You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.99 AVERAGE
3.99 AVERAGE
challenging
dark
informative
reflective
slow-paced
I wouldn't let men leave high school without having read this.
As if I needed another reason to hate pornography! When I saw that this was the next in Dworkin's bibliography, I was overjoyed. Finally--a text that I could refer to when I see people defending pornography. But that happiness at finally having something that accorded with me soon turned into disgust and horror. If you thought pornography was bad--well, you have no idea. From Marquis de Sade to Hugh Hefner, Dworkin analyzes how and why porn came to be as well as how it's become so easily defended, how it keeps women from speaking out.
With her usual tone and manner of writing, she analyzes various aspects of pornography, from gender, to race, to sex. She takes a look at both written and print pornography (alas, it hadn't hit its video hey-day yet--I would have loved to see what she had to say on that and it's later proliferation into our everyday and socially acceptable society) and picks apart every possible meaning--from gun-toting men and animalized women to forced woman and the woman who forces.
All of it is about force. Porn reflects what men believe to be true: that women want it--and if they say they don't, well, that's because they haven't unlocked their true whorish potential. And if they do want it? Well, it's in their nature. There's no winning for women, for those pornographied, those who have been assaulted, those who have been in the industry. This nonfiction is simultaneously informative and heartbreaking, but it's a text that reaffirms an important second-wave ideal for those who believe we are in the third or fourth (Ha!) waves of feminism. Porn is not empowering, and it is not anything but absolutely harmful and detrimental.
Review cross-listed here!
With her usual tone and manner of writing, she analyzes various aspects of pornography, from gender, to race, to sex. She takes a look at both written and print pornography (alas, it hadn't hit its video hey-day yet--I would have loved to see what she had to say on that and it's later proliferation into our everyday and socially acceptable society) and picks apart every possible meaning--from gun-toting men and animalized women to forced woman and the woman who forces.
All of it is about force. Porn reflects what men believe to be true: that women want it--and if they say they don't, well, that's because they haven't unlocked their true whorish potential. And if they do want it? Well, it's in their nature. There's no winning for women, for those pornographied, those who have been assaulted, those who have been in the industry. This nonfiction is simultaneously informative and heartbreaking, but it's a text that reaffirms an important second-wave ideal for those who believe we are in the third or fourth (Ha!) waves of feminism. Porn is not empowering, and it is not anything but absolutely harmful and detrimental.
Review cross-listed here!
challenging
dark
informative
sad
slow-paced
"The Left cannot have its whores and its politics too."
The Left as a wide-spread, nebulous political ideology is pro-feminism. It is also anti-racist, pro-gay, and everything else that liberals say that they are. So why does the porn they watch--and it's most porn out there in the world--so brutal, racist, and homophobic?
When Dworkin published this book, porn could be bought or rented on VHS. She had no idea that we would soon be able to stream it on our computers, phones, and any other device with an internet connection. In writing about this topic, she was thinking of heralded erotica authors such as the masochistic Marquis de Sade and perverted CEOs like Playboy's Hugh Hefner.
This is the second time I've read this book and am sorry that it took such a long time for me to get through. But it's a difficult subject and Dworkin isn't one to shy away or make friendly comparisons or observations.
It's understandable that we as a society don't want to acknowledge the very real dangers of porn and what it means when we think about women as a class. But we must do so in order to stop women's subjugation. For one, porn, sex trafficking, and sexual abuse are all more intertwined than anyone wants to admit. Yes, there are women who want to do it, and there are indeed women on screen who are paid to say they want to do it. But the fact of the matter is that when we sexualize women--and then sexualize other aspects of women, such as race and sexuality--we then diminish their complexity and view them all through a sexual lens. How else would the dominant class, the white male complex, uphold and reinforce stereotypes? The link between one's orgasm and one's thought process is closer than we'd like to think.
The pushback from men--the Right as a moralistic argument, the Left as a freedom argument--only serves themselves: the way they want to view women. If we show women on screen, it is a detriment to women's purity. If we restrict women on screen, it is a detriment to their freedom. However, it really just seems to be this: there aren't enough women who really want to do this to keep up with the demand. Men want to believe that women want to do this--that they are free and impure (and ergo absolve men of their guilt)--so that they don't have to think critically about what they are do. Women want to be fucked by some stranger on screen, animals want to be eaten, victims want to be murdered, forests want to be on fire! The idea that their voyeuristic victims might be anything other than 100% willing would make them the guilty party. And we all know how well men are at facing up to their guilt!
It's men's true reluctance to this topic that reminds us of how little they actually care about our liberation. Their idea of liberation for women is for us to do exactly what they want us to do. But, perhaps, what we want to do is something completely different. And that's terrifying for them.
The Left as a wide-spread, nebulous political ideology is pro-feminism. It is also anti-racist, pro-gay, and everything else that liberals say that they are. So why does the porn they watch--and it's most porn out there in the world--so brutal, racist, and homophobic?
When Dworkin published this book, porn could be bought or rented on VHS. She had no idea that we would soon be able to stream it on our computers, phones, and any other device with an internet connection. In writing about this topic, she was thinking of heralded erotica authors such as the masochistic Marquis de Sade and perverted CEOs like Playboy's Hugh Hefner.
This is the second time I've read this book and am sorry that it took such a long time for me to get through. But it's a difficult subject and Dworkin isn't one to shy away or make friendly comparisons or observations.
It's understandable that we as a society don't want to acknowledge the very real dangers of porn and what it means when we think about women as a class. But we must do so in order to stop women's subjugation. For one, porn, sex trafficking, and sexual abuse are all more intertwined than anyone wants to admit. Yes, there are women who want to do it, and there are indeed women on screen who are paid to say they want to do it. But the fact of the matter is that when we sexualize women--and then sexualize other aspects of women, such as race and sexuality--we then diminish their complexity and view them all through a sexual lens. How else would the dominant class, the white male complex, uphold and reinforce stereotypes? The link between one's orgasm and one's thought process is closer than we'd like to think.
The pushback from men--the Right as a moralistic argument, the Left as a freedom argument--only serves themselves: the way they want to view women. If we show women on screen, it is a detriment to women's purity. If we restrict women on screen, it is a detriment to their freedom. However, it really just seems to be this: there aren't enough women who really want to do this to keep up with the demand. Men want to believe that women want to do this--that they are free and impure (and ergo absolve men of their guilt)--so that they don't have to think critically about what they are do. Women want to be fucked by some stranger on screen, animals want to be eaten, victims want to be murdered, forests want to be on fire! The idea that their voyeuristic victims might be anything other than 100% willing would make them the guilty party. And we all know how well men are at facing up to their guilt!
It's men's true reluctance to this topic that reminds us of how little they actually care about our liberation. Their idea of liberation for women is for us to do exactly what they want us to do. But, perhaps, what we want to do is something completely different. And that's terrifying for them.
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
challenging
dark
informative
slow-paced
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced