stovebolts
Member
Thanks for the link Vic!
This kinda caught my eye.
When I read it, it almost sounds selfish. I read it as, "Have sex at the expense of your baby" and is along the lines of "if it feels good, it must be right".
So now responsible sex has been minimized to a pill or other device....
This kinda caught my eye.
In spite of the all too many perverted and degenerating phases of sex life, which exist at present, it is still true that there has been a wonderful evolution that is perfectly logical, natural and desirable -- that is that recognition of the value of other precious results from the sex relation beside children, -- the physcological [sic] emotional and spiritual re[l]ations -- and -- also if I may venture to use that term without being misunderstood the moral reaction [sic].
For the highly developed civilized human being there is no such thing as natural sex relations, that is, in the animal sense. We do not -- after the simple manner of the animals -- have a mating season. We do not have an annual baby. It would be anything but ideal to do so. But instead we expand our creative impulses into other channels which are more beneficial and enjoyable for the race. We find creative scope in the whole side field of science art and community life. And along with this expansion we are developing a conscious and unashamed appreciation of the invaluable reactions upon the individual of the sex relation apart from the question of children.
When I read it, it almost sounds selfish. I read it as, "Have sex at the expense of your baby" and is along the lines of "if it feels good, it must be right".
So now responsible sex has been minimized to a pill or other device....