

I note in passing a Zenna Henderson story on exactly this subject, entitled
"Swept and Garnished."

R.

Rachael M. Lininger

unread,
Feb 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/10/99
to

On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, Ailsa Murphy wrote:
>I read it as women must because men can't. But my argument is that people
>should, male or female, for themselves, not because of what members of the
>other sex might be doing. Men are also expected to be shomer negiah by
>Jewish modesty laws, not just women, and the dress code applies to men as
>well, it's just different because men are expected to wear different clothes.
> (For precise details on this, someone drag Zev or Alter into this - they
>probably know a lot more than I do.)

Please do explain? In little words: I'm not even sure what "shomer
negiah" is. I've picked up a bit from context, but I'd like to be able
to follow whatever discussion ensues...

Thanks,
Rachael

--
Rachael M. Lininger | "I said 'were there any oliphaunts?'
lininger@ | For if there was, I was going to take a look,
virtu.sar.usf.edu | risk or no." --Master Samwise


Loren MacGregor

unread,
Feb 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/10/99
to

Randolph Fritz wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Feb 1999 09:00:54 -0800, Loren MacGregor
> <churn...@eugnpop1.eugn.uswest.net> wrote:
> >
> >In researching a story at one point, I read a great deal of
> >material about Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, and the
> >internalized rituals that seem common to many of the
> >people suffering from OCD. It struck me then that when
> >there is a -lack- of recognized ritual in one's life, it may
> >sometimes be necessary to invent; it is when the invention
> >becomes compulsion that problems result.
>
> Hi, Loren!

Speaking of people living across town.... Of course, when
I lived in San Francisco, you were "across town" too.
What is this? <paranoid>You following me?</paranoid>

> I note in passing a Zenna Henderson story on exactly this subject, entitled
> "Swept and Garnished."

Serendipity. At Potlatch I picked up, and last night finished rereading
the People stories, in the lovely NESFA Press edition. I haven't read
"Swept and Garnished," though; I'll look for it.

-- LJM

Loren Joseph MacGregor

unread,
Feb 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/11/99
to
In rec.arts.sf.fandom, Brenda Daverin <bdav...@best.com> wrote:
: In article <36C1BC5A...@eugnpop1.eugn.uswest.net>,
: churn...@uswest.net wrote:

: > (And I -want another issue of _Omaha, the Cat Dancer_,- dammit!)

: You, me, and everyone else who wishes Reed and Kate were still working
: together and Reed wasn't battling that damnable cancer. *sigh*

After three stabs at a reply, I can only echo the last word.

I found another copy of the last compilation a little while
ago. It isn't just the soap-opera nature of the storyline
and the quality of the drawing that makes me want more. I
-like- those people.

-- LJM

Loren Joseph MacGregor

unread,
Feb 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/11/99
to
In rec.arts.sf.fandom, Marilee J. Layman <mjla...@erols.com> wrote:
: In <36C1B79E...@eugnpop1.eugn.uswest.net>, Loren MacGregor
: <churn...@eugnpop1.eugn.uswest.net> wrote:

: >Zev Sero wrote:
: >
: >> On Tue, 09 Feb 1999 09:18:36 -0800, Loren MacGregor
: >> <churn...@eugnpop1.eugn.uswest.net> wrote:
: >>
: >> >And here is a point where I'm curious. Does "shomer negiah" apply to


: >> >homosexual relationships as well?
: >>
: >> Not as a matter of law. If someone feels it appropriate to observe it
: >> in hir own case, that's up to them.
: >
: >While I have you on the line, I've been asked in a separate e-mail to
: >define "shomer negiah,"

: Oops. I hit the wrong button. I meant to post to the group, not to
: you. To put it in the right place:

: Can we get a definition of shomer negiah first?

: I didn't mean you to do so much research!

I wouldn't have done so were I not already interested. What I've
read makes a great deal of sense to me, although (as others have
observed) it doesn't necessarily "make sense" for everyone. For
-some- people I think the idea is useful and desireable.

-- LJM

Gary Farber

unread,
Feb 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/11/99
to
In <79tled$544$1...@haus.efn.org> Loren Joseph MacGregor <lmac...@efn.org> wrote:

: In rec.arts.sf.fandom, Brenda Daverin <bdav...@best.com> wrote:
: : In article <36C1BC5A...@eugnpop1.eugn.uswest.net>,
: : churn...@uswest.net wrote:

: : > (And I -want another issue of _Omaha, the Cat Dancer_,- dammit!)

: : You, me, and everyone else who wishes Reed and Kate were still working
: : together and Reed wasn't battling that damnable cancer. *sigh*

: After three stabs at a reply, I can only echo the last word.

Yes. Incidentally, no one seems to have mentioned that Reed used to be a
very active fan, fanartist, fannish fan, Mipple-Stipple fan, etc. I used
to publish his cartoons in my fanzines, as did many fans. Hell of a fine
fellow. Kate, too, was very neat in my limited contacts with her (and
presumably still is).

[. . . .]

--
Copyright 1999 by Gary Farber; Web Researcher; Nonfiction Writer,
Fiction and Nonfiction Editor; gfa...@panix.com; B'klyn, NYC, US

Zev Sero

unread,
Feb 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/11/99
to
On 10 Feb, Loren MacGregor <churn...@eugnpop1.eugn.uswest.net> wrote:

>While I have you on the line, I've been asked in a separate e-mail to

>define "shomer negiah," and despite some fairly extensive research
>last night (in between episodes of running outside for a snow ball
>fight with Lauryn; we don't get much snow in Eugene), while I
>feel I've learned a lot about it, I -don't- feel qualified to offer a
>definition. Is there some place to which you can point me that
>-might- have an adequate definition or, failing that, could you
>offer a definition yourself?

Well, to start with the translation: `keeps [the laws of] touching',
i.e. the law against physical contact with a motos who isn't ones
spouse. It's not a technical term, or a traditional one. It's an
artifact of modern USAn Orthodoxy, where there are many people who keep
most laws but don't feel ready or willing to keep, or keep completely,
the laws about contact between the sexes. Many people will partially
keep them, e.g. they won't dance with a MOTOS, but they will shake
hands, flirt without physical contact, possibly even give friendly hugs.
Handshaking in particular is permitted by some authorities because in
modern society it's become so conventional that nobody attaches any
significane to it, but as one teacher I had said, `99 out of 100
handshakes are perfectly innocent, but that last one may be very guilty'

I just went looking for an actual source for these laws, and on a
brief look at the places I'd most expect to find them, I couldn't.
I'll have to research this further.

Zev Sero

unread,
Feb 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/11/99
to
On Wed, 10 Feb 1999 09:00:54 -0800, Loren MacGregor
<churn...@eugnpop1.eugn.uswest.net> wrote:

>(In trying to locate information about shomer negiah,
>by the way, I came across references to "Taharat
>Hamishpachah," but nothing that would tell me the
>implications of this post-marriage set of rules. I
>ask for information about this as well.

Taharat hamishpacha (family purity) is about relations between a married
couple while the woman is menstruating, and afterwards until she has
gone to a mikveh (ritual bath). Oddly enough, one book you can probably
easily find that actually contains pretty accurate - if somewhat
sketchy - information is the murder mystery _The Ritual Bath_, by
Faye Kellerman. Kellerman is one of the few fiction writers who writes
knowledgably about Orthodox Jews, mostly because she is one.

While a married woman is unavailable to her husband, there are a whole
set of pretty strict laws about contact between them, so as to prevent
one thing leading to another. These laws don't apply to people who
aren't a couple, and therefore aren't used to one thing leading to
another. E.g. when a wife is in a state of `niddah', the couple can't
hand things to one another - one will put the object down, and the other
will pick it up, or they'll ask someone else to pass it between them;
obviously if the laws applied to non-couples, then getting someone else
to pass it between them wouldn't work.

Vicki Rosenzweig

unread,
Feb 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/11/99
to
On Thu, 11 Feb 1999 18:52:10 GMT, zs...@bigfoot.com (Zev Sero) wrote:

>On 10 Feb, Loren MacGregor <churn...@eugnpop1.eugn.uswest.net> wrote:
>
>>While I have you on the line, I've been asked in a separate e-mail to
>>define "shomer negiah," and despite some fairly extensive research
>>last night (in between episodes of running outside for a snow ball
>>fight with Lauryn; we don't get much snow in Eugene), while I
>>feel I've learned a lot about it, I -don't- feel qualified to offer a
>>definition. Is there some place to which you can point me that
>>-might- have an adequate definition or, failing that, could you
>>offer a definition yourself?
>
>Well, to start with the translation: `keeps [the laws of] touching',
>i.e. the law against physical contact with a motos who isn't ones
>spouse. It's not a technical term, or a traditional one. It's an
>artifact of modern USAn Orthodoxy, where there are many people who keep
>most laws but don't feel ready or willing to keep, or keep completely,
>the laws about contact between the sexes. Many people will partially
>keep them, e.g. they won't dance with a MOTOS, but they will shake
>hands, flirt without physical contact, possibly even give friendly hugs.
>Handshaking in particular is permitted by some authorities because in
>modern society it's become so conventional that nobody attaches any
>significane to it, but as one teacher I had said, `99 out of 100
>handshakes are perfectly innocent, but that last one may be very guilty'
>

Do these rules apply to a MOTOS who is not one's spouse, but is
close kin? For example, if they keep these laws, may a woman hug
her adult son?

Loren MacGregor

unread,
Feb 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/11/99
to
Zev Sero wrote:

> I just went looking for an actual source for these laws, and on a
> brief look at the places I'd most expect to find them, I couldn't.
> I'll have to research this further.

Thanks for the explanation you provided. In an odd way,
thanks also for confirming that I -may- have been looking in
the right places for information that simply wasn't there.

Now I'll begin looking in the -wrong- places, of course.

(And this reminds me that I still have to respond to Marty's
comments.)

-- LJM

Zev Sero

unread,
Feb 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/12/99
to
On Thu, 11 Feb 1999 21:23:38, v...@interport.net (Vicki Rosenzweig) wrote:

re Jewish laws about contact between MOTOS:

>Do these rules apply to a MOTOS who is not one's spouse, but is
>close kin? For example, if they keep these laws, may a woman hug
>her adult son?

No, these laws don't apply between parents and children.

Ailsa Murphy

unread,
Feb 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/12/99
to
In article <Pine.GSO.4.02.990210...@virtu.sar.usf.edu>,

"Rachael M. Lininger" <lini...@virtu.sar.usf.edu> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, Ailsa Murphy wrote:
> >I read it as women must because men can't. But my argument is that people
> >should, male or female, for themselves, not because of what members of the
> >other sex might be doing. Men are also expected to be shomer negiah by
> >Jewish modesty laws, not just women, and the dress code applies to men as
> >well, it's just different because men are expected to wear different clothes.
> > (For precise details on this, someone drag Zev or Alter into this - they
> >probably know a lot more than I do.)
>
> Please do explain? In little words: I'm not even sure what "shomer
> negiah" is. I've picked up a bit from context, but I'd like to be able
> to follow whatever discussion ensues...
>
Shomer negiah is observant of the laws of touching, i.e. men don't touch women
they aren't married to, and women don't touch men they aren't married to. Men
are also expected to be decently covered whenever there are members of the
opposite sex about, and preferably only at need even when there aren't.

Like I said, for more detail, apply to Zev or Alter. Just wanted to point out
that the laws apply to men, too.

Loren Joseph MacGregor

unread,
Feb 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/12/99
to
In rec.arts.sf.fandom, Zev Sero <zs...@bigfoot.com> wrote:

: On Thu, 11 Feb 1999 21:23:38, v...@interport.net (Vicki Rosenzweig) wrote:

: re Jewish laws about contact between MOTOS:

: >Do these rules apply to a MOTOS who is not one's spouse, but is
: >close kin? For example, if they keep these laws, may a woman hug
: >her adult son?

: No, these laws don't apply between parents and children.

Since Ailsa has pointed a big neon sign at you and Alter (well,
figuratively, at least) with the legend "Ask your questions here,"
I will. When she says that men should be "decently covered," or
at least have the means ready, I have to ask -- just for my
own clarity -- if this is talking specifically about hats.

I ask because it sounds as if this may be edging closer to
rules I grew up with in the Catholic church, although tose
were specifically about dress -in church-. In that case,
we heard over and over again that women must cover their hair
and that shirt sleeves were not pleasing in the eye of God.

Certainly, there is a different application here, as between
individuals and as between individuals and (my) God. But
in each case, it seems to me that the issue is respect, for
oneself, for one another and for God.

(I realize I may be drifting off base here.)

-- LJM

Elly Freeman

unread,
Feb 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/13/99
to

Marty Helgesen wrote in message <99041.12...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>...

>Why, indeed, do some people find other people's sexual abstinence so
>objectionable? I suspect one reason is that those who choose to
>exercise self-control are proof that it can be done.


Another reason might be that sexual freedom without severe social penalties
is a very new, and therefore fragile, phenomenon. For those who don't
choose to practice abstinence, someone who advocates it may arouse fears
that their freedom will be taken away.

A third reason could be that people who haven't chosen abstinence have, in
many cases, had to overcome strong early conditioning that says their
behavior is morally reprehensible. Someone who advocates abstinence may
evoke that conditioning, resulting in feelings of defensiveness.

Granted, someone who chooses abstinence for zirself isn't necessarily
advocating it for others, but that doesn't always come across clearly.

Further, proof that self-control is possible could only be threatening to
those who claim that it's not. Perhaps I'm exceptionally misinformed on
this point, but I was not aware of any significant group of people who claim
that they are having sex because self-control is impossible.

Elly Freeman

Jonathan J. Baker

unread,
Feb 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/15/99
to
In <79pnf5$d69$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> ailsa....@tfn.com (Ailsa Murphy) writes:
> Loren Joseph MacGregor <lmac...@efn.org> wrote:

>Why can't women control their own sexuality because it's _theirs_, and let men
>do what they want with their own? What one does with one's own body is in the
>end something one does for oneself.

>> Anyone read about Ms. Shallit's book, or read the book itself?
>> If so, I'd be interested in comment.

>Having read the exerpt, I will definitely buy the book. I've already got
>_Doesn't Anybody Blush Anymore_ (I forget the author at preset, though). I'm

Rabbi Manis Friedman, spelled "Rabbi Manis Friedman author of 'Doesn't Anyone
Blush Anymore'."

--
Jonathan Baker | Is it Shevat Na or Shvat Nach?
jjb...@panix.com |


Jonathan J. Baker

unread,
Feb 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/15/99
to
In <> Loren MacGregor <churn...@eugnpop1.eugn.uswest.net> writes:

>(In trying to locate information about shomer negiah,
>by the way, I came across references to "Taharat
>Hamishpachah," but nothing that would tell me the
>implications of this post-marriage set of rules. I

>ask for information about this as well. I will
>likely go to newsgroups where the information
>may be more readily available, if someone will
>tell me where and what FAQs I should read.)

You'll probably be greeted with replies like that with which Mr.
Spock responded to Cpt. Kirk's queries about why he would die
if he doesn't go back to Vulcan.

I.e., it's intensely private, and more than somewhat strange
to someone who doesn't practice it.

If you really want to learn about it, I've heard that the
discussion in Blu Greenberg's "How to Run a Traditional Jewish
Household" is fairly good - Debbie read it, I haven't. You can
also try Aryeh Kaplan's pamphlet "Waters of Eden".

Hang on, I just found a useful and not too defensive article
on the Web:

<http://www.his.com/~chabad/mikv.htm>. It's the intro to a
book on the subject, and has a nice overview of the basics.

Kathy Routliffe

unread,
Feb 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/16/99
to

Thanks for a thoughtful post.

I have several objections to the logic of Wendy Shallit's piece, but I
am trying to whack them together into a cogent whole before posting
anything. The only thing I'll say now is that I have the feeling she's
like the medical practitioners of the 14th and 15th centuries -
intelligent people skilled in observation, who used their considerable
talents to come to completely erroneous conclusions about the origins of
the Black Death.

More, as my brain processes....

Kathy
--
Visit Kathy's head - home of the Horrible Head Weasels

Zev Sero

unread,
Feb 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/16/99
to
On 12 Feb 1999 15:59:06 GMT, Loren Joseph MacGregor <lmac...@efn.org>
wrote:

>Since Ailsa has pointed a big neon sign at you and Alter (well,


>figuratively, at least) with the legend "Ask your questions here,"
>I will. When she says that men should be "decently covered," or
>at least have the means ready, I have to ask -- just for my
>own clarity -- if this is talking specifically about hats.

Well, I took her to mean covered in the manner that men in that
culture are generally covered, i.e. some sort of shirt, trousers,
no shorts in countries where they're not usual for adults, no bare
feet in countries where that's considered indecent, etc.

Head covering used to be a matter of decency, in times when a man
would no more think of going about without a hat of some sort than he
would without underpants, and it was also a reminder that there's
always Someone higher than you; since then, migration and time have
made the first reason obsolete, but men kept covering their heads
for the second reason. Unmarried women, who never started covering
their heads in the first place, didn't start doing so when times
changed.

Zev Sero

unread,
Feb 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/16/99
to
On Sat, 13 Feb 1999 06:35:47 -0500, "Elly Freeman" <EL...@prodigy.net>
wrote:

>Perhaps I'm exceptionally misinformed on
>this point, but I was not aware of any significant group of people who claim
>that they are having sex because self-control is impossible.

I am.

Alter S. Reiss

unread,
Feb 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/16/99
to
On Thu, 11 Feb 1999, Zev Sero wrote:

[negiah]

> I just went looking for an actual source for these laws, and on a
> brief look at the places I'd most expect to find them, I couldn't.
> I'll have to research this further.

Well, while I have a sort of functional knowledge here, I don't
really know enough about the subject to talk about it intelligently, and
don't quite have the time to do that sort of research. Some places to
start: The halachic term that I've heard is "hanaat krovat basar"
(pleasure from closeness of flesh), and it's a relatively late enactment
-- I believe that Nahimanidies originated it. "Derech Chibah" (In the
manner of expressing love) is an important qualifying factor.


--
Alter S. Reiss -------------------- http://www.geocities.com/Area51/2129

"It was a miracle of rare device; a sunny pleasure dome
with anamatronic pirates, and overpriced gift shops."


Marty Helgesen

unread,
Feb 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/18/99
to
In article <7a3o2k$6rso$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>, "Elly Freeman" <EL...@prodigy.net> says:
>
>Marty Helgesen wrote in message <99041.12...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>...
>
>>Why, indeed, do some people find other people's sexual abstinence so
>>objectionable? I suspect one reason is that those who choose to
>>exercise self-control are proof that it can be done.
>
>Another reason might be that sexual freedom without severe social penalties
>is a very new, and therefore fragile, phenomenon. For those who don't
>choose to practice abstinence, someone who advocates it may arouse fears
>that their freedom will be taken away.
>
>A third reason could be that people who haven't chosen abstinence have, in
>many cases, had to overcome strong early conditioning that says their
>behavior is morally reprehensible. Someone who advocates abstinence may
>evoke that conditioning, resulting in feelings of defensiveness.
>
>Granted, someone who chooses abstinence for zirself isn't necessarily
>advocating it for others, but that doesn't always come across clearly.
>
>Further, proof that self-control is possible could only be threatening to
>those who claim that it's not. Perhaps I'm exceptionally misinformed on

>this point, but I was not aware of any significant group of people who claim
>that they are having sex because self-control is impossible.

The reasons you suggest could be the explanation.

I don't know how many people say explicitly that they are having sex
because self-control is impossible, but I think one of the most
common rationalizations and excuses of all kinds of misconduct, not
just sexual misconduct, is, "Everybody does it." The implied argu-
ment seems to be either, "Everybody does it, therefore it's not
wrong", or "Everybody does it, which shows how difficult it is not to
do it, so I shouldn't be blamed for doing it, too." The first of
those two possible implied arguments seems the less likely one, both
because it is a non-sequitur and because people don't seem to use it
that way. To mention a recent controversy as an example, few if any
Clinton defenders said that lying to the American people and lying
under oath were not wrong. They said, in effect, "Everyone does it,
therefore Clinton should not be singled out for punishment because he
did it."

People who demonstrate by their lives that not everyone does it, that
it is possible to resist temptations and exercise self-control,
undercut the rationalization/justification "Everyone does it."

To forestall an objection someone might make, I am not claiming that
people who don't do "it", whatever "it" might be that everyone alleg-
edly does, are perfect and never do anything wrong. I am sure, for
example, the young woman whose decision to live chastely so infuriat-
ed the author Wendy Shalit quoted would not claim she was perfect.
We are all human and all have human weaknesses. However, there is a
difference between those who try to overcome their weaknesses, howev-
er often they may fail, and those don't try to overcome them and just
give in to them because "everybody does it." Someone in the latter
group might well beinfuriated by people in the former group.

-------
Marty Helgesen
Bitnet: mnhcc@cunyvm Internet: mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu

Live Lent in the Fast Lane

Mary Kay Kare

unread,
Feb 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/18/99
to
In article <99049.12...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>, Marty Helgesen
<MN...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> wrote:


> To forestall an objection someone might make, I am not claiming that
> people who don't do "it", whatever "it" might be that everyone alleg-
> edly does, are perfect and never do anything wrong. I am sure, for
> example, the young woman whose decision to live chastely so infuriat-
> ed the author Wendy Shalit quoted would not claim she was perfect.
> We are all human and all have human weaknesses. However, there is a
> difference between those who try to overcome their weaknesses, howev-
> er often they may fail, and those don't try to overcome them and just
> give in to them because "everybody does it." Someone in the latter
> group might well beinfuriated by people in the former group.

There are so many unspoken assumptions here I hardly know where to begin.
Not everyone may see participation in sexual activity as a weakness, human
or otherwise, to be overcome. Some of us see nothing at all wrong with
adult human beings choosing to have sex lives; and feel that the path
their sex lives take is their decision and none of our business. The
whole squirmy feeling I get from Shalit and the discussion surrounding her
is the underlying assumption that there's one right way, and if people
will just do as I tell them, they'll all be happy. Humans are way too
complicated for that. Choosing one way over another is not necessarily a
rejection of the other/s. It is simply that humans are way too complex
for one size to fit all.

MK

--
Mary Kay Kare

Abandon hope all ye who
Press Enter Here.

Janice Gelb

unread,
Feb 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/18/99
to
In article 12513...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU, Marty Helgesen <MN...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> writes:
>
>I don't know how many people say explicitly that they are having sex
>because self-control is impossible, but I think one of the most
>common rationalizations and excuses of all kinds of misconduct, not
>just sexual misconduct, is, "Everybody does it." [snip]

> To mention a recent controversy as an example, few if any
>Clinton defenders said that lying to the American people and lying
>under oath were not wrong. They said, in effect, "Everyone does it,
>therefore Clinton should not be singled out for punishment because he
>did it."
>

Actually, what I personally said was "The President's lying about
a private sexual affair does not rise to the same level of
importance as lying about affairs of state."

>
>To forestall an objection someone might make, I am not claiming that
>people who don't do "it", whatever "it" might be that everyone alleg-
>edly does, are perfect and never do anything wrong. I am sure, for
>example, the young woman whose decision to live chastely so infuriat-
>ed the author Wendy Shalit quoted would not claim she was perfect.
>We are all human and all have human weaknesses. However, there is a
>difference between those who try to overcome their weaknesses, howev-
>er often they may fail, and those don't try to overcome them and just
>give in to them because "everybody does it." Someone in the latter
>group might well beinfuriated by people in the former group.
>

I think there also is a difference between those who are
living their own lives trying to overcome their weaknesses
quietly and privately, and those who have overcome their
weaknesses being intolerant of those who have not yet
reached that level, and using it as a moral bludgeon.


*********************************************************************
Janice Gelb | The only connection Sun has with
janic...@eng.sun.com | this message is the return address.
1999 DUFF CANDIDATE: Ballot and writing samples available at
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/8018/index.html

Evelyn C. Leeper

unread,
Feb 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/18/99
to
In article <7ahmjl$qg8$2...@engnews1.eng.sun.com>,

Janice Gelb <jan...@eng.sun.com> wrote:
> I think there also is a difference between those who are
> living their own lives trying to overcome their weaknesses
> quietly and privately, and those who have overcome their
> weaknesses being intolerant of those who have not yet
> reached that level, and using it as a moral bludgeon.

Not to mention those who have *not* overcome their weaknesses being
intolerant of others who have not yet reached the level that the
former think is required, and using it as a moral bludgeon.
--
Evelyn C. Leeper | evelyn...@geocities.com
+1 732 957 2070 | http://www.geocities.com/Athens/4824
"The remarkable thing about Shakespeare is that he really is very good,
in spite of all the people who say he is very good." --Robert Graves

Avram Grumer

unread,
Feb 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/18/99
to
In article <kare-18029...@ppp-asok08--161.sirius.net>,

ka...@sirius.com (Mary Kay Kare) wrote:

> The whole squirmy feeling I get from Shalit and the discussion
> surrounding her is the underlying assumption that there's one
> right way, and if people will just do as I tell them, they'll
> all be happy.

I've read a bit of Shalit's writing on the Net over the past few days.
Yeah, I'm annoyed at her assumption that the particular set of sexual
habits she was brought up with are a universal standard. I'm also annoyed
at her claim that the belief that sin is exciting and virtue boring is a
recent aberration, invented by de Sade (I could have sworn Augustine had
something to say about this 1600 years or so ago, and I'm sure there's
earlier stuff in the Tenakh that she, as a practicing Jew, ought to be
aware of). But mostly she comes across to me as a child (she's, what, 23
years old?), lecturing to her elders about things she doesn't understand a
tenth of.

--
Avram Grumer | av...@bigfoot.com | http://www.bigfoot.com/~avram/

If music be the food of love, then some of it be the Twinkies of
dysfunctional relationships.

Kathy Routliffe

unread,
Feb 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/19/99
to

Janice Gelb wrote:
>
> In article 12513...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU, Marty Helgesen <MN...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> writes:

(snip)

> >To forestall an objection someone might make, I am not claiming that
> >people who don't do "it", whatever "it" might be that everyone alleg-
> >edly does, are perfect and never do anything wrong. I am sure, for
> >example, the young woman whose decision to live chastely so infuriat-
> >ed the author Wendy Shalit quoted would not claim she was perfect.
> >We are all human and all have human weaknesses.

(snip again)



> I think there also is a difference between those who are
> living their own lives trying to overcome their weaknesses
> quietly and privately, and those who have overcome their
> weaknesses being intolerant of those who have not yet
> reached that level, and using it as a moral bludgeon.

Correct.

And then, in the discussion of sex, there's also the idea that there are
those of us who don't see being sexually active as being morally weak.

Kathy Routliffe

unread,
Feb 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/19/99
to

Mary Kay Kare wrote:

(in response to Marty's post about Wendy Shalit and sex)

> There are so many unspoken assumptions here I hardly know where to begin.
> Not everyone may see participation in sexual activity as a weakness, human
> or otherwise, to be overcome. Some of us see nothing at all wrong with
> adult human beings choosing to have sex lives; and feel that the path

> their sex lives take is their decision and none of our business. The


> whole squirmy feeling I get from Shalit and the discussion surrounding her
> is the underlying assumption that there's one right way, and if people

> will just do as I tell them, they'll all be happy. Humans are way too
> complicated for that. Choosing one way over another is not necessarily a
> rejection of the other/s. It is simply that humans are way too complex
> for one size to fit all.

Oops. I hadn't seen this well-written post before I sent an earlier one.
This says it better.

Lydia Nickerson

unread,
Feb 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/19/99
to
Marty Helgesen <MN...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> writes:

>In article <7a3o2k$6rso$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>, "Elly Freeman" <EL...@prodigy.net> says:
>>
>>Marty Helgesen wrote in message <99041.12...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>...
>>
>>>Why, indeed, do some people find other people's sexual abstinence so
>>>objectionable? I suspect one reason is that those who choose to
>>>exercise self-control are proof that it can be done.

If the motivation appears to be dysfunctional sexual repression and the
result is psychological damage, I recommend against abstinence. Not that
my sister listened to me, but well, it was the best advice I had to hand.
Self-control is one motivation, guilt, terror, and poor self-image are
others.

>>A third reason could be that people who haven't chosen abstinence have, in
>>many cases, had to overcome strong early conditioning that says their
>>behavior is morally reprehensible. Someone who advocates abstinence may
>>evoke that conditioning, resulting in feelings of defensiveness.

Um, yes. I've done that.

<snip much of Marty's description of the Everybody Does It Excuse>

>People who demonstrate by their lives that not everyone does it, that
>it is possible to resist temptations and exercise self-control,
>undercut the rationalization/justification "Everyone does it."
>

>To forestall an objection someone might make, I am not claiming that
>people who don't do "it", whatever "it" might be that everyone alleg-
>edly does, are perfect and never do anything wrong. I am sure, for
>example, the young woman whose decision to live chastely so infuriat-
>ed the author Wendy Shalit quoted would not claim she was perfect.

>We are all human and all have human weaknesses. However, there is a
>difference between those who try to overcome their weaknesses, howev-
>er often they may fail, and those don't try to overcome them and just
>give in to them because "everybody does it." Someone in the latter
>group might well beinfuriated by people in the former group.

You, however, are assuming that everyone agrees, at least subliminally,
that sex without the approval of the Church is wrong. You completely
discount the sincerity of those of us who have done a careful analysis of
social mores and have decided that such sexual activity is not wrong.

At this point, you're likely to explain that truth is truth and wrong is
wrong, and it doesn't matter what I believe. I'd rather short-circuit
that debate. I understand what you mean, and I am certain that you are
wrong.

What gets me every time this rolls around is how you completely dismiss my
sincerity and honesty. Your assumptions about my latent guilt bug me. I
sleep around. I'm not ashamed of it. I've mostly gotten over taking
other people's choices as an attack on my value system. And I think a lot
of people would be ever so much happier if they could get laid now and
again. I am, if you like, bearing witness to this belief, so that people
who haven't thought it through are aware that there are other options.
--
----
Lydia Nickerson ly...@ddb.com

Lydia Nickerson

unread,
Feb 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/19/99
to
Kathy Routliffe <kat...@flash.net> writes:

>Mary Kay Kare wrote:

Yeah, it does, doesn't it? I just made the same mistake.

Marty Helgesen

unread,
Feb 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/19/99
to
In article <lydy.91...@gw.ddb.com>, ly...@ddb.com (Lydia Nickerson) says:
>
>Marty Helgesen <MN...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> writes:
>
>>In article <7a3o2k$6rso$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>, "Elly Freeman" <EL...@prodigy.net> says:
>>>
>>>Marty Helgesen wrote in message <99041.12...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>...
>>>
>>>>Why, indeed, do some people find other people's sexual abstinence so
>>>>objectionable? I suspect one reason is that those who choose to
>>>>exercise self-control are proof that it can be done.

<SNIP>

>You, however, are assuming that everyone agrees, at least subliminally,
>that sex without the approval of the Church is wrong. You completely
>discount the sincerity of those of us who have done a careful analysis of
>social mores and have decided that such sexual activity is not wrong.

No, I don't.


>At this point, you're likely to explain that truth is truth and wrong is
>wrong, and it doesn't matter what I believe. I'd rather short-circuit
>that debate. I understand what you mean, and I am certain that you are
>wrong.
>
>What gets me every time this rolls around is how you completely dismiss my
>sincerity and honesty. Your assumptions about my latent guilt bug me. I
>sleep around. I'm not ashamed of it. I've mostly gotten over taking
>other people's choices as an attack on my value system. And I think a lot
>of people would be ever so much happier if they could get laid now and
>again. I am, if you like, bearing witness to this belief, so that people
>who haven't thought it through are aware that there are other options.

I do not dismiss your sincerity and honesty. I believe you are mistaken on
some matters of objective fact, just as you believe I am mistaken on some
matters of objective fact. I'm not talking about sincerity and honesty.
I also do not assume you have latent guilt. I have no way of knowing
whether you do or not.

I'm not talking about you. I began by speculating about the question
Wendy Shalit raised, after mentioning an author who said she was "infuriated"
by a young woman who had chosen not to have sexual intercourse until she
got married and wanted to "convert" the young woman as much as the young
woman (presumably) wanted to convert her. The question was why "*some*
people find other people's sexual abstinence so objectionable" (emphasis
added). Are you "infuriated" by the young woman's sexual abstinence, or
by mine? Judging from what you wrote, I would think not.

I wrote of one possible reason, but accepted as possibly true other reasons
that were suggested later.

Lydia Nickerson

unread,
Feb 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/23/99
to
Marty Helgesen <MN...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> writes:

>In article <lydy.91...@gw.ddb.com>, ly...@ddb.com (Lydia Nickerson) says:
>>
>>Marty Helgesen <MN...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> writes:
>>
>>>In article <7a3o2k$6rso$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>, "Elly Freeman" <EL...@prodigy.net> says:
>>>>
>>>>Marty Helgesen wrote in message <99041.12...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>...
>>>>
>>>>>Why, indeed, do some people find other people's sexual abstinence so
>>>>>objectionable? I suspect one reason is that those who choose to
>>>>>exercise self-control are proof that it can be done.
>
><SNIP>
>>You, however, are assuming that everyone agrees, at least subliminally,
>>that sex without the approval of the Church is wrong. You completely
>>discount the sincerity of those of us who have done a careful analysis of
>>social mores and have decided that such sexual activity is not wrong.
>
>No, I don't.

What you do, which is rhetorically similar, is talk about people with
problems of self control and people who are excercising self control and
no where do you acknowledge that there are points of view outside those
two polar extremes. Since you are writing in a forum where you know that
other people have positions other than the two you cite, it seems
willfully rude to ignore them.


>
>>At this point, you're likely to explain that truth is truth and wrong is
>>wrong, and it doesn't matter what I believe. I'd rather short-circuit
>>that debate. I understand what you mean, and I am certain that you are
>>wrong.
>>

>I do not dismiss your sincerity and honesty. I believe you are mistaken on
>some matters of objective fact, just as you believe I am mistaken on some
>matters of objective fact. I'm not talking about sincerity and honesty.
>I also do not assume you have latent guilt. I have no way of knowing
>whether you do or not.

Well, I thought that the RC also believed that the word of God was written
in creation and so there is no excuse for failing to hear the word of God.
However, I'm not an expert on RC theology. If that isn't true, then I
withdraw the accusation that you believe I have latent guilt. As for
objective fact, you must be using a definition of objective which is
non-standard. There is no objective proof of God nor his laws.


>I wrote of one possible reason, but accepted as possibly true other reasons
>that were suggested later.

If I am wrong about the "objective fact" that fornication and adultery are
not sins, then how does this constitute accepting my position as possibly
true? Sincerely held, sure. I can see where you could concede that. But
true?

Avedon Carol

unread,
Feb 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/24/99
to
On 19 Feb 99 16:09:32 GMT, ly...@ddb.com (Lydia Nickerson) wrote:

>Marty Helgesen <MN...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> writes:
>
>>In article <7a3o2k$6rso$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>, "Elly Freeman" <EL...@prodigy.net> says:
>>>
>>>Marty Helgesen wrote in message <99041.12...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>...
>>>
>>>>Why, indeed, do some people find other people's sexual abstinence so
>>>>objectionable? I suspect one reason is that those who choose to
>>>>exercise self-control are proof that it can be done.
>

>If the motivation appears to be dysfunctional sexual repression and the
>result is psychological damage, I recommend against abstinence. Not that
>my sister listened to me, but well, it was the best advice I had to hand.
>Self-control is one motivation, guilt, terror, and poor self-image are
>others.

Damn, I was still working on "self-control" as something that is
necessarily involved in refraining from having sex. For some people,
it takes all the self-control they've got to endure an act of
intercourse; refusing it would be considered pure self-indulgence.

>You, however, are assuming that everyone agrees, at least subliminally,
>that sex without the approval of the Church is wrong. You completely
>discount the sincerity of those of us who have done a careful analysis of
>social mores and have decided that such sexual activity is not wrong.

And perhaps that there are real dangers involved in promoting the idea
that such sexual activity is wrong.

>At this point, you're likely to explain that truth is truth and wrong is
>wrong, and it doesn't matter what I believe. I'd rather short-circuit
>that debate. I understand what you mean, and I am certain that you are
>wrong.
>

>What gets me every time this rolls around is how you completely dismiss my
>sincerity and honesty. Your assumptions about my latent guilt bug me. I
>sleep around. I'm not ashamed of it. I've mostly gotten over taking
>other people's choices as an attack on my value system. And I think a lot
>of people would be ever so much happier if they could get laid now and
>again. I am, if you like, bearing witness to this belief, so that people
>who haven't thought it through are aware that there are other options.

You know, I rather enjoy having you around, Lydy.


Lydia Nickerson

unread,
Feb 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/24/99
to
ave...@thirdworld.uk (Avedon Carol) writes:

>On 19 Feb 99 16:09:32 GMT, ly...@ddb.com (Lydia Nickerson) wrote:

>>Marty Helgesen <MN...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> writes:
>>
>>>In article <7a3o2k$6rso$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>, "Elly Freeman" <EL...@prodigy.net> says:
>>>>
>>>>Marty Helgesen wrote in message <99041.12...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>...
>>>>
>>>>>Why, indeed, do some people find other people's sexual abstinence so
>>>>>objectionable? I suspect one reason is that those who choose to
>>>>>exercise self-control are proof that it can be done.
>>
>>If the motivation appears to be dysfunctional sexual repression and the
>>result is psychological damage, I recommend against abstinence. Not that
>>my sister listened to me, but well, it was the best advice I had to hand.
>>Self-control is one motivation, guilt, terror, and poor self-image are
>>others.

>Damn, I was still working on "self-control" as something that is
>necessarily involved in refraining from having sex. For some people,
>it takes all the self-control they've got to endure an act of
>intercourse; refusing it would be considered pure self-indulgence.

I hadn't thought of that. Although, it describes a number of people I
know, evidently including my parents when they were married to each other.
(And still my dad, where women are concerned, I suspect. But maybe not.
I'm so glad I know so much less about his sex life with my step-mom than I
do about his sex life with my biological mom.)

>And perhaps that there are real dangers involved in promoting the idea
>that such sexual activity is wrong.

Another very important point, actually. I'm pretty sure it's part of what
caused me to end up on the floor of a kitchenette in a Unitarian Church at
the age of sixteen with no condom and at the theoretically most fertile
portion of my cycle, losing it to a man whose last name I didn't know.
Hell, I'd only learned his first name an hour or two before.

Did you see Jon Carrol's column about fighting abortion? Lovely stuff.

Near as I can tell, abstinence is the least effective approach to teenage
pregnancy ever invented by man.


>>What gets me every time this rolls around is how you completely dismiss my
>>sincerity and honesty. Your assumptions about my latent guilt bug me. I
>>sleep around. I'm not ashamed of it. I've mostly gotten over taking
>>other people's choices as an attack on my value system. And I think a lot
>>of people would be ever so much happier if they could get laid now and
>>again. I am, if you like, bearing witness to this belief, so that people
>>who haven't thought it through are aware that there are other options.

>You know, I rather enjoy having you around, Lydy.

Thanks. A lot. Have I mentioned that Feminists Against Censorship (I've
probably bolluxed the name) is positively brilliant? It helps, on the
days where I'm feeling a bit insecure. Being a feminist and being
interested in BDSM is...confusing, some days.

Ailsa N Murphy

unread,
Feb 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/24/99
to
In article <lydy.91...@gw.ddb.com>, Lydia Nickerson <ly...@ddb.com> wrote:

>ave...@thirdworld.uk (Avedon Carol) writes:
>
>>And perhaps that there are real dangers involved in promoting the idea
>>that such sexual activity is wrong.
>
Sexual activity isn't alwasy right, either. Sometimes it's even a
really bad idea.

>Near as I can tell, abstinence is the least effective approach to teenage
>pregnancy ever invented by man.
>

I disagree with you wildly here, but I'm not sure this is a can of worms
I want to open, either.

>Thanks. A lot. Have I mentioned that Feminists Against Censorship (I've
>probably bolluxed the name) is positively brilliant? It helps, on the
>days where I'm feeling a bit insecure. Being a feminist and being
>interested in BDSM is...confusing, some days.

