Sorry for being so slow in getting back to you. I have been drafting
a post on natural law since that seems to be the real sticking point
here. However, as I recall, Anscombe doesn't take such a Stoical
view towards sex. In fact, at the end of the article she makes a
lengthy defense of the place of pleasure in the act, approvingly
quoting Aristotle where he says that "pleasure perfects the act."
Read the last 10 or so paragraphs and let me know what you think.
What she says is that sex shouldn't be done "purely for pleasure",
and though debatable, I think if understood correctly, she's right
that we shouldn't have sex with the sole end of physical pleasure.
That fails to attain the end of the act.
But like I said, I am drafting a post on natural law, and I can get
into it more then. I am just very busy with my other work right
now. But thanks for your participation and comments.
--- In email@example.com, "Ic Neltococayotl"
> I am wondering what your thoughts were of my brief remarks on that
> article you cited that started this thread? Apparently I am the
> one that read some of it and tried to engage it. But the threadsaw
> degenerated rather quickly into bad things and I am not sure if you
> I confess that I wrote it rather quickly and may be a bit rough in
> and flow.