[ SECRET POST #3329 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3329 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.

















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 055 secrets from Secret Submission Post #476.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[diet_poison]

Ok, maybe it's different with people you usually talk to, but in my experience "sex object" literally means reducing someone to only a source of sex...so when you said "it's not wrong to see people as sex objects", that's what people thought you meant. All that other stuff you're talking about it just part of sexual attraction and response and it's not objectifying.

[herpymcderp]

Well, I mean, the objectification is the immediate rat brain response to sexy. We go "WOW SEX THING".

That doesn't mean in the next seconds... minutes... however long, the higher brain doesn't come in and go, "Oh by the way that sex thing is also a person with dreams and goals and aspirations and they might not include you, so you should probably consider treating them as such."

The initial reaction is not the problem, the lack of the second one is.

[diet_poison]

We go "WOW SEX THING".

We do? I don't really. Maybe this has personal variance.

Also you're kind of contradicting yourself. Like before you said "it's not immoral to sexually objectify people", then elsewhere in the thread you're saying "but it IS immoral, that's what I actually meant!" and now you're moving goalposts by saying "well what I MEANT was that it is okay but only for a few seconds/minutes, after that it's immoral".

btw I totally think it's possible to go "wow, sexy" without objectifying someone. However that particular reaction might be actually pretty similar and we're having a semantics argument. I'm not really sure. I don't think it's inherently objectifying to look at someone, feel attraction, and go "damn".