> http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/LieDetect.html
On this site, Dworkin is quoted in the introduction to a new edition of _Intercourse_:
"If one's sexual experience has always and without exception been based on dominance--not only overt acts but also metaphysical and ontological assumptions -- how can one read this book? The end of male dominance would mean -- in the understanding of such a man -- the end of sex. If one has eroticized a differential in power that allows for force as a natural and inevitable part of intercourse, how could one understand that this book does not say that all men are rapists or that all intercourse is rape? Equality in the realm of sex is an antisexual idea if sex requires domination in order to register as sensation. As said as I am to say it, the limits of the old Adam -- and the material power he still has, especially in publishing and media -- have set limits on the public discourse (by both men and women) about this book."
If I interpret this passage correctly (and I am not sure I do), I gather that she is allowing for the possibility that there are men who have not eroticized this power differential and therefore can get pleasure from sex in an equal manner, fully respecting their female partners. Also, that such men can engage in intercourse without it being rape. If this is what she is saying, then she indeed does not hold that all acts of intercourse are rape. OTOH, she does not seem to think that there are very many such men, especially since she counts not only "overt acts" but "metaphysical and ontological assumptions," whatever they are.
In the Moorcock interview on the site, she says:
"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."
A very cursory Web check on the subject of the "marital rape exemption" seems to indicate that all states of the U.S. by now have repealed such exemptions, but the precise legal situation is a little murky to this non-lawyer. Perhaps a lawyer on the list could clarify. This non-lawyer also finds it extremely difficult to believe that legal definitions of marriage these days include a duty for the wife to perform intercourse whenever the husband demands it, but unlike Dworkin, I haven't studied marriage law.
In the next paragraph, she says:
"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."
Here she moves from "most men" to "many men." Perhaps by now (this interview dates from 1995) she has even moved to "some men." At any rate, I am glad to see that, after all, she does recognize that at least some men can get sexual pleasure from something other than inequality and unfair advantage. Of course, there is the further point that it is entirely possible for both men and women to get sexual pleasure entirely without intercourse, making the whole issue of whether intercourse=rape moot.
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org _____________________________ Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx