Nancy Gish wrote:
> Dear Carrol,
>  
> It was, though, Eliot who said that without a spiritual meaning sex 
> was no more than the coupling of animals.  He didn't, one might note, 
> know much about sex or passionate sexual experience--unless maybe long 
> after with Valerie.  All those pontifications came from someone who 
> was still a virgin at 26,  married suddenly, had a horrific experience 
> of sex, and then took up celibacy.
>  
> So that he called it animals only tells us how he saw it, but it did 
> come from him.
     All that mudslinging, however, is beside the point. Sex without 
spiritual meaning is the point. Without revealing your qualifying 
credentials, what is your assessment of it? I'm sticking with human 
beings reduced to acting like things, automatons specifically.

Ken A