Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site druxu.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!drutx!druxu!tll From: tll@druxu.UUCP (LaidigTL) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: Feminism and a Double Standard (?) Message-ID: <968@druxu.UUCP> Date: Thu, 23-Feb-84 19:22:08 EST Article-I.D.: druxu.968 Posted: Thu Feb 23 19:22:08 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 24-Feb-84 02:58:23 EST References: <479@abnjh.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Denver Lines: 24 ********************************************************************** > This discussion is a perfect example of viewing women as sex objects; > you're the one with the problem. > Shelley Heretyk ********************************************************************** Huh? Is this to say that, when a group of feminists complain about a scantily clad woman in a commercial, these feminists have the problem? By your argument, they must, since they are viewing the woman in the commercial as a sex object. There are two possibilities when someone is viewed as a sex object: either the viewer is imposing sexuality on the viewed person, or the viewed person is broadcasting sexuality. Unless you disbelieve the original poster (if you do, I'd like to know why), the case described is the latter. The question is whether or not it's OK for someone (whose ideal is not to be viewed as a sex object) to try to make others view ser (him/her -- from net.nlang) as a sex object in order to make a sale. Tom Laidig AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Denver ...!ihnp4!druxu!tll