|Re: Remaining Relevant||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: Bitner/Stevenson (lilbertearthlink.net)|
|Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 17:44:26 -0600 (MDT)|
>> So could we please avoid stating our personal sexuality or personal >> responses to others' as the main point of this discussion? The better >> question would be: how does a cohousing community transcend problems that >> arise if one member disapproves of another member's sex life (or non-sexual >> relationships for that matter. > > I agree completely. I'm ready to unsubscribe if this topic doesn't become > more relevant to cohousing. I can join a million lists on sexual > preferences. This is the only one on cohousing. > > On a recent Biography of a flamboyantly gay man' s behavior in the > 1920s-1930s, a very proper English Lord was asked how this man's family and > friends reacted. He said very kindly, "Well, we all knew of course, but in > those days sexual behavior was considered to be a private matter. As long as > one wasn't predatory or rude, it was no one's business to react one way or > another. Certainly, no one excluded him. And after all, what do we know > about what other people are or are not doing?" > > Could we get on with it? > > Sharon. > > -- > Sharon Villines > MacGuffin Guide to Detective Fiction > http://www.macguffin.net > Takoma Village Cohousing, Washington, DC > http://www.home.earthlink.net/~takomavillag/ > > Ahem. Does it occur to anyone that those of you who keep asking that we stop the poly discussion are having the opposite effect? -- Liz Stevenson Southside Park Cohousing Sacramento, California
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.