File spoon-archives/foucault.archive/foucault_1996/96-07-25.211, message 7


Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 19:03:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: malgosia askanas <ma-AT-panix.com>
Subject: Re: Rape


Malcolm wrote:

> It is precisely the 
> cosntruction of predatory male sexuality as a natural drive that is the 
> problem, and of course, if something is natural, how can it be wrong? And 
> perhaps you are not in the best position to know whether you are violent 
> during sex, or even what that might mean. Is this not a bit self-serving?

> p.s. by the way, yes this does mean that i think all men should be gay.

I am having great trouble with the shape of this argument.  Let's say
that men have a "predatory sexuality" and that they are violent during sex.
What difference would it make if all men were gay?  Would they still not
be violent and predatory with each other?  So the implication seems to be that
women are inherently not violent and predatory, so that in sex with men
they will always be the "prey", whereas in male homosexual sex -- _what_?
There are supposedly predators but no prey?  I am having trouble with
this construction of both "men" and "women"; with the blanket implication
that the violent element in sex is "evil" and flows in one direction,
and with the proposed remedy, which puzzles me and would leave me at 
a great personal loss.

-m 



   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005