From: ewoods@desire.wright.edu Subject: Re: Sex is neither good nor bad. Date: 16 Sep 93 14:42:24 EST cortese@netcom.com (Janis Maria C. C. Cortese) writes: > Sex IS. Whether it's good or bad depends entirely on the people > involved and their attitudes, and I'm sorry if this insults someone, > but when someone ogles me like an immature groping 12 year old > weenie THAT IS NEITHER GOOD NOR BEAUTIFUL. If this annoys you, too > damned bad. A man or woman looking at me because they are pleased > at my exterior is just fine -- when they know that I am not THERE > expressly for them to get horny off of and when they are prepared to > acknowledge that: > 1) I am a person and I exist even when they aren't looking at me. > 2) I am not being a "bitch" if I am not interested in them; I am > simply exercising my free choice by picking and choosing on my > own. I am so relieved to see a grown-up, well thought out, rational approach to this subject... I just finished reading _The_Family_Wicca_Book_ by Ashleen O'Gaea and there are so many places where it seems like she has spoken out about what she views as the unhealthy repression of sexuality by a culture dominated by Patriarchal Monotheism... Sex is not a political, or religious issue... it is a personal issue... There is nothing wrong with choosing to have sex... but if you choose not to it is not because you are a victim of the predominantly Judeo- Christian culture and it's views on our bodies, our morality, or our private lives... > I just think it's interesting that we seem to have inherited the > same typical xtian view of sex as a monolithic entity, only we've > scratched out where they wrote "bad" and put "good." I have news > for all of you -- sex is neither good nor bad. Like any other human > endeavor, it cannot be evaluated apart from the context in which > it's embedded. And when it comes to MY body being ogles, *I* decide > what's good and bad. > > Context, context, context! > > Blessings, > Janis Thank you Janis, I couldn't have said it better myself... Andi Woods-Fasimpaur === From: watts_g@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz (Alessan) Date: 16 Sep 93 23:57:50 NZST cortese@netcom.com (Janis Maria C. C. Cortese) writes: [See above.] *applause* Succinctly put. Must say it's nice to see someone stating so baldly this very simply concept (simple to state, maybe not so simple to live by?) However, your last sentence above leads me to another point, one which bugs me since it seems to so often occur. I like to take a quick check of someone's body, if the opportunity arises. No big deal, just a nude, glance over to appreciate the aesthetic beauty of it all, maybe pause for a moment of admiration, then get on with the real business of dealing with the _person_. I don't classify this as oggling. In _my_ context, it's a simple matter of a moment of art appreciation. The subject of this even momentary attention doesn't always agree. In _their_ context, they're being oggled, and object to it. As is no doubt their right, but again according to _their_ context. My point is, context is all very well, but unless you're highly empathic, your context is only going to relate to you, and may have no relevance whatsoever to the context experienced or intended by another person. Maybe a point in favour of a moment's reflection before tarring all attention with the same brush? -- watts_g@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz All opinions are my own, I am not a representitive of the "...Blind to the dangers and dismays, Wellington City Council, just That wipe the innocent smile away..." a ghost in their machine...