Conference quark::mennotes-v1

Definitely not a necessity. People have survived without it.
    
    Jim

    Sex is not a requirement for survival, but then, neither is daily food
    or nightly sleep or new air every second.  If you want to talk about
    survival with significance, i.e. maintaining a healthy body and psyche,
    then sexual expression, or a suitable psychological substitute, would
    seem to be necessary. 
                                                                   
    Mike

         I've seen some rather contented-looking priests.
    
                                    Greg

    Survival...NO!!
    Necessity...YES!!
                   
    
    

    I've also been around some priests who were anything but content.
    Priests, as a class, have all sorts of problems in dealing with
    celibacy.  Commonly, they tend to try to replace their sex drive with
    other outlets (exercise, hard work, prayer, drinking, etc) with varying
    degrees of success.  Some are able to successfully cope with celibacy
    without inflicting much harm on their psyche, others are not.  Some just
    stop trying and find sexual expression through whatever means seems
    right to them.  That is, they will practice the same sexual preferences
    that us non-celibates do. 
                                                                  
    Mike

    re: .6
    
         So, it seems that it pretty much depends on the individual.
    Some need it - some have no need for it at all.  Therefore, it is
    not a necessity for a contented life.
    
                                  Greg

    Just as one can hardly subsist on standard, bland rations of the
    4 food groups....but rather seeks delectible dishes on occasion
    to please the palate and satisfy the more enjoyable appetites for
    food....so one may sometimes turn to physically enjoyable activities
    which go beyond those which keep the nerves and muscles fit, and
    which simultaneously satisfy an appetite of a different sort....in
    this case, sex.
    
    -Jody
    

    
    re .4
    
    There have also been a lot of priests who dip the wick...

    
    -1
    
    They're having sex...
    
                           with candles.
    

    
    
    	It is a desire.

    re:11
    The numbers of priest that have broken celibacy have been small
    compared to the numbers that have remained celibate.
    Lets not begin to stererotype a group of people based on prejudice.

    Jim
    

    It's a desire.
    
    :-)
    

    This is interesting just the other day I was thinking 
    about the fact that Humans are one of the few animals
    for whom sex is used as a form of reproduction (necessity)
    and as a form of pleasure (desire).
    
    With this in mind sex is a desire for the existing
    humans but is a necessity for the species in order
    to procreate for survival.  Also this has become more
    complicated by the fact that now articifical methods
    exist in which we can create without sex.
    
    (RUMI) (c).

    Who says that the animals don't desire or enjoy it?  ;-)
    

    
    I vote - A NEED.
    

    
    As we are talking about sex on an individual basis and not as a
    global survival technique , it must be looked at from the point
    of  WHY ?
    
    *Why* do we do it ? And *Why* do we abstain ?
                                 
    Is it a habit (no more priest jokes thankyou) , a social demand,
    an outdated form of 'keeping warm' ? An ego trip , a test of
    man/womanhood , a way of paying the bills ?
    We do it or we don't for our own individual reasons .
    To some they see it as a need , to others it's a desire , and
    to probably too many , it's an inconvenience .
    
    I do it 'cos noboby's given me a better alternative .
    
    John J

    It's a desire....and I need it!!

    A desirable need
    
    	- or is that -
    
    a necessary desire...
    
    jimmy
    

    It's a desire...
    
    Why? Must be an addictive habit...you do it once and your hooked
    for life.
    
    Of course it might be a need... but who wants to volunteer to give
    it up in order to see if they can't live with out it. Put me at
    the end of that line.

    When does a desire become a need...and a need become an obsession?
                                                                     
    I am sometimes a human being, so..i experience all three on a regular
    basis like everyone else except eunuchs.
    
    Sub-conscious or Conscious ?
                                
    Apriori or Priori ?
    
    Who knows, who cares ? I just wanna do it ! Now !
    
    I am normal
    
    
    

re: .15
>    The numbers of priest that have broken celibacy have been small
>    compared to the numbers that have remained celibate.
>    Lets not begin to stererotype a group of people based on prejudice.

Really?  And where do you get your statistics?  Do you speak from
first-hand experience?  Can ANYone?  I certainly can't speak for anyone
else.

Kip

    re .15
    
    I was not stereotyping. I was merely stating a fact.
    
    On the the other hand, the overwhelming majority of 
    the RC clergy live up to their vows.
    
    Feel better?

RE: -.1
>    Feel better?

No.  You didn't answer my questions.  I'll word them differently.

>    I was not stereotyping. I was merely stating a fact.
    
Where did you get this "fact"?  (How can you substantiate it?  Was a 
poll taken?)

>    On the the other hand, the overwhelming majority of 
>    the RC clergy live up to their vows.
    
What would you EXPECT most of them to say, if polled?

How can you speak for other people?

Kip

    
    I think the fine line that separates the "NEED" from the "DESIRE"
    is HOW LONG you've been WITHOUT it....
    
    ;-} )
    
    

    re: .29
    
    	The longer I'm without it, the less I need it.
    
    						Carla
    

    re .27
    
    Last year the cases of a series of RC clergymen
    found guilty of pederasty was aired on 60 mins.
    
    I believe it was also covered extensively in the
    papers.
    
    There is a center for the treatment of them in New 
    Mexico. These are matters of public record.  

	The problem is that sex is no longer sinfull. That takes
	a lot of the joy out of it.

    re: .34
    
    > ...and most of us would find something better to do with our
    > free time.
    
    Something *Better*?
    
    		***>SOMETHING **BETTER**<***????
    
    ARGH!!
    jim
    ;-)
    

    >Give us a few weeks of peace without constantly
    >being reminded of what we are _missing_ and most of us would
    >find something better to do with our free time.

    
    Most of us? Speak for yourself! Apparently you're missing something,
    I agree with .35, Something better?! 

    

    >And can you separate
    >out your true "needs" from those injected into you through TV
    >and other advertizing media ???  Might this indicate a possible
    >hormonal deficiency or perhaps not enough vitamins or red meat?

    
    Let me get this straight? You think that having a strong desire
    to be with your SO is a result of the media?? Where do you get this
    stuff? Believe it or not the desires in question have not been
    interjected by the media. How do I know I wasn't subliminally
    influenced? Easy, before meeting by current SO, I may even have
    gone so far as to agree with your previous reply. I had been missing
    something. Now I'm not. And now I can not agree with you. This change
    of mind did not happen because I had been bombarded by the media
    over the past few months...
    
    You're missing out on the fun!
    
    Gail

re: last few re: media blitz

Oh, so people weren't horny BEFORE newspapers, magazines, radio, and
television came on the scene, right?

Kip

    RE: .27
            The majority of Priests remain celebate for the simple fact
    that they have committed their lives to God.  To engage in sex would
    be like cheating on ones husband or wife if married.  It seems as
    though you want to assume their guilt in not being celebate until
    they can prove their innocence.
    
    RE: .0
            I have to agree to both on this subject.  I believe that God
    has given us the desire and made the experience enjoyable because
    sex is necessary for the continuation of the human race.  So it
    seems like the desire is there because of the necessity.  Not many
    people would want to partake in sex if it felt like having your
    teeth drilled without any pain killers.:')
    
    Definition of a good lover:  One who can make love to only one person
    for the rest of their life.
    
    Mike

re: .41 
>    RE: .27
>    .................................................... It seems as
>    though you want to assume their guilt in not being celebate until
>    they can prove their innocence.
    
No, not really.  Sorry if I gave that impression.

A few replies back, Mr. Eagle implied (or stated) something to the effect
that because of *my* lack of desire to be celibate that I can't imagine
anyone else being celibate.  This isn't so.  I simply had a problem with
a flat statement that most (R.C.) priests remain celibate, without any
substantiating "proof".  This is between the individual and his Maker,
not for the rest of us to determine.

(No disrespect intended toward anyone.)

Kip

    Just a language nit - those of you who are saying "celibate" really
    mean "chaste".  Celibate means "unmarried".  The priests in question
    generally take vows of celibacy AND chastity.
    
    				Steve

    re:43
    Correct Steve, celibracy and chasity are seperate. Being the numbers
    of priest we have had in the world that have remained priest compared
    to the numbers that have left, I would feel safe in saying most
    remain both celibate and chaste.
    My father is paralyzed from the waste down. His sex life ended at
    42 yrs old he is 65 today. He lives very well without sex.
    Oh yeah, the desire is there, but the body isn't.
    
    It is a desire.
    
    Jim

    RE: .41
    
    How do you pronounce your last name?

    
>	I can't speak for anyone else .
    
    Thank goodness for that .
    
    John J    

    
    
         Can not the desire become so strong that it becomes a need?
    
    

    re: .49
    
         Nope, when the desire becomes that great, it becomes an obsession
    or an addiction.  It never becomes a need until there is a threat
    of the species dying out.
    
                                     Greg
    
                   

    
    -1
    
    But to me, that IS a need !  I know what I need, Greg!  I think
    some people are obsessed with 'desire.'  Still, if I'm addicted,
    then I NEED it .... and I needed it yesterday!  (however, for the
    moment, I'm quite satisfied!   ;^)
    
    Dwight_who_may_need_help_overcoming_his_desires

    I'm one of the new kids on the block, can't resist a reply...
    
    Not that sex is a neccesity of life, but for a healthy relationship,
    it's both my and my wife's opionion, there is a need.  Not that
    it should cause problems or be a point of contention in a realtionship.
    Everyone has their own level of "need".....  

    How about some definitions from the handy dandy dictionary.
                                             
    NEED  -  	1. A lack of something required or desirable.
    		2. Necessity; obligation.  3. Something required or
    		wanted; requisite.           
                                             
    DESIRE - 	(verb) 1. To wish or long for; want; crave.  2. To express
   		a wish for. (noun) 1. A wish, longing, or craving.
    		2. A request.  3. Something longed for. 4. Sexual appetite.
                                             
    Now as best as I can get my arms around all this, male and female
    sexual libido is a fact of biology.  How we perceive this libido
    when aroused is a whole different matter.  I have a hard time
    distinguishing  between desire and need when one is in rut.  I don't
    think they are mutually exclusive.  What I'm interested in is, what
    meaning does the sexual act have, when on the receiving and when
    giving.
    
    So as not to divert this discussion, I'll start a new note on the
    meaning.
    
    

    Here is a question for those who think sex is a need.
    
    If your spouse could no longer have sex because of a 
    medical problem, would you leave, look elsewhere for
    sex or what ? 
    
    Honest answers only please.
    
    Jim

         An additional question might be "If a physical problem made
    you  unable to participate in such activities, would your life come
    to an end?"
    
                                       Greg

    re: .45 Wannamaker-why do you ask? If I might ask.
    
    RE: Last two.  No, if my wife or I became unable to have intercourse,
    it would not end our relationship.  (Besides, there is more than
    one way to skin a cat. :')})We are friends as well as husband
    and wife.  We both enjoy sex, but it is not everything.  We had
    to abstain for 8 weeks after Genna was born. OUCH:')}
    
    Mike
                                                         

    Too answer that last question: If one was unable, would the other
    leave:
    
    God, that's a tuff one to answer not being in the situation.
    
    In all honesty, I think the relation ship we have would survive.
    I doubt I'd look elsewhere, as I doubt my SO would.  But I can't
    say it wouldn't put a strain on what once was a very opened, and
    easy marriage.
    
    At least I hope I wouldn't turn out to be as shallow to have that
    type of reaction... I'd hope I was strong enough to be supportive.
    you'd have to realize that your wife (or husband as the case maybe)
    may be equally effected as you by the situation as you would.  I
    don't think whoi was incapable was important.  It's something you'd
    have to live out, and work out together,,, lean on the "good years"
    make the best of the remaining....
    
    So maybe it's more a case of unselfishness... But it would most
    assurdly answer the "Do you still, really love me ?" question..

    If the relationship is built on true love, then it would be harder
    on the spouse that is unable to give, then the other to receive.
    I know I could live without sex if my wife were unable to have sex,
    but it would be even more painful knowing I couldn't give to her
    sexually. Our love is built on giving ourselves to each other, 
    receiving is a fruit of that love.

    Ever wonder how different life might be if sex caused discomfort
    for both parties instead of pleasure?  
    
    Think about it... a lot of things would be different.  One thing
    for sure, we'd all know that our parents really did want us!

    Some of the previous responses have stated more-or-less that: "My
    wife/SO is my best friend. I couldn't hurt her by betraying her
    trust in me, and therefore I would do without sex".
    
    What would a man do if, say, his partner was physically in-
    capacitated and couldn't tolerate sex? However, his wife/SO
    told him that she *truly* wanted him to enjoy his sexuality.
    
    And that, not only would it be acceptable for him to have sex 
    with others, but that she would feel very unhappy about his depriving
    himself if he *didn't* ? And he knew that she really meant it?
    
    (I guess this same question can be posed to the women readers, too).
      
      Alan
          

    re:68
    I would have to tell my wife that although I appreciate the gesture,
    to have sex without love would be using that other person. Therefore
    I would have to decline the offer, and explain to her that just
    being with her is enough.

    Jim

    
    
    .71
    
    My feelings exactly.  Nice to know there are men like you in
    the world.
    
    Deb
    

    Even if one is no longer able to have coitus with their partner
    spouse/SO...there are alternate ways for providing sexual release
    closeness etc...further, you can touch people and improve their
    health without being sexual at all.
    
    Bonnie

    Do your hands extend down to your knees?  Do you walk on your knuckles a
    lot?  Do you consider Morton Downey an intellectual giant?

    If you answered "yes" to all three questions, congratulations!  But if
    you answered "no" to any of them, then you are probably a candidate for
    Weenies Anonymous.  Weenies Anonymous is a non-profit organization that
    will help you overcome that Phil Donahue complex and thereby recover
    your Neanderthal roots.  Each local chapter is led by an ex-weenie, who
    will teach you to overcome sensitivity and other such weenie virtues.

    The first step in overcoming weeniehood is learning the syllogism that
    was invented by Aristotle hundreds of years ago:
    
        1) All men who claim they would refrain from sex if their partner
    	could not perform are lying weenie liberal wimps.
    
    	2) Socrates claims he would refrain from sex if his partner could
    	not perform.
    
    	3) Therefore, Socrates is a lying weenie liberal wimp.

    In WA, you will learn to overcome your need to impress women--a need
    which has caused you to lie about your hormones.  We will, in fact,
    teach you to love your hormones. We will display, with slide
    projectors, microscope photographs of actual male hormones, magnified
    thousands of times.  You will learn the WA chant:  "My hormones are
    good, my hormones are good, my hormones are good."  You will learn to
    accept your sexual urges as the all-powerful force in your life. 

    An important part of attitude readjustment is to train you to hate Phil
    Donahue and to admire Morton Downey.  We will accomplish this by
    showing clips of both men on a TV monitor, and administering strong
    electric shocks every time Donahue comes onto the screen.  Pretty soon
    the mere sight of white hair will make you want to throw up.

    So if you are tired of trying to impress women, tired of lying about the
    power of your hormones, and sick of those lying weenie liberal wimps,
    then join Weenies Anonymous today!  Just look for us in the yellow
    pages, under "Primates".

    -- Mike    

    RE: 105.......it's a classic!  Great note!  Thanks for the hahas...
    
    

    After consulting with my co-moderators, I have removed most of the
    replies starting with .60 through .110 - those that remain did not
    make references to the arguments started by ,60.
    
    I really regret having to do this - there were a lot of good points
    scattered among the anger and insults, and it is my hope that
    the authors will see fit to repost their ideas, removing references
    to the earlier "flames".  (The text of all deleted replies will
    shortly be mailed to the authors.)
    
