Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!qantel!ihnp4!drutx!druxo!nap
From: nap@druxo.UUCP (ParsonsNA)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: internal conflicts wrt sexual stimuli and so on
Message-ID: <152@druxo.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 26-Sep-86 15:39:54 EDT
Article-I.D.: druxo.152
Posted: Fri Sep 26 15:39:54 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 29-Sep-86 02:54:00 EDT
References: <911@gilbbs.UUCP> <1143@oliveb.UUCP> <529@randvax.UUCP> <1665@ames.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Labs, Denver, Co
Lines: 16
Summary: it's being an OBJECT that's offensive

> Kenn Barry writes:
>                                                   Obviously, no one wants
> to be just a sex object; no one wants to play that role at all times,
> with all people. But much confusion can arise from a phrase like "being
> a sex object is degrading", because it's ambiguous. Does it mean that
> being nothing but a sex object is degrading, or does it mean that playing
> that role part-time and voluntarily is also degrading?

It seems to me that there is a world of difference between being a sex
PARTNER and being a sex OBJECT.  In none of my roles in life do I wish
to be considered an "object" nor do I ever want to treat others as
"objects."  Being an object suggests to me being passive and used.

Ever wondered why "sex object" is traditionally associated with women?

Nancy Parsons