tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9939966.post5550965862775187769..comments2011-11-13T23:51:02.052+05:30Comments on Known Turf: Keenan&Reuben&Manu&Babla &, &, ?Annie Zaidinoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9939966.post-59977052528004648712011-11-13T23:51:02.052+05:302011-11-13T23:51:02.052+05:30Yes, that I would expect. And if I had a son, I wo...Yes, that I would expect. And if I had a son, I would.<br />and no, it isn't condescending. It is an idiomatic expression. Object also does not have only one meaning. There's object as in thing, object as in subject-object, and object as in 'I object, milord!' I'd refer to a man as the object of my desire too, if he was one.Annie Zaidihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08687223598027157611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9939966.post-91447648909311285712011-11-11T12:13:24.898+05:302011-11-11T12:13:24.898+05:30"It happens because parents don’t teach their..."It happens because parents don’t teach their sons that there are proper ways of approaching the object of their (sexual) desires."<br /><br />Would you expect a mother to teach her son how to sexually approach a woman? Would you do it to your son?<br /><br />Besides, isn't it condescending to refer to women as "object of their (sexual) desires"?rantingsofadelusionalmindhttp://rantingsofadelusionalmind.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.com