    The essence of the original problem, as I see it, was that one or
    more people did not stop at merely saying what they would do in
    a given situation, but also proceded to insult anyone who would
    claim that they would do differently.  Please, folks, it is not
    up to you to judge your fellow men or women.  State your piece
    objectively, speak from your own experiences and philosophies, but
    don't try to speak for others - they can manage on their own.
    And lastly, try to understand that differences of opinion DO exist
    and that you might not have the universal truth.  Thanks.
    
    				Steve

    re: .107
    
    It seems to me that the last paragraph of Steve's reply should
    be required reading for all people who wish to participate in
    NOTES.  I've never seen a better single paragraph which encapsulates
    NOTES etiquette so well.  Hear!  Hear!
    
    Steve (the 2nd)
    

    Anybody ever read about "Social Darwinism" and the evolution of
    man?  You might try another perspective!
    
    
    -jeff-
    

                            SEX IS SACRED
    
    We got to understand something about sex here. I went to a seminar
    about a year ago and the guest speaker mentioned and told us Men
    over there, I'm commanding you men to be virgins when you marry,
    and to be faithful to your wives after marriage. He said also,
    If men do that, you wont need political action committees or
    laws. Neither Congress or the Supreme Court will ever be a
    substitute for obedience to God's Word. 
    
    You know there is alot of truth to what he had said. When I hear
    truth myself I respond it like a man.
    
    In this society filled with pornography wether on movies or magazines,
    where lust is glorified, sex is cheap, marriage is portrayed as nothing
    but a problem, and living together is a solution, where women is viewed
    as nothing more than a body made to gratify a man's lust, in the midst
    of it all it is a thrill to see young men make desicions to come out of
    that culture and commit themselves to becoming champions for Christ.
    
    So many marriages start wrong, stay wrong and end wrong. Much of it is
    because men dont understand that sex is sacred.  In this society whose
    heroes are promiscuous, profane and pernicious, the influence on young
    people is damning.
    
    
    
                         Ray
    
    

    You mention men being unfaithful.  Do you mean that men are usually
    the ones who are unfaithful?  I believe the percentage is about
    50 - 50.

    
    
>   ................................................. where women is viewed
>   as nothing more than a body made to gratify a man's lust,.............

    Oh come on...Do you really believe that?... You must not be living in
    this century.
    
>   ...............................................  In this society whose
>   heroes are promiscuous, profane and pernicious, the influence on young
>   people is damning.
    
    Nice, fancy words...How about some examples of these so called HERO'S
    you are describing...
    
    

                       <<< Note 273.110 by ACE::MOORE >>>

>                            SEX IS SACRED
    
    No, sex is a physical act, sometimes resulting in procreation. It is no
    more or less sacred than any other physical act, such as defecation.
    
    Are you saying that you worship sex? If so, I can understand that your
    view of the world may be somewhat warped, as demonstrated in the next
    paragraph.
    
>    We got to understand something about sex here. I went to a seminar
>    about a year ago and the guest speaker mentioned and told us Men
>    over there, I'm commanding you men to be virgins when you marry,
>    and to be faithful to your wives after marriage. He said also,
>    If men do that, you wont need political action committees or
>    laws. Neither Congress or the Supreme Court will ever be a
>    substitute for obedience to God's Word. 
    
    I take commands from no-one. Least of all a court, governing body or
    guest-speakers, whoever they may be.
    
>    You know there is alot of truth to what he had said. When I hear
>    truth myself I respond it like a man.
    
    How does a "man" respond to the "truth"? What is it about your being a
    man that is different in your reaction to truth than a woman?
    
    Whose truth? How proven so?
    
    
>    In this society filled with pornography wether on movies or magazines,
>    where lust is glorified, sex is cheap, marriage is portrayed as nothing
>    but a problem, and living together is a solution, where women is viewed
>    as nothing more than a body made to gratify a man's lust, in the midst
>    of it all it is a thrill to see young men make desicions to come out of
>    that culture and commit themselves to becoming champions for Christ.
    
    Disconnected, rambling garbage. Pornography is not about sex or lust.
    Pornigraphy is about degradation and attempted control of others. This
    is a common fallacy, as is the idea that rape has anything to do with
    lust.
    
    I don't know what society you live in, however I have never heard
    marriage described as you do. It certainly isn't described that way in
    any dictionary I've see, including the OED.
    
    Your portrayal of society and the collective view of women is, I
    believe, unrepresentative. Please give the sources for these statements
    including dates of publishing. 
    
    Your statement about men becoming "champions of Christ" by "coming out"
    of their culture is sexist and, unfortunatly, bears no visible
    connection to the forgoing statements.
    
    
>    So many marriages start wrong, stay wrong and end wrong. Much of it is
>    because men dont understand that sex is sacred.  In this society whose
>    heroes are promiscuous, profane and pernicious, the influence on young
>    people is damning.
    
    So many RELATIONSHIPS start out wrong. From then on, some prosper, some
    die. What has this to do with the "sacred nature of sex"?
    
    As to the influence on young people, how do you equate such an awful
    society with the number of successful relationships? 
    
    Clue: some people worry more about the real world than some imaginary
    perfidious society that exists nowehere but in distorted minds.
    
    - ���

   RE.11,12 & 13
    I hope you aren't holding your breath waiting for a reply from Mr.Moore
    The pattern in previous notes 174.13 and 144.42 is to write one
    NeoBornAgain Christian statement in a note and to ignore all responses
    and requests for support and/or clarification.
    I don't agree with Mr. Moore's beliefs, however I do find them to
    be a refreshing change of pace. Too bad he doesn't see fit to engage
    in a bidirectional conversation instead of just "preaching"
    
    Barry

In defense of Mr. Moore's style:

    While  I  can't say that I quite agree with many of the  positions  I
have  seem  him take, I respect his right to express them here.   What  I
most appreciate  is  that he only states what he thinks ***ONCE***!!!  It
seems that many  noters  like to restate the same arguments over and over
ad nauseam.  In  a  spoken  discussion,  repeating may seem to serve some
purpose.  Once written, however,  a  topic  or reply remains for us to go
back and re-read if we so choose.  Three cheers for brevity!

    re: .115
    
    � In  a  spoken  discussion,  repeating may seem to serve some
    � purpose.  Once written, however,  a  topic  or reply remains 
    � for us to go back and re-read if we so choose.  

    I'm uncomfortable with two aspects of Ray's entry.  First, I think
    it has very little to do with discussion; it strikes me as preaching,
    pure and simple, as have his other replies.  It seems to me that
    NOTES is something of a hybrid - it's not quite as immediate as
    sitting around a table discussing a subject, but neither is it as
    delayed as sending editorial replies to a newspaper.  
    
    To me, NOTES more closely resembles a live discussion and, in that 
    context, a reply which simply preaches is kind of counterproductive.  
    Others have raised questions in response to the reply, but once the 
    preacher has left the pulpit, there's no one left to talk with.
    In discussion, points of view may be made more clear by answering
    questions and re-phrasing statements; sometimes this process is
    repetitive, but that's part of the nature of live discussion and
    debate (which I feel is also a major element of NOTES).
    
    The other thing that I object to in a "preaching" reply is what
    I'd call a dogmatic approach.  For example "We got (sic) to understand
    something. . ."  I have a difficult time listening when someone
    tells me what "we" must do because the speaker has just eliminated
    any thoughts I might have on the subject.  If someone speaks to
    me of his/her experience, I can relate to it, ask questions, and
    agree or disagree.  If an individual simply tells me what the "gospel"
    is (according to whomever), I find no room for discussion.
    
    Steve

I'm handling the issue of Ray Moore's notes - please refrain from bashing
him personally here.  If you want to discuss (in his absence) the
views he presents, that's fine.

				Steve

    re 273.110, Ray-

    I have a few differences of opinion from yours and I'd like to
    present them here...

    First of all, the commands of the speaker at your seminar and the
    analysis he offered don't seem to me to be applicable to this country
    or this society.  Much as it disturbs them, the fundamentalists are
    *not* the only people out there; they aren't even the only ones who
    claim to live moral lives.  And in this society we live in, "obedience
    to God's word" is at best a non sequitur, when many of us don't
    believe in your "God".  (At worst its an insult, and you have been
    treading on that line for quite awhile; perhaps you weren't aware that
    proclaiming such a thing can be considered insulting; consider yourself
    so informed.)

    > In this society filled with pornography wether on movies or magazines,
    > where lust is glorified, sex is cheap, marriage is portrayed as nothing
    > but a problem, and living together is a solution, where women is viewed
    > as nothing more than a body made to gratify a man's lust, in the midst
    > of it all it is a thrill to see young men make desicions to come out of
    > that culture and commit themselves to becoming champions for Christ.
 
    Ray, I don't have any objection to your thrill; I understand that for
    you your religious feelings at seeing men make that committment are
    exhilarating and joyous.  Great.

    But I don't really see that as solving the problems you mention; in
    particular the part where "women is viewed as nothing more than a
    body...".  In my experience, Christians do that just as often as
    anybody else.  In fact, it is the secular humanists (yeah, them 
    that the fundamentalists hate so much) that seem to treat women        
    as more than bodies with more success than anyone else I've ever 
    known.  So while I understand that seeing your champions make their
    committments is joyful to you, to me it fails to address the root
    causes of those problems.
    
    To me, those root causes have little to do with anyone's professions of
    piety or lack thereof; they have to do with our society failing to honor
    or respect other people as worthy of our concern and regard.  Sad to
    say, but I truly feel that organized religion actually perpetuates
    those problems more than it helps to solve them; failing to admit women
    to the priesthood even when they have the avocation; denying the human
    act of recreative sex, only permitting the pro-creative; promising the
    afterlife, rather than encouraging us to be responsible *now* to
    address the world's problems...all of these are attitudes I lay at the
    door of some organized religions which I see as part of the problem.
    So you can see I strongly disagree with your note.
    
    re .113, Andy- right on.
    
    re .120 (I think), Steve-in-his-moderator-hat;
    
    I'd also suggest to the moderators that since many of Mr Moore's previous
    responses have required your attention, perhaps VoD needs to be
    recognized as a 2-way street.  I will gladly and with self-discipline
    discuss with Ray (as above) just how I disagree with his views...but if
    he continues to lob such outrageous tract-like preachings in amongst
    us, and to refuse to discuss them....I will consider them trashnotes.
    You may find your own references for the phenomenon, it is a word that
    has been used before.  Other conferences have even been known to adopt
    policy regarding "trashnotes".  My suggestion, then, is that perhaps
    this other conference's experience may be of value to you.
    
