Home ->
Apollo BBS ->
Apollo Archive Index ->
August 1991 -> August 14
Apollo BBS Archive - August 14, 1991
Mail from Apollo SysOp
Date: 08/15/91 Time: 07:52:41
A GM dealer? for my Plymouth Barracuda? Are you sure?
A set of locks for only $15.00 or do you mean each?
If you get by this way...please stop by. I have the locks out of the car.
I also still have that shed lock that James H could never pick...
If you have the gaskets.... how much do you want?
*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=* <-clif-
[A]bort, [C]ontinue, [I]nsty-reply or [Z]ap:Insty-reply
Enter a line containing only an [*] to stop
1:I was sleepy last night and was also having a conversation with a visitor.
2:I meant the gaskets are Briggs & Stratton part numbers but would be sold by
3:a MoPar dealer, not a G.M. dealer. Sorry.
4:
5:I believe I have the gaskets, what year did you say it was, 65? New locks
6:at our supplier, 7th St. & Glendale sell for something in the neighborhood
7:of $15. for a set, trunk and doors although there should be sets that
8:include the ignition and glove box, all coded or uncoded. I'll call Jerry
9:at Black Lock Supply. The locks are made by All Lock Company and are
10:excellent reproductions, can't tell the difference from OEM.
11:
12:I'll look in my van tomorrow and see what I have. If I have gaskets they are
13:yours.
14:
15:Rod
16:
17:Live long and prosper.
Mail from Apollo SysOp
Date: 08/15/91 Time: 11:58:08
Watch your mail box.... I photo copied the gaskets
*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=* <-clif-
[A]bort, [C]ontinue, [I]nsty-reply or [Z]ap:Insty-reply
Enter a line containing only an [*] to stop
1:Most of the time the gaskets I see with the new locks are clear colored
2:plastic although years ago I think they were black rubber. I know that when
3:I remove a gasket from a 60's car that I can stretch them but when I do the
4:same from an 80's car they snap and fall into little pieces. Change of
5:composition.
$tatus Club Bulletin Board command:$C
Message: 7993
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Rod
Date: 08/15/91 Time: 02:55:02
Hey, talking about early man, that reminds me, that report just goes to show
that the National Enquirer got it all screwed up again. It wasn't PEKING
Man who was found with a bottle of Classic Coke. It was JAVA Man who was
found with a bunch of stone coffee cups...
Message: 7994
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Idea for thought
Subject: Entropy
Date: 08/15/91 Time: 02:55:49
If entropy as a whole is increasing throughout the universe, and if that is
a law, can we say that human life, or the spontaneous appearance of any kind
of life, is in violation of it? If local phenomena can appear randomly,
there is nothing to say they can't buck the overall trend -- as long as they
don't have enough effect on the universe to violate or reverse the law. Can
we say that human beings are powerful enough to change the structure or
ordering of the universe? We can imagine, and even predict, the possibility
of "planetary engineering", or reproducing ourselves and getting to the far
stars, given time. But can we *do* it? And if we do, can we change
anything? That's far from being proven. We are a very tiny race occupying
one planet in a solar system in an infinitesimal corner of a galaxy that's
part of a cluster that's part of a supercluster that's still microscopic
compared with the vastness of the universe as a whole. How long will it
take us to get to even the nearest star? And that's only the beginning.
Suppose some guy bought an annuity from an insurance company, then got
annoyed at the company for some reason and determined to drive them out of
business by violating the statistical law that says the average buyer of
annuities will be dead within, say, twenty years. He could do so by getting
everyone else who had bought annuities to live for more than twenty years.
He could start a vast campaign to get everyone to be careful, stop smoking
and drinking, eat healthily, exercise regularly, stop taking the slightest
risks, and do your best to *live long*. He might have an effect; but could
one person have enough effect to violate the universal law? I doubt it.
Local and temporary decreases in entropy are not necessarily in violation of
the universal law that entropy increases. If entropy *does* decrease, that
is. That's far from being proven.
We do claim that entropy never *decreases* overall, but it only increases in
an irreversible process in a closed system. In a reversible process,
entropy stays constant. If we set a pendulum swinging, eventually it will
slow down and stop because air resistance and friction in the bearing
destroys the kinetic energy of the pendulum by converting it to heat. But
if a pendulum were to swing on a perfectly frictionless bearing in a vacuum,
it would go on swinging for ever. The swing from left to right would be a
reversible process.
If a cold planet were orbiting around another cold planet in a perfect
vacuum, it would continue orbiting for ever. If the orbit were elliptical,
each movement of the planets away from one another toward apogee would be
balanced by a later inward movement toward perigee. The process is
reversible. In practice, the Earth has slowed down in its rotation and in
its revolution partly because of impacts with other material from space.
The Solar System is not a perfect vacuum, and neither is it a closed system.
We may assume that the universe as a whole is a closed system, but it
doesn't follow that it is all slowing down to a complete stop. Stability
may lie, not in motionlessness, but in oscillation, like the pendulum.
It may in fact be going through a cyclic process that is eternal. The Big
Bang, assuming that there was a Big Bang (which is by far the most probable
though perhaps not an inescapable conclusion from the evidence), may have
been just one of many big bangs. Physicists are still trying to figure out
how much extra undetected mass there may be out there among the stars and
the galaxies. It could well be that there is enough mass to produce enough
gravity to slow down the outward expansion of the universe, and to make it
collapse back in upon itself. Eventually it could all reform into the
Cosmic Egg.
Then what? Well, some forces are far too weak to be detected except at
enormous scales. Gravity is the weakest force we know. We can only detect
gravity in the presence of very large masses. But if we have a large enough
mass all together in one place, gravity multiplies until it becomes so
strong that the nuclear forces of repulsion are overcome and atomic nuclei
are forced together to make a "neutron star" of immensely high density. If
the amount of mass in one place increased further, nuclei would collapse
inward on themselves and make an unimaginable concentration of mass, with
local gravity being so high that not even light can escape: a "black hole".
Gravity is a weak force of attraction. Now, suppose there were an even
weaker force, but a force of repulsion. Perhaps it's one of the forces we
already know; or perhaps it's a force so weak that we cannot detect it.
Just as an enormous mass in one place brings gravity into play so that
nuclear fusion takes place in the Sun, or matter collapses into a black
hole, perhaps an even greater amount of mass -- like the entire Universe --
collapsing into one spot can concentrate this force of repulsion so that it
overcomes even the force of gravity and makes it all explode outward again.
Perhaps the entire Universe is like one vast pendulum going through a cyclic
process of collapse and expansion. Then entropy over time would not be
increasing, but simply remaining constant.
Could there be something even outside the universe we know? We have a hard
time seeing to the farthest reaches of our Universe. But we do know that
matter tends to clump for some reason. Planets orbit around stars. Star
systems crowd together into galaxies. Galaxies organize themselves into
clusters, and clusters stick together to form superclusters. All in our own
universe. Is our universe itself just another such clump of matter? Are
there other universes so unimaginably far away that we just can't see them?
Perhaps they all have Big Bangs of their own, going off at irregular
intervals, just as we see stars explode into supernovas at irregular
intervals. The intervals would be so long that we could hardly ever hope to
see one in our infinitesimal lifetime, even if we could see that far away.
Is our universe really a closed system? Or is it a subatomic particle in a
atomic nucleus in a piece of a fuel rod in a nuclear power station belonging
to some race of unimaginably large giants?
The rate at which their lives proceeded would be immeasurably slow compared
to ours. So what?
These giants could change our lives -- our whole Universe -- by dipping the
fuel rod a little farther into the reactor, or retracting it a little.
Perhaps the Big Bang wasn't caused by internal forces, but by the impact of
some object from outside our Universe -- the equivalent of a neutron
striking a uranium nucleus and exploding it.
Would we call these giants Gods?
I'm not at all sure that this is true, because our own observations of
small-scale effects show that things happen jerkily and randomly at that
level, rather than smoothly, showing we're dealing with the smallest units
of matter and energy. Within our Universe as a whole, processes take place
smoothly. If our universe is really just a particle in the body of a Giant,
he wouldn't see the same randomness at his "microscopic" level, which
suggests that either the whole concept is untrue, or else we ourselves just
happen to exist at the smallest scale of all -- which seems unlikely.
Or is it? Perhaps the probability of sentient life arising is so small that
it *can* only happen on the smallest scale, where randomness is the rule.
Perhaps in the Universe of universes of universes, chaos and uniformity and
lifelessness reign supreme, and life only exists on the tiniest scale.
And so to the third question: what of God? I keep seeing people say: "PROVE
that your God exists!" (or, conversely, "PROVE that He doesn't exist!")
How would we prove that God exists, or doesn't exist? What *is* God,
anyway? We have to answer this question before we can determine how we
would prove that God exists.
God is seen as the Creator of all. If God created our Universe and our
physical laws, then God must have two qualities: one, an Intelligent
Purpose, and two, a Power outside of these physical laws. So the evidence
of God's existence would lie in an apparent violation of physical laws that
simultaneously seems to fulfill some intelligent purpose.
We can easily make an analogy with evidence of human intervention. Humans
have both power and intelligence. We know that natural forces such as wind
and water cause erosion. We can see quite remarkable configurations, such
as stalactites and stalagmites in caves, or "natural arches" of rock, all
caused by forces of Nature. But if we find a wall of bricks, all the same
size and stuck together by layers of cement, or stone tools neatly chipped
into regular shapes, or a portable radio lying in a cave, we say this is
evidence of Man's intelligent intervention. The chances of Nature alone
producing such an artifact are too remote to contemplate.
In just such a way, the argument seems to be that the chance of life arising
as a result of purely natural laws is far too remote to contemplate, and
must therefore result from Divine intervention.
I think that science has shown mechanisms by which life *could* arise, given
enough time; and plenty of evidence to corroborate the stages in which it
happened. But I don't have enough time to go into that here.
All the same, how *would* we prove the existence of God? By an apparent
violation of physical laws that seemed to demonstrate some purpose.
The problem with "violations of physical laws" is that they don't
necessarily demonstrate the existence of God; only that we aren't aware of
all the physical laws that exist. If there were evidence that ghosts really
existed, for example, that wouldn't necessarily prove that God existed; only
that "spirits" can act according to some additional laws that we don't yet
understand because we haven't been able to detect their effects on a regular
and systematic basis. It might prove the existence of a soul. It wouldn't
necessarily prove the existence of God.
If Rod's dream were fulfilled and stars suddenly swooped around the universe
in a trajectory that spelled out "HI ROD, HOW'S IT HANGING?", I'm not sure
what that would prove. It would certainly fulfill the criteria of a "higher
power" than demonstrated "intelligent purpose".
But what might this "higher power" be? Could it be called "God"? It might
be an advanced civilization in outer space, using its technology to hear
Rod's words and to manipulate the motions of heavenly bodies in response.
As Arthur C. Clarke wrote, "any sufficiently advanced technology is
indistinguishable from magic".
It would certainly be evidence of an intelligent Higher Power. It might be
good enough for members of Alcoholics Anonymous. It might also be good
enough for Rod. But we still have to produce such evidence.
It should be easier to prove the existence of God than to prove His
nonexistence. We can usually prove that something exists. But we can't
prove that something does *not* exist. We can only demonstrate that we
can't detect it -- with our present equipment.
But by the same logic, if we do prove that something unexplainable exists,
we can't necessarily prove that it's evidence of God. We can only say that
we haven't yet detected the true explanation.
For those who are interested in how we might find evidence of a Creator, I
highly recommend Carl Sagan's book "Contact". Yes, it's only a novel of
science fiction; but so many concepts in science fiction have been explored
again and again over the past fifty years that it's refreshing to find
something original, and inspiring besides.
My own feeling -- like Sagan's perhaps -- is that evidence of God cannot
conclusively be found by looking forwards and outwards and upwards, toward
the events we haven't seen yet, the places we haven't reached yet, or the
technology we haven't achieved yet. If we saw advance evidence of those
things, we could only say that they represent strange and unfamiliar and
bizarre and inexplicable things. How could we possibly hope to understand
them, or to know what they mean? Rather, I think that evidence of God can
only be found by looking in the opposite direction: backwards, toward the
beginning of time; inwards, to what lies inside the smallest things we can
detect; and downwards, toward the ultimate explanation of all our physical
laws. And perhaps into ourselves.
The effect of science is that it's proven the Universe to be a whole lot
bigger and more mysterious than our ancestors ever dreamed it was. So maybe
we have to look farther to find God, and maybe some people don't like having
to do the extra work. But at the same time, in a bigger universe there are
a whole lot more places for God to be found. He's not limited to a few
measly thousand years on one little tin-pot planet. If there is a God, then
He was the Creator, who was there at the Beginning. If there are laws --
any physical laws -- then they do represent Order, and we can justifiably
ask how they came to be there and why, instead of the whole universe being a
great shapeless blob of nothing. That was what Einstein meant when he said
"It's the fact that there's *something* out there -- where by rights there
ought to be nothing -- that makes me think there's a God."
Message: 8003
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Get-Togethers
Subject: Michael & Peter Pipe
Date: 08/15/91 Time: 08:07:09
...r
> ...though true pizza-lovers won't eat Peter Piper's "pizza."
This cannot be denied. However I felt the awfulness of the show more than
made up for the pizza. (Actually Peter Piper's (Since the "'s" is part of
the corporate name, do I need another "'s" or perhaps just a "'" to form a
possessive? Where are Strunk & White when you really need them?) new
"mucho" pizzas aren't too bad. Not up to Streets of New York standards, but
not bad.)
Message: 8005
Author: $ Green Lantern
Category: Last....
Subject: strunk and white
Date: 08/15/91 Time: 12:52:11
"Follow this rule whatever the fineal consonant. Thus
write,
Charles's friend
Burns's poems
the witch's malice
Exceptions are the possessives of ancient proper names in -es and -is,
the possessive Jesus', and such forms as for conscience' sake, for
righteousness' sake. But such forms as Moses' Laws, Isis' temple are
commonly replaced by
the laws of Moses
the temple of Isis"
So, I suggest "the show of Peter Piper's Pizza" for example.
Message: 8006
Author: $ John Cummings
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Time
Date: 08/15/91 Time: 15:38:22
The seven day week is perhaps an artificial division, but perhaps
not. Let's consider the early man, who was quite able to determine annual
reoccurrences, the seasons of the year, and the repetitive cycle of the moon
into 28 days, about. Isn't it reasonable to assume that ol' Homo Sap found
it easy to handle the monthly cycle by dividing it into four? And four into
28 makes seven, so maybe the week is not so artificial after all. (I haven't
yet found a logical reason to rest on the seventh day, tho.) --John C.--
Message: 8007
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Time
Date: 08/15/91 Time: 17:50:01
Jeremy Campbell wrote a book about the research into "biological clocks" in
humans. I don't remember if they were on the way to finding a seven-day
clock or not. There did seem to be more-or-less 24 hour clocks that get
"reset" every sunrise ...
I've lost track of the book (either I had borrowed it, or I've loaned it
out) or I'd hunt up the info. Perhaps Green or Gordon know about it?
Message: 8008
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Time
Date: 08/15/91 Time: 23:32:18
I can't recall a book by Campbell. I do have one on the same topic by
Richard Coleman, called "Wide Awake at 3 AM".
Message: 8009
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Gordon/space travel
Date: 08/16/91 Time: 00:00:22
Present day human animal would have much difficulty travelling in space. It
would seem that we need to evolve quite a bit more before being successful.
Our best chance of evolving would be through diet. We are what we eat and
as long as we consume flesh we will be flesh. Life, I believe can take many
forms. I sure got stuck with a funny one.
Message: 8010
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Time
Date: 08/16/91 Time: 00:09:03
I'd like to live a lifestyle where there were no repetitious names for every
dang thing, especially time. I know that it is necessary for scientific
notation and some other things but to wake up and find out that it is
"Monday" again is maddening.
It's too damn close together and on top of that it is all made up for a
purpose. Where would Capitalism be without time?
Time is too human. Time puts things into small blocks. Time restricts an
otherwise carefree lifestyle.
In reality it is either day, night, dusk, or dawn. All others can go to
hell. Oh well.
I really took this thinking back to the supposed Big Bang and saw matter
flying outward from the center. From there I can assume that all that is
real is the ole mass in motion, changing forever and ever.
There are so called ten year olds who are older than some forty year olds.
A persons motion has influence on their change, both internal and external.
Believing in a program with line number from 1 to 100 is damning to some, to
those who believe time to be a fact.
Message: 8011
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Death
Date: 08/16/91 Time: 00:22:27
Death is also boring. I was raised to be really sad at a relative dying, to
ride in a hearse in a long procession, blocking traffic and go to a big yard
where the victim is lowered into the ground, encased in a storm proof box
with 'miracle shield', twelve times stronger than a wooden box.
For one, the dead person doesn't come up in the food chain, a chain by the
way that has nourished that particular person all of their life. Well, if
the box split open somehow then the earth would think it was eating peyote
because of the imbalming fluid taste instead of whole, thick, juicy blood.
Another thing is that the dead takes good land from the living, something
that should be a park, a memorial park if you insist.
I would like to open a cemetary-park and Whisper Chip all who come to me.
The ground would be really healthy and there would be a wall way down yonder
that would have the person's name engraved thereon. A suitable slogan could
be added depending on wishes.
Instead of children being taught to fear death we should have much better
education. Laugh instead of cry. "Hey, Al finally made it, he graduated
once again, good luck Al", and Whisper Chip him into the ground. Plenty of
birds would come by and pick up little pieces of Al and 'drop' him in other
places. I think this is better than being cremated as it is more healthy to
our earth. The last time I tasted ash I spit it out. The earth lives.
*=* X-Rated Cosmos Bulletin Board entered *=*
Message: 5006
Author: $ Melissa Dee
Category: Cosmos-Chatter
Subject: Yikes
Date: 08/15/91 Time: 18:44:16
So what do they do to the women during these tests? I figured they just did
blood tests or something.
FILm & Video Bulletin Board command:$C
Message: 1766
Author: $ Melissa Dee
Category: Filmography
Subject: In her throat?!
Date: 08/15/91 Time: 18:45:13
You KNOW a women didn't write this!
Public Bulletin Board command:$C
Message: 77547
Author: Paul Harris
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: last
Date: 08/15/91 Time: 00:28:55
I have to disaggree that recorded sales calls aren't MOST HEINIOUS. I got a
call from one awhile back at around 3:00am! I couldn't even have the
satisfaction of yelling at anybody. Really bad.
Message: 77548
Author: Paul Harris
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: aunty
Date: 08/15/91 Time: 00:30:00
Well I have to say I agree with Aunty---this one is the best! Where do I
sign
up? I've been wandering all throughout BBS west since I got a REAL computer,
and I keep coming back to what I was able to access with my pitiful Tandy
102.
Long live Apollo! I argue...therefore I am!!!
Message: 77549
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Thad
Date: 08/15/91 Time: 03:07:14
Thanks for your thoughts. I'm a bit slow in replying; but I'll answer the
easy question first, which is
TC>>Is alcoholism or drug addiction a consequence of other problems,
TC>>social and personal, or do they cause problems of their own?
TC>>or...perhaps is the correct answer, both?
Definitely both! There's no doubt that if you start off trying to solve one
problem, and do so by going in the wrong direction, then all you do is to
create a whole load of new ones (i.e., the secondary effects of addiction).
Counselors tend to recognize, though, that if somebody has personal problems
that led to addiction, you have to tackle the addiction first (typically in
one of the Twelve-Step programs) before the underlying problems can be
successfully addressed. I think of this as a push-down stack. If you pile
things up on top of one another, you have to take off the top layer first
before you can start clearing up what lies underneath.
So the "treatment", if you like, depends on whether we're trying to cure an
existing addiction, or prevent one from arising to start with.
The interesting thing about addiction is that it can be generalized to an
abstract class of behaviors that we call "addictive behavior patterns",
which share common characteristics regardless of what the particular "drug
of choice" happens to be.
Thus some people are addicted to alcohol, some to cocaine or heroin, some to
relationships, some to gambling, some to sex, and possibly some to
pornography. And some to "supporting" other addicts. But whatever it is
these people are addicted to, it's possible to abstract out a certain set of
behaviors that are common to all of them, such as progressiveness, shame,
hiding the undesirable behavior, denial, and so forth. It's also noteworthy
that many people get addicted to multiple things -- like the "soft" drug
user who moves on to harder drugs.
The big question is sorting out the precise factors that predispose people
to addiction -- or predispose them to being addicted to particular things.
How much of it is a physiological weakness for certain substances? How much
of it is learned? And how much of it is a predisposition to addictive
behavior in general that just happens to latch onto whatever addictive
"substance" is found first?
One thing that addicts do usually have in common is low self-esteem. It's
certainly possible to argue that addiction itself, and the sense of
powerlessness it causes, do lower self-esteem further; but it's commoner to
find some original cause of low self-esteem even before the addiction was
established. That's why I regard attitudes that tend to increase people's
shame about their natural selves -- like calling sex bad -- as unhelpful.
The sex drive, as you pointed out, is very nonspecific.
So it can lead us in a positive and fulfilling direction, or it can lead us
in a damaging direction. Really it's a bit of a loose cannon rolling
around. Hey, that just struck me, it's a useful sort of metaphor. So what
do you do with a loose cannon? I think a lot of people want to plug up the
muzzle and pretend it won't go off. You can do that up to a point. You
don't have to be setting it off all the time. But I think it's a little
different from an ordinary cannon in that it builds up pressure in the
breech all by itself and wants to go off at more or less regular intervals.
You can hold it back for a certain length of time, but in the long run the
best thing to do is not to plug it up, but to get it pointed in the right
direction (or if there isn't a "right" direction, then at least a safe
direction) so that it won't do any harm when it does go off.
Well, enough of this phallic imagery! :) Anyway, part of my attitude about
sex is this. I think there's a tendency for some people to look at the sex
drive, and see what harm it can do at times, and focus on that and say
"well, the sex drive is dangerous, and dangerous means bad", and then
concentrate on trying to find ways to *reduce* the sex drive, or minimize
it, or suppress it, or something. When really all we want to do is to make
sure that the sex drive isn't deployed at the wrong time. The fact that
there *is* a "wrong time" implies that there's some good reason for not
letting rip with the sex drive at that particular time; or conversely, some
good thing that you'd get out of *not* doing it (like not having a baby!)
What I see is that people see problems where the sex drive conflicts with
something else (like not wanting to have a baby, or not being unfaithful to
someone, or not hurting someone), and they see the solution as trying to
suppress the sex drive and squash it down, as if it were bad just for being
there. I think there's a subtle but important difference between doing
that, and concentrating on the positive gains to be had from using it
appropriately, or not using it at the wrong time. It's a bit like trying to
ride a bicycle, when somebody yells out "hey, watch you DON'T run into that
post!" And then you're focused on the post, where you're *not* supposed to
be going (or focused on the sex drive and trying to suppress it), and you
probably end up doing what you shouldn't anyway. If you were thinking
instead about steering into the *gap* on one side of the post, or thinking
about how you could use the sex drive usefully or what you'd get out of not
using it at some point in time, you'd probably avoid the catastrophe.
So I think there's far too much emphasis on the "evils" of sex, and nowhere
near enough emphasis on positive aspects of life, like good relationships
with people -- especially a spouse -- the need to raise children happily and
securely, and so on. If people had those things in front of them as the
most vital goals, I think that sex would fall into perspective naturally.
It's perfectly true, as you pointed out, that teenage (and not-so-teenage)
boys will spin a girl any kind of line. But I don't question "why do they
put so much emphasis on 'lust', to the exclusion of other concerns?"
Instead, I ask "where are those other concerns, and why aren't they there?"
Where, for example, is the value of truth? Where is the value of concern
for other people, and looking after other people (either the girl, or any
child that might result)? Where is the value of closeness and trust in a
relationship? Where is a sense of responsibility? If these things are
there, I think sex falls into place of its own accord, without anybody
having to bash it over the head.
Women and girls, for example, usually have more sense of responsibility
about sex than men do, for the obvious reason that if they get pregnant they
have to deal with the results. But there's more to it than that, because
females by and large do attach more importance to relationships with others,
and I think there's good evidence that a lot of this tendency is innate.
(While it is an aside, it's well worth harking back to the subject of self-
esteem at this point and mentioning that a lot of young girls get pregnant
as a result of low self-esteem. "I won't be loved if I don't have sex."
"Nobody loved me so I thought if I had a baby then I would have someone to
love me." "I'm not anybody really, but if I were a mother then I would be
somebody, I'd have an identity." These are all variations on exactly the
same theme. Very tragic. And it *does* have a solution.)
But we can't say that males don't value other people and their relationships
with others. Most married men get very attached to their wives and families.
I think men do appreciate the benefits of a relationship with a partner,
even if they're not quite as hooked on "relationships" as women are and
aren't quite so motivated to work as hard on them. And if they're shown
these benefits clearly in the family environment, and if there's cultural
conditioning that values such things instead of devaluing them, there's no
reason men shouldn't take their responsibilities as seriously as women do.
So I've never asked myself why a man should bother marrying a woman if he
can get all the benefits of marriage without the responsibilities. I know
that one reason I'm not attracted to this line of thinking is that it leads
in the direction of marriage as a relationship where the woman sells her
sexual favors in return for a wedding ring and housekeeping money. I don't
like that way of looking at life one bit. It just keeps the old battle of
the sexes going as furiously as ever. Besides, women have sex drive too.
On the topic of money, it's undeniable, as you say, that the reason people
sell erotic material is simply to make money. The difference in my attitude
is that I don't see anything wrong with that. Everybody sells things to
make a living. If I go to the hardware store to buy a drill, say, the guy
who sells me the drill might derive some pleasure from the fact that he's
selling me the right tool for the job, or from the quality of the goods he's
handling, or whatever -- just as the maker of X-rated movies might enjoy the
fact that he's good at it and turns lots of people on. But the real reason
they're putting so much effort into it is to make a living.
Only I don't see why I should castigate the hardware guy because he makes
money out of selling me the drill, just because he's taking advantage of my
need for a drill to make his living. That's the way life works. It's a
fair exchange. Similarly, I don't see why I should castigate anybody else
because they make money out of selling X-rated movies. The only *real*
cause to criticize somebody on that basis would be if I disapproved of the
product itself, or of providing it to somebody -- like selling drugs to
kids, say. I don't disapprove of erotica on principle, so I have no trouble
with people making financial gain out of it either.
Yes, as far as I've heard, quite a lot of arranged marriages do work out
better than you'd expect. I'm sure this has a lot to do with the respective
families using a little insight to match up the personalities of the couple.
They have to allow some flexibility though, and have the interest of the
couple genuinely at heart. I know at least one guy (Indian) who got married
in this way. But his family did have more than one prospective bride lined
up for him, and any of the women themselves would have had the right of
refusal (unlike medieval dynastic marriages which could be disastrous, only
the women had no say in it at all). The fact that he was happy with the
first "candidate" probably said a lot for the two families' knowledge of the
partner's personalities and their skill at matchmaking.
Some people have gotten married on the basis of sexual attraction alone.
(I know one couple where he married her because he wanted kids, and she
married him because she said he was good in bed! I think they lasted
eighteen months.) But I'd say two things about this. First of all, at the
risk of repeating the same old message, I wouldn't denigrate sexual
attraction on those grounds. Rather, I'd emphasize the importance of the
points you made regarding personality matches, likes and dislikes, and
expectations (which are very important and more often than not unspoken).
If those things were properly addressed, sex would fall into place.
Secondly, I'd say that a lot of what we call "sexual attraction" isn't
simply a matter of big boobs or whatever turns you on in a photograph. An
enormous amount of "sexual attraction" is actually underlying psychological
factors that attract people subtly yet powerfully to one another. The
problem here is that if people don't understand what's in their own heads to
begin with, it's going to trip them up. So the solution again is not to
downplay "sexual" attraction, but chiefly to gain an accurate understanding
of what's in one's own head. Too many people are screwed up.
Years ago people would get married because it was expected of them, or for
economic reasons. And economic factors, or social pressure, kept them in
their marriages for better or for worse. Today, people don't have the same
pressures to stay married. Furthermore, they demand more happiness out of
marriage. People expect more, just as they expect more out of life.
I don't see anything wrong with this, and I don't see any reason why people
shouldn't get it, either. But the important thing to remember is that it
doesn't happen by magic, or without work. We expect more of everything
today. We have a high standard of living because of technology. Broadly,
technology is the acquisition and the use of skills. We've built our high
standard of living on knowledge gained by generation upon generation of
human beings.
Now, some of those skills can be left to experts. If I can't repair my TV,
I can pay an expert to do it. We can also build on generations of knowledge
we have about what makes people tick and how people get on together and how
to match people up and what makes a good marriage and so forth, and use it
to live together more harmoniously. But if we're going to use it
successfully, we can't pay someone else to do it. We have to acquire the
skills ourselves. We've got all kinds of support services and counseling
and bags of knowledge about why some marriages succeed and others fail and
why people pick the wrong partners and so on. But most of the people who
get married just go charging in without any kind of training whatsoever --
except for what they got from their own family experience, which may have
been good (if they were lucky) or may have been worthless or worse. It's
one of my pet peeves that we teach math and science and history in schools,
but we don't teach anything to speak of about psychology or human
relationships. I think we should.
Lastly, as you said:
TC>>There are other consequences of sexual relations, also... I am not
TC>>well versed in what those consequences are...
I think this is absolutely true -- if we're talking about the same thing.
Sex between two people is not just a mechanical act, but has other effects,
resulting in feelings and understandings and expectations and "bonds" and
all kinds of things. To tell the truth, I don't think we have a good
vocabulary to describe all these things. It's related, for example, to the
difficulty of trying to explain accurately exactly why rape is so damaging
to the victim -- although we know that it is. It's getting a bit late, so
I'll think about this and try to put something down in a few days.
Message: 77559
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: News Today
Subject: Internet News (1/2)
Date: 08/15/91 Time: 03:17:34
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 91 02:54:22 PDT
From: ho (Hilarie Kauiolani Orman)
Subject: Future Risks
[Via [email protected] (Richard Schroeppel)]
TINY BUG IN H.S. "GENOME" CAUSES MASSIVE HUMANITY FAILURE
Officials responsible for a spiral galaxy near the middle section of the
universe revealed today that a small error in an encoding for the life form
"Homo sapiens" was responsible for the near extinction of the partly
intelligent species. The change had been introduced during routine
maintenance of the life form. Officials explained that the maintenance had
been intended to improve the survivability of the species, but inadequate
testing had caused it to become susceptible to a new sexually transmitted
disease.
Senior universe officials expressed disappointment in the control of the
life forms in the galaxy, citing a series of malfunctions, especially near a
yellow star at the edge. The H.S. species has required several patches in
the field and still seems unstable. The latest change was not tested in
alternative universes due to lax controls and lack of funding.
Other officials cited inadequate specification and design review. "How can
we guarantee that the species works without a formal definition of what it
is?" lamented one senior observer. "These things just look like collections
of cells - they just sort of grow. There's no mathematical model that can
be used to verify it. I don't see how they ever got it started in the first
place."
Insiders feel that the species can be rescued, but expressed doubt about its
long-term viability. The estimate of the time needed for a thorough review
of the documentation, writing the formal specifications, and verifying the
genome encoding, expressibility, and environmental testing, is greater than
the lifetime of the universe.
Meanwhile, yet another mutation and alteration of the local laws of physics
will be required to back out of this particular upgrade. With funding
already stretched, this setback might just spell the end of H.S.
The formally verified Vulcan species, originally slated for production next
year, has been delayed due to a series of technical problems and is now
scheduled for beta testing after the next big bang.
Message: 77561
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Answer!
Subject: Join Up, Harris!
Date: 08/15/91 Time: 08:08:49
> Where do I sign up?
At the [M]ain menu, enter $ and you'll get all the info you need to enlist.
One thing many non-$tatus users don't realize is how much goes on in the
SIGs. I don't have specific numbers, but I'll bet the [$ta]tus SIG has at
least as much happening on it as the main BBS here has.
Message: 77562
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Gordon's news item
Date: 08/15/91 Time: 17:40:15
Where did you find that? Risks?
That is a very good parody of the state of computer "engineering" these
days.
Message: 77563
Author: $ Thad Coons
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Gordon's msg.
Date: 08/15/91 Time: 23:11:51
I agree with almost everything you said.
Especially, I think that what you have presented regarding the nature of
'sexual attraction' and the proper role of it in life is also correct.
Many of the reasons I am opposed to pornography is that it is directly
opposed to many of the virtues that you have outlined.
It's been a while since I have looked, but most erotica is concerned ONLY
with arousing the immediate sensation of lust...not with concern for truth,
not with concern for other people or looking after them, not with awareness
of consequences, not with a sense of responsibility, not with the value of
closeness ot trust in a relationship, and these other things you have
mentioned.
If it included these elements in their proper perspective, it would not be
pornography...
I am opposed to pornography in principle, and so I am more likely to
compare it to selling drugs..to anybody, not just kids.
It is precisely these "other consequences", these feelings,
understandings, expectations, "bonds" and so forth, that pornography ignores
and even denies in its emphasis on the mechanical...and I think you have
even mentioned that.
I liked your comparison of uncontrolled and unrestrained sex to a loose
cannon...Exactly. The sex drive is powerful...it is a powerful force for
good if it is handled properly, as in a good marriage (it helps make it
good, if you include all the other necessary parts), and it is a powerful
destructive force. In my opinion, children need to be taught that as soon as
they begin to become sexually aware.
BUT Pornography is NOT a 'safe' direction to point the sex drive...it's a
bit too much like pouring gasoline onto a fire...and it promotes the very
opposite of the careful restraint you have mentioned.
I agree with you that trying to supress it or squash it down or label it
as 'bad' is not the thing to do...but the consequences of letting it run
wild are indeed bad.
The part about the boy's spinning lines, and girls believing them (because
of the factors you have mentioned, and them some) is correct. I don't want
boys thinking "benefits without responsibilities"...
What I was trying to say, was that if a boy wants the pleasure or
privilege of having sex with a girl, he has a moral obligation to share the
responsibilites of care and raising (economic or other) which she would
othewise have to bear alone.
Message: 77565
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Answer!
Subject: Beau
Date: 08/15/91 Time: 23:34:57
Risks is right. There was another amusing item there recently, too -- a
true one -- but I don't have it with me. I'll put it up on the COMputer SIG
tomorrow.
Message: 77566
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cat food
Date: 08/15/91 Time: 23:40:05
Funny, I thought we had a PETs SIG. It must have gone. I was just musing
this evening on what pampered animals cats are. The food we feed them must
be the last word in gourmet luxury. Other animals seem to like cat food
better than their own food. Our cats eat cat food. Our dog likes cat food.
Even our turtle likes cat food, and seems to do better on it.
I reminded Jane earlier this evening that a few years back, when I was
dieting to dump off some weight, cat food even looked tasty to ME...