Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site watcgl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watcgl!dmmartindale
From: dmmartindale@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Martindale)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Sex and violence
Message-ID: <2085@watcgl.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 8-Feb-84 04:47:32 EST
Article-I.D.: watcgl.2085
Posted: Wed Feb  8 04:47:32 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 10-Feb-84 01:01:56 EST
References: <2511@azure.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 27

		 says she doesn't worry about
		it because she can't imagine us in a situation where
		she would make me mad enough to want to hit her. (We
		know that we will probably never be lovers for this and
		other similar reasons.)

	She has to make him mad enough to hit her before his sexual
	affections can be engaged? One seldom sees so bald a statement
	of the connection between sex and violence, or so blatant an
	assignment of the responsibility for male sexual violence to
	the female against whom it is directed. No wonder Randwulf has
	no sympathy for victims. Did this statement make sense to other
	male subscribers to net.women? Is Randwulf's "crazy act" closer
	to reality than he may think, or is he just more honest?

	Roberta Taussig

I can't speak for randwulf, but I don't associate violence with sex.
Remember, he was talking about how he was a generally-violent person,
and that this female friend was not afraid of this.  I took the comment
quoted above to mean that she simply wasn't close enough to him
emotionally to ever provoke him to violence.  This is consistent with
them never becoming lovers.

I think the violence he was referring to was something specific to
himself, not necessarily to men in general, and not necessarily
related to sex in any way.