Sarah Lawrence wrote:
> >so that sex can actually be as good as we all wish it was?
> You mean it *isn't*? You should get out more -- or rather... er, never
> mind. 8-)
Or maybe I just have an especially fevered imagination. :-)
But seriously, no, it isn't. Picture, for a moment, one of those rare
occasions when ambiance, circumstance and mood all come together in just the
right way, with just the right person, to create one of the best experiences
you've ever had. That's what I think most of us want sex to be like all the
time - a magical, wonderful, overpowering thing.
Unfortunately, magic like that only happens occasionally. When you've been
married for ten years it takes a lot of effort to keep sex from becoming
just another boring routine, and most people don't succeed.
Fortunately, it doesn't have to stay that way. I can envision all sorts of
ways to improve on nature in this regard, and I'm pretty sure that I've
barely scratched the surface of what is possible.
> If it is strong in teenagers (which I doubt) that is a figment of the
> way they have been raised, and the the fact that they are incarcerated
> in institutions (schools) where conformity can be vital for survival
> (or at least for avoiding getting your head kicked in five times a
Agreed, more or less. America's insistence on forcing teenagers to be old
children rather than young adults is causing all sorts of weird problems.
But that's another thread...
> >What most people want is to look like themselves, only better.
> Well... I don't know... 7 of 9's body is very tempting....
I'd call it a 7 out of 10. :-)
But you'd keep your own face, right? And people would tinker with the
details, for reasons both esthetic and practical.
> Ooops, letting the side down. Sorry, Billy. Actually, I do agree with
> you, given what you go on to say:
Thanks. Does anyone see an argument I've missed on this one?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:03:36 MDT