people have been demonizing it for most of the AD years i think but it’s quite pleasant really. are there any proven negative effects?

  • SeattleRain@lemmy.worldEnglish
    14·
    5 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.

    • sushibowl@feddit.nl
      2·
      5 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.

      • SeattleRain@lemmy.worldEnglish
        11·
        5 months ago

        She did say it’s degrading and a form of contempt inflicted 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.

    • aesthelete@lemmy.world
      2·
      5 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.

      The whole issue of intercourse as this culture’s penultimate expression of male dominance became more and more interesting to me. In Intercourse I decided to approach the subject as a social practice, material reality. This may be my history, but I think the social explanation of the “all sex is rape” slander is different and probably simple. Most men and a good number of women experience sexual pleasure in inequality. Since the paradigm for sex has been one of conquest, possession, and violation, I think many men believe they need an unfair advantage, which at its extreme would be called rape. I don’t think they need it. I think both intercourse and sexual pleasure can and will survive equality.

      It’s important to say, too, that the pornographers, especially Playboy, have published the “all sex is rape” slander repeatedly over the years, and it’s been taken up by others like Time who, when challenged, cannot cite a source in my work.

      http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/MoorcockInterview.html

      • SeattleRain@lemmy.worldEnglish
        11·
        5 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.

        • aesthelete@lemmy.world
          2·
          5 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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape_in_the_United_States

          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.

          • SeattleRain@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            5 months ago

            She was and she says it in both that and other wrirings and publically.

            “Male sexuality, drunk on its intrinsic contempt for all life, but especially for women’s lives, can run wild.”

            “Hatred of women is a source of sexual pleasure for men in its own right.”

            She argued that penetration was a form of “occupation”.

            “intercourse remains a means or the means of physiologically making a woman inferior”

            She labeled women that had sexual with men “collaborators”.

            But defenders like you will split hairs to make it seem like her demonization of male sexuality is just made up by her critics.

            • aesthelete@lemmy.world
              2·
              5 months ago

              But defenders like you

              Lol, I literally have never heard of the lady until this thread, but sure it’s me with an agenda.

              With better reading comprehension instead of “man get real angry when word men used to describe things men do generally” even those quotes aren’t saying what you think they’re saying…and that’s with no attribution or sources so I don’t even know if they’re misquotes.

              EDIT: Also you sidestepped your completely invalid claim that marital rape was illegal always because you argue in bad faith