Intercourse, by: Andrea Dworkin - Feminish

ang bang bang? Would intercourse without objectification, ifit could exist, be compatible with women’s equality—even anexpression of it—or would it still be stubbornly antagonistic toit? Would intercourse cause orgasm in women if women werenot objects for men before and during intercourse? Can intercourseexist without objectification and can objectification existwithout female complicity in maintaining it as a perceivedreality and a material reality too: can objectification exist withoutthe woman herself turning herself into an object—becomingthrough effort and art a thing, less than human, so that hecan be more than human, hard, sovereign, king? Can intercourseexist without the woman herself turning herself into athing, which she must do because men cannot fuck equals andmen must fuck: because one price of dominance is that one isimpotent in the face of equality?To become the object, she takes herself and transforms herselfinto a thing: all freedoms are diminished and she is caged,even in the cage docile, sometimes physically maimed, movementis limited: she physically becomes the thing he wants tofuck. It is especially in the acceptance of object status that herhumanity is hurt: it is a metaphysical acceptance of lower statusin sex and in society; an implicit acceptance of less freedom,less privacy, less integrity. In becoming an object so that he canobjectify her so that he can fuck her, she begins a political collaborationwith his dominance; and then when he enters her, heconfirms for himself and for her what she is: that she is something,not someone; certainly not someone equal.There is the initial complicity, the acts of self-mutilation,self-diminishing, self-reconstruction, until there is no self, onlythe diminished, mutilated reconstruction. It is all superficialand unimportant, except what it costs the human in her to do