Theos-Talk Archives (December 1996 Message tl00016)

RI to AB:
>Well, Alan, I gave up long ago the notion that I could make myself
>understood on theosophical subjects, so I am not dismayed on that
>score.  Today, however, I cross a much more lamentable threshold:  the
>realization that even my jokes are becoming unrecognizable.

What part of "misunderstood" don't we understand?
I got the joke, Richard. Maybe Alan was having a bad
hair day?


>I was bothered by the big "gang-up" on Patrick for his
>"Purpose of Sex" position.

I am sorry to have bothered you, Richard, but this was a
subject that I just couldn't, in good faith, let pass.
Actually Patrick's ideas on the purpose of sex are in the
Theosophical majority--G de P himself says no less. However,
it is such a psychologically unhealthy attitude, that I
always find myself on the defensive when I hear it.  It is
one of the few official TS positions with which I strongly
disagree.  For one thing, most who champion it are single and
celibate, and thus know nothing at all of real intimacy (rather
like Catholic priests when they engage in marriage counseling).
In fact, I was shocked by all the support I got on theos-l
(where theosophical heretics tend to hang out, rather than
the true believers) and the number of those who argued against
Patrick's position, which is, in fact, the TS party line.

Jerry S.
Member, TI