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