Monday, April 2, 2007

Sex Objects?

As my regular readers know, I sometimes like to listen to talk radio when I'm driving around in the car. On Sunday, the station I listen to has several religious segments, which I many times listen to simply to get a handle on what the other side thinks and to use as a source of blogging fodder.

Yesterday, I was listening to this one guy talking about his disapproval of casual sex, saying that it was wrong to treat women like "sex objects", instead of as "whole people". Interestingly, however, he didn't have anything to say about women who might treat men like "sex objects". I'm guessing that in his cocooned fundie world, women never initiate sex, but are all sitting around passively waiting to react, rather than act.

As I listened, I considered the notion of "sex objects". I've heard the concept before from feminists, though it was the first time I'd heard it addressed from the perspective of religious fundamentalism.

I concede that in a long term committed relationship this argument has merit, but I don't agree that this makes casual sex inherently wrong. The sole point of a one night stand or a fuckbuddy relationship is sex, so of course it makes one's partner into a "sex object". I fully realize that my partners are "whole people" who are about more than just sex, 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 such a problem if both parties are on the same page and understand the nature of the relationship.

It's just like how a minister is a "religion object", a doctor is a "health care object", a teacher is an "education object", or the people we get together with regularly to bowl, go fishing, or play poker with are "entertainment objects", and so on. 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 any different for sex for those of us not in committed, daily, domestic relationships?


No comments: