Comment

Comment on Why isn't jerking off more valorized as an easy dopamine hit that's also literally good for you?

First, Dworkin has never said that and did not think that.

Second, she died almost twenty years ago my dude. Intercourse was published in '87 during the second wave of feminism. Why are you misquoting her as an example of current mainstream discourse? And even if we’re going to be talking about feminist views of the 80’s, you’re conveniently ignoring sex-positive feminism. The sex wars were like, the defining feminist debate of that era.

source

Sort:hotnew top

SeattleRain@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
She did in fact say that and your link doesn’t refute that. And sex positive feminism is not sex positive for men. As I’ve said many times before I’m talking about mainstream feminist discourse. Feminist always use this tactic of digging up some progressive strain of feminism knowing full well it’s not influential.

Dworkin may have died awhile ago but her work is still regularly cites and studies by mainstream feminism and her influence can be seen in movies like the Barbie movie.

source
- sushibowl@feddit.nl ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  
  She did in fact say that and your link doesn’t refute that.
  
  Come now. She very clearly denies saying it in the interview I linked to:
  
  Several reviewers accused you of saying that all intercourse was rape. I haven’t found a hint of that anywhere in the book. Is that what you are saying?
  
  Andrea Dworkin: No, I wasn’t saying that and I didn’t say that, then or ever.
  
  If you want to claim she’s lying about her own statements, find me a direct quote of her saying it.
  
  source
  - SeattleRain@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    She did say it’s degrading and a form of contempt inflicting by men on women. In the context of the books it’s not at all unreasonable to interpret it as rape.
    
    Regardless it DOES posit male sexuality and violence and degragation of women when it is expressesed.
    
    Regardless that’s her influence even if unintentional and it’s all over media and culture.
    
    source
- aesthelete@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  
  Andrea Dworkin: No, I wasn’t saying that and I didn’t say that, then or ever. There is a long section in Right-Wing Women on intercourse in marriage. My point was that as long as the law allows statutory exemption for a husband from rape charges, no married woman has legal protection from rape. I also argued, based on a reading of our laws, that marriage mandated intercourse—it was compulsory, part of the marriage contract. Under the circumstances, I said, it was impossible to view sexual intercourse in marriage as the free act of a free woman. I said that when we look at sexual liberation and the law, we need to look not only at which sexual acts are forbidden, but which are compelled.
  
  www.nostatusquo.com/…/MoorcockInterview.html
  
  source
  - SeattleRain@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    All she’s saying is that she meant maritial sex is a form of violence because maritial rape was legal, which wasn’t even true.
    
    It’s a distinction without a difference.
    
    source
    aesthelete@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    
    All she’s saying is that she meant maritial sex is a form of violence because maritial rape was legal, which wasn’t even true.
    
    She’s saying women cannot legally consent to sex in marriage when marital rape is legal. She wasn’t saying that all sex was violent, she was saying it was all not the “free act of a free woman” because wives were property of their husbands and could be legally raped even if they denied sexual consent.
    
    Also, marital rape was fully legal in the entirety of the US until the 1970s: en.wikipedia.org/…/Marital_rape_in_the_United_Sta…
    
    You seem to have a pretty loose grasp on the issues here. I get that you didn’t like the Barbie movie, but that all that means is that you didn’t like the Barbie movie.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments