In the interest of fairness it should probably be pointed out that Dworkin rejected that interpretation of her work. Which is fair enough. At the same time, sh

In the interest of fairness it should probably be pointed out that Dworkin rejected that interpretation of her work. Which is fair enough. At the same time, she did write things like: Intercourse is the pure, sterile, formal expression of men's contempt for women Or: A human being has a body that is inviolate; and when it is violated, it is abused. A woman has a body that is penetrated in intercourse: permeable, its corporeal solidness a lie. The discourse of male truth--literature, science, philosophy, pornography--calls that penetration violation. This it does with some consistency and some confidence. Violation is a synonym for intercourse. At the same time, the penetration is taken to be a use, not an abuse; a normal use; it is appropriate to enter her, to push into ("violate") the boundaries of her body. Personally I think she was backpeddling, but please have a read of what she wrote: http://feastofhateandfear.com/archives/dworkin.html http://feastofhateandfear.com/archives/dworkin.html