From: webber@world.std.com (Robert D Webber)
Subject: Re: ISO Bi-Fem and Girlfriend
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 18:52:58 GMT

In article <38939@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes:
>In article <BvH8tF.2Cq@world.std.com> webber@world.std.com (Robert D Webber) writes:
< posting from Muffy deleted for focus >
>+So if another person finds you attractive for fairly superficial
>+reasons, is it that you do not find that person attractive for that
>
>Berkeley had this 'theory' that as we preceive the world there is an
>interaction between the perceiver and the thing preceived and the
>thing preceived is an active agent in the act of preception, i.e
>there is some action on both sides of the preception interaction.
>
>This may not be true for 'inanimate' objects, but it is clearly true
>for animate. If the preceptions are equal and mutual all is well, I
>suppose, but of course if the preceptions are disparate, then an
>individual has the right to ignore, be offended, or deal with 'being
>preceived' in way that the individual does not wish to be.
>-- 

If I look across a crowded room at someone and think, "That person
looks physically attractive," and act on that by going over and trying
to strike up a conversation, I'm presumably acting on some pretty
superficial perceptions.  If I read you correctly, you would say that
the person I was trying to talk to would have the right to object
to my perception of her or him as attractive.  If that is correct,
then I have to disagree.

For one thing, on what does that person base their objection except
a superficial impression that I'm attracted to him for reasons he
does not find acceptable?  Can I not object to being perceived as
being attracted as well as another can object to being perceived
as being attractive?  Sure, the person I'm attracted to can choose
to ignore me, or the attraction, and if my actions based on my
thoughts are objectionable that person can either ignore those
or actively object to them.  Giving others the right to object to my
thoughts, though, seems ludicrous and inconsistent with your
own values.

I have to wonder what you mean by "deal with," too.  On first glance
it looks to me as if you're giving the other person carte blanche to
take any action needed to stop what that person believes to be
my perception of her or him.  Well, what if she's wrong?  I've known
people of both genders to be mistaken about the attraction of another
to themselves, and have been mistaken once or twice myself.

I can understand saying, "Your attraction to me does not give you the
right to intimacy with me," but not, "Your attraction to me is not
a valid and allowed state for you to be in and you must stop."  For
the case where an attraction is not mutual, or worse is unacceptable,
I don't think it's reasonable to expect the attracted party to
do anything more than keep it to herself.  If it results in actions
that interfere with the attractive person's space or body, then
that's wrong.

>John Clark
>jclark@ucsd.edu

Bob


-- 
Bob Webber, webber@world.std.com ===========================================
==========================================================  Laurie Anderson:
Our plan is to drop odd objects onto your country from the air.  And some
of these objects will be useful, and some of them will just be odd.
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory