Re: virus: A "Confession" about "The Sign"

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• [ Next ][ Previous ] In reply to: Sodom Next in thread: Joe E. Dees

--WebTV-Mail-1457930174-4534
Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit

I asked my sister-in-law one time if there was a situation in which she could imagine having sex with one of her sons. SHE said that she could imagine it happening... perhaps in the situation where the son was disabled and would never be able to have a woman otherwise.

This is just to show-- from a mother's perspective-- that sex is not necessarily perversion by the definition given.

Another example, knowing your own mothers, sex which your mothers consent to, indirectly... that is, sex which she can rationalize (ie. for family and children's sakes) ARE acts which are performed upon one's mother. This example suggests that if one can maintain ties with the degree of acceptance that one's own mother represents (and certain ties to one's actual mother in the face of certain acts performed), then these acts are not perverse.

In situations where one's own mother can condone certain acts which other mothers might find perverse (and convey the acceptability to her son's and daughters in a way that isn't considered "perverse" in its own right), one must resort to a more pure logic... one in which "mother" represents other than one's own biological mother (ie. "holy mother"). Only in such cases can we speak of a righteousness which might be termed "immaculate conception"-- though by degrees, we can assume that this standard is represented by the biological and social roles of actual mothers (and to a certain extent, "fathers").

It is a good definition. An individual's inability to imagine sex which is acceptable to their own mother would be more indicative of that person's perversions than of the utility of the definition (or else shows a lack of imagination).

Brett Lane Robertson
Indiana, USA
http://www.window.to/mindrec
MindRecreation Metaphysical Assn.
BIO: http://members.theglobe.com/bretthay ...........
Put your item up for auction! Bid on hot opportunities! Click HERE to view great deals!:
http://www.utrade.com/index.htm?MID=59876

--WebTV-Mail-1457930174-4534
Content-Disposition: Inline
Content-Type: Message/RFC822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit

Received: from mailsorter-102-2.iap.bryant.webtv.net (209.240.198.99) by
	postoffice-132.iap.bryant.webtv.net; Sun, 23 May 1999 15:03:30
	-0700 (PDT)

	mailsorter-102-2.iap.bryant.webtv.net (8.8.8/ms.graham.14Aug97)
	with ESMTP id PAA11320; Sun, 23 May 1999 15:03:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by maxwell.kumo.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id
	PAA31087 for virus-outgoing; Sun, 23 May 1999 15:52:23 -0600

uhoh - then we need more information - what acts would you perform with your own mother? Dont you think that definition is a bit, well, all encompasing?

Bill Roh

Brett Robertson wrote:

> ...acts you wouldn't perform with your own mother.
>
> Brett Lane Robertson
> Indiana, USA
> http://www.window.to/mindrec
> MindRecreation Metaphysical Assn.
> BIO: http://members.theglobe.com/bretthay
> ...........
> Put your item up for auction! Bid on hot opportunities! Click HERE to
> view great deals!:
> http://www.utrade.com/index.htm?MID=59876
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: RE: virus: A "Confession" about "The Sign"
> Date: Sun, 23 May 1999 16:00:48 -0500
> From: "TheHermit" <carlw@hermit.net>
> Reply-To: virus@lucifer.com
> To: <virus@lucifer.com>
>
> What the heck are "sexual perversions"?
>
> TheHermit
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-virus@lucifer.com
> > [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com]On Behalf
> > Of Brett Robertson
> > Sent: Sunday, May 23, 1999 3:46 PM
> > To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk; mindrec@egroups.com;
> > virus@lucifer.com
> > Subject: virus: A "Confession" about "The Sign"
> >
> < A lot of nonsense snipped >
>
> > I saw this in operation as a group of guys (in the shelter), before
> > going to sleep, began talking about the negative things they
> > all shared
> > (mostly sexual perversions). This talk seemed to have been
> > established
> > with the sole purpose of attaining from me a sign of my (supposed)
> > "similar" perversions.
>
> < More nonsense snipped >

--WebTV-Mail-1457930174-4534--

• [ Next ][ Previous ] In reply to: Sodom Next in thread: Joe E. Dees