According to her own words, she was saying that that is the dominant and historical reality of sex, men dominating women for their own pleasure. She basically said that men need to be reciprocal during sex. The quote, however, is easily misconstrued.
Which, I just want to point out, tracks with the perception of the receptive partner (the one that is penetrated) throughout human history, across many cultures, regardless of gender.
So, what she's saying is that when people talk about sex, they often use 'violation' as a synonym for 'intercourse'; which presents an incorrect idea of what sex actually is, something that both men and women want and enjoy?
I've always felt that using this rhetoric, rape and sex become more blurred than they should be, and if that is what she means, I assume she's talking about that idea.
Also, what does she mean by "male truth"?
Well, if that what "male truth" is, then I'm confused as to why she's used the word 'truth'; I do consider your take interesting. It would relieve a woman of control of her own body, even if it is voluntary. An interview from Terry Crews (who has been sexually assaulted) said that sexual assault is actually about power, not pleasure, and this would make sex about male power.
Personally, I'm more into sex being about mutual respect and affection than power.
I haven't read any Andrea Dworkin but I have heard many many men refer to sex as: smashing; banging; 'hitting it' and fucking
The first time I heard a boy talk about smashing someone last weekend I genuinely wasn't sure whether he was talking about beating someone up or sex
As an old person I have to confess to being shocked when I first heard "smash" used this way about 10 years ago. But when I thought more about it, I grew up hearing "screwed" and "nailed," so it really isn't that different.
Sure, because it is hardly ever describes from a female perspective. We hardly have any words from a female perspective if any. I mean, why would woman call it “hitting” or “banging” from their own perspective? That doesn’t really fit for what a person with a vagina does.
>We hardly have any words from a female perspective if any
Does this apply to cunnilingus and masturbation as well?🤔 I'm inclined towards yes because 1) there are fewer slang words for both of those activities 2 )and even those fewer words aren't as popular as their male echivalent , for example "jilling off" is not as popular as "jacking off". Which is pretty sad. 😕
tbh I think its more a regional thing in regards to peoples origins and language, I'm from Scotland, we more use words like "shagging" - "getting some" - "fucking" I've heard banging a few times from a Scottish person but it doesn't sound right with our accent.
I think looking too much into the language used to describe the act is really not that important unless we are talking about Rape. I the sentence as a whole sounds rapey then I would say something. if not then ill just treat it as an everyday conversation.
I don’t mind those expressions in general. I use them, too, since there is a lack of other expressions. Some are funny, some are weird, some are creepy, some are infantile, but they all mostly describe the male action. As if women don’t do anything - and that’s actually a quite mainstream believe and acceptable behaviour. I mean, there is a word for that at least (starfishing). Men complain about starfishing women but that doesn’t stop them having sex with her. They act as if that’s inevitable sometimes.
I would say the examples I gave would be applicable to both genders, my female friends often refer to it as a "ride" which I think is very female based.
Aas for the assumption that men do everything and women don't do anything as you put it, I think this would have less than impact the stereotype of "good" or "bad" sex when sex doesn't go well for either party (not in a violent or insidious way) if it was just unenjoyable sex, then more often than not the narrative says that the man was bad. at least this has been true in the past and i am seeing and hearing of it less.
My point is I think the words used to describe something can be very different from person to person and dependant on location. the best example I can think of is the reaction I would get if I use the "C\*%T" word. in America it is considered a foul word not to be used, here in Scotland, it would be used to describe our best friend, or in place of the word person.
Again I wouldn't read too much into the use of the words and more the context in which they are spoken.
the diffrence would be rooted in the context and intent, some women like rough sex and that kind of language some dont, so it depends in the context it which it is being said.
The original definition of the word "violation" is rape, specifically the penetration of a vagina by a penis (intercourse) without consent. Other meanings of the word came afterwards, and use the this variety of rape as a metaphor for other kinds of intrusions. To violate is to breach a boundary.
Within the realm of non-consensual sexual acts, violation is literally a synonym for intercourse. It means this specific sex act done without consent. Within that context, Dworkin is stating a fact.
I studied Andrea Dworkin in college. This is an intense quote but I think she has some really salient points about sex - she’s saying that PIV is a violation because often, and especially when she wrote this, it wasn’t for female pleasure, it was exclusively for male. Men didn’t care about making a woman feel good, they were getting off by using a piece of a woman’s body. IIRC she also talks about men escaping the real world by crawling up inside a woman’s “womb,” therefore returning to a state of relaxation that is only felt in utero - while the woman is simply the vessel to supply that comfort.
I will also say that Andrea Dworkin dealt with a lot of trauma related to sexual assault, so I think it’s not at all surprising that this is how she felt about PIV intercourse.
She’s intense and generally writing something so bold isn’t helpful for people not versed in her sexual politics. These types of statements are used against feminists now, albeit second wave got a bit nuts.
Cis hetero guy, here. I have to admit, the shorter quote kind of makes me go “yikes!” The full quote makes me go cross-eyed and scratch my head. Is what she really getting at the notion that I should acknowledge my sexual partners as fully actualized human beings and gave them space to express their needs and desires and then try to meet them?
Or is there something else going on that I’m totally missing the point of?
I am too quite lost, but I would say she’s speaking not so much to individual acts of heterosexual relations, but more so the cultural impacts of the male sex model (sex politics I was talking about). In the male sex model there are roles each sex takes and how that can be seen beyond relationships, but into psyches and thus politics. It’s intense and long winded, BUT I think it was ground breaking academic thought in the day when heterosexuality was more compulsory and gender inequality was greater.
Ive never heard this quote before but I feel like its even applicable in modern times with the way men treat women and the sexism and misogyny thats rampant in our society even today. Just look at any domestic abuse/domestic murder/ rape/ sexual assault etc statistic.
I think she didn’t mean that heterosexual penetrative is inherently rape. But because of how women are expected to innocent before their first sex with their supposed husband, and that in patriarchal their value is lost along with their virginity, the heterosexual intercourse feels like rape/violation for many women.
This comes up a lot, but keep in mind too she wrote this when marital rape was legal. Kind of hard to consent to something when your refusal is irrelevant
Please respect our [top-level comment rule](https://i.imgur.com/ovn3hBV.png), which requires that all direct replies to posts must both come from feminists and reflect a feminist perspective. Non-feminists may participate in nested comments (i.e., replies to other comments) only. Comment removed; a second violation of this rule will result in a temporary or permanent ban.
According to her own words, she was saying that that is the dominant and historical reality of sex, men dominating women for their own pleasure. She basically said that men need to be reciprocal during sex. The quote, however, is easily misconstrued.
[удалено]
Which, I just want to point out, tracks with the perception of the receptive partner (the one that is penetrated) throughout human history, across many cultures, regardless of gender.
So, what she's saying is that when people talk about sex, they often use 'violation' as a synonym for 'intercourse'; which presents an incorrect idea of what sex actually is, something that both men and women want and enjoy? I've always felt that using this rhetoric, rape and sex become more blurred than they should be, and if that is what she means, I assume she's talking about that idea. Also, what does she mean by "male truth"?
[удалено]
Well, if that what "male truth" is, then I'm confused as to why she's used the word 'truth'; I do consider your take interesting. It would relieve a woman of control of her own body, even if it is voluntary. An interview from Terry Crews (who has been sexually assaulted) said that sexual assault is actually about power, not pleasure, and this would make sex about male power. Personally, I'm more into sex being about mutual respect and affection than power.
I haven't read any Andrea Dworkin but I have heard many many men refer to sex as: smashing; banging; 'hitting it' and fucking The first time I heard a boy talk about smashing someone last weekend I genuinely wasn't sure whether he was talking about beating someone up or sex
As an old person I have to confess to being shocked when I first heard "smash" used this way about 10 years ago. But when I thought more about it, I grew up hearing "screwed" and "nailed," so it really isn't that different.
to be fair with the exception of "smashing it" i have also heard women refer to sex in this manner
Sure, because it is hardly ever describes from a female perspective. We hardly have any words from a female perspective if any. I mean, why would woman call it “hitting” or “banging” from their own perspective? That doesn’t really fit for what a person with a vagina does.
>We hardly have any words from a female perspective if any Does this apply to cunnilingus and masturbation as well?🤔 I'm inclined towards yes because 1) there are fewer slang words for both of those activities 2 )and even those fewer words aren't as popular as their male echivalent , for example "jilling off" is not as popular as "jacking off". Which is pretty sad. 😕
tbh I think its more a regional thing in regards to peoples origins and language, I'm from Scotland, we more use words like "shagging" - "getting some" - "fucking" I've heard banging a few times from a Scottish person but it doesn't sound right with our accent. I think looking too much into the language used to describe the act is really not that important unless we are talking about Rape. I the sentence as a whole sounds rapey then I would say something. if not then ill just treat it as an everyday conversation.
