Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ubc-vision.CDN
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision!mokhtar
From: mokhtar@ubc-vision.CDN (Farzin Mokhtarian)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Rape fantasies
Message-ID: <535@ubc-vision.CDN>
Date: Fri, 24-Aug-84 18:13:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: ubc-visi.535
Posted: Fri Aug 24 18:13:21 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 29-Aug-84 00:46:07 EDT
Organization: UBC Vision, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Lines: 28

>Before anyone comes out with their favorite woman-hating conspiracy theory
>involving Redbook, I thought I'd submit my fiancee's reaction, as well
>as I understand it.
>
>The fantasy of being forced to have sex would legally be rape if it occured
>in reality, but the fantasies referred to in Redbook have little or no
>similarity to actual rapes. The male in the fantasy is a specific person,
>not some random rapacious bozo off the street. The reason the act would be
>forced is not because the woman doesn't have the hots for him, but because
>of the real-life consequences if she did do it (doesn't want to get emotionally
>involved, husband would be hurt if he found out, etc.).  And finally, these
>fantasies (masochists excepted) involve none of the sadism which seems to be
>the primary feature of real rapes.
>
>In short, no one should construe these fantasies as evidence that women like
>to be raped (which I believe was the concern expressed).
>
>                                             Smile,
>                                              Jeff Winslow

No, the male in the fantasy does not have to be a specific person. It could be
because she is plain having the "hots". Maybe she feels too guilty imagining 
herself showing a lot of interest in sex (because of her conditioning)
and therefore comes up with the "forced sex" scenario. She wasn't
responsible; no need for her to feel guilty. The mind can come up with strange
ways.
       Farzin Mokhtarian         < ubc-vision!mokhtar >