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