From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: sex is sexist? (was Re: Dworkin...)
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 13:51:27 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Aug29.103442.5191@news.acns.nwu.edu> Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde) writes:
>In article <6!fnl5_.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>[...](Muffy replied:)
>>>Well, it *is* ambiguous, but I read it as "the sexual act is always
>>>sexist (which word I define essentially as "negatively discriminatory
>>>towards people according to their gender")."  If this is basically what
>>>you meant, I'd like to know the reasons why you think that sex is always
>>>sexist.  If you meant something else, I'd like to know what, and, again,
>>>why it is that you think what you meant was true.
>>
>>The "negative" aspect is acquired, and has no part of the real meaning
>>of the word sexist. Wait, I just attempted to verify that, and this may
>>not be correct. For my usage (and what I meant) by "sexist", is simply
>>to differentiate based upon sex only. Most of the peoples of the world
>>see one sex as sutiable as a sex partner, and the other sex unsuitable.
>>Obviously, there is more than that, but it is a prime consideration for
>>most.
>>
>>It may be wrong to make job decisions based upon the sex of the applicant,
>>but it is -not- wrong use such criteria in choosing a lover. Imagine an
>>"equal opportunity" law for choosing lovers. 
>
>I would point out the existence of bisexuality; and the half serious
>characterization of bisexuals as "equal-opportunity lovers" ;).
 
I am well aware of this...

>While I have no desire to inflict an "equal opportunity" law for choosing 
>lovers on anyone, as a regular reader/poster on soc.bi I can testify
>that there exist bis who "do not discriminate with respect to sex"
>of their partners. (This is not to say they are indisciminant ;). 
>(And some bis get different things from relationships with different
>sexes.)

My point is more that it is absolutely acceptable to make choices 
in this area based upon sex, not that it is absolutely -required-.
 
>Thus, even twisting words around a bit, I don't think it is true to
>regard sex as necessarilly "sexist".
>
>I would also question not making a distinction between differentiating
>with respect to sex and discriminating with respect to sex.  If we
>take a narrow "monosexual" view of sex, then by analogy with employment,
>being of the approriate sex is a "legitimate job requirement" -- perhaps
>this is what you meant.  However there is hardly the same social stigma
>attached to rejecting a would-be lover and no class of people is
>closed out of 100% of their sexual opportunities by this practice.
>Among monosexuals, neither sex is at a net disadvantange on this account.
>
>I really don't think the cases are parallel, and it is reaching
>pretty far to apply the word "sexist".

Well, they are your examples. And as I am unclear as to what you mean
by "monosexual", I really do not understand what you are saying.
 
>-- 
> Albert Lunde         | Interfaith  |     *Y*Y*      "A branch on the
> Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu |  Bisexual   |      *Y*        tree of life"
> alunde@nuacvm.bitnet |  Feminist   |.......|.........................


Newsgroups: alt.feminism