>
> Rape involves sex, right?
Hey man, if your definition of sex doesn't include consent, then I'll make sure to be staying the heck away from you....
> Yet, one feminist position is that rape isn't about
> sex, it's about power.
>
> OK. But if it's just about power, why not just beat
> the hell out of a woman?
Because, like sex, if it involves consent, it's a different activity, no? But is it an ENTIRELY different activity? In our society, probably never, and that's where Dworkin's writing was helpful.
I'll use the familiar rape education adage: Rape is sex used as a weapon. You can use a frying pan to fry an egg, but you can also use a frying pan to hit someone over the head. The question you're asking would be analogous to saying, Why not pistol-whip a woman rather than hit her over the head with a frying pan?
Which leads us to the question: Why does violence confer power?
BTW, I've noticed the articles on Dworkin have compared her to Malcolm X? Is there a similar sentiment that Malcolm X was an embarassment to the civil rights movement, the way Dworkin was to feminism?
--adx
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/