X-Message-Number: 1133
Date: 12 Aug 92 03:12:49 EDT
From: Paul Wakfer <>
Subject: FOR CRYONET (replacement for last)

I have been sporadically following this thread, because while I am
always interested in new moral dilemmas, I myself have been self-
sexual for over 10 years now (happily so for the last 5).  I now
consider a deep abiding need for, and bonding to, a partner (mate,
lover, spouse, etc.) to be a sign of a not fully developed sense of
self.  However, I wish to take exception to the statement of Charles
Platt in CRYONET #1121:

>For a deeply bonded, sexually exclusive couple, the death of 
>one person creates a problem which *is made worse by 

I cannot understand the reasoning which makes you say the problem *is
made worse by cryonics*!  Without cryonics there is no choice, you and
your mate or mates all die.  With cryonics there is choice.  Even if
you end up in the future alive at the same time that two mates to whom
you deeply bonded in the past are both alive that is better than if
any of you were dead.  Surely to have a loved one alive, whatever the
nature of your relationship is better than to have him/her dead.

With regard to the supposed problem for the one left behind in the
first life segment, I think that anyone who would wish to impose
fidelity upon a mate over such a long period of time, and anyone who
would accept such imposition or impose it on themselves as some sort
of martyrdom or duty, are equally sick individuals.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1133