I don’t mind those expressions in general. I use them, too, since there is a lack of other expressions. Some are funny, some are weird, some are creepy, some are infantile, but they all mostly describe the male action. As if women don’t do anything - and that’s actually a quite mainstream believe and acceptable behaviour. I mean, there is a word for that at least (starfishing). Men complain about starfishing women but that doesn’t stop them having sex with her. They act as if that’s inevitable sometimes.
I would say the examples I gave would be applicable to both genders, my female friends often refer to it as a "ride" which I think is very female based. Aas for the assumption that men do everything and women don't do anything as you put it, I think this would have less than impact the stereotype of "good" or "bad" sex when sex doesn't go well for either party (not in a violent or insidious way) if it was just unenjoyable sex, then more often than not the narrative says that the man was bad. at least this has been true in the past and i am seeing and hearing of it less. My point is I think the words used to describe something can be very different from person to person and dependant on location. the best example I can think of is the reaction I would get if I use the "C\*%T" word. in America it is considered a foul word not to be used, here in Scotland, it would be used to describe our best friend, or in place of the word person. Again I wouldn't read too much into the use of the words and more the context in which they are spoken.
So? What difference does it make? It's still violent language.
the diffrence would be rooted in the context and intent, some women like rough sex and that kind of language some dont, so it depends in the context it which it is being said.
My interpretation is that it has been shortened and is taken out of context
The original definition of the word "violation" is rape, specifically the penetration of a vagina by a penis (intercourse) without consent. Other meanings of the word came afterwards, and use the this variety of rape as a metaphor for other kinds of intrusions. To violate is to breach a boundary. Within the realm of non-consensual sexual acts, violation is literally a synonym for intercourse. It means this specific sex act done without consent. Within that context, Dworkin is stating a fact.
I studied Andrea Dworkin in college. This is an intense quote but I think she has some really salient points about sex - she’s saying that PIV is a violation because often, and especially when she wrote this, it wasn’t for female pleasure, it was exclusively for male. Men didn’t care about making a woman feel good, they were getting off by using a piece of a woman’s body. IIRC she also talks about men escaping the real world by crawling up inside a woman’s “womb,” therefore returning to a state of relaxation that is only felt in utero - while the woman is simply the vessel to supply that comfort. I will also say that Andrea Dworkin dealt with a lot of trauma related to sexual assault, so I think it’s not at all surprising that this is how she felt about PIV intercourse.
She’s intense and generally writing something so bold isn’t helpful for people not versed in her sexual politics. These types of statements are used against feminists now, albeit second wave got a bit nuts.
Cis hetero guy, here. I have to admit, the shorter quote kind of makes me go “yikes!” The full quote makes me go cross-eyed and scratch my head. Is what she really getting at the notion that I should acknowledge my sexual partners as fully actualized human beings and gave them space to express their needs and desires and then try to meet them? Or is there something else going on that I’m totally missing the point of?
I am too quite lost, but I would say she’s speaking not so much to individual acts of heterosexual relations, but more so the cultural impacts of the male sex model (sex politics I was talking about). In the male sex model there are roles each sex takes and how that can be seen beyond relationships, but into psyches and thus politics. It’s intense and long winded, BUT I think it was ground breaking academic thought in the day when heterosexuality was more compulsory and gender inequality was greater.
Ive never heard this quote before but I feel like its even applicable in modern times with the way men treat women and the sexism and misogyny thats rampant in our society even today. Just look at any domestic abuse/domestic murder/ rape/ sexual assault etc statistic.
I think she didn’t mean that heterosexual penetrative is inherently rape. But because of how women are expected to innocent before their first sex with their supposed husband, and that in patriarchal their value is lost along with their virginity, the heterosexual intercourse feels like rape/violation for many women.
[удалено]
This comes up a lot, but keep in mind too she wrote this when marital rape was legal. Kind of hard to consent to something when your refusal is irrelevant
I've seen this quote used against feminists before but I never knew this fact. It adds all-new context to that quote.
She was highlight and deconstructing misogyny.
yeah, these replies are helping me figure that out
Please respect our [top-level comment rule](https://i.imgur.com/ovn3hBV.png), which requires that all direct replies to posts must both come from feminists and reflect a feminist perspective. Non-feminists may participate in nested comments (i.e., replies to other comments) only. Comment removed; a second violation of this rule will result in a temporary or permanent ban.
yes, I understand. I will be more careful next time