*chuckle* And when was it simple?

I believe that No means No only if Yes can mean Yes, and if people
want to consent to things I don't wanna do, well, that's not _my_ business,
so long as they aren't hiring me to take the pictures.

-Ailsa
--
Stand in the fire an...@world.std.com
Go to the wire Ailsa N.T. Murphy
Dreams and desire
They will lead you home. - Jefferson starship (?)

Graydon

unread,
Feb 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/24/99
to
In article <F7n5q...@world.std.com>,

Ailsa N Murphy <an...@world.std.com> wrote:
>In article <lydy.91...@gw.ddb.com>, Lydia Nickerson <ly...@ddb.com> wrote:
>>ave...@thirdworld.uk (Avedon Carol) writes:
>>>And perhaps that there are real dangers involved in promoting the idea
>>>that such sexual activity is wrong.
>>
>Sexual activity isn't alwasy right, either. Sometimes it's even a
>really bad idea.

Sometimes _breathing_ is a really bad idea.

I do not read what Lydia has been saying as attempting to introduce
absolutes into the discussion; I read what she has been saying as an
assertion -- with which I agree -- that promulgating any particular
absolute about sex is destructive, especially and particularly that
sex is bad/evil/forbidden.

Is is Melissa Etheridge who had a bit of stage patter that explained
the general confusion of her generation in her home town along the
lines of -- 'we wer told that sex was awful, and wrong, and dirty, and
sinful, and bad, and that we should save it for the one we truly
loved. And they wonder why we're strange.'?

Touch is essential in humans for the maintenance of sanity; there is
no hard border between comfort touch and sexual touch in the human
nervous system. Postulate that sexual touch is evil and you will go
-- however slowly, and by whatever strangeness of route -- insane.
--
graydon@ | Hige sceal şe heardra, heorte şe cenre,
lara.on.ca | mod sceal şe mare şe ure maegen lytlağ.
| -- Beorhtwold, "The Battle of Maldon"

Marty Helgesen

unread,
Feb 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/24/99
to
In article <lydy.91...@gw.ddb.com>, ly...@ddb.com (Lydia Nickerson) says:
<SNIP>

>>No, I don't.
>
>What you do, which is rhetorically similar, is talk about people with
>problems of self control and people who are excercising self control and
>no where do you acknowledge that there are points of view outside those
>two polar extremes. Since you are writing in a forum where you know that
>other people have positions other than the two you cite, it seems
>willfully rude to ignore them.

Again, I was discussing the question Wendy Shalit raised of why
**some people** find other people's sexual abstinence so objection-
able. I wrote, "I **suspect one reason** is that those who choose to
exercise self-control are proof that it can be done." (Emphasis
added.) I never claimed to be discussing all possible views about
sex.


>>>At this point, you're likely to explain that truth is truth and wrong is
>>>wrong, and it doesn't matter what I believe. I'd rather short-circuit
>>>that debate. I understand what you mean, and I am certain that you are
>>>wrong.
>>>
>>I do not dismiss your sincerity and honesty. I believe you are mistaken on
>>some matters of objective fact, just as you believe I am mistaken on some
>>matters of objective fact. I'm not talking about sincerity and honesty.
>>I also do not assume you have latent guilt. I have no way of knowing
>>whether you do or not.
>
>Well, I thought that the RC also believed that the word of God was written
>in creation and so there is no excuse for failing to hear the word of God.
>However, I'm not an expert on RC theology. If that isn't true, then I
>withdraw the accusation that you believe I have latent guilt. As for
>objective fact, you must be using a definition of objective which is
>non-standard. There is no objective proof of God nor his laws.

Yes, the Catholic Church, following St. Paul, teaches that the creat-
ed universe shows some of God's law, so that all are responsible for
observing it. However, that is a general statement. The Church also
teaches that there are various circumstances that can diminish, or
even eliminate completely, the moral guilt of an individual who
performs an objectively sinful act. This applies to everyone:
Catholics, non-Catholic Christians, and non-Christians.

I did not realize that that was what you meant by "latent guilt". I
misunderstood and assumed you were talking about repressed guilt
feelings. However, what I said about that applies equally to the
question of whether anyone, including you, is morally guilty of sin
for actions that are objectively morally wrong. I have no way of
knowing. I leave that judgement to God.

We can leave aside the question of whether there is objective proof
of God and His laws because that isn't what I was talking about.
Consider the question, "Is sex outside of marriage contrary to the
will of God?" That is a question about objective fact. I, and many
other people, say sex outside of marriage is contrary to the will of
God. You, and many other people, say it is not. It doesn't matter,
for this discussion, whether someone who says it is not says, "There
is no God, therefore it is meaningless to say that anything is
against the will of God," or, "God exists, but He does not object to
sex outside of marriage." For that matter, the question of whether
or not God exists is a question of objective fact -- either He does
or He doesn't -- regardless of whether or not there is objective
proof that He does or does not exist.


>>I wrote of one possible reason, but accepted as possibly true other reasons
>>that were suggested later.
>
>If I am wrong about the "objective fact" that fornication and adultery are
>not sins, then how does this constitute accepting my position as possibly
>true? Sincerely held, sure. I can see where you could concede that. But
>true?

I did not say other views on sex outside of marriage were possibly
true. I said other possible explanations of why some people find
other people's sexual abstinence so objectionable were possibly true.
I was referring to my reply to Elly Freeman's posting in which I said,
"The reasons you suggest could be the explanation." I should add that
there is not one explanation for everyone who finds other people's
sexual abstinence objectionable. That's why I said in my original
comment, "I suspect one reason is ..."

Lydia Nickerson

unread,
Feb 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/24/99
to
gra...@lara.on.ca (Graydon) writes:

>In article <F7n5q...@world.std.com>,
>Ailsa N Murphy <an...@world.std.com> wrote:
>>In article <lydy.91...@gw.ddb.com>, Lydia Nickerson <ly...@ddb.com> wrote:
>>>ave...@thirdworld.uk (Avedon Carol) writes:
>>>>And perhaps that there are real dangers involved in promoting the idea
>>>>that such sexual activity is wrong.
>>>
>>Sexual activity isn't alwasy right, either. Sometimes it's even a
>>really bad idea.

>Sometimes _breathing_ is a really bad idea.

>I do not read what Lydia has been saying as attempting to introduce
>absolutes into the discussion; I read what she has been saying as an
>assertion -- with which I agree -- that promulgating any particular
>absolute about sex is destructive, especially and particularly that
>sex is bad/evil/forbidden.

Right on both counts. Do stop reading my mind, will you? It's feeling a
bit clautrophobic in here. My prejudice is that "sex is bad" is a worse
message than "sex is good," but I haven't seen any cultural examples of
the latter that weren't inextricably tied to a rebellion against the
former.


>Is is Melissa Etheridge who had a bit of stage patter that explained
>the general confusion of her generation in her home town along the
>lines of -- 'we wer told that sex was awful, and wrong, and dirty, and
>sinful, and bad, and that we should save it for the one we truly
>loved. And they wonder why we're strange.'?

That is perfectly gorgeous. I must remember it.

Lydia Nickerson

unread,
Feb 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/24/99
to
Marty Helgesen <MN...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> writes:

>In article <lydy.91...@gw.ddb.com>, ly...@ddb.com (Lydia Nickerson) says:
>
>We can leave aside the question of whether there is objective proof
>of God and His laws because that isn't what I was talking about.
>Consider the question, "Is sex outside of marriage contrary to the
>will of God?" That is a question about objective fact.

Only if you will grant that the question, "Is eating eggs with a spoon
contrary to the will of Finoodle?" is a question about objective fact.
And I will specify that Finoodle does not exist and has never existed.

God isn't an objective fact. I fail to see how any reference to his
preference or will can therefore be objective.

I, and many
>other people, say sex outside of marriage is contrary to the will of
>God. You, and many other people, say it is not. It doesn't matter,
>for this discussion, whether someone who says it is not says, "There
>is no God, therefore it is meaningless to say that anything is
>against the will of God," or, "God exists, but He does not object to
>sex outside of marriage." For that matter, the question of whether
>or not God exists is a question of objective fact -- either He does
>or He doesn't -- regardless of whether or not there is objective
>proof that He does or does not exist.

Well, one could go about attempting to determine the existence of God
objectively. Indeed, lots of people have. The results don't point to a
divine deity yet. But until you determine the objective existence of God,
and his actual nature, preferences, laws, etc., you cannot determine
whether or not the statement, "Extramarital sex is against God's law" is,
in fact, an objective statement. Piling several possible but unproven
objective statements together doesn't increase the likelihood that the
sum is objective.

Is there anybody here who's got some formal training in logic or something
than correct me if I'm wrong?

ave...@thirdworld.uk

unread,
Feb 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/24/99
to
On Wed, 24 Feb 1999 04:27:36 GMT, an...@world.std.com (Ailsa N Murphy)
wrote:

>In article <lydy.91...@gw.ddb.com>, Lydia Nickerson <ly...@ddb.com> wrote:
>>ave...@thirdworld.uk (Avedon Carol) writes:
>>
>>>And perhaps that there are real dangers involved in promoting the idea
>>>that such sexual activity is wrong.
>>
>Sexual activity isn't alwasy right, either. Sometimes it's even a
>really bad idea.

Sometimes sleep is a really bad idea, but we don't have lots of
anti-sleep campaigns out there.

ave...@thirdworld.uk

unread,
Feb 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/24/99
to
On 24 Feb 1999 07:50:39 GMT, gra...@lara.on.ca (Graydon) wrote:

>Is is Melissa Etheridge who had a bit of stage patter that explained
>the general confusion of her generation in her home town along the
>lines of -- 'we wer told that sex was awful, and wrong, and dirty, and
>sinful, and bad, and that we should save it for the one we truly
>loved. And they wonder why we're strange.'?

That's a good quote, and I'd like to know the source so I can get it
right. Gimme.

ave...@thirdworld.uk

unread,
Feb 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/24/99
to
On 24 Feb 99 03:20:16 GMT, ly...@ddb.com (Lydia Nickerson) wrote:

>>Damn, I was still working on "self-control" as something that is
>>necessarily involved in refraining from having sex. For some people,
>>it takes all the self-control they've got to endure an act of
>>intercourse; refusing it would be considered pure self-indulgence.
>
>I hadn't thought of that. Although, it describes a number of people I
>know, evidently including my parents when they were married to each other.
>(And still my dad, where women are concerned, I suspect. But maybe not.
>I'm so glad I know so much less about his sex life with my step-mom than I
>do about his sex life with my biological mom.)

I suspect it describes an awful lot of people, at least for some part
of their lives. Particularly female people, to judge from some of the
things I've heard a /lot/ of women say. I know a lot of women who
admit that they didn't like sex much until some guy or event changed
their lives, and I'm forever running into anti-sex types who are
desperately trying not to admit that they don't much like sex in the
first place. (They usually start off babbling some stuff about how
sex is private, sacred, etc., and how sex is just fine and wonderful
in marriage - but go ahead and ask them if they get enough great sex
in their marriage, and they always sort of sniff and say something
that indicates they get far more they want.)

>>And perhaps that there are real dangers involved in promoting the idea
>>that such sexual activity is wrong.
>

>Another very important point, actually. I'm pretty sure it's part of what
>caused me to end up on the floor of a kitchenette in a Unitarian Church at
>the age of sixteen with no condom and at the theoretically most fertile
>portion of my cycle, losing it to a man whose last name I didn't know.
>Hell, I'd only learned his first name an hour or two before.

I can't help thinking that's more funny than tragic. I once... oh,
nevermind!

On the other hand, I'm just thinking about that kid who almost bled to
death all over me, an experience I'm sure I would have missed without
the help of The Church.

>Did you see Jon Carrol's column about fighting abortion? Lovely stuff.

Oh, damn, now I have to go trawling around the net looking for it....

>Near as I can tell, abstinence is the least effective approach to teenage
>pregnancy ever invented by man.

Abstinance works pretty good if you can actually manage to do it.
/Preaching/ abstinance is another matter entirely, and mostly
counterproductive.

>>You know, I rather enjoy having you around, Lydy.
>

>Thanks. A lot. Have I mentioned that Feminists Against Censorship (I've
>probably bolluxed the name)

Not at all.

> is positively brilliant?

Gosh, thanks!

>It helps, on the days where I'm feeling a bit insecure. Being a feminist and being
>interested in BDSM is...confusing, some days.

Aw, go on! Wouldn't be much fun without a bit of Andrea Dworkin to
tell you how degrading your sex live is, would it?


Rachael M. Lininger

unread,
Feb 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/24/99
to

On 24 Feb 1999, Lydia Nickerson wrote:

>Near as I can tell, abstinence is the least effective approach to teenage
>pregnancy ever invented by man.

I disagree; abstinence works perfectly well.

It's _ignorance_ that causes the problems.

It's the notion that ignorance will equal innocence that causes the
loop.

Rachael

--
Rachael M. Lininger | "Trust your inner squid."
lininger@ |
virtu.sar.usf.edu | Graydon Saunders


Janice Gelb

unread,
Feb 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/25/99
to
In article 09464...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU, Marty Helgesen <MN...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> writes:
>
>We can leave aside the question of whether there is objective proof
>of God and His laws because that isn't what I was talking about.
>Consider the question, "Is sex outside of marriage contrary to the
>will of God?" That is a question about objective fact. I, and many

>other people, say sex outside of marriage is contrary to the will of
>God. You, and many other people, say it is not.

