NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/feminism/6693

Text File | 1993-01-01 | 3.8 KB | 72 lines

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Path: sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!news.cso.uiuc.edu!levine
From: [e-mail] (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Re: Choosing Dangerous Relationships (was: How to Protect Women)
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Net Noise owner)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 17:33:16 GMT
Lines: 60

[e-mail] (Robert Sheaffer) writes:

>Yes, it is indeed an interesting situation. On the one hand, there are
>large numbers of "safe" men available, but these are ususally of
>relatively little interest to women. Then there are men who are clearly
>dangerous, but interesting. For example: Mike Tyson. As his ex-wife
>Robin Givens explained in an interview in TV Guide (July 1, 1989, p.6),
>he beat her, he held a pillow over her face as if to smother her, and
>yet she found this kind of treatment exciting. Asked what attracted her
>to Tyson, she replied, "The thrill, the danger. It was so dangerous.
>I loved it. I loved the danger ... He was exciting. I can't describe it -
>I mean, bad. He was a turn-on."

For a self-professed skeptic, you seem very naive in this particular
case. It seems likely that Ms. Givens' interest in Mr. Tyson
was economic, not sexual or romantic. But is she going to admit
in print, "I married the richest sucker I could get!"

>Now, I deplore violence such as is described above. Nonetheless, as
>a realist I must recognize that some such realistic *simulation* of
>dangerous excitement is frequently necessary for a man to be attractive
>to a woman. My advocacy of an aggressive style is NOT because I am
>attached to such a style _per se_, but rather that feminist rhetoric
>has misled many men into thinking that the way to win a woman's
>attention is to be a "nice guy," when in fact this is the fastest
>way to turn her off completely. Therefore, men must learn to modify
>their behavior to give women more of what they *really do* want;
>surely you would not disagree? While abusive behavior (as in
>Mike Tyson) is seen as perhaps excusable in a relationship, and
>perhaps should be given the benefit of doubt, a harmless nice-guy
>attitude is NEVER given the benefit of doubt, but is seen as a
>sign of a "dead engine," so to speak.

One thing I will admit: Women of all ages and political
convictions often prefer lovers who seem strong, capable and powerful.
*Some* women see evil as powerful and are hence attracted to evil men;
they are the ones who write mash letters to convicted murders.
That was, perhaps, the woman you saw on television when the police
carried off the "Butcher of Buenos Aires" (who had been hiding in the
Bay Area), begging them not to take him.

But other women see good as powerful -- not only consciously,
but subconsciously. I know I'm one of them; and for that reason
I often find kind and ethical behavior a turnon. I remember a
few years ago a male coworker showed himself to be unexpectedly
kind and perceptive. I had a dream that night, that I was
going to bed with him; and in the morning I found I was
thinking about him sexually although I never had before. Well,
I prayed for the thoughts to go away, because I knew he
wasn't attracted to me and I wasn't, really, attracted to
him. And in a few days the thoughts did, indeed, disappear. But that
passing incident taught me a lot about my own psychology.

Which is more common -- women being turned on by evil, or by
good? I don't know. I would just like to ask the (heterosexual)
male readers of this newsgroup: Which kind of woman do
you want to see in the morning when you wake up? Which kind
do you want for the mother of your children?

Lenore Levine