Psycho-Babble Relationships | about interpersonal relationships | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: no girlfriend so I turned to prostition » TexasChic

Posted by alexandra_k on November 21, 2005, at 3:53:34

In reply to Re: no girlfriend so I turned to prostition » alexandra_k, posted by TexasChic on November 20, 2005, at 19:56:28

> Wow, that seems like a step in the right direction.

Well, it is good that the girls are more protected yes.

> Its not like its going to go away any time soon, so it would be nice to see some protection.

Yeah, I agree with you there.

> And like you said, the people who hire them are just as responsible.

I think they are more so...
But I guess I'm not really sure...

> I think all women deserve to be treated humanely even if they aren't exactly making the best life decisions.

Yeah. All people. Some people don't seem to mind doing it. Not many... But some. They consider they are indeed making the best life decision. Where else are you going to (reliably) get so much money for so little time???

> Isn't sex pretty much using each other's bodies to 'get off?'

Ah. In todays society you would think so, wouldn't you...

> I mean, I know with love its much more meaningful than 'just that'.

Yeah. But is love just a 'patch' that doesn't really solve the underlying problem of objectification???

Hmm.

> No disrespect intended toward you alexandra_k , I know things can be easily misinterpreted in chats like this. I'd really want to hear your viewpoint of what sex is if it isn't that. I really don't have that much experience one way or another.

No offence taken...


I went to a seminar a few weeks back...
It was on what Kant had to say about sex.
And about how feminists etc have interpreted that...
And about what Kant might have had to say if he hadn't had to be so very careful about the church.
(I'm not Kant scholar and this is the first I've heard abotu this so I might get some of it wrong)

Kant seemed to think sex was wrong because he thought it pretty much did involve objectification.
He thought it was wrong to a) treat another person as an object and he thought it was wrong to b) offer yourself up as an object for another.
In fact... He considered that we could not freely give ourself up as an object for another. That this was something akin to giving part of yourself away... Akin to suicide...

He said that marriage changed that...
(But given the church influence we might want to replace 'marriage' with 'love')
He seemed to think that love meant that both allow themself to be an object for the other but that this was acceptable because they were gaining that part of the other person. So basically... If the relationship is reciprocal then things are okay, and sex is morally acceptable.

The feminists have critiqued the role of marriage with respect to helping / harming that kind of transaction...

But other people have thought that this seems to be an attempt to 'patch' up the objectification problem, and it doesn't really seem to do very much of a good job....

I think...

I don't think sex has to involve objectification.
But I think that society teaches us that it does.
We seem to get up in arms about men treating women as objects - but what seems to be happening (IMO) is that women are attempting to gain 'equality' by turning the tables and returning the favour. I'm not sure that that solves the problem...

I don't think it has to involve objectification if it is an act of love in a loving context.

And I don't think that is a 'patch' that fails...

I think that is a very different thing indeed...

But I'm not really sure...

I think what happens is that people train their sexual responses so that they have sexual responses to objectifications. This is something that can happen... But it seems to be something that people also actively encourage to happen. Viewing porn to get off etc.. Thats considered fairly much socially acceptable. The kinds of things they show on TV even... The way they encourage us to think of certain things as appropriate / inappropriate. They way they encourage... pornography and objectification. If you train your body to get off on that kind of thing then you are training your body to get off on something when you view it as an OBJECT.

I dunno...
I'd rather someone would go buy themself a blow up doll
Than make use of a person
But I think...
Either one is a bit of a shame...

But I don't really know either...

Maybe I'm just talking...

I guess I just think that release is one thing...
And sometimes, yeah, its best to do that.
Masterbation... I don't have a problem with that.
But... Well... Maybe people don't really think about how they are training their body to respond to various things when they are doing that.

I don't know.

 

Thread

 

Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post


Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.

 

Start a new thread

 
Google
dr-bob.org www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for
in

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Relationships | Framed

poster:alexandra_k thread:579342
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/relate/20051031/msgs/580792.html