Subj : Re: Rush to Judgement?
To   : Constance Rawley
From : John Wilson
Date : Wed Nov 01 2000 07:52 pm

-=> CONSTANCE RAWLEY wrote to JOHN WILSON <=-


 CR> ...after seeing
 CR> Voigt's
 CR>  posts in the Matzdobre echo and some of his arguments here, I'm
 CR>  inclined to think that "pervert" is an appropriate label for the
 CR>  person you're attempting to defend.

      I certainly can't speak to arguments held elsewhere, but I followed
      his argument closely in this echo, and found (and find) the charge
      unfair and irrational.

 CR>  Perhaps if you had a more
 CR>  complete picture of the exchanges involving Voigt, Henson and
 CR>  others,
 CR>  you'd recognize that.

      If we all had a more complete picture, I think we'd judge less.
      Perhaps you are correct. I doubt it :-)

 CR>  I think Voigt's response substantiated Henson's charge. Perhaps
 CR> it
 CR>  comes down to what one believes is the function of sex and the
 CR> meaning
 CR>  of "perverse." This is what Voigt wrote:

 JV> "Fisting", BTW, is a perfectly legitimate sexual behavior, as
 JV> are sodomy, fellatio, cunnilingus, masturbation, and a host of
 JV> others. Your hangup about "fisting" (not to mention gay sex)
 JV> says a lot about you and about how you'd legislate "decency"
 JV> for all of us.

     Fisting is, as far as I know (though G*d knows I could well be mistaken)
     primarily a lesbian exersise and beyond my experience. The other
     activities in the litney above are but periphiral manifestations
     of a wide spectrum of sexual activity. Not IMHO perverse at all.
     As you say, perhaps it comes down to personal opinion.
     "The" function of sex? I believe there are *many* functions...

     <sigh> and we havn't even *mentioned* tantra.... :-)






 
___ MultiMail/MS-DOS v0.32

--- Maximus 3.01
 * Origin: The BandMaster, Vancouver, B.C., Canada (1:153/7715)

.