I just finished reading "Intercourse" by Dworkin

[Nikia]

I had read the comments in general discussion when she died criticizing her work as "man hating". Reading the book though, I can say that she made some really good points. Although I disagree with her in many individual circumstances, what she describes as intercourse is upheld as the patriarchial ideal. That ideal is incompatible with social equality of women as well as equality within a marriage or other sexual relationship.
I'd really like to discuss this book without it turning into a flame war.

[Dogmudgeon]

1. Sure

I'm not a Dworkin hater. I have taken issue with her in the past, but I don't think that rises to the level of hatred.

I don't understand how intercourse -- penile-vaginal fucking -- can be patriarchal. Many radical feminists make this point, but it always seems to be a tortured conclusion. One of the rationales given is that pregnancy and childbirth are dangerous and potentially deadly for the woman, while the man can skip out as he pleases. But many woman have used pregnancy -- and the laws of the state -- to "trap" a man into unwanted marriage and financial obligation. Both genders assume risks with intercourse.

What is Dworkin's take on this dialectic?

--p!

[Nikia]

2. She takes multiple approaches

Some of it is inherrent in the act, a woman's privacy is invaded by the act, the act itself involves domination. A lot of it has a more socialogical basis: women are stigmatized by sex while men are not, male genetials are something to be proud of while women's are shamed, women are reduced to objects, as well as rape and sexual coercion, and marriage as ownership.
I think that some of these arguements are a bit extreme in that they are not true in all cases. I do not think that all men see their role in the sex act as dominating or as using a woman. I have seen it though and sex as an act between equals is a relatively new concept. The issues that she raised are things that need to be discussed. Just as we can read communist and socialist books, agreeing that they make good points, without discarding, but reforming, capitalism; we can read this book that criticzes heterosexual intercourse to reform attitudes and practices of it without doing away with it or really meaning that it is always oppressive. I wouldn't want that and reading her introduction, I don't think that she really wants that either.