Intercourse, by: Andrea Dworkin - Feminish

of circumcision was “ to limit sexual intercourse, and to weakenthe organ of generation as far as possible, and thus cause manto be moderate. ” 19Coercing the wife is frowned on because it isimmoderate—like fucking right after eating.The limitation and regulation of male lust have always beenhigh on the religious agenda and an implicit part of religiouslaw; but the so-called morality behind the constraints has beenbrilliantly pragmatic. Male dominance does best, after all,when men do not, generally speaking, fuck themselves to deathby fucking whatever moves. Restraint is a key to power.The immersion in lust without restraint appears to create aburden of distress, the desperate feeling of craving and addiction.Augustine, living with a mistress, “found by my own experiencethe difference between the restraint of the marriagealliance, contracted for the purpose of having children, and abargain struck for lu st. . . ” 20Using the woman as he wanted,when he wanted, he felt “ sunk in death, ” 21 “wallowing in filthand scratching the itching sore of lust. ” 22 The itching sore oflust is an essential standard for determining obscenity in contemporarylaw; prurience, an element of obscenity, means“itch” in the context of lust. In male-constructed systems oflaw, men regulate male lust; the itching sore of lust is deemedby men antisocial, a burden because it must be indulged butcan never be satisfied. Laws have tried, and still try, to protectmen from the apparently demoralizing experience of beingdriven by the itching sore of lust beyond what they can eitherstand or satisfy. The feeling of being dragged down, compulsive,obsessed, is experienced as a form of degradation or aform of suffering. Restless and driven, the men who have unlimitedcarnal power find themselves the opposite of freeeven though they are on top. “ Its deadly pleasures, ” wrote