In a message dated 3/4/01 11:52:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, dshilling@worldnet.att.net writes:

<< But isn't it common in pack animals that dominance expresses precisely which males will reproduce and which will not? There may be some awfully unhappy subordinate males, but I don't think they're "unnatural.">>

I think some of us are taking the phrase 'natural' and 'unnatural' in a qualitative sense that gives it a personal spin that was never intended. Consider that all of those pack animals are born with functional reproductive organs, and as soon as the political circumstances of their pack change, they can become fully active in the sex game. Only when you fall below the level of invertebrates into the realm of social insects does sex for every individual cease to be a concern.

Anyway, the subject is really cold turkey on human addictions. I simply pointed out that it's difficult to go cold turkey on sex; and why would one try to? As for 'porn', it's a moot point that porn is in the eye of the beholder. What I've *never* been able to fathom is why it's such a concern of fundamentalist individuals as to what total strangers are doing in bed....to the maniacal point where they feel a need to legislate exactly what these total strangers are doing in bed together...or pass judgement on them at all. So long as they aren't coercing someone unwilling or unable to make adult decisions on the subject and they aren't frightening the horses, who's business is it, what the neighbor is doing for a thrill?

Leah