RE: quibble

Prof. Jose Gomes Filho (gomes@dpx.cnen.gov.br)
Thu, 28 Aug 1997 11:46:15 +0000


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.
=================================