walkerd at hub.ofthe.net
Mon Jul 21 15:53:44 PDT 1997
Lord Larkin O'Kane wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jul 1997 11:30:43 -0500 (CDT), you wrote:
> >By all means, disapprove; I hope no one wants to deprive you of that right.
> >I disapprove of unprotected promiscuous sex. That's why I want to see
> >condoms made available. Then it won't be "unprotected." Another's
> >promiscuity is none of my business and, I respectfully submit, none of Your
> Condoms are available. In case you haven't observed, they are in
> practically every restroom at every service station that each of us
> stops at (at least once going to an event).
> In addition, the Baroness Regina of the Amazon Household has
> undertaken the project to have condoms available for the asking... Ask
> an Amazon, if she doesn't have one it's more than likely that she can
> and will get one for you.
> As to whether they should or should not be made available, I
> personally do not care. It will not affect me one iota. It does,
> however, have a remote chance of saving the life of one or more of the
> friends (both men and women) that I have come to know and love in our
> society. AIDS KILLS, and other than abstinance, a condom is the best
> protection available.
Larkin, my dear friend I must disagree. The SCA does not need the
political hasssel and potential legal problems of official condom
distribution. We are not responsibile for people keeping their pants
zipped up. What's next people - having the chirurgeons distribute clena
More information about the Ansteorra