Revisiting Dworkin for the 2nd Time: Giving Her Another Chance PART II

Earlier in the month I wrote a post entitled Revisiting Dworkin for the 2nd Time: Giving Her Another Chance. In the post I explained that I had re-read Intercourse, a book written by the late anti-pornography feminist Andrea Dworkin. I originally read the book in 2009 and even as a an anti-pornography feminist, I agreed with many of her critics in that she seemed to be a man hater.

When I read the book this year I came to see that I actually agreed with many of her statements. Oh, what a difference a couple years make. This is not to say that I agreed with everything Dworkin wrote in Intercourse. In my last post I jotted down some quotes that made sense to me. As promised in my last post I will now lay out some of Dworkin's statements I could not completely agree with. At the very least some of these statements caused me to question. So, even if I don't agree with everything Dworkin has to say, she does make me think. That in itself is positive.

"Intercourse recalls the first nakedness, innocent and basic, but the innocence itself is not recoverable; the nakedness is never again synonymous with being human. One's skin takes on a social function - even naked, one is not purely naked; social identity becomes a new, tough, impermeable skin; one's nakedness is covered over by layers of social self and emotional pain, rituals and rules, habits of being that are antithetical to any pure experience of being."

I don't completely disagree with Dworkin here but this quote begs a question. Is personal agency possible in a patriarchal society? In the above paragraph Dworkin tells us that once we engage in intercourse we are now part of a process in which the ills of society have taken over. Throughout Intercourse Dworkin tells us that through intercourse we may think that we are engaging in a private act, a sacred act, but really women are lying underneath the bodies of individuals who either overtly, subtly, or subconsciously believe that men are dominant and women are submissive. That a penis is a power tool. Not only that but in her book Dworkin goes on to say that under patriarchy women have learned to eroticize dominance, that they are taught that that is the way to enjoy sex. This erases any honesty within the act of intercourse.

So, this is one of Dworkin's passages that has me teeter tottering between yes and no. Is it possible for women to engage in intercourse without stench of patriarchy permeating the skin? Can men escape the binds of patriarchy when they enter the bedroom?

In the chapter, Occupation/Collaboration, Dworkin tells us that most women cannot orgasm from intercourse. I know that this is true however she seems to use that as one of her many many reasons not to have intercourse. She goes on to say that,

"Woman can and must take responsibility for authentic sexual pleasure: 'the ability to orgasm when we want, to be in charge of our stimulation, represents owning our own bodies, being strong, free, and autonomous human beings.'"

I think this is a good way to look at things when it comes to masturbation but I think it's important to recognize the dual roles in intercourse. Yes, a man does not control the pleasure of a woman. A man does not MAKE a woman orgasm all on his own. It is about two people uniting, giving and receiving. A woman who orgasms does so not only because a man is assisting her but also because of her ability to feel comfortable, emotionally open, safe, aroused. A woman's mental state has a lot to do with her ability to feel pleasure. I have no issue with giving a man credit for assisting my pleasure however I do not give him all the credit. I think it's okay for feminists to acknowledge what their partners bring to the table. In fact I think it's important.

"Male-dominant gender hierarchy, however, seems immune to reform by reasoned or visionary argument or by changes in sexual styles, either personal or social. This may be because intercourse itself is immune to reform. In it, female is bottom, stigmatized. Intercourse remains a means or the means of physiologically making a woman inferior: communicating to her cell by cell her own inferior status, impressing it on her, burning it into her by shoving it into her, over and over, pushing and thrusting until she gives up and gives in - which is called surrender in the male lexicon. In the experience of intercourse, she loses the capacity for integrity because her body - the basis of privacy and freedom in the material world for all human beings - is entered and occupied; the boundaries of her physical body are - neutrally speaking - violated. What is taken from her in that act is not recoverable, and she spends her life - wanting, after all, to have something - pretending that pleasure is in being reduced through intercourse to insignificance. She will not have an orgasm - maybe because she has human pride and she resents captivity; but also she will not or cannot rebel - not enough to matter, to end male dominance over her. She learns to eroticize powerlessness and self annihilation. The very boundaries of her own body become meaningless to her, and even worse, useless to her."

Dworkin says with utmost certainty that "intercourse is immune to reform." What a horrific thought. So, should women give up on intercourse? I don't disagree that our society caters to the straight man's assumed desire. Patriarchy gives men a limited way to understand intercourse and gives women a limited way to understand intercourse. So, again the big question presents itself. Is there anything to be said about personal agency? Can we ever be free of patriarchy? Is Dworkin tell women to throw in the towel and never experience intercourse ever again? Should virgin women never consider intercourse?

I'm a person who believes intercourse must be discussed before acted upon. Talk to your partner about what it means to engage in intercourse. I don't know about you folks but I can't engage in a sexual act if it is not considered to be intimate and respectful. However, it seems that Dworkin is telling us that no matter what we hope to get out of intercourse it is tainted. She tells us that "intercourse is immune to reform." I'd like to think that although there is a risk, when man and woman come together it is a risk worth taking. Yes, ignorance is bliss and if you are a woman who is not living blissfully then you understand that patriarchy does exist. It joins us under the covers and we are all vulnerable to it.

Even the most sensitive and caring man may not even be aware that his thoughts are dominating. If a man thinks that it is his responsibility alone to make a woman climax, if a man thinks that he is not vulnerable during intercourse, if a man thinks that various sexual positions in intercourse leaves the woman in a compromising and submissive state, if a man feels powerful during intercourse, if a man thinks that he is leading the act and the act is an act to be lead, if a man's only concern about a woman in bed is "was it good for you?", if a man believes that within intercourse he is doing something TO a woman rather than man and woman sharing an experience, he has not escaped patriarchy.

So, what does that leave us with? Perhaps even the most sensitive of men need to be educated. Perhaps escaping patriarchy is a work in progress. I believe it is. This work is essential if women are to feel safe.