Re: Stop Thinking of Women as Sexual Objects [Re: How do the guys do it?]

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 19:51:34 GMT, "Reginald Guy"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
>"Rick & Chris Adams" wrote:
>> .......Viewing someone as a "sex object" isn't
>> a question of viewing them as a sexual being--there's nothing wrong
>> with that at all. Instead it refers to the act of "objectifying" the
>> person; e.g., seeing ONLY the sexual characteristics as important,
>> rather than seeing the person AS a person.
>> 
>> I have no objection at all to being seen as a sexual being. I
>> do, however, have an objection to being seen as an "object."
>> Don't you?
>
>
>    Yes, I do.  You and I see that there is a difference between
>"sexual being" and "sex object".  "Sex object" denies the
>personhood of the sexual being.  Too many times, I believe,
>nudists seem to feel that to view a person as a sexual being is
>to think of them as sex objects - a way that some nudists slyly
>denigrate and try to deny the sexuality in all of us.
>
>
>~Reggie~


You have the 'object' thing right.  Women are not 'objects'...  They
are *real people* put on earth for men's pleasure.  <that's a joke
folks>   'Objects'  really can't think or move on their own...  Like a
blow up doll.  Now those are *objects*.   Playboy magazine prints
'objects'...  Airbrushed, plastic, cold, contorted, pantomimes of sex.
Now a real warm loving, sexual, female, is certainly worth dealing
with on a little higher level, don't you think?    Some of them even
turn into mothers...   Treat them with respect.  

All the talk about it in *this* newsgroup, where we should be above
the 'nudity=sex' thing, is redundant claptrap.   Just keep it in your
pants...   Well..., you know what I mean.   :-)

Floyd