To: Rambi who wrote (11809 ) 8/7/1998 3:39:00 PM From: Gauguin Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 71178
Sometimes it seems women would like us to think of them as "without bodies". Eg, ".....we knew that the fantasy of the body with the brain was what was really governing those statements." Now wait ~ just a darn minute. 1) You guys get to, but we don't? 2) You want an asexual group of co-inhabitants? 3) If men did not have physical attraction to women, and "drive" (get ready for this, I bet you'll be amazed and embarrassed for me that I have the nerve to say it) ~ it is probable that sometime earlier they would have eliminated women entirely. Wanna bet this wouldn't happen? [Give us (another) chance to prove how jerky we REALLY are.] Our, yah our, intelligence is responsive to yours these days, and we see the wisdom and enjoyment in cooperation. Would you guys like to cooperate? I think we're past this. Aren't we? Maybe one respects people more with the higher caliber they meet. The men I know ALL respect women. And can still love them as objects too. Sex is sort of "about" objects. Bodies are "objects". " Women" are "sex objects". Big deal. Of course. So what. The emotions of comfortability, affection and love, are entwined and separate; depending upon the circumstance. 4) (is 4 next?) The question of equality on SI seems mis-framed, to me, because SI is not a mass, it is individuals, and a whole bunch are one way and a whole bunch others. Some are very "advanced". 5) Some respect is generated from attraction and physical reverence. Some is generated from character, intelligence, persona. What's the problem? Changing men's ignorance is good; changing their nature, could be a mistake. Didn't women want us to stop trying to change theirs?