Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site timeinc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!houxm!vax135!timeinc!dwight
From: dwight@timeinc.UUCP (Dwight Ernest)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Only a few nuts rape?
Message-ID: <63@timeinc.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 1-Dec-84 17:43:47 EST
Article-I.D.: timeinc.63
Posted: Sat Dec  1 17:43:47 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 2-Dec-84 05:36:37 EST
References: <10011@watmath.UUCP> <136@ihu1m.UUCP>, <10054@watmath.UUCP> <8162@watarts.UUCP>
Organization: Time, Inc. - New York
Lines: 50

> Personally, I consider rape to be an act of violence second only to
> maiming (of the crippling-for-life variety) and murder.  But I do think
> that, under the right cicumstances I would be capable of murder.  Thus
> I might be capable of rape.                  

That's a curious assumption... that if one thought oneself to be capable of
murder, one might also be capable of rape. The nefarious aspect of both
crimes is, of course, similar (as it is for maiming, as your point out--
and certainly rape has is psychological aspects of maiming, at least).
But I assume that when you admit you might be capable of murder, you
might be agreeing with me; I think I might be capable of it if I were
pushed hard enough, or if someone had done evil enough to me or to someone
else to make it worthwhile.

But rape? I cannot see myself using this crime of violence as a means of
expressing anger or retribution, or as a means of protecting others from
a particularly vile or cruel or senseless person, which are the circum-
stances under which I see myself capable of committing murder.

So "...if I can murder, then I might rape" just doesn't connect.

> What I do not know is if I could ever achieve that peculiar state of mind
> required to commit an act of extreme violence and maintain an erection at
> the same time.  In my mind, this is the mystery of rape.  To eliminate     
> rape, you must create a society in which sexual arousal and violence are
> mutually exclusive.

Ahhh... yes. Part of my point, too! "Creating a society," however, is as
much a matter of modifying individual consciousness as it is a matter
of genetics and environment. And our environment is constantly stressing
the so-called "connection" between violence and sex. (Advertising,
television and cinema programming choices, etc...)

> In our society this is not the case.  It never has been.  Why?
> 
> Sometimes I think that it is built in genetically.  It might have value
> from an evolutionary viewpoint.

Bullsh*t, I hope. Genetically? That assumption removes blame from each
and every one of us, whether we're offenders or not. I don't believe
it. I hope it isn't true. How could it possibly have had value in our
dim beginnings?

>                             Carlo @ the U of Waterloo

-- 
		--Dwight Ernest	KA2CNN	\ Usenet:...vax135!timeinc!dwight
		Time Inc. Editorial Technology Group, New York City
		Voice: (212) 554-5061 \ Compuserve: 70210,523 \ EIES: 1228
		Telemail: EDPISG/TIMEINC \ MCI: DERNEST