"This is nihilism, or this is truth. He has to push in past boundaries. There is the outline of a body, distinct, separate, its integrity an illusion, a tragic deception, because unseen there is a slit between the legs, and he has to push into it. There is never a real privacy of the body that can coexist with intercourse: with being entered. The vagina itself is muscled and the muscles have to be pushed apart. The thrusting is persistent invasion. She is opened up, split down the center. She is occupied--physically, internally, in her privacy. ...
"There is no analogue anywhere among subordinated groups of people to this experience of being made for intercourse: for penetration, entry, occupation. There is no analogue in occupied countries or in dominated races or in imprisoned dissidents or in colonialized cultures or in the submission of children to adults or in the atrocities that have marked the twentieth century ranging from Auschwitz to the Gulag. There is nothing exactly the same, and this is not because the political invasion and significance of intercourse is banal up against these other hierarchies and brutalities. Intercourse is a particular reality for women as an inferior class; and it has, in it, as part of it, violation of boundaries, taking over, occupation, destruction of privacy, all of which are construed to be normal and also fundamental to continuing human existence. There is nothing that happens to any other civilly inferior people that is the same in its meaning and in its effect even when those people are forced into sexual availability, heterosexual or homosexual; while the subject people, for instance, may be forced to have intercourse with those who dominate them, the God who does not exist did not make human existence, broadly speaking, dependent on their compliance. The political meaning of intercourse for women is the fundamental question of feminism and freedom: can an occupied people--physically occupied inside, internally invaded--be free; can those with a metaphysically compromised privacy have self-determination; can those without a biologically based physical integrity have self-respect?"
I watched OP's pic on youtube. That discussion was great. I wish we had shows like that on television now. The closest thing we have is Charlie Rose but he's too typical a host. Watching Burgess was a delight and Dworkin, to her credit, was a great guest. She was an incredible blasphemer. Nearly everything that woman said sent me into apoplectic fits.
"This is nihilism, or this is truth. She has to bring him into herself. There is the outline of a body, distinct, separate, its integrity an illusion, a tragic deception, because the penis protrudes, and she has to envelop it. There is never a real privacy of the body that can coexist with intercourse: with being consumed."
Oh look I can twist consensual sex into an act of aggression too, it goes both ways.
Marquis De Sade would not be able to torture logic any better.
Hey, sex for men is more invasive of privacy because you can SEE our reproductive organs! Men are much more vulnerable by nature!
This is a byproduct of humanities being used as an easy field of study for diploma mills.
Don't forget men live in constant fear of losing their reproductive organs. And that they can't ever have a bond like the one between a mother and her child. Let's not even get started on the practical implications of being the gender that doesn't carry children has had for men through all of history. But hey you got a dick so it's alright.
Fearing losing a rad cool penis is normal.
Men bond as friends and equals. Women bond as slaves or tyrants.
A woman's relationship with her child is a creepy psychosexual grooming of either her successor (daughter) or her future benefactor when her husband either dies or stops finding her cute (son), filled bizarre resentment and sublimated hate (Munchausen by proxy, e.g.).
Women are horrifying.
Has she never met a man who wasn't a complete fuckup?
Has she never been to the south? Families here are officially patriarchal as all get-out, but the reality of gender politics in a traditional society in no way resembles a master-slave relationship except on paper. Throw in a few legal rights for women and you've got the gender thing sorted out pretty well.
Men here are so whipped, underneath all the beards and guns and other paraphernalia of masculine power. Not in the sense of being feminists, but in being slave to the way women perceive them. Women have developed ways to wield one another and men to their advantages despite giving lip service to submissive roles and "sacrifices."
I feel badly for the women who try to have children outside of such a society. Relying on the state and your multinational employer to "liberate" you from the curse of a man who cares about you must wear thin after a while.
Apparently this is okay when feminists do it and bad when anyone else does it.