> First, I think John's original commentary was puzzling. He zeroed in on
> something that was written many years ago, failing to place Dworkin's
> work in context. It's like finding it outrageous that anyone would rail
> against lynching after reading Anna Julia Cooper's writings. Well, no,
> Jim Crow laws aren't officially on the books anymore and yes people
> don't typically adhere to biological racism, but that doesn't mean
> racism doesn't continue in new and different ways.
I zeroed in on those texts because they were in the Web site you cited. True, they date back a few years, but if Dworkin has said anything different more recently, I would be very much interested in hearing it.
> I think focusing on the particulars of marital rape ignores the way
> that the ideas that women are supposed to provide men with sex,
> presumably because they pay for it in some way (in the form of a higher
> income, social status, etc.), is embedded in wider normative patterns.
> that is, while most people would find it repugnant to think that a man
> would feel it his right to demand sex against a woman's will, you will
> find a lot more people perfectly fine with the idea that a man can go
> elsewhere for sex if he isn't getting it from his wife. in turn,
> there's the idea that a man deserves sex on a date if he pays for the
> date. i've forgotten the exact figures, but a scary high percentage of
> pre-teen boys think it's ok to demand sex if they pay for a date.
It's AD who seems to focus on the particulars of marital rape. I find her legalistic arguments oddly narrow, but it's true that it was an important step to get rid of the "marital exceptions" in the state laws (a step that I was frankly surprised to find was taken so recently, and which apparently is still underway, because there are still apparently some half-way steps in some states' laws). The feminists who worked on this deserve a lot of applause.
Do more Americans (leaving aside the attitudes in other countries) agree with the idea that a husband can go elsewhere for sex if he isn't getting it from his wife than with the idea that a wife can do the same? (Or more broadly, if either spouse is dissatisfied for any reason, sexual or not, with her/his spouse?) This is the general question of how Americans view marital infidelity, a very interesting question. My impression is that until recently, anyway, it was becoming more and more accepted, by both men and women (traditionally, of course, it was tolerated more for men than women, in line with the general double standard in patriarchal societies). These days we are hearing more and more about the "sacredness of marriage," so things may be different. But I have a sneaking suspicion that even the folks that cry the loudest in public about this sacredness, in many cases, have a very different private opinion. I infer this from the general principle that religious folks who make a big noise about their piety usually turn out to be the biggest hypocrites. If I recall correctly, Jesus himself noticed this.
> then there's the lovely comment one hears frequently enough: "if she's
> dressed like a whore, then she deserves to get raped." uh, no, she
> deserves to get paid for sex if she's dressed like a whore, eh? or,
> maybe just maybe she deserves to be treated like a human being who
> chooses to dress (or talk or act or...) whatever way she pleases and
> her clothes should no more signal desire for sex than a man's clothes
> (speech or actions).
Couldn't agree more. But eradicating the double standard, as a whole, from our society's attitudes will take a lot more work.
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org ________________________________ Information is not knowledge. Knowledge is not wisdom. Wisdom is not truth. Truth is not beauty. Beauty is not love. Love is not music. - Frank Zappa