h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I've found my life simplified, and my spirits lightened when I decided that I only like women for SEX OBJECTS. No more lenghty discussions about "feminisim"! No more "getting in touch with my feminen side"! No more anguishing about feelings! Nope. Done with it!

Now, I just be me. They can love it, or leave it.

I wonder just how many will love it???

Women arent just sex objects you know... they can cook and wash too

I dont think you are going to find someone to share your life with and the ups and downs of being in this crazy mixed up world with an attitude like that.

Ladies are to be loved and cherished and treated as equals, they have not been put here to serve you and bow to your every whim....

IF you do find someone with an attitude like that it won't be someone you can laugh and love with.

Andy

Sex-objects.

That's all. Nothing to really figure out. Either they want or they don't. No mystery.

You wouldn't even wonder about them if you didn't like them as sex-objects, all protestations to the contrary filed in the /dev/null bin. For example, if you didn't want sex, you surely wouldn't debase yourself to cry "they're always right", even though you know it's a crock (and that'll catch up with you when the fire in your drawers subsides).

And feminists are ALWAYS WRONG!

One more time:

Guys think women are hard to understand because they want them as SEX OBJECTS!

The thing they weird out on is whether she will or won't. She either will, or she won't. Nothing you can do about it. Be yourself, go with the flow.

This extends from the sex act itself, to "love", to the things you do as a "couple" that involve more than one person in the decision process.

Nope. She ain't always right. When she's RIGHT, she's right. When she's WRONG, she's wrong. You'll regret it if you ignore this...

There. Now that maybe doesn't sound as caustic as my love's shoes...

da Baron
>>---------------* "Where did those bloody PIDGEONS come from?"

Baron - Would you like to pop along to the Quiet Corner in my Beauty Shoppe {A415522} for a while? You sound like you need a little R&R.

Baron - people with your amazingly sexist attitude will get nowhere in life.

When I encounter an attitude like his, there are two possibilities:

1. He's joking, in which case there's no point in replying
2. He's serious, in which case his remarks don't deserve to be dignified by a reply.

Either way, I end up ignoring people like him. Perhaps everybody should try it. It would be interesting to see what he does then.

So, you think it's sexist to refuse to have sex with someone one doesn't desire as a sex-object? Do you think you have a RIGHT to have sex with anyone you wish? How does who I choose to have sex with imply that someone is or is not my equal? Sporky, for example, may be my equal, but I don't want to have sex with him. Equally, Fenny *is* my equal, but I *do* want to have sex with her. Is Fenny the lesser of the two?

You've been brainwashed by the raving feminists.

"Sex-Object" simply means that you desire someone sexually. There are many kinks and people have their own reasons for desiring whomever they do. What I like, you might not, and vice-versa.

The reason feminists have demonised the term is because they want omnisexuality to be the norm- if you don't belive me, you can check out this link to get the low-down on exactly what their goals are. I personally am completely happy being a heterosexual male. And I'm certainly not going to have sex with someone I don't desire to. Not Sporky, not you, not anyone!

If you've ever desired to have sex with someone- for whatever reason: their looks, their voice, their verbal ability- you've had a "sex object", and unless you're completely asexual, you have. It's not for me to tell you what should or shouldn't blow your skirt up; nor is it for you to dictate what I like.

On another note, if you seriously think "she's always right" you're gonna be in for a LOT of heartache later. Sure, you might be able to intimidate him with the threat of refusing sex NOW, but you get tired of the domineering attitude (well, unless you're masochistic) after awhile, and they'll either dump you or attempt to dominate you in return.

Have fun!

>>PTEWIE!<<----------------*
"DAMN THOSE PIDGEONS!"

I have a lot of trouble with the word 'feminist'. I have always worked in a male-dominated environment (I'm a software engineer) and expect to be, and (as far as I'm aware) am, treated as an equal. My expectation that women should be treated as equals throughout their lives makes me a feminist. However, the majority of 'feminists' that I know, i.e., the silent majority, do NOT regard themselves as somehow better than men and do NOT regard themselves as always right, except when joking about it.

Most women, feminist or otherwise, are not interested in 'omnisexuality' (whatever that may be) any more than most men are, so don't lump us all together because of what a web-site says.

I desire my husband sexually, but I would never call him a 'sex object'. He'd laugh if I did (I know because I asked him). He says that, to him, a 'sex object' is someone who makes you want to have sex, but not necessarily with that person. He says someone like Michelle Pfeiffer is, to him, a 'sex objec't (pick your own film star), but he would only want to have sex with her if (a) he was available and (b) she wanted to.

The problem we have here is language. You interpret 'sex object' one way, my husband another, and most women will have at least a third (fourth, fifth...) interpretation. So stop jumping down our throats because we don't like your terminology and the attitudes they *seem* to put across. Most of the world's problems come because of the problems with language.

You're right, C.D.: it *is* a matter of language. The psychological definition of "sex object" simply means someone who turns you on- whether or no you actually have sex with them at all. It could be Michelle Peiffer, or it could be your mate. This is the nature of the beast- men and women. Many feminists use the term to demonise men for something which is quite natural and normal- and yes I know that the majority of women who consider themselves "feminists" take no stock in the ravings of the lunatic fringe.

I wasn't meaning to "jump down your throat", and I really didn't mean to come across that way- which is why I modified my original post from the off-the-cuff way I put it originally.

I was simply stating that the reason men find women to be incomprehensable is because of the stress and anxiety related to sexual relations- and that what they really needed to do was step back and try to understand their OWN feelings, in order to realize that women are just people, once you cut through your own needs, wants, and insecurities related to whatever relationship you might have. Once you understand that it's YOU who's freaking (speaking about the guys here- though women could probably do well to apply the same logic to men ) then the other's behavior doesn't seem so mysterious and incomprehensable. If this makes any sense to you...

So, as I tried to express in the re-formation of my post, I'm not trying to be caustic here. But I guess there's a lot of room for error in Cyberia...


da Baron
>>PTEWIE!<< -------------------*
"ARRGH! PIDGEONS!"

OK, rant over, back to reasonable debate.

I think it's fairer to say that *one* of the reasons men don't understand women (and vice versa, of course) is over sexual relations. There's more to life than sex. I once heard that sex is 5% of a good relationship but 95% of a bad one - that is, in terms of the importance the subject assumes. I guess that if your relationship has degenerated into arguments and conflicts over sex, the relationship must be nearly on the rocks. Sex is one thing Richard and I have never argued over, and I must say we have a really good relationship (married 10 years come September 2000!).

I've always been pretty tolerant of the differences between men and women, but never really understood them. One book that helped in this area is 'Why Men Don't Iron' by Anne and Bill Moir. It looks at gender differences from a biological rather than sociological viewpoint. I've always had problems with the attitude 'Men are the way they are because society expects them to be that way'. There is a certain element of trained behaviour, but I've often felt there had to be more to it than that, especially as men have a lot of trouble with the idea of 'getting in touch with their feminine side'. I don't agree with everything the book says, but it's worth a read as an eye-opener. It has made me accept that men in general won't see things my way and I won't see things their way, and that we are both good at different things.

Vive la difference! That's what I say!

Why will the battle of the sexes never be won
theres to much fraternizing with the enemy.

{or not enough in my case - see my "celibacy" thread}

This thread is very long - too long for me to go back and read it all. If someone has already mentioned this, sorry to repeat. I don't think Baron Shatturday's attitude is peculiar. But one reason men and women make what may seem a pointless effort to understand each other is that most people intend to breed sooner or later. You may not want to breed just yet or even ever BS. If you, yourself are taking contraceptive precautions, you may never need to find out why people bother to try to understand each other. If not, then how will you feel when some casual sex object has your child? Most men have great affection for their own children and care about their future. It's too late to be outraged that some awful woman that you once fancied but never really liked and certainly never made the effort to understand, has your kids and won't have you near them (probably because she regards you as some awful man that she once fancied but never really liked). It may be hard work, but if you're like the vast majority of our species (after all, none of us are the children of people who didn't breed), then the effort has to be worth while.

Most of my friends and family in my age group have had children but are no longer with the father/mother of their children. It seems to cause a lot of misery. The fathers usually lose touch with their children altogether. Makes you wonder what attitude they started with, doesn't it?

Losing touch with the children is not necessarily the father's fault. Some mothers make it difficult for the fathers to stay in touch. It can also work the other way on the odd occasions a father gets custody.

Whatever the reasons for a divorce might be, parents seldom stop loving their children. It may be that they didn't love them in the first place. I include mothers in that; contrary to popular belief, there are women out there with no maternal instinct. I sometimes think I'm one of them, as I'm quite happy without children and I'm not sure how much I want them.

Like you, I have no children and never wanted any. I have no maternal instincts. We aren't the ones who are going to be screwing up the next generation and saddling them with the stereotypes that have made it difficult for previous generations of men and women to get on with each other.

The point I was making and not making very well it seems, was that being politically correct is not the only reason men might have to try to understand women. We non-breeders are in a minority. Although I'm not participating in this game, I can see how it works to some extent. The unfortunate reason for my modicum of insight is that I'm surrounded by people who have made a half-arsed job of getting to know their breeding partner. I'm not saying it's always the man's fault. It takes two to make a really impressive cock-up of a relationship. If he was that hopeless a mate, why breed with him in the first place? So my point was simply that most people breed (accidentally as well as deliberately) and most people love and want to be with their children. If the two people who made the children can't be bothered to try to understand each other then the children are going to, at the very least, live in an unhappy family and more likely, they'll lose the benefits of having two parents.

Also, I don't think it is that difficult for men and women to understand each other.

My problem seems to be finding one I can live with....