perkins@bnrmtv.UUCP (Henry Perkins) (09/30/86)
> > Kenn Barry writes: ["Being a sex object is degrading" is an ambiguous statement.] > > 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? > > Nancy Parsons responds: > > 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. Those whose sexual needs are completely fulfilled in their current partnerships probably don't want to be objectified. Those seeking sex partners often objectify themselves with dress and body language, in effect saying "this space for rent". This is often passive, and people do end up getting used. That's reality sometimes for a single. [Kenn and Nancy were posting to soc.women, but this seems more appropriate for soc.singles, so I've directed followups there.] -- {hplabs,amdahl,okstate}!bnrmtv!perkins --Henry Perkins It is better never to have been born. But who among us has such luck? One in a million, perhaps.