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

Posted by alexandra_k on November 21, 2005, at 22:03:42

In reply to Re: no girlfriend so I turned to prostition, posted by TexasChic on November 21, 2005, at 16:44:58

> Whoa. Now you've got me thinking all deep and everything!

Hmm. I think thats because I really should be doing my thesis... But I do keep on Babbling... But I'm in thesis writing mode. Sorry peoples...

>I agree that casual sex and sex when in love are two very different things (at least I'm hoping so!).

Do you mean having sex when you are in love with someone as opposed to having sex when you are not in love with someone? Because I'm thinking... Can't casual sex be loving too??? I mean... It typically isn't, but wouldn't that be possible? Because I'm thinking that you can have loving sex with someone who you aren't in love with...

> But if someone's okay with being objectified, so be it.

One thing I forgot to mention...
Kant thinks that it is morally wrong to treat a person as a mere object. But we do treat people as objects sometimes (can you come here and open this for me?) and that isn't problematic. Its just problematic when we treat people as *mere* objects (so demanding that they do that I suppose without respecting that they may be up to something else). And so...

For Kant... It would seem okay to treat someone as an object, so long as you didn't treat someone as a *mere* object.

I don't know...

Do you like to be treated as an object?

I have to say...
That that was my problem with sex. I had this 'arrangement' thing going on with one of my friends. We would sleep together sometimes. Sometimes... It was loving and I felt fine about that. But othertimes... I felt like he was treating me like an object. And thats why I ended the 'arrangement' because I didn't like how I felt. Like a tupperware container or something...

> Its interesting the points you make on training ourselves to be aroused by a certain object. I've always felt that all sexual feelings are taught (I know that's not what you were saying).

Yeah, I think that is fairly much right...
But then some associations are easier learned than others. For example... It is easier to associate snakes with fear than it is to associate cups with fear. We seem to be 'hard-wired' to learn the snake-fear association more than the cup-fear association. And I suppose... Sexual responses might be a bit like that too. And different people may have more or less of the hard-wired thing going on which in conjunction with their experiences...

>I believe that people are basically born bisexual and every aspect of their lives figures in to what they end up finding arousing. I think if our society wasn't so gender fixated, things would be alot different. But that's just my theory.

Yeah, I think thats probably right... I wish we were both genders. That way there wouldn't be any gender as we know it. Other animals and insects and fish and stuff are, so why not people? I think that would be pretty cool.

> >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.

> I think this is a good point, although I might substitute 'psychologically healthy' for 'morally acceptable'.

Yeah, I take your point there.

> >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...

> That is definitely true. I know I'm guilty of that myself. Its an easy thing to fall into,

Yes, it is. I think... I went through a bit of a phase with that too.

> and I don't know yet how I feel about it. Its never even occured to me that it isn't the the best way to go, so you've given me something to think about.

:-)

> This reminds me of something I ironically heard on the radio today. Heidi Fleiss is talking about opening a brothel with male prostitues servicing straight women. H-m-m, I have to admit, getting a taste of the sort of freedom that men have had for years (centuries?) is appealing.

Hmm.

I don't think I like that idea...
But then I don't particularly like the status quo...

I think you are right. Its not so much a 'moral objection'. I really don't think I judge people who do this stuff... I just think... Yeah... It is about psychological health, like you said.

Objectification.
All I know is that I don't like to feel like I'm being treated as an object.
And especially...
When it comes to sex.
But yeah, maybe it is about the *mere* object...
And I guess relationships are about give and take...
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/581064.html