Stacy McCain’s post “Is Sexual Desire Dehumanizing?” is a good illustration of how feminists are rehashing things dead white men argued about thousands of years ago. Sexual objectification? The way feminists use the term, it’s a joke. After all, they’re usually okay with sluts objectifying players and using them rather than appreciating them as human beings – and then they get all upset when the players and the porn consumers reciprocate!
“Objectification” – as in treating human beings as means rather than ends – is indeed immoral. But desiring an attractive member of the opposite sex (which is what these crazy feminists object to in particular) is somehow Super Bad, possibly because feminists never grow out of the “boys are icky and have cooties” stage of preadolescence.
Humans have biology. We are material beings, with animal instincts and needs, and those include sexual urges. These things are not bad. Indeed, it would be a mistake to say that the “spiritual” nature of mankind is any better than our physical nature, because evil lurks in our hearts just as it does in our appetites. This is the error of our times, in which pornography is condemned, but emotions validate adultery. Naked sexual desire – stereotyped as masculine by feminists who will cheer on Slut Walks – is condemned, while a “spiritual” sexual desire (one that is political in nature for radfems, who claim that women are not actually heterosexual, despite all evidence to the contrary) for female homosexuality is somehow “good.”
It’s just Gnosticism in lesbian drag.