The most basic function of government is to keep violence among those over which it rules at a minimum. A society in which violence is not suppressed is not conducive to what are the most basic viable human concerns: optimal sexual experience, and after that, a gentle death. A human society in which violence is not suppressed is especially detrimental towards the optimal sexual experience of women. Women can pursue optimal sexual experience only, if they do not feel threatened.

Just as reactionaries have no incentive to control the spread of AIDS, they have nothing to gain from the effective control of violence in a society. This is why, for example, in the reactionary US, the control of violence within their society has a low priority, and even basic anti-violence measures, such as the control of firearms, are unlikely to be imposed any time soon. For both AIDS and violence shape human behavior in a manner, reactionaries, from Christian fundamentalists to feminazis, want it shaped. Their common agenda is to impose lifelong heterosexual monogamous relationships on all.

The silent condoning of both the threat of AIDS and violence works quicker on women than it does on men. Women get infected by HIV easier than men, and when women feel threatened by the violence prevailing in a society, they naturally seek the safety of monogamous relationships. Men do so, too, but the level of violence has to be considerably higher.

While sexual reactionaries have an intrinsic interest in a comparatively high level of violence in societies, they have no qualms to present themselves as anti-violence activists when this fits their anti-sexual and anti-male agenda.

The provisions on statutory rape are one obvious example. Through the statutes on statutory rape, entirely non-violent and consensual conduct can be classified as violence, simply by definition and because it is opposed for either religious or ideological reasons.

The great emphasis, anti-sexual and anti-male reactionaries put on sexual harassment (mostly verbal sexual harassment) is another indicator. The same reactionaries that care little about violence when youth shoot each other in inner city gang warfare, make a big issue out of the alleged violence contained in statements like “looking at your ass gives me an erection”. The alleged psychological trauma of having to hear such remarks is equated to, for example, the physical trauma of having suffered gunshot wounds to the lungs, or being paralyzed from being hit with a baseball bat on the spinal cord.

Another newly invented form of “violence” is the unintended exposure to sexually explicit material, for example on the Internet. But the same people, who claim that seeing images of two people loving each other is a form of violence, have no problem at all with Hollywood productions in which throats are cut, human bodies cut open, or in which people are sadistically assaulted with electric drills, surgical equipment, or live wires.

Yes, there is such a thing as psychological violence. US law enforcement agencies are experts in applying it as a form of torture, disguised by the term “intense interrogation”.

But anti-sexual and anti-male campaigners have long been using the idea of psychological violence in an inflationary manner in the prosecution of male sexual behavior, both hetero- and homosexual.

Yes, no doubt, one can have 17-year old male prostitutes with a plethora of criminal inclinations talk in court of the “terrible psychological trauma” they suffered from being fondled by a rich US customer, especially when the likelihood is high to be awarded damages in an amount they could never earn with honest work. In the end, sexual persecution is all about creating cases.

And about blurring terms.

It’s obvious that in a future, better society, any form of violence must be suppressed for the benefit of genuine sexual liberation. Sexual violence is no exception. But “violence” means violence, not presumed violence, or non-violence that is defined as violence.

It has been clearly established in psychological research that sexual deprivation leads to sexual violence. Thus, providing a social framework that allows people to optimize their sexual experience already is a measure to reduce sexual violence. This strategy obviously is the opposite of what anti-sexual and anti-male reactionaries want to see implemented.

But their’s are sick minds anyway, who bank on violence to convince people that they should follow the repressive and unsatisfactory sexual concepts prescribed by outmoded religions.