Re: Subject: RE: quibble

Sandy Madole (
Sat, 16 Aug 1997 10:09:16 -0400

Mlorton <> wrote:

> There's no right to have sex, though, God knows, I wish there were.
> 'Cause I'd be suing a *lot* of people.

There's also no right NOT to have sex, (or at least not to have the desire
for sex), not to fear, not to love, not to rage. Emotions partly control
our daily life, our decisions, who we are, what we are, severely limiting
ones choice in these matters. Emotions are ruled by hormones/chemicals, yet
the few emotion 'enhancers' or 'blockers' available are crude (side
effects), and hard to obtain (medical prescription, illegal drugs, etc). I
can practically run into the supermarket for a sexual enhancer, but it will
be a long time before we can say the same for a cure for love, or other
emotion blockers. Maybe our lives are one long continous addiction to

In the same thread, Sarah Marr wrote:

>To most people, and most dictionaries, 'sexual' means 'of or concerning
>sex'. And sex does not mean making babies.

> "Making babies" is a subset of sex, not vice-versa.

True, in nature sexual intercourse has various social functions other than
just reproduction. (not all of them less 'sophisticated' than our own) The
point about having sex, and making sure there is no reproduction, is a
point of choice. The choice of the individual to block out natural
processes, and the realization that some may not be beneficial to that
individuals life.

As said before, a 'right' to have sex isn't limited by other individuals,
but it could be severly limited by ones other emotions. Some people can
only have sex with someone they love, others can only love someone they
have sex with, while some just can't step over their fears. (and then there
are those who can have sex with everyone, except they person they love ;) )

When will they make that emotional switching board brain implant, and make
the choices our own ?

Joost de Lyser