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