it is interesting to read about peoples views... i'm not sure that people are getting where i'm coming from particularly, but thats okay.

i wonder quite a lot about objectification. kant talks about that a lot. the notion is that there is nothing (morally) wrong with manipulating an object according to ones will solely for ones own ends. while we might similarly be able to manipulate subjects solely for ones own ends, this is thought to be morally wrong, however. why? well, because subjects have their own goals, preferences, and desires. to disregard a subjects own goals, preferences, and desires in order to obtain our own is something that kant regarded as problematic.

(this is what is behind kants dictum that people should be treated as ends in themselves and not solely as means to our ends)

he had some stuff to say about sex... basically... he thought that sexual activity (between two people) was (in the 'best' case) an interaction / activity between two subjects. he thought that it wasn't so good if sexual activity (between two people) was an interaction between one subject and one object. there has been a feminist critique of this mostly because he seemed to think that marriage was the institution that was most likely to result in sexual activity being an activity between two subjects. people have (rightly i think) cast a lot of doubt on how much marriage is likely to facilitate such an encounter. but the notion of an interaction between two subjects is something that i find fairly appealling...

it is hard though.

i guess most people think that objectification is okay so long as it is mutual. i guess there is also something of a continuum between the two polarities of seeing someone as a subject at one end and seeing someone as an object at the other. comprimise and give and take probably lye somewhere along the continuum. there is a difference between engaging in some activity that one doesn't like particularly because ones partner does (i.e, consenting to be objectified a little) and having ones subjectivity completely over-ridden (e.g., rape).

maybe this is hopelessly idealistic...

but i guess i like the idea of sexual activity (between two people) being an activity between two subjects. i don't have a problem with masterbation (indeed you can interact with different aspects of mind while treating them as subjects) and so i don't have a problem with the notion of treating yourself as a subject too. but i do worry a little about bringing objects into the picture... i do worry a little about training ones body to respond to objects. i do worry a little about training ones body to preferentially respond to objects over subjects...

but i guess it is a deeply personal matter and i really do think that it is up to each individual to figure out what is right for them. and i do indeed appreciate that this is my view (not necessarily shared by others) and that my view could change / evolve over time.

IMHO present culture most often presents sexual activity as being an activity between a subject and an object. 'equality' between the sexes is often portrayed as a mutual objectification. i personally think that equality (between people) is more a matter of... transcending objectification altogether (to the best of ones ability). so anyway, i guess that is where i (presently) stand on the issue.

do people feel the same way about blow up dolls and artificial vaginas as they feel about vibrators? if not... why not? and what... is the difference?