From: Prof. Jose Gomes Filho (gomes@dpx.cnen.gov.br)
Date: Thu Aug 28 1997 - 05:46:15 MDT
On 15 Aug 97 at 19:31, Sarah Marr <extropians@extropy.org> wrote
about "RE: quibble":
> Tony Hollick (at least I _think_ it was he) wrote:
>
> >Sexual attraction can only properly apply to a reproductive context.
>
> A very Catholic viewpoint, I can't help thinking. Men and women have normal
> penetrative sex whilst specifically preventing reproduction, and I don't
> think that changes the nature of their attraction in the slightest; it
> continues to find a basis in a mutual desire for sex: that is, it remains
> sexual.
>
> Sarah
>
>
> B e a u t y i s o n l y s i n d e e p.
> http://www.seraph.org sarah.marr@dial.pipex.com
>
>
Dear Sarah,
I suppose that Tony has just considered the difference between
*sexual* attraction and *erotic* attraction... although we usually
say "to make sex" and not "to make eros"...
Indeed, he after wrote:
> But erotic feelings are internally-experienced 'World II' phenomena
> -- again, there is no external metric. And they can therefore have
> _no impact whatsoever on other people_ (except insofar as other
> people can sense them at some tacit level).
=================================
Prof. Gomes
---------------------
http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Lab/1065
emails: gomes@cnen.gov.br
profgomes@geocities.com
---------------------
Thanks for visiting my web site.
=================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:46 MST