Libertine58

One commenter below mentioned women as "sex objects"; that he couldn't see how one could 'square feminism with casual, promiscuous sex", when what men really want are women's bodies?

Treating others as "sex objects" goes both ways; women are just as capable of wanting men "just for their bodies".

I've heard all the arguments against treating others as "sex objects", instead of as "whole people".

I concede that in committed relationships, this viewpoint has merit, but I don't agree that this makes casual sex inherently wrong. The point of one night stands or "friends with benefits" relationships is sex, so naturally it makes one's partner a "sex object". As one who regularly engages in casual sex, I realize that my partners are "whole people", but their non-sexual selves are irrelevant in this context, as the connection is solely for the purpose of sex. I don't see why this is a problem if both parties are on the same page and understand the nature of the relationship.

In non-sexual interactions with people, we treat regularly others as "objects". A doctor is a "health care object", a teacher is an "education object", or those we bowl, go fishing, or play poker with are "entertainment objects", etc. We all have people with whom we interact on a regular basis for a sole or limited purposes, and don't get to know them in their totality as "whole people". Why should it be different for sex for those not into committed relationships? posted 04/01/2008 at 13:55:39