From prehistoric times to present, I believe, rape has played a critical function. It is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which ALL MEN keep ALL WOMEN in a state of fear.
When men are men, slugging it out among themselves, conquering new land, subjugating new people, driving on toward victory, UNQUESTIONABLY there shall be some raping.
Within the current Gay Liberation Movement there is a boisterous minority contained within the outposts of leather bars that would like to see consensual sadomasochism, including the paraphernalia of whips and handcuffs, accepted as a civil-libertarian right, as drag queens are demanding the right to dress in traditionally female attire. Again, what is a feminist to make of this? Does homosexual sadomasochism have its own, peculiary male, dynamic, or is it an aberration masquerading as the newest issue? The international language of sadomasochism, from the prison argot to the intellectual's musing, and its immutable rites and practices are too revealing to ignore. Sartre explains for Genet that "the rump of secret feminity of males, their passivity," and both men agree that passivity is defined as being on the receiving end of a penis. In the man-on-man definition, fellatio, too, is a passive act and cocksucker is the equivalent of chicken. Hardly by accident sadomasochism has always been defined in male and female terms. It has been codified by those who see sadism a twisted understanding of their manhood, and it is accepted by those who see in masochism the abused and pain that is synonymous with Woman. For this reason alone sadomasochism shall always remain a reactionary antithesis to women's liberation.
(Msg-Id <3lqjck$bhs@lear.cs.duke.edu>)