From: winsor@Not Heresomewhere.out.there (js)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: What's a "partner"? (was Re: treating men as sex toys)
Date: 7 Jan 1993 23:29:10 GMT
Organization: Tiny Income
Distribution: world
Reply-To: winsor@Not Heresomewhere.out.there (js)
NNTP-Posting-Host: geek.teng.ppd.ti.com

In article <MUFFY.93Jan7102842@remarque.berkeley.edu>, muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
*** In article <1ihcqhINN6rm@cuda.add.itg.ti.com> winsor@Not Heresomewhere.out.there (js) writes:
*** >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?

Gotta CATCH you first.  *grin-a-grin-grin*

*** >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.
I stand, apologetically, corrected.  

*** Well, that depends on your definition of bisexuality...*grin*.  Which is
*** probably different for everyone.
A *large* facet of my bent in this thread.

*** 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".
Similar, yes.  But the real difference lies in that men don't have to
battle for recognition of other intrinsic worths, as women still do.
I, personally, don't have a problem being thought of as a sex toy. *smile*

*** 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.
IMNSHO, it's okay to be one-dimensional every now and then.  I don't know
anyone, personally, who doesn't have at least one fantasy about an
erotic but anonymous fuck.  (sorry, but the word fits the flavor of the intent)

*** 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."
As would I object vehemently also.  So, I'm incongruent.  Spank me now.


*** 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.
exactly.  Seconded.  Now do I get some strokes? (that is, for being *good*?)

*** Personally, though, I think that if it is wrong to devalue people, then
*** it is wrong in all cases.
I respect that a great deal.  I'm just different.

john, who thinks his serious posts are getting too numerous.

-- 
signature file