roberta@azure.UUCP (Roberta Taussig) (01/27/84)
The following is a quote from Randwulf's latest submission about how he uses metaphysical forces to protect himself from violence by surrounding himself with an aura of "crazy" violence. > <A woman friend of mine> 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 Tektronix ..!decvax!tektronix!tekmdp!roberta ..!ucbvax!tektronix!tekmdp!roberta
tjl@uw-june (Terry Ligocki) (01/30/84)
First let me say that I do not in any way agree with Randwulf's point of view, but I am also distressed by Roberta's implications in the last two lines of her rebuff. They were: "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?" The last sentence reminds my of the question: "Have you stopped beating your wife?" which may not be answerable in a yes/no context as it already implies the act of wife beating. Randwulf's comments don't reflect my views in the least (i.e. They didn't "make sense"). I believe Randwulf was being honest about his view of the world but, again, I don't agree with that view. I don't believe it is very close to reality. I can understand Roberta's outrage at Randwulf's comments but I can't understand the necessity of implying all men may share his view. I, personally, have felt complete, unconditional compassion for all victims of rape (female and male). I have known several victims personally and I can only cry when I think of their need to alter their entire life to protect against (and to forget about) rape. I have never had to do this and see it as a great encroachment on personal freedom. I have discussed this with many of the women I have known. I am convinced that avoiding rape is a concern that is unreasonable for women to have to bare. All women probably have to bare this burden whether they have been raped or not. That is completely unacceptable. These are my honest views on the subject. I hope that they reflect the trend in thinking about violent crime (including rape) for everyone's sake. Terry J. (tjl@uw-june)
dmmartindale@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Martindale) (02/08/84)
<A woman friend of mine> 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.
rh@mit-eddie.UUCP (Randy Haskins) (02/28/84)
yes, this is old stuff... I just started catching up **************************************************************** begin quote The following is a quote from Randwulf's latest submission about how he uses metaphysical forces to protect himself from violence by surrounding himself with an aura of "crazy" violence. > <A woman friend of mine> 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 Tektronix ..!decvax!tektronix!tekmdp!roberta ..!ucbvax!tektronix!tekmdp!roberta **************************************************************** Where does it say that I need the aspect of violence for the sexual attraction to be there? The reason we will (almost assuredly) never be lovers has to do with our basic approaches to life, the fact that I basically very aggressive and she is not. I don't think that it's a matter of "I might hit her if we're lovers." It's more a matter of "She'll never completely trust me if we're lovers, because she knows I tend toward violence." Also, in our current relationship (we disagree on quite a number of issues), we can abort the interaction if we feel ourselves getting excited. As usual, I find myself wanting to justify my acceptance of violence. Life is violence, especially today. I don't plan on being a prophet, I plan on surviving. I don't believe I could survive if I didn't "arm" myself with a tendancy toward violence. -- Randwulf (Randy Haskins); Path= genrad!mit-eddie!rh
barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (09/28/84)
[]
A lot of the discussion about rape recently has asked, explicitly
or implicitly, what the relationship is between sex and violence. What
has not been brought up, however, is what is perhaps the most fundamental
question: is there an INHERENT connection between sex and violence in
the human being (male and female)? That is, do people naturally associate
the two activities, apart from any cultural biases in their upbringing?
I don't have an answer to this question, but because I suspect
that most people's answer would be 'no', I'm going to present a few 'yes'
arguments in the interest of promoting discussion. The following examples
could be interpreted as evidence of inherent connections between sex
and violence in human beings:
1) The obvious one - rape and similar sexual violence. Rape is
known in all cultures I am aware of. Why is this desire to dominate and
hurt expressed sexually?
2) 'play' violence - A lot of people (in many cultures) include
symbolic or playful violence in their sexual activities. Bondage and
S&M are the obvious examples, but there are other, less extreme forms
which are very common: role-playing in dominant/submissive roles, 'rough'
sexual play (biting, pinching), etc.
3) fantasy violence - rape fantasies, harem fantasies, etc. Erotic
literature shows that sadistic and masochistic fantasies are common in
many different cultures (e.g., Japanese, Roman).
4) sexual arousal from viewing non-sexual violence - this was
mentioned in someone else's posting recently; a study of American men
found this was a common connection. There are also anecdotal stories
of both men and women being aroused by hunting, either doing it or watching
it. Likewise, there are accounts of women being aroused by seeing men
fight one another (boxing, football, etc.). I don't vouch for the
accuracy of these stories, I only mention them to encourage discussion.
Anyone know of any studies on this?
5) Many of our relatives in the animal kingdom have dominance
fights among the males to see who will get the females.
6) Among our close relatives (primates, baboons), gestures of
non-sexual submission are often sexual in form, i.e., a male baboon will
acknowledge the dominance of another male baboon by adopting the copulating
posture of a female baboon, even though no sexual activity is intended.
7) Violent language - sexual terms are often used in aggressive
and insulting language ("f*ck you!"). I don't know if this is true in
other cultures, but I suspect it is; anyone know?
8) Biochemical similarities - I believe that both aggression and
sexual arousal involves release of adrenalin; can anyone confirm this,
or cite other biochemical similarities between sexual arousal and aggression?
9) Behavioral similarities - Sexual and aggressive behavior *look*
similar; the best illustration of this is what commonly happens when
a small child happens to interrupt his/her parents when they're making love,
and one of the parents has to then explain that 'Daddy wasn't hurting
Mommy'.
In addition to discussion of the nature/nurture question itself,
I would also be interested in discussions of how this question relates
to the question of what we DO about sexual violence. For instance, if
associating sex and violence is a conditioned response, it might make
sense to try to decondition people; if, however, it's partly biological,
this approach could never be entirely successful, and it might make more
sense to let people's thoughts alone, and just work on their behavior.
Comments?
- From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry
NASA-Ames Research Center
Moffett Field, CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Avenue: {dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barryedhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) (10/08/84)
I don't think many people would argue against a connection between sex and aggression. In fact, aggression (and I'm using the term in a neutral sense) is a vital part of sex, in my opinion. Even in the most idealistic sense, striving for union is an aggressive act. Violence, on the other hand, is an aberration in sex. It is aggression, to be sure, but more signifigantly it is destruction and enslavement. Aggression, like power (aggression essentially being an expression of power) is neutral; it can be either constructive or destructive. It can be either a firm and loving embrace, or an act of forceful domination. The aggresive aspect of sex can be scary; I know that as my awareness of violence toward women increased I also became afraid of what lurked behind my own sexual nature, and questioned my own sexual aggressive- ness. Alas, I think the men who question themselves in this regard are probably the ones least deserving of it. (Such self-conciousness is certainly not very conducive to good sexual relations.) But there is a violent edge to the way sex is viewed in our culture, and I think that a phase of such introspection can be a good thing. -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall