In the latest issue:

Boris Johnson’s First Year

Ferdinand Mount

Short Cuts: In the Bunker

Thomas Jones

Theban Power

James Romm

What can the WHO do?

James Meek

At the Type Archive

Alice Spawls

Where the Poor Lived

Alison Light

At the Movies: ‘Da 5 Bloods’

Michael Wood

Cultural Pillaging

Neal Ascherson

Jenny Offill

Adam Mars-Jones

Shakespeare v. the English

Michael Dobson

Poem: ‘Now Is the Cool of the Day’

Maureen N. McLane

Tativille

David Trotter

Consider the Hare

Katherine Rundell

How Should I Refer to You?

Amia Srinivasan

Poem: ‘Field Crickets (Gryllus campestris)’

Fiona Benson

Diary: In Mali

Rahmane Idrissa

Signor CockRoy Porter
Close
Close
Intercourse 
by Andrea Dworkin.
Secker, 259 pp., £10.95, June 1987, 0 436 13961 8
Show More
Show More

You only have to read the torrent of filthy abuse pouring out of this diatribe against sex and men to see that Andrea Dworkin is a sick lady. It’s one long hysterical denunciation of sexual intercourse as really bad news for women. The way she rants on is of course the give-away symptom of sexual frustration. Clearly she can’t be getting enough of it – not surprising for someone overweight and ugly like her! Either that, or she is one of the seven in ten women (evidence: Hite Report) who can’t regularly make it to orgasm with a man. Typically of such women, her frustration has turned her into a man-hater. It’s awful being a man in today’s world. It means being bombarded with androcidal aggression from women who love to hate us.

Now, if I were to write offensive, abominable crap like this, I’d be branded (rightly) as sexist. If I carried on with that mix of personal innuendo and screaming invective for two hundred pages, the sheer overkill of it would preclude serious attention to anything I was saying. But when Andrea Dworkin does the same sort of thing, only with the villains and victims reversed?

Her book is a sustained indictment of sexual intercourse. ‘Hatred of women is a source of sexual pleasure for men in its own right. Intercourse appears to be the expression of that contempt in pure form ... Intercourse is the pure, sterile, formal expression of men’s contempt for women.’ Mary Daly says that ‘this monumental work is feminist theory at its best – clear, coherent, profound, shocking.’ Is it? Or is it just another barrage of bombast whose self-indulgent hyperbole undermines its own insights? I take it for granted that no one is going to deny this late in the day the underlying premise that women have been oppressed down the ages, and that sex has been one of the instruments of that oppression. This is hardly news. Why and how and how far that has happened, and continues to happen, are what we need to understand and change.

Dworkin’s case, argued in part through literary analysis, is that the pejorative meanings of ‘being fucked’ and ‘being screwed’ get it dead right. For a woman, being fucked is ipso facto being used, being abused, being exploited. With a touching faith in the ‘triumph of hope over experience’, some women have generously believed that things could be different, that there could be a non-exploitative sexual intercourse with a man, founded upon consent, equality or tenderness. Such hopes are pie in the sky: ‘they do not amount to much in real life with real men.’ Entertaining them is just romantic sexual fantasy.

The fact is, Dworkin claims, that men never were like that, aren’t like that, don’t want to be like that, and won’t be like that. ‘In the world of real life ... men use the penis to deliver death to women who are, literally, in their genitals, dirt to the men. The women are raped as adults or as children; prostituted; fucked, then murdered; murdered then fucked.’ Of course over history women have pinned their hopes upon civilising men, and some men at least – among them, I assume, the men thanked in Ms Dworkin’s Acknowledgements – have strung women along with that line. The cause is futile: ‘Male-dominant gender hierarchy, however, seems immune to reform by reasoned or visionary argument or by changes in sexual styles, either personal or social.’

Men are the enemy: they are ‘supposed to slice us up the middle, leaving us in parts on the bed’. Yet the root of the problem lies elsewhere. It is what sexual intercourse inevitably does to female anatomy. The ultimate evil is the very act of the insertion of a penis (or presumably anything else) into a vagina. For that is, by its very nature, an ‘invasion’. It means being ‘possessed’, rendering women ‘an occupied people’. ‘Violation,’ she says, ‘is a synonym for intercourse.’ But consensual intercourse may be even worse than rape because it reduces women to the state of ‘collaborators’. Throughout this book, men are compared to the Nazis, though ‘from Auschwitz to the Gulag’ there is ‘no analogue amongst subordinated groups’ to the condition of women.

Once conquered, a woman is subject to hierarchical domination, she is enslaved. ‘Intercourse and women’s inequality are like Siamese twins.’ Intercourse is soul-destroying. ‘Being that person who is owned and fucked means becoming someone who experiences sensuality in being possessed ... one’s capacities to feel and to be are narrowed, sliced down.’ The fuck is a vampire. It leads to the ‘erosion of self’; it’s all up with the woman who allows herself to be fucked: ‘her insides are worn away over time, and she, possessed, becomes weak, depleted,’ undergoing ‘a sensual state of being that borders on anti-being until it ends in death’. Thus the woman who engages in intercourse undergoes ‘self-mutilation, self-diminishing ... till there is no self’. There is only one simple alternative: women can fuck, or they can be free. Women who think otherwise (Marguerite Duras is singled out) are guilty of ‘capitulation’. Just about the only woman praised in this book is Joan of Arc, who, Dworkin assures us, contrary to Medieval chronicles, must have actually killed some men in battle.

On the dust-wrapper, Germaine Greer tells us this is ‘the most shocking book any feminist has yet written’, and Shere Hite praises it as ‘ground-breaking, outstanding, original, and an act of forbidden rebellion’. I can’t understand why Dworkin’s rediscovery of the wheel should receive such adulation. For everything she says about how yielding to sexual desire is a descent from self-determination to slavery was the stock-in-trade of every Christian ascetic for two thousand years. Her view that the only way for women to keep their freedom is to keep free of men was the creed of nuns throughout the Middle Ages, and of pioneer feminists from Mary Astell at the close of the 17th century to such Purity League campaigners as Frances Swiney at the close of the 19th. What she says about how awful it is having to put up with men sticking it in you has been the bread and butter of what Auntie Eth has been moaning about all these years. It may seem shocking to the likes of Germaine Greer that Dworkin has written that sex with men is repulsive and humiliating, but isn’t that because in a former existence Greer et al themselves were great traitors (‘collaborators’) who thought that ‘sexual liberation’ was the royal road to the liberation of women? To give Dworkin her due, all her books have been consistent about the evils for women of being fucked by men.

So Dworkin’s basic message is old hat, screaming at us in the very language men use about women and sex. Does she add any new twists to it? Is this book ‘original’ (Hite) and ‘coherent and profound’ (Daly)? No, because it doesn’t get beyond the (totally justified) anger to any substantial analysis, though analysis is badly needed. We are told that what lies at the root of the evil of sexual intercourse for a woman is the physical fact of the invasion (even consensual) of bodily integrity. This is an unfashionably biologistic view, which deserves further exploration. (Taken to its logical extreme, it would make dentistry the natural target of her next diatribe.) Surely more must be said about the relations between the physical and the psychological. If intercourse is not just the brute fact of being conquered by a penis, and not automatically the experience of being so conquered, but were rather experienced as (say) the ambushing of Signor Cock, taking him captive, would that change things? Or would that be just another turn of the false-consciousness screw? And what about other forms of insertion into bodies, deep kissing, or acts of penetration among gays, male and female? Silence on all these issues – issues sensitively explored, for example, in Brian Easlea’s Science and Sexual Oppression.

This leaves us perplexed about Dworkin’s line on sexual desire. Is desire in itself the enemy within, or is the erotic acceptable so long as it entails no penetration, no violation of the integrity of the body? But where then does violation begin? If a woman loses her freedom and is objectified the moment anything goes into her vagina, does she also lose it if she wants to be – or allows herself to be – touched? Or simply looked at? Or is sensuality all right so long as it excludes any danger of domination or being dominated?

If these are the rules, we’d better give up: give up not just sex but living itself, for the notion that we can separate sex or life from tussles for power is pure cloud-cuckoo land. Most people think the game is worth the candle and settle for some give-and-take. Within patriarchy, the story has been mainly one of men taking and women giving. But the sexual politics of the real world may have more twists and turns in it than are dreamt about in Dworkin’s philosophy, and stooping to conquer has not exactly been unknown. To try to present women as nothing other than powerless victims is a historico-sociological nonsense which profoundly degrades women.

Maybe Dworkin is telling women that sex itself is slavery, a ‘self-mutilation’. Maybe female ‘desire’ is just a piece of false-consciousness manipulated by men (and by ‘capitulated’ novelists like Marguerite Duras and benighted feminists such as Germaine Greer back in their unreconstructed days): a delusion requiring drastic demystification. Or maybe desire is real enough, but needs, as St Jerome or St Catherine told us all those centuries ago, to be resisted in the name of a higher asceticism or celibacy. The trouble with this book is that on basic, even banal issues like this, it remains silent. Reading it is rather like hearing a sermon slamming sin. Well and good: there’s a lot wrong with fucking just as there’s a lot wrong with sin. The real question is what we propose to do about it, or rather, given that men seem a hopeless case, what are women to do?

The crux of the dilemma clearly is this. If sexual intercourse is as ghastly for women as Dworkin claims it is, what on earth can induce women to go on having it? For many centuries and societies, there may have been a simple answer: they had no alternative. Women were physically and legally the chattels of patriarchs, and witches were burnt (though not nine million of them, as Andrea Dworkin keeps telling us – nearer 150,000). Single-blessedness and celibacy are more practical today than ever. Yet more women than ever are having sex, getting married, and more and more women are getting married again and again. Is there something that Dworkin knows, but most women don’t? Or something all those women know that Dworkin doesn’t? If Dworkin has got to the heart of the matter about how intercourse intrinsically enslaves and murders women, and yet women still go on having it, the only conclusion is that Dworkin, like the worst male chauvinist pig, thinks that women are just stupid cunts.

Send Letters To:

The Editor
London Review of Books,
28 Little Russell Street
London, WC1A 2HN

letters@lrb.co.uk

Please include name, address, and a telephone number.

Letters

Vol. 9 No. 14 · 23 July 1987

SIR: I have just read Roy Porter’s oafish piece inspired by Andrea Dworkin’s Intercourse (LRB, 25 June). I have read nothing as shameful’, as pompous or as crudely misleading in a literary journal. Its language and form are reminiscent of the kind of hectoring, bullyboy stuff one used to read in Action and which one still finds in National Front periodicals. In their case the insults were directed at Jews and Blacks. Roy Porter seems to feel equally confident in directing his insults at a woman.

I have read Intercourse. I am the only person quoted on the jacket who is not a woman. Apart from Robin Morgan I am the only person not quoted by Porter. The chief part of the book examines the work of five writers (Tolstoy, Abe, Tennessee Williams, Baldwin, Singer) whom Dworkin admires. She discusses with a fair amount of sympathetic understanding the dichotomy these writers felt between, for instance, the morality expressed in their work and the injustice they realised existed in their personal relations with women. At no point does Dworkin suggest there is anything wrong with sexual intercourse. At no point does she express any belief in biological determinism. Her polemics are constantly prefaced with such words as ‘In a male-dominated society …’ She is neither man-hating nor does she in any sense blame women for being subject to ‘male imperialism’. She does quote male writers who equate conventional sexual intercourse with domination of women, who admit that they use sex to control women, who refer to their relations with women in terms of ‘conquest’, ‘occupation’ and ‘invasion’. She discusses male hatred of women (see Male Fantasies by Klaus Theweleit for further discussin and evidence of this). The tone of her book, though angry, is reasoned and it is humane. Dworkin suggests there might be fresh ways of approaching the act of sexual intercourse. Since Porter fails to quote me I shall repeat what I have already said about the book. Dworkin is one of the great radical thinkers of our time. Any man who ignores what she has to say is refusing the possibility of a dramatically better world where women and men may at last find genuine equality – and enjoy an immense and lasting pleasure in their mutual sensuality. Why didn’t it suit Porter to quote that? He quoted virtually nothing from the book and what he did quote was completely out of context.

I believe Intercourse to be a very important book and I think many people will eventually regard it as such. Meanwhile for you to allow space to someone’s panicky and misogynistic ravings is demeaning to the LRB and to its readers. I’m saddened and outraged that you’ve seen fit to publish such a low level of argument. I seriously doubt you would have published so contemptible a piece had it been directed at a male writer and must therefore suppose that you not only condone but applaud the expression of Porter’s mindless bigotry.

Michael Moorcock
London WC1

Roy Porter writes: Mindless bigotry is indeed the issue. But who is the mindless bigot? The author whose book is full of statements like ‘In the world of real life … men use the penis to deliver death to women … The women are raped as adults or as children; prostituted; fucked, then murdered; murdered then fucked,’ and whose concluding sentence states that men ‘are supposed to slice us up the middle, leaving us in parts on the bed’; or the reviewer who protests against this?

SIR. In his jocund review of Andrea Dworkin’s Intercourse, Roy Porter discusses her view of the sexual act as an invasion of bodily integrity, and muses parenthetically: ‘Taken to its logical extreme, it would make dentistry the natural target of her next diatribe.’ In Philip Roth’s The Counterlife Henry Zuckerman the dentist, while beginning to seduce his assistant, says:

Most people, unlike you, will never tell you what their mouth means. If they’re frightened of dental work it’s sometimes because of some frightening experience early on, but primarily it’s because of what the mouth means. Anyone touching it is either an invader or a helper. To get them from thinking that someone working on them is invading them, to the idea that you are helping them on to something good, is almost like having a sexual experience. For most people, the mouth is secret, it’s their hiding place. Just like the genitals. You have to remember that embryologically the mouth is related to the genitals.

Perhaps the dentists among your readership would care to probe further?

Bruno Nightingale
London SE22

Vol. 9 No. 17 · 1 October 1987

SIR: I find myself compelled as a woman and as a feminist (at least I used to think of myself as one) to put in a good word for Roy Porter’s review of Andrea Dworkin’s book (LRB, 25 June). I find it utterly disheartening that after the brilliant writing and thinking of the Seventies (hallmarks of which were Kate Millett’s Sexual Politics and Germaine Greer’s Female Eunuch) prominent feminist writing (the thinking presumably has left us) should have degenerated into the narrow-minded, bigoted sterility represented by this kind of work: work permeated by hate, enmity and vengefulness – an attitude, to my mind, worse even than the one it is purportedly condemning. When the act of the rapist is so facilely equated with the lover’s or husband’s embrace, what is happening other than a thorough exoneration of the violent maniac? And what is all this rubbish about insertion of the penis being an invasion? To equate rape with the act of making love is to distort utterly the very essence of life, which culminates in the coming together of man and woman. To think of this merely as the penis violating the body is to disregard the supreme pleasure and ecstasy, the rushing of blood, the warm embrace, the rippling of skin and so on, fully enjoyed by the female of the species (and often to a greater height than the male) during the act of love.

The propagation of these warped notions, expressing violent hate and hostility for our natural counterparts and partners in life, is not only sterile and perverted, but also makes painfully clear the degeneration of the philosophical movement that could have led to repairing the damage already caused between the sexes, instead of making it all so much worse by producing an ugly and distorted mirror image of what it was you were initially against.

Parina Stiakaki
Crete

Vol. 9 No. 20 · 12 November 1987

SIR: Like your correspondent Parina Stiakaki (Letters, 1 October), I find myself compelled to write on the subject of Andrea Dworkin’s Intercourse, but my aim is to counter the gross distortions that appeared in Roy Porter’s review of the book (LRB, 25 June) and your correspondent’s accusations of its ‘narrow-minded, bigoted sterility’ and its ‘warped notions’ that express ‘violent hate and hostility’ towards men. I am amazed that Andrea Dworkin’s careful arguments can produce such reactions of apparent detestation. Your readers may perhaps be surprised to learn that Intercourse offers a detailed analysis of the history of and meanings given to sexual intercourse in the works and lives of writers such as Tolstoy, Flaubert, James Baldwin and Isaac Bashevis Singer; it explores male fears of women’s autonomy through such historical figures as Joan of Arc; it charts the history of the control of women’s sexuality and the denial of their freedom through centuries of religious and secular law. All this Dworkin achieves with scholarly precision and, dare I say it, with compassion and wit. Examples of this last can be found in the aptness of her many quotations: two marvellously funny, and fearful, examples, being George Bernard Shaw on Joan of Arc’s physical unattractiveness and Somerset Maugham on his Professor of Gynaecology’s definition of woman (‘an animal that micturates once a day, defecates once a week, menstruates once a month, parturates once a year and copulates whenever she has the opportunity’). ‘Were she loved sufficiently,’ comments Dworkin, ‘she could not be despised so much.’ I do not think that Dworkin’s comment expresses ‘hate, enmity and vengefulness’.

Roy Porter suggested that this book is an insult to women, and this is echoed by Parina Stiakaki, who, it seems, was so horrified by it that she was forced to recant her feminism (one can assume this was not an issue for Porter). Dworkin’s crime is to politicise sexual intercourse, and to demand that we look at the relationship between intercourse and the low status of women. As she says, intercourse ‘occurs in a context of a power relation that is pervasive and incontrovertible’. Such an analysis poses an enormous threat to the security offered by the belief that sexual relationships are magically separate from the outside world. I am forced to interpret the hatred and contempt heaped upon Andrea Dworkin in the pages of your magazine as a defensive mechanism against such a threat. As a woman, a heterosexual and a feminist, I find no insult in Andrea Dworkin’s book. It may be uncomfortable, some of it disturbing, but I can only admire her passionate concern for women’s freedom and self-respect and feel challenged by her questioning of the most intimate aspects of our lives. I would urge your readers to give Intercourse a fair hearing, and not be put off by the heightened emotionalism with which it has been greeted.

Sarah Lefanu
Bristol

SIR: Intercourse seems to me a brave but too didactic work, written in a tone that in no sense justifies such an egregious ad feminam assault (LRB, 25 June). It seems that in England no more than here can Dworkin’s writing and ideas be responded to. This is a sad loss as she is a challenging and innovative thinker. Having subscribed to LRB since its first appearance during the Times strike, I always look forward to it: I just hope Porter either grows up or isn’t asked to review again.

Mark Hussey
New York

send letters to

The Editor
London Review of Books
28 Little Russell Street
London, WC1A 2HN

letters@lrb.co.uk

Please include name, address and a telephone number

Read anywhere with the London Review of Books app, available now from the App Store for Apple devices, Google Play for Android devices and Amazon for your Kindle Fire.

Read More

Sign up to our newsletter

For highlights from the latest issue, our archive and the blog, as well as news, events and exclusive promotions.

Newsletter Preferences