Posted by Sigismund on July 20, 2007, at 18:28:06
In reply to Is all male/female interaction abusive **trigger**, posted by vwoolf on July 20, 2007, at 2:37:09
So it suited him to say that this digging in the past was unhelpful.
>To put it succinctly (and perhaps brutally), the way I've always understood it is that men hit on women and if there is no opposition they have sex, where the man penetrates and violates the woman's body. The woman is penetrated, dominated. She submits to his more active will.
Sex for some people is like this, but this is not by any means good sex.
>There is no real possibility for man and woman to have a relationship that does not have this basic understanding at its core.
I don't agree. A lot of bad sex is not only stuff like that, there are other things that more or less relate to the problem of getting it up, a sort of get it in while it's up anxiety (speculation).
In fact, I would put it like this....if you have *that* understanding at the core, there is no way on earth there can be a good relationship between a man and a woman.>So even though men may pretend to appreciate our intellects or our selves, and we may pretend to believe they do, this lies underneath it all.
There was one book that suggested that Leonard Woolf had kinda murdered Virginia, but the consensus of opinion is that this highly sexed man forwent sex so as to live with and support the woman he loved and felt was a genius.
That bloke was being really creepy.
But you know it cuts both ways? You of course know Sylvia Plath's 'Every woman adores a fascist'?
Men (which ones? me?) sometimes feel that women divide them up into friends and f*cks.And now that I think about it, male/female interaction could do with a lot of improvement.
poster:Sigismund
thread:770573
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20070714/msgs/770792.html