From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Choosing Dangerous Relationships (was: How to Protect Women)
Date: 31 Dec 92 22:39:42 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <MUFFY.92Dec28150254@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>
>This is very interesting.  On the one hand, in other articles, you
>extoll the virtues of the traditionally aggressive man, definitely
>neither low-key nor low-dominance.  Now, you suggest that this sort of
>man is likely to be violent to women and should therefore be avoided by
>them.  Does this mean that you do not consider a strong likelihood of
>violence to be a negative feature?  Or is it just outweighed by the
>social advantages of trampling everyone in your path?
>
>Since you advocate the aggressive style, I am assuming that you use it
>yourself.  Do you therefore think that no women should date you?  Are
>you likely to become violent with a woman who is insufficiently
>subservient?

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."

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.

You and I can both agree that we'd prefer a saner world, where the
likelihood of violence in a man was NOT seen as an attractive feature.
But "things are the way they are" because there are so many women who
react like Robin Givens (who is so beautiful that she could obviously
have had her pick of practically ANY available man). On the day that
women spurn boxers and football players for philosophers, once-violent
men will begin to study Aristotle. Until that day, both men and women
will be living in the world of Dangerous Relationships.

-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!


     "Mystical explanations are considered deep. The truth is that
      they are not even superficial."

                   - Friedrich Nietzsche    (The Gay Science: 126)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism