Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!ucsd!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway From: csluder@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (KirK) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: Who's Exploiting Who? Message-ID: <67205@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> Date: 24 Oct 90 19:46:35 GMT References: <65210@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> <656288051@lear.cs.duke.edu> Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington IN. Lines: 32 Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu Nntp-Posting-Host: alexandre-dumas.ics.uci.edu In article kaveh@ms.uky.edu (Kaveh Baharestan) writes: > >gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes: > >>Would you mind to tell us what is so bad about "sex for the sake of sex"? > >isn't it obvious? No it isn't obvious, I know quite a few quite normal people who feel that sex is good when totally removed from everything else. These are not people who are afraid of relationships, they just recognize that sometimes all they want is sex and nothing else. There is nothing wrong with it so long as they are perfectly honest with themselves, and with their partner as to their motives. >>"Only if one thinks of sex itself as a degrading act can one >>believe that all pornography degrades or harm women." > > this person is bunching sex into one catagory. There are different >kinds of sex and not all are degading. Isn't degrading a relative statement? So long as both parties honestly consent, how can sex, in any form, be degrading? While you might see the role of the slave in a sadomasochist relationship degrading I sincerely doubt that the slave sees it that way. >PS - i never said that sex was degrading. Just certain kinds of sex. Who are you to make distinctions? KirK Sluder