Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ames.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!hao!ames!barry
From: barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: non-sexist society and sex objects
Message-ID: <1110@ames.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 26-Aug-85 17:32:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: ames.1110
Posted: Mon Aug 26 17:32:25 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 29-Aug-85 23:29:53 EDT
References: <128@decwrl.UUCP>
Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA
Lines: 29

From L S Chabot (decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot):
>David London
>
>> My idea is that part of this is a sort of "sexual play", and that this would
>> remain in a non-sexist society. I.e. there is nothing wrong with treating 
>> someone as a sex object as long as that's not the way you treat them at all
>> times. 
>
>No, this isn't quite right.  There is something wrong in treating someone
>as a sex object just because you feel like sex; if they don't this doesn't
>really give you justification for embarassing them with catcalls or comments,
>or in trying to coerce them.
>
>You shouldn't ever think of people as objects.  I've met some unfortunates who
>treat their lover(s) as sex objects when they're in the mood without regard
>to the lover(s) mood, and yet at other times seem to be able to treat people
>as people.

	You may be reading more into Mr. London's statement than he intended.
I think a distinction can be made between treating someone as an object,
and acting against someone's wishes. Being a sex object (occasionally)
has a pleasant side, and many of us are happy to play that role from
time to time. Perhaps this is all he was trying to say.

-  From the Crow's Nest  -                      Kenn Barry
                                                NASA-Ames Research Center
                                                Moffett Field, CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 	USENET:		 {ihnp4,vortex,dual,nsc,hao,hplabs}!ames!barry