Mine, there are many many people on this list who believe that women
should have children and that it is their only purpose in life. So, the
argument you make is bound to be very controversial. I understand that Sam
is also for keeping women bound barefoot in the kitchen...for shame!
Steve
On Thu, 18 May 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> second, the sole purpose of sexual activity is reduced to getting women
> pregnant and injecting male sperm into women's bodies. as i said before,
> there is no reason to assume biological motherhood. We are not living
> hunting gathering societies where reproduction was somewhat necessary for
> small bands to maintain their species.Time has changed; sexual roles have
> changed. We are not living in stone ages. I reject to see the sole purpose
> of sex as reproduction. Many women prefer not to have children, and I
> don't see the reason why they should!!!
>
> Mine
>
> >> Sam Pawlett wrote: > >> >Well, it is necessary that the male penetrate
> the female or the species >> >will fail to reproduce itself. > >
>
> ...except for the occasional turkey-baster.
>
> >Why not say "it is necessary for the female to engulf the male sperm . .
> ."?
>
> >How do you determine whether A penetrates B or B engulfs A?
>
> Carrol
>
>
