Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site decwrl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!decwrl!chabot@miles.DEC (All God's chillun got guns) From: chabot@miles.DEC (All God's chillun got guns) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: non-sexist society and sex objects Message-ID: <128@decwrl.UUCP> Date: Fri, 23-Aug-85 17:01:17 EDT Article-I.D.: decwrl.128 Posted: Fri Aug 23 17:01:17 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 25-Aug-85 00:45:22 EDT Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Lines: 18 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. L S Chabot ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot chabot%amber.dec@decwrl.arpa