From: das@media.mit.edu (David Sheppard)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Subject: Objectification (was Re: ISO Bi-Fem and Girlfriend)
Date: 6 Oct 92 17:26:29 GMT
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory
Cc: das,  muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

In article <#> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <#> williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums) writes:
>>>In article <#> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>>>Aha! You have finally hit it.  "minimum but not sufficient."  When it
>>>>*is* sufficient that, for example, I am female, then I *do* feel that
>	 ^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>the person is NOT ATTRACTED TO *ME*, and I do not find *that*
>>>>attractive. [...]		One of the
>>>>NECESSARY qualities for me to be attracted to someone is that they are
>>>>interested in me, personally.  If I find out that they'd take anyone
>>>>with a certain quality that I have, then I no longer believe that they
>>>>are interested in me personally, so I am no longer attracted to them.
>>
>>Um...what do you consider 'you' personally?
>
>To put it simply, everything about me.  That does not mean, as was
>suggested in another post, that they have to find out all about me on
>the first meeting.  However, they *can* indicate interest in finding it
>all out, as my current lovers have.  My SO talked to me for 5-6 hours
>the day we met.  Now *that* is what I find interesting in a person.
>
>Muffy

I think the central point is becoming clear here, as I feel similarly
to Muffy but think about this a different way.  I am *not* attracted 
to BEING OBJECTIFIED.  I could be flattered, even turned-on by
someone communicating to me that "I have what they want" (e.g. beauty,
sexy body, money...).  But if that person treats me like an OBJECT 
with these qualities, no matter how desirable or specific these
qualities are, then I am in danger.

Why?  Because I am not an object, I'm a living human.  Being thought
of and treated like an object reduces my freedom by providing only
a narrow path of "allowed" behaviours which are expected from that
person's *idea* of me.  I find it difficult enough to live and grow
beyond *my own* limiting expectations, I don't need more pressure
from outside in the form of conditional acceptance.

To accept someone as a PERSON instead of an OBJECT is to have
*respect* for that person's personal sovereignty, will, feelings,
desires and whatever level of wisdom and development they are at.
A Person has an *unlimited* ability to create new experiences, whereas
an object generally behaves as one might expect.  To ACCEPT a Person
is to _let_ them take the time and space they need to live, and not 
try to limit them to some narrow world which serves your own.  

Our interactions with objects are usually controlling, Master/Slave
Win/Lose relationships.  Interactions between humans are more mutually
beneficial when each put in the energy and awareness to create a 
Peer/Peer, Win/Win relationship, based on communication, respect and 
an *appropriate* amount of trust.  I try to trust to _be_who_they_
_are_, not necessarily to do what I desire or expect them to do.

Example of an OBJECTIFYING interaction:
He:  Hey, honey, come here often?	[eyeing her up and down]
She: A little too often, maybe.		[already a little defensive,
     so she drops a loaded phrase--she's not sure she likes this--
     he misses or ignores it, proceeds with his agenda: ]
    He:  You sure are pretty sight; can I buy you a drink?
She: Well, to tell you the truth, ...
     [At this point 'She' is asked to make a decision--does she accept 
     or refuse an offer which is likely designed by 'He' to persuade 
     her to yield to his needs or desires.  Her dilemma:  do further
     interactions with this man serve Her own needs or desires?]

Example of an NON-OBJECTIFYING interaction:
He:  I couldn't help noticing you--would you like to dance?
She: Sure, I'd been thinking the dance floor was too empty.
He:  What's your name?
She: Alexandra.   Yours?
He:  Timothy.   [eye contact]
She: What do you think of this band?
He:  I like their funkier numbers better--can I buy you a drink?
     [At this point a certain mutuality has already been recognized--
     choice, names, an eye-to-eye meeting.  There is not as much pressure
     or manipulation happening here, more mutual exploration]
She: Sure, why not, I'm really hot.
He:  I'll say!  Where did you learn to dance like that?
She: Lots of practice, and an occasional dance class.  You move
     pretty well yourself, are you an athlete?
...

Is it *obvious* now?  People who care enough about someone else to
allow them Personhood try not to treat each other like objects.
Mutually beneficial interactions and relationships are usually
more likely to lead to Win/Win situations and the meeting of our
needs, both individually and collectively.  

I can't and don't expect anyone to be interested in *everything*
that I am--how I sort my socks, etc., but to be interested in *ME*
is to understand that I have innumerable qualities, weaknesses, 
drives and desires, and to ACCEPT THAT THESE QUALITIES EXIST, whether
they like any particular desire or not.

I may think you are the sexiest thing on two legs, and even if you
don't want to sex me that isn't be a problem unless I act on this 
feeling in such a way to disturb or detract from your freedom,
life, livelihood or environment.

We are (barely?!?) not slaves of our own desires, much less anyone
else's, but acknowledging that we all HAVE (differing) needs, desires
and attractions is only honest and common sense.  Does this jibe with
both Muffy and William's views?  Yours?

-das dave		inventing the extended moment
----------------------- das@media.mit.edu -----------