Skip to main content

View Diary: Sexual Objectification Is Not Your Sexuality (54 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Sure it is (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wader, kyril

    You can appreciate in a way that doesn't involve climax.  Or you could have the sort of sexual experience that you're advocating here.  There are millions of people who are quite satisfied with having completely physical relations with one another; relations that involve no more intimacy than raw physical attraction.  In fact, I'd wager that a majority of men and women have desired precisely  that at least once in their lives.  

    And some of us aren't comfortable with degree of intimacy you're demanding we introduce into our sex lives.  Seriously, we already have the entire right wing of the country telling us how to screw as a matter of public policy.  I'd appreciate it if progressives didn't follow suit.    

    •  We might be referring to different times. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wader, rubyr, wa ma

      I think this diary is talking about the initial contact with a person, and public dialogue. In fact, the diary actually praises sexuality and intimacy.

      And yes, there's quite a few people whom enjoy completely physical relations. However, there is a wide gulf between the majority who do not primarily seek primarily physical relationships.

      There's a wide gulf, I've found, between those different brands of people. That's why the best approach is to approach without objectification first, because by seeing the person and not their parts first, you'll get a much better connection.

      I'm very sure this diary isn't instructing you on how to screw. But it is talking about a little bit of respect.

      •  I'm talking about the initial contact (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kyril, wader

        the seduction, the sex, the catching a cab at 1 AM because you both got what you wanted and have no intentions of seeing each other again.

        I'm reminded of this recent diary.  The subject admittedly dealt with, of course, the privileged face of the marriage equality movement from a gender and ethnic perspective, but you can easily point out that there is a norm for commitment and fidelity underlying the entire debate.  That is the public image projected by leading marriage equality activists is one of an American nuclear family that simply has a same-sex partnership at it's core.  Needless to say, this leaves out a whole raft of people who have no desire to start families, settle down, or anything of the sort.  

        I'd bet a similar dynamic is at work in the heteronormative main.   In fact, it's so familiar we have words for people who deviate: sluts and cads.  More recently (and cumbersomely), objectifiers (at least where it concerns the cads).  

        There's respect, and there's imposing intimacy on sexual people who don't want anything to do with it.  From where I stand, respect means everyone involved goes in with clear eyes and expectations of nothing more than a good time.  And in a modern, sexually liberated society, that damn well should be an option for people wired like that.

        Anyways, that's my defense of the one night stand.  To summarize; I think they're great and I think what you call "objectification" is about all that either side has time to do under such circumstances.  

        •  I agree about the whole heteronormativity. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wader

          I don't think I have an issue with one-night stands either, having done such before. The deal was that I used my normal way of relating to people, not involving focus on their body parts or anything like that, but on their personality. That was where I could build the trust and then things were able to safely proceed to the next level (the one-night stand, in fact).

          I think even the diary points out the wonders of sex, to that end. I think that the American society for one is fairly sexually liberated to some extent. I don't know if you agree with me on that though. Because there is the other issue in that by thinking of parts first for everyone, it risks hurting people who do not wish to be seen that way. There's far less risk of hurting someone if you see them as a person first, because actually your pool of potential partners increases. So by approaching people from that perspective, you build better connections and I've found that leads to greater success in that one-night connection. If that's what you prefer, anyway. There's nothing wrong with doing things for just one night.

          •  And if you're not looking for a better connection? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kyril, wader

            Respect also means, obviously, disengaging politely when the other party is interested in something else.  And given the time constraint and environment in which these meetings take place, I doubt there's much opportunity to hurt anyone unless you're going out of your way to be louse.  

            Obviously, there are tons of men out there who will marinate whatever line they take with varying of misogyny.  On the other hand, it's unfair to ask people who neither want or need it to seek out intimacy beyond mutual sexual attraction just to meet some arbitrary standard of respect.

            •  No Argument Here (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              sethtriggs, wader, rduran, wa ma

              You know, the more I read, the more I'm wondering what exactly it is you saw in my original post because I'm nodding along with everything you've said.

              I honestly have no interest in how or why someone is having sex, just so long it's consensual, safe, and respectful for all the partners involved.

              "Never underestimate how willing people are to look stupid simply for the chance to open their mouths." Blog: http://lightlivingnow.blogspot.com/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/lightlivingnow Twitter: https://twitter.com/LightLivingNow

              by LoriRose on Fri Jan 24, 2014 at 09:53:03 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Largely the knock against acting on (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                doc2

                superficial physical attraction and that alone.  There is a line between titillation and abusive behavior, and that's fueled by misogyny among other things.  Still, I nothing unhealthy, unethical or shameful about offering and pursuing titillation for its own sake--no strings attached.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site