Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!amdcad!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot From: chabot@amber.DEC (l s chabot) Newsgroups: net.singles Subject: Re: sex generally Message-ID: <32@decwrl.UUCP> Date: Tue, 18-Dec-84 16:47:11 EST Article-I.D.: decwrl.32 Posted: Tue Dec 18 16:47:11 1984 Date-Received: Mon, 24-Dec-84 02:45:44 EST Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP Organization: DEC Engineering Network Lines: 28 acf4!greenber == > > As a little survey, would everybody who has ever known ANYONE who treated > ANYONE as a sex object (and only as a sex object!) please stand up and be > counted?? The qualification "and only as a sex object" is not a valid restriction. It is dangerous to *ever*, even temporarily, view a person as a sex object. But how about this as a compromise: to have known anyone who let their view of another person as a sex object override any view of that person as a person. Or, to make it stronger, to have override occur frequently. Yes, several: one intimately. For those who might argue that during sex, of course one views the other person (or persons) as sex object(s): no, not really, and you're missing out if this is what you really feel. As a gentler comment than the one I made in a previous posting about the cartoon of Adam: are there any out there who might not have thought that a woman would not identify with Adam? And, equality does not mean that we all become male. (And no, neither am I saying that we all become female.) L S Chabot UUCP: ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot ARPA: ...chabot%amber.DEC@decwrl.ARPA