I first read Andrea Dworkin's Intercourse in 2009. To read my original blog post on the matter click here.
As an anti-porn feminist I had heard of the infamous Andrea Dworkin and her book Intercourse. When I read up on Dworkin, article after article mentioned that Intercourse was most likely her most important literary work. I had also heard that within the pages of Intercourse, Dworkin implies that all sex is rape.
When I originally read the book I felt disgusted by much of what I had read. I did agree with a few passages but mostly I felt frustrated with her views. She did indeed seem to be a man-hater and I found it unfortunate. I thought, "Great, another woman who claims to be a feminist but is simply giving feminism a bad name. Another reason for men to avoid the movement."
Usually when I read works of non-fiction I highlight passages and write questions or opinions in the margins. I left this book untouched as I knew when I finished the book I would return it. I finished the book as I felt it was important to get a sense of where this woman was coming from and to challenge myself by reading her words which ultimately left me asking important questions regarding patriarchy.
I don't know if Dworkin thought that all sex is rape. In Intercourse she never qualified her view by saying that SOME men are not so dominant in their sexual practices. She does seem to be warning women though. That is to say if we didn't know that sex can equal possession we should start thinking that way now.
I have read quotes by Dworkin that seem to imply that perhaps she believes real love and respect can occur within sexual intimacy.
"You think intercourse is a private act; it's not, it's a social act. Men are sexually predatory in life; and women are sexually manipulative. When two individuals come together and leave their gender outside the bedroom door, then they make love."
Recently I decided to re-read Intercourse. I couldn't find it in my local bookstore like I had when I first read the book in 2009. I ordered the book online and was excited for it's arrival. I wanted to read Intercourse because I had been reading articles on Dworkin that had me curious about her writings. I hadn't remembered too much about Intercourse other than that I felt disgusted by it when I first read it. I wanted to find out if I would feel the same way after reading it a few years later.
I can tell you that this time around I did not feel disgust but was able to practice patience and was appreciative of her thought provoking passages. This is not to say that I agreed with everything she had to say, however, I was open to pause rather than to quickly dismiss.
As I went through the pages I recalled that I did not like the writing format she chose. Throughout the book she uses works of fiction which depict patriarchal views of sex and sexuality. She uses these examples as a way to illustrate the world in which we live today. I really wanted more from her. I wanted her to speak about her own personal experiences, I wanted her to explore other avenues of culture without using examples from fiction writers. After a while I grew tired of reading about famous authors and their use of sexism within literature. I think I understood the point though. I believe that Dworkin was saying that the way men create stories may be based on their own views of women and sex. Even so I don't think this formatting needed to be carried out as long as it did.
The reason I did not feel as much disgust with Dworkin's opinions this time around was because I have evolved. I like to give everyone the benefit of the doubt that with age, with time, one evolves. When I say evolve, I mean that I have continued to give thought to the concept of sex, gender, intimacy, and social constructs. I suppose that's what feminists do right? So, when I began reading Intercourse for the second time I felt that I was more prepared for it.
Dworkin tells us that men practice dominance and possession when they engage in sexual activity. This may seem like an outrageous, cruel and "man hating" idea to some however, the concept has been a fear of mine long before I ever read anything by Dworkin. Early on I never used the words dominance or possession but I did feel it.
I was never molested, abused or raped (knock on wood) like Dworkin, however, I have experienced a certain kind of worry, concern, and fear within my relationships. I can only assume that some who read this may be shouting from their side of the computer screen, "Well that's because YOU'RE messed up, not because men are dominant!" I view this disregard as a way to dismiss something that deserves consideration.
I never thought that my boyfriends would rape me, however, I did fear that they might not appreciate our sexual intimacy as something sacred. As I mentioned in my first post about Dworkin, I feared that any man I entered a relationship with, no matter how respectful and sincere, might actually subscribe to the myth that a penetrating penis is dominant and an enveloping vagina is submissive. The myth that what inserts is in control and what engulfs is vulnerable. My belief is that both parties are equally vulnerable and accepting humility within sexual relationships offers the opportunity for genuine connection and respect.
the sound of them strong
stalking talking about their prey
like the way hammer meets nail
pounding, they say
pounding out the rhythms of attraction
like a woman was a drum like a body was a weapon
like there was something more they wanted
than the journey
like it was owed to them
steel toed they walk
and i'm wondering why this fear of men
----------"The Slant" by Ani Difranco
Dworkin speaks with absolute and unapologizing certainty that men ARE aggressors and that they want to own women with their sex. When I first read Intercourse I thought that Dworkin saw men as evil and animalistic. Creatures without an ounce of compassion or dignity. I didn't understand why she felt so certain. But over the years I've been able to give language to what I have felt in the bedroom with men. I do not see men as evil however, I think that our patriarchal society does encourages dominance and possession. I think many of even the most kindest, liberal, and sensitive of men may subscribe to the myth of dominance versus submissiveness subconsciously if not consciously. The reason for this is that patriarchy has been catered to, embraced and celebrated for ions. It has become ingrained in the majorty of men and yes, women as well.
I think men are wonderful beings and one of the reasons I am a feminist is because I admire men so much. However, it is an awful feeling to sometimes fear the same beings that offer me joy as friends or as romantic partners.
I want men to be able to break free of patriarchal binds. I want men to WANT to break free. Unfortunately, although partriarchy harms men, it also rewards them. Often the rewards deter men from wanting to give it up.
When I first purchased Intercourse I was thrilled to see that the 20th Anniversary Edition was forwarded by Ariel Levy, author of Female Chauvenist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture. I'm a big fan of Levy's book and was very interested in what she had to say. Well, for some reason I never read her foreward. I dove right into the meat of the book and when I was done I wanted it out of my ownership, out of my hands. This time around I read Levy's foreward and felt that she gave some insight into Dworkin's work.
"She may not have been saying all sex is rape, but clearly she was suggesting that most sex is something damn close when you live in patriarchy...and where else are we to live? In this world, which is the only world that exists, 'critiques of rape, pornography, and prostitution are "sex negative" without qualification or examination, perhaps because so many use these ignoble routs of access and domination to get laid and without them the number of fucks would so significantly decrease that men might nearly be chaste.'
Really?
Do we believe that 'most women are not distinct, private individuals to most men'? (Still?) Is voluntary intercourse instigated by female lust and desire something so uncommon? Are abuse and plunder the norm, mutual satisfaction the exception so rare that it proves the rule? Your answer to these questions - and to many others Dworkin poses in this book - will depend on the experience of sex you've been lucky or unlucky enough to have. But the value of the questioning itself is substantial."
One thing is for sure, if you are to take anything Dworkin says into consideration then you are ultimately questioning most aspects of your life.
In the beginning of the chapter "Possession", Dworking states, "Intercourse is commonly written about and comprehended as a form of possession or an act of possession in which, during which, because of which, a man inhabits a woman, physically covering her and overwhelming her at the same time penetrating her; and this physical relation to her - over and inside her - is his possession of her. He has her, or, when he is done, he has had her. By thrusting into her, he takes her over. His thrusting into her is taken to be her capitulation to him as a conqueror; it is a physical surrender of herself to him; he occupies and rules her, expresses his elemental dominance over her, by his possession of her in the fuck."
Well, I certainly believe this notion is carried out in pornography. It isn't so far fetched that this would occur in real life. As said earlier this behavior, this line of thinking may be overt or not so, depending on the man. It may be conscious or unconscious. It is also noteworthy to state that many women eroticize this dominance and think that it is the way sex is to be. That being dominated is the way in which women are to enjoy sex.
Even if a woman does not feel dominated she IS dominated if the man in any way feels that he is powerful in sex or if he believes that a man gives and a woman receives rather than both giving and both receiving.
In Intercourse Dworkin often refers to sex as a "fuck". She doesn't explain as to why she does this however I have an idea. To "fuck" is to suggest that sex is empty and devoid of intimacy. It translates to sex in which one or two parties are using the other.
Over the years it has been author and professor Bell Hooks who I find best describes the violence in this word.
"Attention to the meaning of the central male slang term for sexual intercourse - "fuck" is instructive. To fuck a woman is to have sex with her. To fuck someone in another context...means to hurt or cheat that person. And when hurled as a simple insult the intent is denigration and the remark is often a prelude to violence or the threat of violence. Sex in Patriarchy is fucking. That we live in a world in which people continue to use the same word for sex and violence and then resist the notion that sex is routinely violent and claim to be outraged when sex becomes overtly violent, is a testament to the power of Patriarchy."
---------Excerpt from The Will To Change: Men, Masculinity and Love by Bell Hooks
It is author Gary Zukav who has expressed what I believe intimacy should be.
"Loving sexual intimacy...expresses care and appreciation. It is mutual giving, not taking. It is an area in which individuals nurture each other rather than exploit each other. In loving sexual intimacy, sexual partners are not interchangeable. They are unique in their histories, aptitudes, struggles and joys. They empathize, they are interested in each other. They use physical intimacy to deepen their emotional intimacy...they are committed to growing together."
--------------------Excerpt from Heart of the Soul by Gary Zukav
To fuck is to do something to another person. I don't ever want to be done. I want to be engaged with. So, I am cautious as I fear that any man who lies on top of me may think that he is dominant (although he may not label it as dominance) simply because he is at times on top, simply because he is man, simply because our society has influenced him. Many women also subscribe to this myth. Sexism has been embraced by women as well which is due to our patriarchal society. Patriarchal influence is difficult to escape, so much that some rarely think of it as an issue.
In the chapter Possession, Dworkin goes on to say, "In other words, men possess women when men fuck women because both experience the man being male. This is the stunning logic of male supremacy. In this view, which is the predominant one, maleness is aggressive and violent; and so fucking, in which both the man and the woman experience maleness, essentially demands the disappearance of the woman as an individual; thus, in being fucked, she is possessed: ceases to exist as a discrete individual: is taken over. Remarkably, it is not the man who is considered possessed in intercourse."
Is the opposite true? Within heterosexual sex does the female and male both experience the female being female? Being that in our culture men are bread to be stoic, aggressive, and overpowering, it is the male who often uses sex as just one more arena in which to dominate. This may occur discretely or overwhelmingly, consciously or subconsciously. Does it occur always? Let's hope not. I will admit that this is a concern of mine. As a heterosexual woman I embrace men romantically. It is important for me to discuss these issues with my partners so they know where I am coming from.
When women attempt to dominate through BDSM or other practices it does not counter a man's dominance. A woman may feel that the experience enlightens her and provides a sense of power but power over another in sex is a dangerous viewpoint. In order to be equal to men we musn't attempt to overpower men. Where is the equality in that?
Here I will explore some other Dworkin's quotes within Intercourse.
"A woman's capacity to feel sexual pleasure is developed within the narrow confines of male dominance"
In my experience through media, by conversation and by personal experience I have witnessed and have been party to this concept. Our patriarchal society embraces the idea that the concept of sex is to be catered to the male experience.
This often occurs in pornography. In porn it is largely the male orgasm that is more important and it is a woman who caters to that orgasm. She caters by her submission, by her over willingness, by her 24 hour availability, by her endless desire of the all mighty penis and by her immense appreciation of the act. In porn a man is able to pause, fast forward, rewind, and control women. In porn women are begging for it and are inflating the male ego. Where is there space for a woman to be herself? Where is there room for individuality? Where is the opportunity to share the experience rather than insisting that the woman be overcome? Some may argue that the purpose of porn is to leave all of that outside the door. But why encourage a product that does just that? A product that bleeds into our culture and lives?
Outside of porn these ideas also exist. A woman who wears a pretty dress may be viewed as someone who is dressing up for men. We've all heard the line, "If she didn't want attention she wouldn't dress like that." Perhaps the woman is wearing a dress because it makes her feel good, perhaps the woman is wearing a dress because it's hot outside and she wants to feel the breeze surrounding her legs rather than experience a cat call.
In the bedroom sometimes intimacy is hanging by a thread. Sometimes it is a game in which a man hopes to manipulate the woman into performing acts that he thinks most women may not perform. Once achieving his goal he may be quick to brag. It's not always about exploration between a couple but rather about a conquest and a conquer.
Of course the examples I have provided do not describe every man. However, for this post I am focusing on the dominance that does exist within our culture.
"Any violation of a woman's body can become sex for men; this is the essential truth of pornography."
There is a lot of porn out there and various types of fetishes. From those who eroticize ethnic stereotypes, to those who appreciate violence and humiliation. This comes in many forms such as urinating on women, slapping women, raping women, expecting Asian women to be meek, expecting African American women to be accepting of racist humor. The list goes on...and on.
"The old virginity - with its real potential for freedom and self-determination is transformed into the new virginity - listless, dissatisfied ennui until awakened by the adventure of male sexual domination: combat on the worlds tiniest battlefield. It took Freud to call the refusal to fight on that little battlefield "repression" and to name the ambition to fight on the large on "penis envy." The cell door closed behind us, and the key turned in the lock."
I found this quote to be very interesting. Virginity in women in particular is often viewed condescendingly and in a different manner than the experience of virginity in men. Men who are virgins are often looked down upon by other men who see virginity as loser status. For women and men virginity is not often seen as a place of decision, but rather a place of misopportunity or inability to obtain sex. As if sex is the magic event in which a man becomes a man and woman is taken. Sex does not make one special. Anyone can have it or not have it.
Women who make the choice to remain abstinent or women who simply haven't had sex yet may be viewed by some as submissive simply because they haven't been deflowered yet. They are just waiting for a man to "take" their virginity. Virginity is not something that's taken and women do not feel grateful to a man for "taking" it. A man who believes that being a woman's "first" is a heroic deed worthy of boasting is practicing dominance.
"She is defined by how she is made, that hole, which is synonymous with entry."
Hopefully most women do not view their vaginal openings as something that is synonymous with entry. We are so much more than holes and our holes give and receive and also exist by doing neither.
"Abuse is only recognized as such socially if the intercourse is performed so recklessly or so violently or so stupidly that the man himself has actually signed a confession through the manner in which he has committed the act. What intercourse is for women and what it does to women's identity, privacy, self-respect, self-determination, and integrity are forbidden questions; and yet how can a radical or any woman who wants freedom not ask precisely these questions?"
When a man feels more comfortable denying that a sex act is vulnerable for himself as well as his partner this is a precursor for dominance. How well do we know the people we sleep with? A lack of knowledge suggests a lack of genuine trust, lack of intimacy and a risk for emotional and even physical harm. I think it is important for partners to have an understanding as to what sex means to each. God forbid partners actually talk about it before doing it!
I mentioned earlier that I do not agree with everything Dworkin wrote in Intercourse. Here I have jotted down just a few passages that have provoked thought within me. In a second post I will discuss areas of Dworkin's book that I have difficulty accepting as fact.
For now, I hope this long-ong post gave you something to chew on! Munch Munch Munch!
No comments:
Post a Comment