From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: What's a "partner"? (was Re: treating men as sex toys)
Date: 7 Jan 93 10:28:42
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
Distribution: world
	<MUFFY.93Jan6115727@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1ihcqhINN6rm@cuda.add.itg.ti.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: winsor@Not Heresomewhere.out.there's message of 7 Jan 1993 13:56:32 GMT

In article <1ihcqhINN6rm@cuda.add.itg.ti.com> winsor@Not Heresomewhere.out.there (js) writes:
>Muffy:
>*** point being that, to me, the sex of a "sex toy" does not matter, as the
>*** attraction is then simply for sex, not for a person.  To consider myself
>*** as attracted to both sexes, I have to want more than simply a sex
>*** partner (although I must say that sex partners are pretty great...
>*** *grin*).  If *all* I wanted with people of one sex was sex, then I
>*** wouldn't feel that I wanted *people* of that sex, just sex-with-anyone- 
>*** that-will-hold-still.
>Well, here I go on a serious (ack! OOP! thpthp!!) again.  Hold STILL and
>it will ooooonly take a <grapple grapple ...thud> *minute*. 

Me?  Hold still?  You *must* be joking!  What do you think the
restraints are for, anyway?

>There, now.
>What is exactly wrong with "sex-with-anyone-that-will-hold-still" being
>a viable definition of "bisexual"?

I have never said that there *was* anything wrong with it, it just
doesn't suit me.  For me, what is wrong with it is what I say above.
Perhaps more succinctly:  I don't regard my sexuality as only having to
do with sex, but also having to do with intimacy and interaction with
other people.  (I have *no idea* what it would mean about sex with
animals...*smile*.)

>I understand that it is not yours, or
>mine for that matter, but I think that it has merit in this:  If someone
>is *willing* to have sex-with-anything-that-moves (we assume human, for now),
>then I believe that that willingness necessarily implies bisexuality.

Well, that depends on your definition of bisexuality...*grin*.  Which is
probably different for everyone.

Nonetheless, I'm still curious about the concept or practice of men as
being only acceptable as sex toys.  It really does seem to me to be
related/similar to the "objectification of women as sex objects".
Somehow, though, it seems to be much more acceptable among the people I
have heard or talked to (or at least there is much less vocal resistance
to the idea) to treat men as one-dimensional, only-good-for-sex
entities.

In fact, I was talking about this to someone and she said (more or less)
"well, it's just how they feel: they're excited by men" (in reference to
people who saw men as not good for emotional involvement but good for
sex).  Now, I don't know what *she* would say, but I know that most
people I know would object vehemently if I said "well, it's okay for men
to regard women as sex objects, if that's the only way that women appeal
to/excite them."

Perhaps the difference in people's views on this is that women are
sometimes considered *literally* "only good for sex," while, at least in
our society, there is always the background idea that men are *of
course* valuable in other ways, so it's okay to treat them this way
("sex objects"), since they're not being devalued elsewhere.
Personally, though, I think that if it is wrong to devalue people, then
it is wrong in all cases.

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                      | ~Never had a lot of faith in human beings/
muffy@mica.berkeley.edu            |  but sometimes we manage to shine/like a
"amorous inclinations"? Aha! I'm   |  light on a hill beaming out to space/from
not "not straight," I'm *inclined*.|  somewhere hard to find~ - Bruce Cockburn