    DougO

Re: .119 ("trashnoters")

Doug, I'm way ahead of you.  This conference has had a "trashnoter" policy
in effect since it opened.  We just don't argue about it in public like
in "other conferences", so it's not as visible.

Thanks for your support, and (now with moderator hat off) for your
delightfully phrased, careful and considerate response to Ray's notes.

				Steve

    re: .120
    
    That classification kind of surprises me, Mike - who's is it?  I
    would have thought that the basic individual survival needs would 
    be a breathable atmosphere, survivable ambient temperature range, 
    food, and water.  After that I'd say nice wheels, a killer stereo,
    and sex.
    
    Steve

Speaking of sex, an interesting book that has been recently
published may be of interest:

	Healthy Pleasures
	Robert Ornstein and David Sobel
	Addison Wesley

which deals with sex, food, scent and touch (among others) as being 
worthwhile pursuits.  Basic premise - as I read it - is that we ought
to make an effort to indulge ourselves in some areas for our own
well being and health.  (Note I didn't suggest gluttony in any area).

Book isn't bad and certainly more readable than a lot of others in the
same genre.

I don't think that sex is a need like food and water.  To me, that 
would mean that people would die if they were celebate; this doesn't 
seem to happen.

>    	There's also some talk of making PLEASURE the 3rd need and
>    having SEX fall under that heading.  Heard this one a few shows
>    lately, but have no idea if it'll fly.
    
The best argument that I have heard is that "intimacy" is the need.  
People need to connect on a physical and emotional level with other 
people.  If deprived of all contact with other people and things, 
human beings go insane (extreme sensory deprivation).  In some 
primates, if they are separated from their tribes, they die.

Connection is pleasurable, but I think that some pleasurable 
sensations do not involve connection with others.  


						--Gerry

    
    	RE: -1
    
    	I don't agree, in no way do I feel intimacy is a need. Just
    	as you pointed out with sex, if it was a need, people would
    	die without it. There are a few of us that have no need at
    	all for intimacy. In fact, just the reverse is true in my
    	case, I go nuts if I'm forced to be around others without
    	being able to escape off by myself. The less contact I have
    	with others, the better I feel in general.
    
    	G_B

Not sure where this note began. But I thought I might be able to add something
of use.
I have found that when I have to shutdown my sexual arousal (unwilling partner)
there are times when I have felt very strained and thought I was going to have
a heart-attack. (consider yourself lucky)
Also sometimes I tried to talk my partner into it, rather than just take no for
an answer.

A solution of course is masturbation. And sometimes that is a fine one. However,
I have also found that it is possible to simply relax. I was learning a martial
art called T'AI CH'I. And in it, I learned to sink my shoulders. And this works
well to trigger my relaxing. But I'm sure any relaxation technique would work
fine.

I guess, the main thing is to avoid getting to far ahead of yourself, to where
sexual release with a partner is an assumed outcome. Because the bottom line is
that an unwilling partner has the right to stay that way. 

    Re: .126
    
    >in no way do I feel intimacy is a need
    
    I'm not sure.  I don't remember this too clearly, but I believe
    communication through touch and sound has been demonstrated to be
    fundamentally important to infants.  I don't know if any babies have
    ever died from being in isolation, but I believe their health and
    development were severely impaired.  I suspect recognition of this
    phenomenon lead to a significant difference in the care of premature
    infants.  I think they're careful to provide a fair amount of touching
    for infants in incubators.

    Sex is an important "balance" that people/animals "need."  Most
    of us are aware of how sex or "lack of" affects us, our moods, our
    energy level, etc,.  
    
    	Dwight

    To reflect on .127, at the gas station of love when the full service
    pump is out of order there is always the self service pump available.

    the analogy in .131 reminds me of the Led Zeppelin song
    "Trampled Underfoot"....
    
    "come to me for service
     every hundred miles
     baby let me check your parts
     fix your overdrive...."
    

    
    Re: .129 (isolation)
    
    I remember from my Intro to Psych course I took that there were
    some experiments done with chimps with respect to isolation.  I
    believe the scientist was Harry Harlow.  He had 2 sets of young
    chimps.  Both sets were removed from their mothers and isolated for 
    study.  One set was given a wire-cage "mother" dummy that fed the 
    chimps through its mouth and a "mother" with fur but nothing else.  
    The other set was just given the wire-cage mother.  Set A survived the
    experiment: when it was hungry it went to the wire-cage mother,
    the other times it clung to the other "furry" mother.  Set B didn't
    do so well.  It got enough food, but it lacked the furry mother
    for comfort and psuedo-intimacy.  Set B chimps ended up maladjusted
    and withdrawn after the experiment was over.  In spite of having
    the same diet as group A, set B seemed to be weak.  This proved to show
    even "fake" intimacy can have positive psychological effect, but
    also a positive physical effect.
    
    Class dismissed. :-)
    
    /Greg Aharonian
    

    
		NOVA did a documentary called Monkeys,Apes And Men, I think,
	and part of it was about the wire-cage mothers mentioned in .133.
	The most pathetic part was when the handler would put the young
	monkey in the cage with the fake-mom, it would cling to her and cry
	and she had a hard time putting it in the cage.  When the monkey was
	older they put it in a large enclosure with other normal monkeys and
	all it would do was crouch in a corner with it's hands over it's eyes.
		I have it on tape and I think I'll review it to see what else
	they said.

						Jim

    
    
    	I don't think the last few replies are any justification
    	for listing SEX as a need. Those studies did not study
    	sex as being a need, they focused on intimacy and nuturing.
    	Using this to say sex is a need is like saying the care
    	your mother gave you as a child was sexual. It was not
    	sex, it was nuturing, which are two seperate issues.
    	You can have sex without intimacy and also intimacy without
    	sex.
    
    	Thus I still say SEX is a WANT, not a need.
    
    	G_B

    Re: .135
    
    >It was not sex, it was nuturing, which are two seperate issues.
    
    But they are both forms of intimacy.

    
>    >It was not sex, it was nuturing, which are two seperate issues.
>    
>    But they are both forms of intimacy.

Yes, sex is a tool that we can use to get intimacy.  It is also a tool
with which we can express hateful violence (rape).  It is also a tool
that can be used to role play on personal strengths or inadequacies or
power roles (S/M, Master and Servant roles, bondage). 

Sex can be used to express a lot of things other than nurturing, 
intimate love, no?

						--Gerry

< Note 273.135 by ANT::BUSHEE "Living on Blues Power" >


    
    
<    	I don't think the last few replies are any justification
<    	for listing SEX as a need. Those studies did not study
<    	sex as being a need, they focused on intimacy and nuturing.
<    	Using this to say sex is a need is like saying the care
<    	your mother gave you as a child was sexual. It was not
<    	sex, it was nuturing, which are two seperate issues.
<    	You can have sex without intimacy and also intimacy without
<    	sex.
    
<    	Thus I still say SEX is a WANT, not a need.
    
    	G_B

George,

		If by "need" you mean necessary for continued existance,
	then I would agree that sex is not a need.  I know of no one who
	died from lack of sex, they just wished they would. :^)  However
	I think that sex is needed in order to maintain a happy well
	balanced life.

						Jim

    Studies of human infants show the same results as the monkey
    experiments. Infants whose mothers died and were in 
    hospital cribs exhibited what is now called "failure to
    thrive." Some such babies in fact die. It is an established 
    fact that nurturance is necessary for life.
    
    Eileen
    

    
    In response to the base question "Is sex a need or a desire?" the
    correct answer is yes---and no.
    
    SEX: A BIOLOGICAL NEED
    Strictly speaking sex is identified as one of three biological needs
    arising from primary motivation (motivation defined as an internal
    state or condition which activates behavior and gives it direction).
    Sexual motivation centers in the hypthalamus function to initiate or
    inhibit sexual behavior. The other two biological needs are identified
    as Hunger and thirst. 
    
    PSYCHOLOGICAL NEEDS
    The need for nurturance, affiliation, to be loved, etc. are considered
    to be psychological rather than biological in nature.
    Many psychologists consider that our *feelings* fall into the catagory
    of emotions (emotions defined as positive or negative feelings
    generally in reaction to stimulii that are accompanied by physiological
    arousal and related behavior) which are different than motives.
    
    Many people, believing sex to be "animalistic", or "ungodly", or
    otherwise unacceptable, develop elaborate ways to repress their
    sexual motives. They also frequently get very mad when its suggested
    that sex is as much a part of us a thirsting and hungering.
    

    re.142
    As a "failure to thrive" child turned adult I can only answer your
    remark with Ms Quinlan's body dident know the right thing to do either.
    I would like to state that mine was due to accidental causes but the
    results are the same. I had typed in over a hundred lines before
    deleteing them because they were far too personal to relate here.
     Mike I feel you either are trying to play some hard case or have
    missed the point altogether. Yes, some do live and spend the rest of
    their lives dealing with feelings of wishing they did not.
     
    
    -j
    

    Nuturing is a need. babies die without it.
    
    - ���

    re: "nurturing" as a life-supporting need
    
    I think Mike's point is that while some babies die, *some don't*.
    Therefore, in the sense of life or death needs (as in a breathable
    atmosphere and gravitic conditions, water, food, and a tolerable 
    temperature range), nurturing apparently isn't a *universal* survival
    need.
    
    In my own mind, there isn't enough evidence to prove either side
    of the argument.  For instance, "nurturing" is a concept open to
    a great deal of interpretation.  Is being held by a human while
    being fed nurturing?  If an infant is touched at all by any human
    in any fashion, are they receiving some sort of nurturing?  What,
    if any, is the minimum necessary nurturing for physical survival?
    Do different newborns need different levels of nurturing to survive?
    
    It seems to me that to answer the question definitively might require 
    an experiment that few would want to carry out: take two groups of
    newborns; let the control group be cared for in the standard way 
    of a major hospital; let the other group be tended to entirely by 
    machines, never being touched by humans.  If all the newborns in
    the experimental group die, it might be concluded that nurturing
    is necessary for physical survival.  If this is indeed the only
    way to determine a factual answer, may we all die curious.
    
    What's clear to me is that different people are defining the word
    "need" in various ways.  The base note openned the question of sex
    as a need for individual survival (vs. species survival).  To me
    that implies those needs necessary to support human existance *without*
    regard for the quality of that existence.  Others have defined "need"
    from the perspective of the quality of life, saying essentially
    that sex (or now, nurturing) is a need for a "good" life (i.e. happy,
    well-balanced, fulfilled, whatevah).
    
    As near as I can tell, sex is not a need for individual physical
    survival, but, on the other hand, there is biologcal sex drive
    in humans which creates a psychological need.  It's not that celibate
    people have no sexual urges, it's simply that they deal with them
    in a different fashion than sexually active individuals.  Given
    the right circumstances (i.e. willing, attractive partner), I desire
    to deal with my psychological urges in, um, an interactive fashion
    ("Oh darling, I'm your VAX and you're my DCL - I live to fufil your
    commands. . ."); obviously, celibate people desire to deal with
    such urges in a different manner.
    
    Steve

    Steve,
    
    The 'experiment' that you describe has essentially already been
    carried out. Are you familiar with the idea of 'Skinner boxes'?
    This was proposed to be the ultimate in baby rearing. The baby
    would be kept warm and dry and fed without picking up any negative
    imput from its parents. (The behaviorists as I recall were blaming
    any 'negative outcomes' in people from negative inputs from parents).
    
    Anyway, a number of people did indeed try to raise their infants
    in Skinner boxes. The only ones that I have heard about as adults
    were seriously unhappy people who had a great deal of trouble relating
    to other people and who spent a great deal of time in therapy trying
    to learn to cope.
    
    Now granted the cases I've heard of are a very small sample, but
    it does lead credance to the idea that physical and psychological
    isolation of infants is pyschologically unhealthy.
    
    Bonnie

    re: .147
    
    Yes, I'm familiar with the Skinner experiments, Bonnie.  What I
    was thinking of was that model taken to extreme - robotic hands and
    arms deliver the newborn and similar devices provide all sustenance
    through, say, the first year of life (should the infant actually
    live that long).
    
    Steve

> In my own mind, there isn't enough evidence to prove either side
> of the argument. 

    
   >    It seems to me that to answer the question definitively might require 
   > an experiment that few would want to carry out: take two groups of
   > newborns; let the control group be cared for in the standard way 
   > of a major hospital; let the other group be tended to entirely by 
   > machines, never being touched by humans.  If all the newborns in
    
    Actually, there *is* just such evidence as you propose: some years
    ago, in France, almost the exact study you suggest was carried out,
    except machines wern't used. The control group was bottle-fed, and
    handled only to be changed and bathed. The experimental group were
    held while being fed, sung to, rocked to sleep, etc. "Nurturing" was
    defined a touching, holding, cradling, rocking, etc. The results of
    the study were that more than one infant in the control group died (the
    study was done in a french orphanage), while the experimentals
    flourished.
    
    There is considerable evidence that nurturing immediately upon birth
    and shortly thereafter prevents some forms of mental retardation, and
    that lack of nurturing produces mental retardation in newborns.
    Nurturing is considered so important that some hospitals hire "little
    old ladies" to come to the maternity wards to hold and cuddle and
    sing to the infants.
    
    Advocates of breast-feeding point to evidence that breast-fed babies
    show marked differences to non-breast-fed babies with respect to such
    things a calmness,lack of nervousness, etc. (on the flip side, there are
    other advantages bottle-fed babies have in other areas). There is also
    evidence to suggest that a significant way an infant learns to recognize
    his/her primary caregiver is by the heartbeat, because of being held close
    during feeding and at other times.
    
   
    Nurturing is consdidered a psychological need--part of the affiliation
    need. Not biological, but significant enough to have biological as well
    as psychological consequences. Sex is considered one of the three basic
    biological needs (thirst and hunger being the other two).
    --John
    
 
    

    .150 expands my generalisation to my complete satisfaction.
    
    - ���

  
      Nothing will be resolved here.
    
         I know what needs I desire.
      
              I know what desires I need.
    
                  That's all that counts.
             
                       Dwight
    

    re: .150
    
    While I recall the French experiments from college studies, I don't
    feel they prove or disprove the point to which I was referring.
    In an earlier reply, some people had suggested that nurturing was
    a survival (i.e. life and death) need.  In my subsequent replies,
    I was just trying to support Mike Zarlenga's counterpoint to that
    idea.  It is simply unproven that nurturing is a physical survival
    need.  I don't question that it is, in all liklihood, necessary for
    a happy survival, but it's never been shown to be required to sustain
    life in the same sense as, say, oxygen, or food, or water.  The
    only way I can think of offhand to prove this would be to carry
    out the experiment I outlined earlier (a notion I'm emphatically
    against!).
    
    Steve

    
    
     >	It comes down to "what is a need?".
    
     >	Since we disagree on this basic term, I don't expect any
     > conclusions to come about.
    
    Referencing back to the base note " . . .a need being a necessity for
    survival, and a desire being things we want superfluous to simply
    surviving", it seems that the more basic term is "survival" (and the
    base note suggests that anything beyond "survival" could be considered
    as superfluous). 
    
    I believe that with such a perspective, the subject really lends
    itself to moral/philosophical considerations.
    
    Biological/physical/psychological dimensions seem to be fairly
    well spelled out in the body of research, and inasmuch as the
    introduction of such considerations into the discussion seems to
    be tangential or cloud the issue for some, the moral/philosophical
    route is the way to go. Besides, such a route could prolong the
    discussion indefinitely----I mean, just think of it, there could even
    be an entry with the number 273.4,573,986! It could go on forever :-).  
       ---John