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.