My eyeballs just crossed. You just managed in the same paragraph
to say that the will of God was objective fact, and that people
have varying opinions on what the will of God is. My dictionary
defines objective as "not influenced by personal feelings,
interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased." Please
note especially the word "interpretations"...

Colette Reap

unread,
Feb 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/25/99
to
ave...@thirdworld.uk wrote:

<snip>
>[...] I know a lot of women who admit that they didn't like sex much


> until some guy or event changed their lives, and I'm forever running
>into anti-sex types who are desperately trying not to admit that they
>don't much like sex in the first place.

'Bad' sex (ie sex with an sexually insensitive or selfish person) is
enough to turn anyone off, so it's not suprising that people don't
like it. Maybe the women you know are restating in their own way the
line about having to kiss an awful lot of frogs before finding a
prince. The ones who have my sympathy are those who have saved the
sexual side of their relationship until they marry and then find they
have married a sexual frog (IYSWIM).

--
Colette

Graydon

unread,
Feb 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/25/99
to
In article <lydy.91...@gw.ddb.com>, Lydia Nickerson <ly...@ddb.com> wrote:
>gra...@lara.on.ca (Graydon) writes:
>>I do not read what Lydia has been saying as attempting to introduce
>>absolutes into the discussion; I read what she has been saying as an
>>assertion -- with which I agree -- that promulgating any particular
>>absolute about sex is destructive, especially and particularly that
>>sex is bad/evil/forbidden.
>
>Right on both counts. Do stop reading my mind, will you? It's feeling a

I can't read minds; I'm just moderately skilled at some values of
listening.

(There have been people with doubts about this, but I am not one of
them.)

>bit clautrophobic in here. My prejudice is that "sex is bad" is a worse
>message than "sex is good," but I haven't seen any cultural examples of
>the latter that weren't inextricably tied to a rebellion against the
>former.

I've seen a couple of examples of a 'sex is good' worldview that don't
appear to have been the product of a rebellion in that person's
generation. It doesn't seem to have done them any harm.

>>Is is Melissa Etheridge who had a bit of stage patter that explained
>>the general confusion of her generation in her home town along the
>>lines of -- 'we wer told that sex was awful, and wrong, and dirty, and
>>sinful, and bad, and that we should save it for the one we truly
>>loved. And they wonder why we're strange.'?
>

>That is perfectly gorgeous. I must remember it.

I wish I could remember who said it, but yeah. It's a formulation
that makes a few things extremely obvious about the built in
axiom-lock.
--
graydon@ | Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre,
lara.on.ca | mod sceal þe mare þe ure maegen lytlað.

Graydon

unread,
Feb 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/25/99
to
In article <36da722e...@news.free-online.net>, <ave...@cix.co.uk> wrote:
>On 24 Feb 1999 07:50:39 GMT, gra...@lara.on.ca (Graydon) wrote:
>>Is is Melissa Etheridge who had a bit of stage patter that explained
>>the general confusion of her generation in her home town along the
>>lines of -- 'we wer told that sex was awful, and wrong, and dirty, and
>>sinful, and bad, and that we should save it for the one we truly
>>loved. And they wonder why we're strange.'?
>
>That's a good quote, and I'd like to know the source so I can get it
>right. Gimme.

If I knew the source, I'd have provided it. Would like to know it
myself; my brain is good at retaining these things, but indexes
sources rather less well than I would best prefer.

Graydon

unread,
Feb 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/25/99
to
In article <7b26dm$qta$1...@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM>,

Janice Gelb <jan...@eng.sun.com> wrote:
>In article 09464...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU, Marty Helgesen <MN...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> writes:
>>We can leave aside the question of whether there is objective proof
>>of God and His laws because that isn't what I was talking about.
>>Consider the question, "Is sex outside of marriage contrary to the
>>will of God?" That is a question about objective fact. I, and many
>>other people, say sex outside of marriage is contrary to the will of
>>God. You, and many other people, say it is not.
>
>My eyeballs just crossed. You just managed in the same paragraph
>to say that the will of God was objective fact, and that people
>have varying opinions on what the will of God is.

Sure; there are a bunch of cosmological constants which are objective
facts, and which there are varying opinions about the precise values
of, too.

Jo Walton

unread,
Feb 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/25/99
to
In article <7b2mp5$2g3$1...@lara.on.ca> gra...@lara.on.ca "Graydon" writes:

> In article <lydy.91...@gw.ddb.com>, Lydia Nickerson <ly...@ddb.com> wrote:

> >bit clautrophobic in here. My prejudice is that "sex is bad" is a worse
> >message than "sex is good," but I haven't seen any cultural examples of
> >the latter that weren't inextricably tied to a rebellion against the
> >former.
>
> I've seen a couple of examples of a 'sex is good' worldview that don't
> appear to have been the product of a rebellion in that person's
> generation. It doesn't seem to have done them any harm.

I think I got no message about sex as a child at all - it just didn't
exist, it was so unmentionable I was completely unaware of it. I knew
people got married and had children. I really didn't have any idea
at all about sex. I mostly read Victorian and early C.20 books in
which it wasn't mentioned and I didn't get any message it was _bad_
from my grandparents, just no acknowledgement that it existed at all.
There wasn't anything there to rebel against.

I started getting the sex-is-bad message only when I was older and
I'd already read :Triton: and too much Heinlein and knew that no,
sex is complex and generally good. I was always entirely aware that
those societal messages I was hearing were a) screwed up and
b) nothing to do with me really. I certainly worked out that sex is
likely to complicate relationships, but I don't think I ever went
through a stage of thinking it was bad. It's just sex, it's fun,
it's there in the world, like, hmm (do I always make this analogy
and if so is it terribly revealing of something :) food. Food isn't
good or bad - it's usually good and occasionally wonderful and it
can be bad if you eat the wrong thing or combination of things or
too much of something, and you can get to thinking about it too much
if it's a while since you've had some... just in the abstract, of
course it's good.

--
Jo - - I kissed a kif at Kefk - - J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk
First NorAm Public Appearance: Imperiums to Order, Kitchener, March 20th
Freshly UPDATED web-page http://www.bluejo.demon.co.uk - Interstichia;
RASFW FAQ, Reviews, Fanzine, Momentum Guidelines, Blood of Kings Poetry


Lydia Nickerson

unread,
Feb 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/25/99
to
"Rachael M. Lininger" <lini...@virtu.sar.usf.edu> writes:


>On 24 Feb 1999, Lydia Nickerson wrote:

>>Near as I can tell, abstinence is the least effective approach to teenage
>>pregnancy ever invented by man.

>I disagree; abstinence works perfectly well.

>It's _ignorance_ that causes the problems.

<sound of creaking door> Kind of, not exactly. Until the moment I lost
my virginity, I was practicing abstinence with all my might. If I'd been
a little bit smarter, I'd have asked him to use a condom. I certainly did
have more than adequate information about contraception. (It was taught,
very thoroughly, in Health in the Catholic girls high school I attended.
Go figure.) The information that I didn't have, and needed, had to do
with the power of sexual feelings. Hell, it would have helped if I'd
known what they _were_. Before I did some heavy petting with my first
when I stood close to a guy I liked, but I had no real idea what that was.

My conviction that abstinence was the appropriate choice for me was a
made it impossible to take any reasonable precautions. I couldn't, for
instance, carry a condom in my purse. I had no back up plan, and no
ability to create one. Abstinence is usually taught as the only way, not
as an option which has a significantly high number of failures.

Most teenagers, embarrassed enough by all this stuff, will choose either
one or zero contraceptive options, never mind that they're encouraged to
use two. With this in mind, I do wish someone would do studies on what
the failure rate of that method is. In health class, they gave us
statistics on everything available. But what they said was that
abstinance had a 0% failure rate. Like condoms and the pill and the
sponge and so on, that is true if the user uses it as recommended. The
failure rate including human error is a far more useful statistic.

Lydia Nickerson

unread,
Feb 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/25/99
to
gra...@lara.on.ca (Graydon) writes:

>In article <lydy.91...@gw.ddb.com>, Lydia Nickerson <ly...@ddb.com> wrote:

>>gra...@lara.on.ca (Graydon) writes:

>>bit clautrophobic in here. My prejudice is that "sex is bad" is a worse
>>message than "sex is good," but I haven't seen any cultural examples of
>>the latter that weren't inextricably tied to a rebellion against the
>>former.

>I've seen a couple of examples of a 'sex is good' worldview that don't
>appear to have been the product of a rebellion in that person's
>generation. It doesn't seem to have done them any harm.

But this worldview is still held in a culture where the "sex is bad" meme
is predominant, isn't it? It seems to me that the dynamic might be
different again if the entire culture had an absolute value of sex being
good, for instance, a culture modeled from bonobo social structures and
conflict resolution strategies. I don't think I'd like that, actually.

Vicki Rosenzweig

unread,
Feb 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/26/99
to
On 24 Feb 99 21:51:22 GMT, ly...@ddb.com (Lydia Nickerson) wrote:

>Marty Helgesen <MN...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> writes:


>
>>In article <lydy.91...@gw.ddb.com>, ly...@ddb.com (Lydia Nickerson) says:
>>
>>We can leave aside the question of whether there is objective proof
>>of God and His laws because that isn't what I was talking about.
>>Consider the question, "Is sex outside of marriage contrary to the
>>will of God?" That is a question about objective fact.
>

>Only if you will grant that the question, "Is eating eggs with a spoon
>contrary to the will of Finoodle?" is a question about objective fact.
>And I will specify that Finoodle does not exist and has never existed.
>
>God isn't an objective fact. I fail to see how any reference to his
>preference or will can therefore be objective.
>

> I, and many
>>other people, say sex outside of marriage is contrary to the will of

>>God. You, and many other people, say it is not. It doesn't matter,
>>for this discussion, whether someone who says it is not says, "There
>>is no God, therefore it is meaningless to say that anything is
>>against the will of God," or, "God exists, but He does not object to
>>sex outside of marriage." For that matter, the question of whether
>>or not God exists is a question of objective fact -- either He does
>>or He doesn't -- regardless of whether or not there is objective
>>proof that He does or does not exist.
>
>Well, one could go about attempting to determine the existence of God
>objectively. Indeed, lots of people have. The results don't point to a
>divine deity yet. But until you determine the objective existence of God,
>and his actual nature, preferences, laws, etc., you cannot determine
>whether or not the statement, "Extramarital sex is against God's law" is,
>in fact, an objective statement. Piling several possible but unproven
>objective statements together doesn't increase the likelihood that the
>sum is objective.
>
>Is there anybody here who's got some formal training in logic or something
>than correct me if I'm wrong?

My analysis (and I do have some formal training in logic, but mostly
from the mathematical viewpoint, not the debating viewpoint) is that
if all the pieces of a compound statement are objective statements,
then the result is also an objective statement. But that doesn't mean
that it's true, or--more to the point here--that you have enough
information to know whether it's true.

For example, "Olympus Mons is the tallest mountain within ten light-years
of Earth" is an objective statement. We don't know if it's true, though
we have yet to find a taller mountain. Combine enough similar
statements--assertions about the universe that we can't prove but
don't know of a counterexample to--and you'll get an objective statement
that is either true or false. But the more pieces you throw in, the
less likely it is to be true, just because you have more and more
places it could be false, and "A and B and C and D and E" is false
if any of A, B, C, D, or E is false.

Similarly, if you can agree on a definition of "God"--not as easy as it
sounds--the question of whether the entity thus defined exists may
well be an objective question about the nature of the Universe. But
"insufficient data" may be the only legitimate answer to that question.
Go on and define "sex" (if you think that's obvious, you've been
somewhere mercifully distant from the American press for the past
year), and an assertion about what God thinks about sex outside of
marriage might be concrete enough to be either true or false. But
all those definitions won't tell us whether it's true.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig | v...@interport.net
r.a.sf.f faq at http://www.users.interport.net/~vr/rassef-faq.html

Lise Eisenberg for DUFF!

Lydia Nickerson

unread,
Feb 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/26/99
to
ave...@thirdworld.uk writes:

>On 24 Feb 99 03:20:16 GMT, ly...@ddb.com (Lydia Nickerson) wrote:

>their lives, and I'm forever running into anti-sex types who are
>desperately trying not to admit that they don't much like sex in the

>first place. (They usually start off babbling some stuff about how
>sex is private, sacred, etc., and how sex is just fine and wonderful
>in marriage - but go ahead and ask them if they get enough great sex
>in their marriage, and they always sort of sniff and say something
>that indicates they get far more they want.)

Euww. Oddly, that's roughly the same speech my mother gave me when I was
about thirteen, evidently right after some extremely unpleasant sex with
my Dad. She did add on the bit about how, even if it you thought it was
maybe degrading or something, it was still joyful and marvelous within the
marriage bed. I _still_ don't want to know what that was about. My mom's
problem was the opposite, though. Dad wasn't interested in her, and
accused her of being a slut if she wanted sex more frequently than once a
month.

Sex Ed really, really needs a hands-on, practical course. Here, this is
what an orgasm feels like. Here's a list of ways that work for a lot of
people to acheive that. Here's a list of easily available toys. Here, let
me show you. Right, now you try it. Look, maybe I can help. The mind
boggles at trying to get it in the curriculum, but I'm not entirely
joking.


>>Another very important point, actually. I'm pretty sure it's part of what
>>caused me to end up on the floor of a kitchenette in a Unitarian Church at
>>the age of sixteen with no condom and at the theoretically most fertile
>>portion of my cycle, losing it to a man whose last name I didn't know.
>>Hell, I'd only learned his first name an hour or two before.

>I can't help thinking that's more funny than tragic. I once... oh,
>nevermind!

Well, it is _now_. It wasn't then. On the other hand, it did cause my
parents to get divorced, so the outcome was pretty good.


>On the other hand, I'm just thinking about that kid who almost bled to
>death all over me, an experience I'm sure I would have missed without
>the help of The Church.

Do I want to know?


>>It helps, on the days where I'm feeling a bit insecure. Being a feminist and being
>>interested in BDSM is...confusing, some days.

>Aw, go on! Wouldn't be much fun without a bit of Andrea Dworkin to
>tell you how degrading your sex live is, would it?

Well, I don't much like the degrading thing, but Dworkin appears to be a
pretty good predictor of things I'll like. The things she gets most upset
about are mostly things I thing are grand fun. And, well, always try
everything twice. It might be an acquired taste.

Graydon

unread,
Feb 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/26/99
to
In article <lydy.91...@gw.ddb.com>, Lydia Nickerson <ly...@ddb.com> wrote:
>gra...@lara.on.ca (Graydon) writes:
>>I've seen a couple of examples of a 'sex is good' worldview that don't
>>appear to have been the product of a rebellion in that person's
>>generation. It doesn't seem to have done them any harm.
>
>But this worldview is still held in a culture where the "sex is bad" meme
>is predominant, isn't it?

For the local value of culture those people grew up in, I'm not sure
about that. There were a fairly narrow range of acceptable sex roles,
and only two acceptable genders, but sex and morality didn't intersect
much, in so much as I understood the world views of the people
involved.

I don't find it hard to believe that someone could be so baffled by a
general societal message as to be unable to process it, either. (I
_still_ can't make sense out of 'dying is the worst thing that can
possibly happen to anyone'.)

>It seems to me that the dynamic might be different again if the
>entire culture had an absolute value of sex being good, for instance,
>a culture modeled from bonobo social structures and conflict
>resolution strategies. I don't think I'd like that, actually.

I'm quite certain I'd hate it.

But, yes, very different dynamic.

What seems to work best for humans is a situation in which sex isn't
tied into self image by default and in which it's acknowledged to be
of highly variable importance, but that one's tricky to phrase
positively and trickier to express in a way that is durable in the
presence of certainties.


--
graydon@ | Hige sceal şe heardra, heorte şe cenre,
lara.on.ca | mod sceal şe mare şe ure maegen lytlağ.

Jo Walton

unread,
Feb 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/26/99
to
In article <lydy.91...@gw.ddb.com> ly...@ddb.com "Lydia Nickerson" writes:

> Sex Ed really, really needs a hands-on, practical course. Here, this is
> what an orgasm feels like. Here's a list of ways that work for a lot of
> people to acheive that. Here's a list of easily available toys. Here, let
> me show you. Right, now you try it. Look, maybe I can help. The mind
> boggles at trying to get it in the curriculum, but I'm not entirely
> joking.

I do agree, but I just had an awful image of 16 year olds jostling to
get into groups for the practical and not be left in the last group.

It would make not getting picked until last in netball seem positively
wonderful.

I think there would have to be a whole lot of things different about
society before that one would work, terrific idea as it is.

Marty Helgesen

unread,
Feb 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/26/99
to
In article <lydy.91...@gw.ddb.com>, ly...@ddb.com (Lydia Nickerson) says:
>
>Marty Helgesen <MN...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> writes:
>
>>In article <lydy.91...@gw.ddb.com>, ly...@ddb.com (Lydia Nickerson) says:
>>
>>We can leave aside the question of whether there is objective proof
>>of God and His laws because that isn't what I was talking about.
>>Consider the question, "Is sex outside of marriage contrary to the
>>will of God?" That is a question about objective fact.
>
>Only if you will grant that the question, "Is eating eggs with a spoon
>contrary to the will of Finoodle?" is a question about objective fact.
>And I will specify that Finoodle does not exist and has never existed.
>
>God isn't an objective fact. I fail to see how any reference to his
>preference or will can therefore be objective.

Of course your question about eggs and Finoodle is a question about
objective fact. I explained why in the passage you are replying to.

I said:

I, and many other people, say sex outside of marriage is contrary
to the will of God. You, and many other people, say it is not.
It doesn't matter, for this discussion, whether someone who says
it is not says, "There is no God, therefore it is meaningless to
say that anything is against the will of God," or, "God exists,
but He does not object to sex outside of marriage." For that
matter, the question of whether or not God exists is a question
of objective fact -- either He does or He doesn't -- regardless
of whether or not there is objective proof that He does or does
not exist.

Are there any planets around Sirius, Polaris, or any other star you
might care to mention? Either there are or there aren't. That is a
matter of objective fact. We do not have the ability to determine
whether there are or aren't. Our lack of ability does not affect
their existence. Recently there were reports that there is water on
the Moon. Until that discovery everyone assumed there was no water
on the Moon. If the new scientific evidence has been interpreted
correctly, that assumption was contrary to objective fact. The fact
that until recently we did not have the technology to detect the
water did not mean the water wasn't there.

<SNIP>


>Well, one could go about attempting to determine the existence of God
>objectively. Indeed, lots of people have. The results don't point to a
>divine deity yet. But until you determine the objective existence of God,
>and his actual nature, preferences, laws, etc., you cannot determine
>whether or not the statement, "Extramarital sex is against God's law" is,
>in fact, an objective statement. Piling several possible but unproven
>objective statements together doesn't increase the likelihood that the
>sum is objective.
>
>Is there anybody here who's got some formal training in logic or something
>than correct me if I'm wrong?

The problem is you are not distinguishing between "X is an objective
statement" and "X is a true statement". Look at these statements:

1. Liver is a nutritious food.
2. Liver is a delicious food.
3. Twinkies are a nutritious food.
4. Twinkies are a delicious food.

Statements 1 and 3 are objective statements. They purport to de-
scribe an objective fact. It is possible to determine their truth or
falsity by taking the foods to a laboratory and having them analyzed.
One who does so will discover that 1 is true and 3 is false. State-
ments 2 and 4 are statements of personal taste.

Someone who says, "I think liver is a delicious food," is making an
objective statement about his own /p/e/r/v/e/r/t/e/d taste, but not
an objective statement about the tastiness of liver. That statement
could be false if he, in fact, detested liver but had some reason to
lie about it. Someone who says, "I strongly dislike the taste of
liver, therefore, liver is not a nutritious food," is illogical and
confused.

Avram Grumer

unread,
Feb 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/26/99
to

> In article <lydy.91...@gw.ddb.com> ly...@ddb.com "Lydia Nickerson" writes:
>
> > Sex Ed really, really needs a hands-on, practical course. Here,
> > this is what an orgasm feels like. Here's a list of ways that work
> > for a lot of people to acheive that. Here's a list of easily
> > available toys. Here, let me show you. Right, now you try it. Look,
> > maybe I can help. The mind boggles at trying to get it in the
> > curriculum, but I'm not entirely joking.
>
> I do agree, but I just had an awful image of 16 year olds jostling to
> get into groups for the practical and not be left in the last group.

I'm thinking of the sex ed. scene in _Monty Python's The Meaning of
Life_. The one that has the teacher demonstrating sexual technique with a
partner in front of the class, while the students all roll their eyes and
look bored.

--
--
Avram Grumer | Any sufficiently advanced
Home: av...@bigfoot.com | technology is indistinguishable
http://www.bigfoot.com/~avram/ | from an error message.

Marty Helgesen

unread,
Feb 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/26/99
to
In article <920033...@bluejo.demon.co.uk>, J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk (Jo Walton) says:
>
>In article <lydy.91...@gw.ddb.com> ly...@ddb.com "Lydia Nickerson" writes:
>
>> Sex Ed really, really needs a hands-on, practical course. Here, this is
>> what an orgasm feels like. Here's a list of ways that work for a lot of
>> people to acheive that. Here's a list of easily available toys. Here, let
>> me show you. Right, now you try it. Look, maybe I can help. The mind
>> boggles at trying to get it in the curriculum, but I'm not entirely
>> joking.
>
>I do agree, but I just had an awful image of 16 year olds jostling to
>get into groups for the practical and not be left in the last group.
>
>It would make not getting picked until last in netball seem positively
>wonderful.
>
>I think there would have to be a whole lot of things different about
>society before that one would work, terrific idea as it is.

"It is already three hundred years since our great historic _Lex
Sexualis_ was promulgated: 'A Number may obtain a license to use any
other Number as a sexual product'" _We_ by Evgenii Zamiatin

"Orgy-porgy, Ford and fun,
Kiss the girls and make the One.
Boys at one with girls at peace;
Orgy-porgy gives release." _Brave New World_ by Aldous Huxley

ave...@thirdworld.uk

unread,
Feb 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/26/99
to
On Thu, 25 Feb 1999 05:47:41 GMT, god...@lspace.org (Colette Reap)
wrote:

>ave...@thirdworld.uk wrote:
>
><snip>
>>[...] I know a lot of women who admit that they didn't like sex much

>> until some guy or event changed their lives, and I'm forever running

>>into anti-sex types who are desperately trying not to admit that they
>>don't much like sex in the first place.
>

>'Bad' sex (ie sex with an sexually insensitive or selfish person) is
>enough to turn anyone off, so it's not suprising that people don't
>like it. Maybe the women you know are restating in their own way the
>line about having to kiss an awful lot of frogs before finding a
>prince.

Some are...and most think they are, I reckon. But you know, you can
kiss all the frogs there are and still find no princes if you don't
happen to be a princess.

For a lot of those women, the guy who changes their lives is
different from the "frogs" only in that he pointed out to them, or at
least caused them to recognize, what they have been doing wrong - in a
way that they could understand and accept.

>The ones who have my sympathy are those who have saved the
>sexual side of their relationship until they marry and then find they
>have married a sexual frog (IYSWIM).

A good reason to oppose preaching chastity, for sure. But one problem
is that often those who have married frogs frequently don't realize
it, and assume that the problem inheres in sex, or in men, or both.
Then they go on to teach their children the same crap that is making
their own lives miserable - and they even campaign to influence
government policies to carry out this agenda for them.

The other problem is that many of those women won't ever learn to have
enough respect sex to relax and enjoy it, even if they did manage to
get their hands on a prince. They will do their best to make him feel
guilty for wanting to make love to them, make both their lives
miserable, and resent any suggested from the likes of you and me that
there might have been a better way to do things.


ave...@thirdworld.uk

unread,
Feb 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/26/99
to
On 26 Feb 99 03:25:06 GMT, ly...@ddb.com (Lydia Nickerson) wrote:

>ave...@thirdworld.uk writes:
>
>>On 24 Feb 99 03:20:16 GMT, ly...@ddb.com (Lydia Nickerson) wrote:
>

>>their lives, and I'm forever running into anti-sex types who are
>>desperately trying not to admit that they don't much like sex in the

>>first place. (They usually start off babbling some stuff about how
>>sex is private, sacred, etc., and how sex is just fine and wonderful
>>in marriage - but go ahead and ask them if they get enough great sex
>>in their marriage, and they always sort of sniff and say something
>>that indicates they get far more they want.)
>
>Euww. Oddly, that's roughly the same speech my mother gave me when I was
>about thirteen, evidently right after some extremely unpleasant sex with
>my Dad. She did add on the bit about how, even if it you thought it was
>maybe degrading or something, it was still joyful and marvelous within the
>marriage bed. I _still_ don't want to know what that was about.

Hmmm. Is this like Andrea Dworkin's thing in /Intercourse/ about how
when sex works, it's degrading?

>My mom's
>problem was the opposite, though. Dad wasn't interested in her, and
>accused her of being a slut if she wanted sex more frequently than once a
>month.

Ick ick ick.

>Sex Ed really, really needs a hands-on, practical course. Here, this is
>what an orgasm feels like. Here's a list of ways that work for a lot of
>people to acheive that. Here's a list of easily available toys. Here, let
>me show you. Right, now you try it. Look, maybe I can help. The mind
>boggles at trying to get it in the curriculum, but I'm not entirely
>joking.

It has its attractions... Maybe they should show Betty Dodson's
videotapes in sex-ed classes. I think she actually demonstrates how
to do a masturbation workshop, in /Self-Loving/.

One thing I'm sure of is that when people argue that sex-ed shouldn't
be about the technical details but rather the morality and ethics,
they are absolutely wrong. It should be first and foremost about the
technical details - and I mean in /explicit/ detail. No less than an
hour spent on Oral Sex: The Sensitive Bits. Yes, /of course/ kids
should be taught about masturbation! (This is, naturally, Reason #2
on my list of Why I Will Never Forgive Bill Clinton.)

>>>Another very important point, actually. I'm pretty sure it's part of what
>>>caused me to end up on the floor of a kitchenette in a Unitarian Church at
>>>the age of sixteen with no condom and at the theoretically most fertile
>>>portion of my cycle, losing it to a man whose last name I didn't know.
>>>Hell, I'd only learned his first name an hour or two before.
>
>>I can't help thinking that's more funny than tragic. I once... oh,
>>nevermind!
>
>Well, it is _now_. It wasn't then. On the other hand, it did cause my
>parents to get divorced, so the outcome was pretty good.

Oh, well then, let's hear it for sexual repression!

>>On the other hand, I'm just thinking about that kid who almost bled to
>>death all over me, an experience I'm sure I would have missed without
>>the help of The Church.
>
>Do I want to know?

<wince> I'll be brief: 16, Dalkon Shield, anti-abortion pregnancy
clinic, "misdiagnosis", miscarriage, hysterectomy.

>>>It helps, on the days where I'm feeling a bit insecure. Being a feminist and being
>>>interested in BDSM is...confusing, some days.
>
>>Aw, go on! Wouldn't be much fun without a bit of Andrea Dworkin to

>>tell you how degrading your sex life is, would it?


>
>Well, I don't much like the degrading thing, but Dworkin appears to be a
>pretty good predictor of things I'll like. The things she gets most upset
>about are mostly things I thing are grand fun. And, well, always try
>everything twice. It might be an acquired taste.

Pat Califia regards her as a great pornographer.


Marty Helgesen

unread,
Feb 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/26/99
to
In article <avram-26029...@manhattan.crossover.com>, av...@bigfoot.com (Avram Grumer) says:
<SNIP>

>I'm thinking of the sex ed. scene in _Monty Python's The Meaning of
>Life_. The one that has the teacher demonstrating sexual technique with a
>partner in front of the class, while the students all roll their eyes and
>look bored.

Didn't the teacher catch and reprimand a student who was surreptitiously
reading a Greek grammar, or something like that when he was supposed to
be paying attention to sex?

Lydia Nickerson

unread,
Feb 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/26/99
to
J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk (Jo Walton) writes:

>In article <lydy.91...@gw.ddb.com> ly...@ddb.com "Lydia Nickerson" writes:

>> Sex Ed really, really needs a hands-on, practical course. Here, this is
>> what an orgasm feels like. Here's a list of ways that work for a lot of
>> people to acheive that. Here's a list of easily available toys. Here, let
>> me show you. Right, now you try it. Look, maybe I can help. The mind
>> boggles at trying to get it in the curriculum, but I'm not entirely
>> joking.

>I do agree, but I just had an awful image of 16 year olds jostling to


>get into groups for the practical and not be left in the last group.

Oh, god, no. They don't get to practice with or on their classmates.
Geez. You're right, it would make life far more miserable. I was
figuring on a somewhat more Betan system, with Licensed Professional
Sexworkers, or some such. The students need to work with someone who
already knows the ropes. Two teenagers groping can be fun, but as a
learning experience, it's primarily emotional rather than physical.

>I think there would have to be a whole lot of things different about
>society before that one would work, terrific idea as it is.

Just one minor one: we'd have to rewrite the laws on child abuse and
probably child porn. You're right, it would require an profound change of
attitude and understanding both about sex and about power relationships,
not to mention a radically different view of children and adolescence, and
monogamy. Um. I don't see it happening, not my life time, probably not
ever.

Michael Kube-McDowell

unread,
Feb 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/26/99
to
On Fri, 26 Feb 1999 10:14:16 EST, Marty Helgesen
<MN...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> wrote:

> but He does not object to sex outside of marriage." For that
> matter, the question of whether or not God exists is a question
> of objective fact -- either He does or He doesn't -- regardless
> of whether or not there is objective proof that He does or does
> not exist.
>
>Are there any planets around Sirius, Polaris, or any other star you
>might care to mention? Either there are or there aren't. That is a
>matter of objective fact. We do not have the ability to determine
>whether there are or aren't. Our lack of ability does not affect
>their existence. Recently there were reports that there is water on
>the Moon. Until that discovery everyone assumed there was no water
>on the Moon.

The logical flaw here, I think, is that we do not yet have introduced
into the discussion a definition of the construct "God" which is
sufficiently precise and objective to allow any proposition which
employs it to be precise and objective, and therefore to be
falsifiable. "Planet," "Sirius," "Polaris," "water," and "Moon" are
all readily amenable to objective definition. But "God"--well, perhaps
the Clarke story should have been titled "The Nine Billion Definitions
of God." The search for scientific evidence of God in the universe has
been stymied from the outset by the necessity and inability to specify
God's property set, so that we will know where to look, and what to
look for. What do God's fingerprints look like?

I personally find this obstacle to be so daunting that I conclude no
statement invoking God can possibly taken as be an assertion of
objective fact--and some detailed exposition on the subject of "Which
flavor of God?" is required for such statements to even successfully
convey subjective beliefs.

Best,

K-Mac

Kathy Routliffe

unread,
Feb 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/27/99
to

Graydon wrote:
>
> In article <F7n5q...@world.std.com>,
> Ailsa N Murphy <an...@world.std.com> wrote:
(snip)

> >Sexual activity isn't alwasy right, either. Sometimes it's even a
> >really bad idea.
>

> Sometimes _breathing_ is a really bad idea.


>
> I do not read what Lydia has been saying as attempting to introduce
> absolutes into the discussion; I read what she has been saying as an
> assertion -- with which I agree -- that promulgating any particular
> absolute about sex is destructive, especially and particularly that
> sex is bad/evil/forbidden.
>

> Is is Melissa Etheridge who had a bit of stage patter that explained
> the general confusion of her generation in her home town along the
> lines of -- 'we wer told that sex was awful, and wrong, and dirty, and
> sinful, and bad, and that we should save it for the one we truly
> loved. And they wonder why we're strange.'?
>

> Touch is essential in humans for the maintenance of sanity; there is
> no hard border between comfort touch and sexual touch in the human
> nervous system. Postulate that sexual touch is evil and you will go
> -- however slowly, and by whatever strangeness of route -- insane.
>

This is so well and clearly written!

I read it and said "This is the truth!"

And it is ironic. Sex is so powerful an instinct, and becomes so
infinitely more powerful when yoked with the emotional power of
self-awareness, that we are desperately afraid of it. And yet, as you
say, it is in the province of touch. In fact, its power can be, as
Marvin Gaye sang (I'm not being facetious here) an ultimate healing
under some circumstances. Sex can be a sacrament, just as cradling a
child, or holding your mother can be. Without these touches, we can
sicken and die.

In fact, your comment reflects the reality of humanity's tie to sex
perhaps even more accurately than Germaine Greer's comment: we are
conceived via, then born out of, an orifice positioned directly between
two eliminatory orifices, and until we learn to deal with that, we will
always be uneasy about sex.

Kathy
--
"Insanity runs in my family like a cool mountain stream flowing briskly
into the charging white-water rapids that the rafters love so dearly."
--Mr. Boffo, "Putting Things in the Best Possible Way, worst-case
scenario".

Avram Grumer

unread,
Feb 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/27/99
to
In article <99057.16...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>, Marty Helgesen
<MN...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> wrote:

> In article <avram-26029...@manhattan.crossover.com>,
av...@bigfoot.com (Avram Grumer) says:
>
> >I'm thinking of the sex ed. scene in _Monty Python's The Meaning of
> >Life_. The one that has the teacher demonstrating sexual technique
> >with a partner in front of the class, while the students all roll
> >their eyes and look bored.
>
> Didn't the teacher catch and reprimand a student who was surreptitiously
> reading a Greek grammar, or something like that when he was supposed to
> be paying attention to sex?

Could be. It's been a long time.

--
Avram Grumer | av...@bigfoot.com | http://www.bigfoot.com/~avram/

If music be the food of love, then some of it be the Twinkies of
dysfunctional relationships.

David Langford

unread,
Feb 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/27/99
to
On Sat, 27 Feb 1999 03:27:34 GMT, awnb...@panix.com (Michael R Weholt)
wrote:

>In article <36D75D4C...@flash.net>,

>Kathy Routliffe <kat...@flash.net> wrote:
>>
>>In fact, your comment reflects the reality of humanity's tie to sex
>>perhaps even more accurately than Germaine Greer's comment: we are
>>conceived via, then born out of, an orifice positioned directly between
>>two eliminatory orifices, and until we learn to deal with that, we will
>>always be uneasy about sex.
>

>Hmm. Wasn't that Freud? "We are born b/w piss & shit"?

Yeats had a more tasteful way of putting it (in "Crazy Jane"):

But Love has pitched his mansion in
The place of excrement.

Dave
--
David Langford
ans...@cix.co.uk | http://www.ansible.demon.co.uk/

Lydia Nickerson

unread,
Feb 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/27/99
to
gra...@lara.on.ca (Graydon) writes:

>In article <lydy.91...@gw.ddb.com>, Lydia Nickerson <ly...@ddb.com> wrote:
>>gra...@lara.on.ca (Graydon) writes:
>>>I've seen a couple of examples of a 'sex is good' worldview that don't
>>>appear to have been the product of a rebellion in that person's
>>>generation. It doesn't seem to have done them any harm.
>>
>>But this worldview is still held in a culture where the "sex is bad" meme
>>is predominant, isn't it?

>For the local value of culture those people grew up in, I'm not sure
>about that. There were a fairly narrow range of acceptable sex roles,
>and only two acceptable genders, but sex and morality didn't intersect
>much, in so much as I understood the world views of the people
>involved.

I'm curious. What culture was this? I'm also curious how they dealt with
homosexuality.

I'm not sure that you can obliterate negative messages about sex in any
culture that doesn't have equality of the genders. I guess I don't see
any good way to divorce sexual mores from sex roles.


>What seems to work best for humans is a situation in which sex isn't
>tied into self image by default and in which it's acknowledged to be
>of highly variable importance, but that one's tricky to phrase
>positively and trickier to express in a way that is durable in the
>presence of certainties.

I agree. I ran across a news article recently talking about a town Africa
(what country? Nigeria?) where the elders had decided to stop female
"curcumcision." In discussing it, one of the women who had worked hard
for this cause was describing the reasons why the early western attempts
had failed so completely. Among other things, the westerners thought that
the worst thing about this practice was the loss of sexual pleasure for
these women. They would come to villages where starvation and infant
mortality were serious concerns, and talk about empowerment and orgasms.
Not very relevant, really.


It wasn't until people started investigating the increase in miscarriages,
still-borns, death in childbirth, and infections leading to infertility
(not to mention the rate of fatality for the procedure itself) that the
women started to care. Family was important. Sex, especially for women,
plays a very different role in their culture than it does in mine.

I personally find people who have no interest in sex to be baffling, but
its not extremely rare, and it does result from things other than trauma.
(And even when it is, it's not a thing to be pitied. Survival is
admirable, and sometimes the cost is very high.) Amongst the other things
that these silly assumptions about sex=self does is the devaluing of
people who aren't that interested in sex. Depressing.

Lydia Nickerson

unread,
Feb 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/27/99
to
Marty Helgesen <MN...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> writes:

>In article <lydy.91...@gw.ddb.com>, ly...@ddb.com (Lydia Nickerson) says:
>>
>>Marty Helgesen <MN...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> writes:
>>
>>>In article <lydy.91...@gw.ddb.com>, ly...@ddb.com (Lydia Nickerson) says:
>>>
>>>We can leave aside the question of whether there is objective proof
>>>of God and His laws because that isn't what I was talking about.
>>>Consider the question, "Is sex outside of marriage contrary to the
>>>will of God?" That is a question about objective fact.
>>
>>Only if you will grant that the question, "Is eating eggs with a spoon
>>contrary to the will of Finoodle?" is a question about objective fact.
>>And I will specify that Finoodle does not exist and has never existed.
>>
>>God isn't an objective fact. I fail to see how any reference to his
>>preference or will can therefore be objective.
>
>Of course your question about eggs and Finoodle is a question about
>objective fact. I explained why in the passage you are replying to.

Even if it is objective, it's completely meaningless. There is not now,
nor ever has been a Finoodle, and if there had been, zie wouldn't care a
wet slap about how you eat your eggs. Arguing about what Finoodle might
think about egg-eating is nonsensical. Postulating that the non-existant
being Finoodle would blow up the world if too many peolple eat their eggs
in the non-approved fashion doesn't add any weight or credence to the
discussion.

I find arguments about the will of God to be equally nonsensical. I fail
to understand why I, myself, should give a wet slap about what a possibly
fictional creature might care about what I do in or out of bed, anymore
than I care about Finoodle and His Eggs.

Mary Kay Kare

unread,
Feb 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/27/99
to
In article <lydy.92...@gw.ddb.com>, ly...@ddb.com (Lydia Nickerson) wrote:

> I personally find people who have no interest in sex to be baffling, but
> its not extremely rare, and it does result from things other than trauma.
> (And even when it is, it's not a thing to be pitied. Survival is
> admirable, and sometimes the cost is very high.) Amongst the other things
> that these silly assumptions about sex=self does is the devaluing of
> people who aren't that interested in sex. Depressing.


Click!

It isn't that we have no interest in sex around our house, it's just that
it's pretty low on the priority list. This has not been true for me all
my life; I used to be very sexual. However, both of take SSRI
anti-depressants, and one of the side effects is depressed libido. When
we *do* have sex it's pretty darn good, and we do lots of other kinds of
touching, but both of us feel inadequate and guilty about the frequency,
or lack thereof. On the other hand, neither one of us is about to stop
taking those drugs; the difference they have made is amazing. I'm going
to remember this post with its very good points and fight harder.

Thanks.

MK

--
Mary Kay Kare

Abandon hope all ye who
Press Enter Here.

Lydia Nickerson

unread,
Feb 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/28/99
to
ave...@thirdworld.uk writes:

>On 26 Feb 99 03:25:06 GMT, ly...@ddb.com (Lydia Nickerson) wrote:

>>ave...@thirdworld.uk writes:
>>
>>>On 24 Feb 99 03:20:16 GMT, ly...@ddb.com (Lydia Nickerson) wrote:
>>
>>>their lives, and I'm forever running into anti-sex types who are
>>>desperately trying not to admit that they don't much like sex in the
>>>first place. (They usually start off babbling some stuff about how
>>>sex is private, sacred, etc., and how sex is just fine and wonderful
>>>in marriage - but go ahead and ask them if they get enough great sex
>>>in their marriage, and they always sort of sniff and say something
>>>that indicates they get far more they want.)
>>
>>Euww. Oddly, that's roughly the same speech my mother gave me when I was
>>about thirteen, evidently right after some extremely unpleasant sex with
>>my Dad. She did add on the bit about how, even if it you thought it was
>>maybe degrading or something, it was still joyful and marvelous within the
>>marriage bed. I _still_ don't want to know what that was about.

>Hmmm. Is this like Andrea Dworkin's thing in /Intercourse/ about how
>when sex works, it's degrading?

I don't think so. I think it was that in order to get laid, Momma had to
do things that Daddy demanded that squicked her, but even unpleasant sex
was better than none at all. When I was sixteen, she found a better
solution, she slept with my boyfriends. When I was 20 odd, she married a
man who was good in bed, which seems an even better solution (at least
from my point of view.)

>>Sex Ed really, really needs a hands-on, practical course. Here, this is
>>what an orgasm feels like. Here's a list of ways that work for a lot of
>>people to acheive that. Here's a list of easily available toys. Here, let
>>me show you. Right, now you try it. Look, maybe I can help. The mind
>>boggles at trying to get it in the curriculum, but I'm not entirely
>>joking.

>It has its attractions... Maybe they should show Betty Dodson's


>videotapes in sex-ed classes. I think she actually demonstrates how
>to do a masturbation workshop, in /Self-Loving/.

_That_ would be useful. Although, it's really not enough. At least for
me, masturbatory orgasms and orgasms with a partner feel different, even
when the technique is the same. I don't know that knowing about the one
would help with the other as much as you might like. And it completely
lacks pheremones. A practical in How to Identify Hormonal Attractions and
How to Deal with them Sensibly would be a course where lesson planning was
particularly challenging. On the other hand, about a year ago, I was
completely bowled over by falling in love so hard that I went through
about six floors and put a dent in the basement. And that was primarily
in email. God knows, I've been there before, but it was almost as if I'd
learned nothing in the intervening years. It was scary, but marvelous.
And I guess I did do a little bit better work on damage control than in
the past. I did have the sense to warn my other sweeties that I'd fallen
off the edge of the earth and I didn't expect to be back for a couple of
months. How do you teach, "Hormones will always be more powerful than you
expect, and usually at inconvenient times"?

>One thing I'm sure of is that when people argue that sex-ed shouldn't
>be about the technical details but rather the morality and ethics,
>they are absolutely wrong. It should be first and foremost about the
>technical details - and I mean in /explicit/ detail. No less than an
>hour spent on Oral Sex: The Sensitive Bits. Yes, /of course/ kids
>should be taught about masturbation! (This is, naturally, Reason #2
>on my list of Why I Will Never Forgive Bill Clinton.)

I completely agree. I think that if the public schools in the United
States are to survive, they must somehow get out of the value/social
aspects and stick to teaching academic subjects. Self-image is important,
but the school system simply cannot make up for the failures of the rest
of the child's society, and it's time we stopped trying. If we did, maybe
we could spend that money that we're throwing away on some programs which
actually _do_ work.

>>Well, it is _now_. It wasn't then. On the other hand, it did cause my
>>parents to get divorced, so the outcome was pretty good.

>Oh, well then, let's hear it for sexual repression!

It has, she says dryly, its pluses and its minuses. (Ever seen "Pass the
Ammo?" Movie with Tim Currie as a televangelist.)


><wince> I'll be brief: 16, Dalkon Shield, anti-abortion pregnancy
>clinic, "misdiagnosis", miscarriage, hysterectomy.

Glrk. I probably didn't want to know. I can't even start commenting
because I'm not sure when I'd stop, and I'd become incoherent with rage
along the way. Bastards probably took her ovaries while they were there.
I can forgive Bill Clinton for Elders far more easily than I can forgive
the Church for its stand on birth control.

>Pat Califia regards her as a great pornographer.

Pat's wrong (about Dworkin). Califia's pornography is much hotter and
better written than Dworkin's. Dworkin makes a useful scholarly
reference, though.

Lydia Nickerson

unread,
Feb 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/28/99
to
ave...@thirdworld.uk writes:

>Some are...and most think they are, I reckon. But you know, you can
>kiss all the frogs there are and still find no princes if you don't
>happen to be a princess.

>For a lot of those women, the guy who changes their lives is
>different from the "frogs" only in that he pointed out to them, or at
>least caused them to recognize, what they have been doing wrong - in a
>way that they could understand and accept.

I know of at least one example where a woman discovered that she really
could have orgasm with a partner who turned out to be, other than in bed,
the worst possible choice.

Kathy Routliffe

unread,
Feb 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/28/99
to

Lydia Nickerson wrote:
>
> gra...@lara.on.ca (Graydon) writes:
>
> >In article <lydy.91...@gw.ddb.com>, Lydia Nickerson <ly...@ddb.com> wrote:
> >>gra...@lara.on.ca (Graydon) writes:
>

> >>bit clautrophobic in here. My prejudice is that "sex is bad" is a worse
> >>message than "sex is good," but I haven't seen any cultural examples of
> >>the latter that weren't inextricably tied to a rebellion against the
> >>former.
>

> >I've seen a couple of examples of a 'sex is good' worldview that don't
> >appear to have been the product of a rebellion in that person's
> >generation. It doesn't seem to have done them any harm.
>
> But this worldview is still held in a culture where the "sex is bad" meme

> is predominant, isn't it? It seems to me that the dynamic might be


> different again if the entire culture had an absolute value of sex being
> good, for instance, a culture modeled from bonobo social structures and
> conflict resolution strategies. I don't think I'd like that, actually.

Can you say why? Is it because, coming from outside a culture like that,
it just doesn't seem *right*? I'm quite interested.

For myself, as confused and conflicted as my own attitudes towards sex
can be, I somehow think that a bonobo social structure would be a *very*
good thing.

Or, as Bob says, "I go bonobo!"

Kathy
--

"Insanity runs in my family like a cool mountain stream flowING briskly

Kathy Routliffe

unread,
Feb 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/28/99
to

Michael R Weholt wrote:
>
> In article <36D75D4C...@flash.net>,
> Kathy Routliffe <kat...@flash.net> wrote:
> >
> >In fact, your comment reflects the reality of humanity's tie to sex
> >perhaps even more accurately than Germaine Greer's comment: we are
> >conceived via, then born out of, an orifice positioned directly between
> >two eliminatory orifices, and until we learn to deal with that, we will
> >always be uneasy about sex.
>
> Hmm. Wasn't that Freud? "We are born b/w piss & shit"?
>

You may be right. I was about 17 when I read The Female Eunach, and I no
longer have my copy. She may have been quoting the eminant doctor.

And, yes, your delivery was closer to the original.

Kathy
--

"Insanity runs in my family like a cool mountain stream flowing briskly

P Nielsen Hayden

unread,
Feb 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/28/99
to
Lydia Nickerson <ly...@ddb.com> wrote in <lydy.92...@gw.ddb.com>:

>ave...@thirdworld.uk writes:

>>One thing I'm sure of is that when people argue that sex-ed shouldn't
>>be about the technical details but rather the morality and ethics,
>>they are absolutely wrong. It should be first and foremost about the
>>technical details - and I mean in /explicit/ detail. No less than an
>>hour spent on Oral Sex: The Sensitive Bits. Yes, /of course/ kids
>>should be taught about masturbation! (This is, naturally, Reason #2
>>on my list of Why I Will Never Forgive Bill Clinton.)
>
>I completely agree. I think that if the public schools in the United
>States are to survive, they must somehow get out of the value/social
>aspects and stick to teaching academic subjects. Self-image is
>important, but the school system simply cannot make up for the failures
>of the rest of the child's society, and it's time we stopped trying.
>If we did, maybe we could spend that money that we're throwing away on
>some programs which actually _do_ work.

I'm not sure I agree. I think public education -- all primary education,
really -- is always going to have "value/social aspects." The question is
always what kind of values are going to predominate. Obviously, the system
offers many opportunities for sensible people to be apalled by what's being
purveyed.

I agree that too many parents have come to depend on public schools to make
up for their haplessness as parents -- I mean, I know kindergarten and
first-grade teachers who report having to teach kids, literally, how to tie
their shoes. But if you talk to the _good_ teachers currently in the
system, I don't think you'll find many who consider it practical to convert
the system to a remote matter of decanting Academic Subjects into
children's brains -- or who would want to do it even if we could.

--
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@panix.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnh

Pamela Dean Dyer-Bennet

unread,
Feb 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/28/99
to
P Nielsen Hayden <p...@panix.com> writes:

>I agree that too many parents have come to depend on public schools to make
>up for their haplessness as parents -- I mean, I know kindergarten and
>first-grade teachers who report having to teach kids, literally, how to tie
>their shoes.

Well, that's not anything new -- when I went to kindergarten, in 1958,
in a small town in Illinois, one of the fascinating things in the
schoolroom was a gigantic lace-up boot (well, it looked gigantic to
me, anyway) on which one could practice tying the requisite bow. It
didn't do *me* any good because it was backwards. It taught me how to
tie my little brothers' shoes but just confused me hopelessly about
mine. But in any case, it was clearly intended to teach kids to tie
their shoes.

I also remember being very indignant because I already knew the
alphabet and the teacher was teaching it to the other kids, which I
found extremely boring since I couldn't read and ignore classwork yet.
A lot of this stuff is extremely relative. I was always modestly ahead in
mental stuff and way behind in physical; other kids were out of synch
in other ways with one another or with whatever the program was.

--
"Moreover, fantasticality does a good deal better than
sham psychology." -- Virginia Woolf
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pamela Dean Dyer-Bennet pd...@ddb.com

Marilee J. Layman

unread,
Feb 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/28/99
to
In <8D7B5CD...@news.panix.com>, P Nielsen Hayden <p...@panix.com>
wrote:

>I agree that too many parents have come to depend on public schools to make
>up for their haplessness as parents -- I mean, I know kindergarten and
>first-grade teachers who report having to teach kids, literally, how to tie
>their shoes.

When we were stationed in Guam, the first grade teachers had to teach
English to the Chamorro kids.

--
Marilee J. Layman Co-Leader, The Other*Worlds*Cafe
relm...@aol.com A Science Fiction Discussion Group
Web site: http://www.webmoose.com/owc/
AOL keyword: BOOKs > Books Community > The Other*Worlds*Cafe (listbox)

Graydon

unread,
Feb 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/28/99
to
In article <lydy.92...@gw.ddb.com>, Lydia Nickerson <ly...@ddb.com> wrote:
>gra...@lara.on.ca (Graydon) writes:
[sex is bad cultural tropes]

>>For the local value of culture those people grew up in, I'm not sure
>>about that. There were a fairly narrow range of acceptable sex roles,
>>and only two acceptable genders, but sex and morality didn't intersect
>>much, in so much as I understood the world views of the people
>>involved.
>
>I'm curious. What culture was this? I'm also curious how they dealt with
>homosexuality.

Small fringe culture up north of Kingston; back-to-the-landers with a
clue, in how I think of them. (Pro-tech, pro-science, pro-education,
strongly pro-ecological responsibility, anti-population density,
anti-human-ecological determinism).

Homosexuality is fine, so far as I can tell. My take on them is that
being gay is fine so long as you don't swish, which seems wierd.

>I'm not sure that you can obliterate negative messages about sex in any
>culture that doesn't have equality of the genders. I guess I don't see
>any good way to divorce sexual mores from sex roles.

I think equality of genders is a semantic mistake.

Restricting the significance of plumbing to activities to which
plumbing is significant seems like a more useful approach, and even a
practical one, if 'judge by deeds' gets leaned on really hard.

>>What seems to work best for humans is a situation in which sex isn't
>>tied into self image by default and in which it's acknowledged to be
>>of highly variable importance, but that one's tricky to phrase
>>positively and trickier to express in a way that is durable in the
>>presence of certainties.
>
>I agree. I ran across a news article recently talking about a town Africa
>(what country? Nigeria?) where the elders had decided to stop female
>"curcumcision." In discussing it, one of the women who had worked hard
>for this cause was describing the reasons why the early western attempts
>had failed so completely. Among other things, the westerners thought that
>the worst thing about this practice was the loss of sexual pleasure for
>these women. They would come to villages where starvation and infant
>mortality were serious concerns, and talk about empowerment and orgasms.
>Not very relevant, really.

Yes. Very good point.

>It wasn't until people started investigating the increase in miscarriages,
>still-borns, death in childbirth, and infections leading to infertility
>(not to mention the rate of fatality for the procedure itself) that the
>women started to care. Family was important. Sex, especially for women,
>plays a very different role in their culture than it does in mine.

I find 'sex must not be fun' memes indescribably creepy.

>I personally find people who have no interest in sex to be baffling, but
>its not extremely rare, and it does result from things other than trauma.

Some people's default libido is 'hardly any'.

>(And even when it is, it's not a thing to be pitied. Survival is
>admirable, and sometimes the cost is very high.) Amongst the other things
>that these silly assumptions about sex=self does is the devaluing of
>people who aren't that interested in sex. Depressing.

Yeah. Dualist absolutes are not good things.

I think 'sex is as important as you'd like it to be' is a reasonable
message, but I think that it would have to be communicated as 'sex
will be as important as you'd like it to be', at five to eight years
of age, to have a prayer when the hormones hit and everything matters.

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages