This book is widely ridiculed but how is it wrong? Just look at the way men online react to e.g. Alysa Liu. It's obvious that finding people attractive is rooted in misogyny.
>>18393244The line between love and hate is a thin one. I guess we are all biologically borderline in a way.Men and women are too different and don't like each other all that much, but our stupid private parts go awooga, I want to tap that, while our rational brain goes look at that stupid foid/moid.I guess it's just be like that. And anyway, men and women are not meant to live together. Every traditional culture separates its males and females in small insular communities that mingle only for childbirth, otherwise they don't like hanging out together all that much.The concept of a mixed society where men and women can befriend each other is a modern one, along with the idea of friendship between a man and a woman.What am I trying to say? Of course attraction is rooted in misogyny. Men like to fuck women, birth and raise a baby then fuck off to do their own thing. Sometimes a little bit if rape is involved. In the whole process, there is no place for luuuv and mutual respect, only practicality.What is that? I didn't dispute Dworkin? I actually did read the book and think her whole idea is ridiculous, it's not even worth discussing for the reasons I've stated.
>>18393248Why the cope? We all know it's true, you don't have to look further from 4chan and the way women are discussed here
feminism is for fat and ugly girls like being an incel is for fat and ugly boysits a defense mechanism to try and fuck chad
>>18393244>It's obvious that finding people attractive is rooted in misogynyIt's instinctive and inborn. Newborns react better when they see more attractive people. If you think male attraction comes from mysogyny then they're just *born that way*, I guess you'll have to adapt to accept them the way they are.
>>18393268Both feminists and incels are correct.
>>18393244Shes completely right, it surprises me that more men dont agree with her - you can recognize that dworkin is right and then continue liking it and doing it. It makes complete sense that the radical feminists who distanced themselves from heterosexuality + spent all of their time thinking about it got it right. if MGTOW was real and they did this theyd probably come to similar conclusions Maybe it's because so much of the book consists of literary analysis that most of us dont care about
>>18393287This
>>18393244>finding people attractive is rooted in misogyny.So if I don’t find someone attractive it’s because I’m just such a progressive wonderful feminist ally? Cool!
>>18393262it's a man though
>>18393262Women are actual automaton that are entirely controlled by whatever their strongest sensation or emotion is.
>>18393244Xitter cattle, who love bugmen are subhuman and have no value. Alyssa Liu or whatever that gook whore's name is, belongs in a concentration camp along with every feminist bitch that believes the niggerbabble of a fat kike whale like Dworkin.
>>18393244Ok but women evidently enjoy being sexualised (by attractive men) and sexualise themselves constantly so who cares?>rooted in misogynyWomen care just as much about looks as men do and are way more open about it anyways.
>>18393262>Sex focused on female pleasure is evilYes
>>18393244>finding people attractive is rooted in misogynyThis is obviously insane. But there is a weird thing unique to men where they fantasize about women they hate, often in a borderline rape-y or degrading way. I never saw women do that, sure, it's common for women to fetishize awful men but it's usually done more "normally" like "I could fix him" or "I don't care he is a murder I could not resist him", it's never "haha, you dumb pathetic piece of shit, I'm gonna ride your dick until you come" (this is more something masochistic men fantasize about being done to them).
>>18393607>But there is a weird thing unique to men where they fantasize about women they hate, often in a borderline rape-y or degrading way.As illustrated here:>>18393262
>>18393607Idk it's just fun. Unlike feminists I don't think this is socially conditioned, I feel this sexual dehumanization of women comes to us naturally
>>18393251>The concept of a mixed society where men and women can befriend each other is a modern one, along with the idea of friendship between a man and a woman.That's only true in the sense of close friendships, and for high society where women were much more sheltered. Lower-class society was much more mixed. In many ways our current society is more gender-segregated than historic societies. Sure, there are fewer places which are officially segregated but there are fewer non-digital third places in general, and digital places are Taliban-level gender-segregated.In premodern societies, there were more places only for men/women, and men-women interactions were more regulated (usually, women were accompanied by a male relative in public). But in day-to-day life, societies were smaller in scale, and the average person had to have more interpersonal interactions and relationships, with both men and women.
>>18393614What is interesting is that men want to be dehumanized just as often. Women as well, but it's rare to see women who want to be the dehumanizers (unless they roleplay just to please men).
>>18393244>finding people attractive is rooted in misogynywhere does she say thisimage for experimental purposes, does it activate neurons?
>>18393244Can you please expose the book's thesis at a longer length?I don't have the time to read freudian warblings from mental cases.
>>18393631She looks like a classy, sophisticated gal, for my neurons to be activated she would have to approach me and tease me in some way.
>>18393630>What is interesting is that men want to be dehumanized just as oftenIdk, I think men are mostly sadists. >>18393631Yes, what about it
>>18393638Well, I do have time for the warblings of mental cases. But only the interesting ones.
>>18393638Andrea Dworkin's "Intercourse" (1987) is a radical feminist critique arguing that heterosexual intercourse, under patriarchal conditions, symbolizes and enforces women's subordination to men. Dworkin portrays penetration as an act of occupation and violation, likening it to conquest where men dominate women's bodies.Dworkin contends that intercourse eroticizes power imbalances, turning contempt for women into something sexually appealing in male supremacist society. She examines literature—from Tolstoy's The Kreutzer Sonata to James Baldwin's works—to show how sex reinforces inequality, destroys women's autonomy, and perpetuates cycles of objectification even in same-sex dynamics.
>>18393643Thanks.
>>18393244Oh wow, two Jews wrote this, at least one of whom was hideously obese. I'm shocked. Very unexpected.
>>18393607Women are percieved as taking pride in being hard to get wheras society assumes men want to have sex constantly, and that it's not a big deal to them. If you make woman you hate orgasm, she looses her pride and any pretention of superiority she thought she had over you. This is doubly the case if the woman acts like it's hard to make her orgasm.
It's noteworthy she often cites literature. This sounds like the opinion that could only come from someone years passed being touched by the opposite sex. I think the credible parts of her theory can be boiled down to gender roles make submissive women and dominant men the norm both in the bedroom and the household decisions. This is most often the case. But it falls apart at the insistence this is propped up or inherently leads to a valuing of men as greater than women. Society shapes what turns us on, no shit. When I fuck my wife, it doesn't keep her down lol she is far more successful and powerful to the wider society than I am, even though she is very submissive sexuall
Why does sexuality have so much political baggage?
>>18393652Its centerpiece, reproductive coitus, was until recently the sole mechanism for the preservation of humanity and by extension politics.Though to the type of person who made that graph, everything is political.
>>18393639>>18393641They are automatically activated whether you are "misogynist" or not. Misogyny is an abstract concept and unrelated to instincts to begin with anyway. So OP is just incorrect.It seems fairly obvious the root of the claim men finding women attractive is "misogyny" is feelings of disgust at the idea men are attracted to them, often rooted in past trauma.
>>18393262Maybe I’m out of the loop, but has she said anything even remotely “woke” or lib/left-coded?
>>18393607>This is obviously insane.How is it insane? What is "attraction" if not objectification of humans into rapeflesh? When you see an attractive woman you imagine yourself having sex with her, all the while she's unaware of you thinking this
>>18393643>men dominate women's bodiesI mean she's not wrong about that part, but women do like that.
>>18393913Yes, women's sexuality is masochistic.Notice how it has two modes: disempowered and "empowered". Disempowered is when she's stuck in a marriage with an unattractive guy and he controls her. Empowered is when she's a whore and picks her men herself. However she's still getting off on getting used by men, it's just that she gets to pick them.
>>18393607>im also a retarded hairless ape entirely dominated by irrational instincts but at least im passive and submissive about it!You are literally exactly the same except nobody enforces female virtue anymore.
>>18393643>under patriarchal conditions>if someone already views sex with women as women's subordination to men>then they will view sex with women as women's subordination to menprofoundbut is this really the case with the majority of men? She would need to delve into statistics and psychology to find out and distinguish between abstract thoughts and innate feelings. That would actually be interesting.>She examines literatureguess notEither she could not, ironically fulfilling the stereotype of an illogical woman driven by feelings, or perhaps more likely she chose not to. As usual with leftists the truth must take the back seat to outrage, and this is how she sold so many books, by finding something to be outraged about and producing an amusing if spurious argument to justify it. After all literature is more interesting than statistics.
>>18393251>Men and women are too different and don't like each other all that much, but our stupid private parts go awooga, I want to tap that, while our rational brain goes look at that stupid foid/moid.Gay men don't all hate women, if anything they get along with them better than other men. Granted that lesbians are more likely to hate men, but that's probably downstream of patriarchy.
>>18393607>it's never "haha, you dumb pathetic piece of shit, I'm gonna ride your dick until you come"I'm pretty sure women who are into this do exist, but granted that it's not common.
>>18393623>digital places are Taliban-level gender-segregatedAre they? Surely there are some that are decently mixed.
>>18393643>even in same-sex dynamicsCurious how that's supposed to work.
>>18393918I wonder what the sexuality of women not raised under patriarchy looks like.
>>18394134There's always one male-performing and one female-performing partner, so faggotry is rape by proxy, or the simulacrum of rape
>>18394139Those are modern Western women
>>18393908>When you see an attractive woman you imagine yourself having sex with herYes, but what does that have to do with rape? Most people just imagine having consensual sex with women they find attractive, not raping them.>all the while she's unaware of you thinking thisBy that standard, thinking anything about another person is objectification.
>>18394142What about things like frotting or same-sex 69? No particularly distinct male and female role there.>>18394147By no stretch lmao
>>18393244Unscientific idiocy...sexual impulse is explained by evolution, biology etc. not by literary analysis and baseless conjecture. Do insects and fishes and racoons have misogyny and patriarchy and fish-Tolstoy? Obviously the sex drive is prior to any organised society, complex emotions etc.
>>18394132Large sites and communities like big subreddits tend to be fairly balanced, but smaller communities are self-segragating. Media is also extremely segregated, most online media's audience skews 85+% for either gender, men and women are essentially becoming parts of separate cultures.
>>18394168>Do insects and fishes and racoons have misogyny and patriarchyYes, many animals rape. Ducks for instance
>>18394156>Yes, but what does that have to do with rape? Most people just imagine having consensual sex with women they find attractive, not raping them.Yes, but they are unaware of you thinking this about them
>>18394184Are you sure it's rape? I mean, they're ducks. Maybe they have their own duck way of doing things that is incomprehensible unless you yourself are a duck.
>>18394187Yes, and? People are unaware of everything you think about them. Thinking about people is somehow a violation, or only if the thinking involves sex? Why single out sex?
>>18393262Her whole argument is that men want pleasure from a woman and want to physically dominate her which equals rape.
>>18393244>>18393643From a very superficial glance, this seems like another work which strips women of agency and treats men as the inherently active element of the ecuation, which I find is a very common and near universal feature of current gender discourse. I do not believe Dworkin did it consciously, she was just never in a position to take part in that dynamic, and from the looks of it her homosexual relationships were not fulfilling either.>>18394189In so far as animals can 'rape', ducks do a lot of it. They don't even apply it consistently; are Cassowary Matriarchal? Are Bees? What about the confusing sexual dynamics of insects? The whole train of thought is stupid and is the reason why Radfems who dig deep enough end up beefing against the concept of eukaryotic cells because they emerged through assimilating other cells as organelles, thus birthing hierarchy and therefore also patriarchal fascism into the world. Plus they also created Sex, wrenching them from their paradisaical experience in undifferentiated protoplasmic blobs to suffer as complex life.
>>18394490ducks do a lot of it. But the line of reasoning is faulty*I'm sorry.
>>18393244The problem with Liu isn't that liking her is rooted in misogyny but that she doesn't even look that good, is corny as a person, and has some really weird Redditsexuals as her fanbase which would sadden me for how she gets treated after such a success if not for her aforementioned personality.
>>18394490I'm a bit of hypocrite though. Because I believe Dworkers bad even thoughbeit I tranny-heart Otto Weininger o algx.
>>18394479It is though. You wouldn't want that to happen to you because you have an understanding of how degrading and violating it is, why do you assume women don't also understand that being violated is degrading
>>18394504Honestly both radfems and incels are kinda right but society isn't ready for this conversation
>>18393244Nothing wrong with misogyny and rape. Few academics realize this.
>>18395206Radfems and the various reactions to radfem thought are all so hopelessly retarded that they are only really taken seriously by children or people who have the mind of a child.
>>18393262Asian women particularly prove this maxim because they're always fetishized as being submissive fucktoys of the white man. And with WMAF relationships it's common knowledge the WM in question is too non-virile or unattractive to get a WF so he gets an AF in order to feel powerful against a woman.
>>18395206It's not like they had any solutions to the problems they proposed.
>>18393244Appeal to physiognomy: Look up what Andrea Dworkin looks like.
>>18394139Look to nature and you'll find your answer.If you can't be bothered: It's the exact same.
>>18397149Doesn't matter. She didn't fit conventional beauty standards, sure, but beauty doesn't matter when a woman is intelligent.
>>18397340>She didn't fit conventional beauty standards, sureShe's a gargoyle. She's proof that goblins are real and live among us.
>>18393663>They are automatically activated whether you are "misogynist" or not. Misogyny is an abstract concept and unrelated to instincts to begin with anyway.They're automatically activated but misogyny is part of it. Yes it's abstract but it's real. I'm not using the word misogyny in some moralfag way either, it's just an observation
>>18393244Doesn't matter, marriage is for people that want to reproduce. Those that don't, cease to exist.
>>18397810This is likely why Latinas outbreed White women in the US. Patriarchal communities outbreed liberal ones
>>18396744Incels want sexual socialism back
>>18398698>Latinxers>Patriarchal Pull up the single motherhood stats, Jamie
>>18397149Bruh, her entire work is rooted in the fact she was raped as a child, hence why she never developed a proper concept of romance or love, and also why she intentionally became fat as fuck so as to make herself unattractive to men.
>>18399720Latinas tend to come from patriarchal and Christian backgrounds compared to West Coast White women, don't they?
>>18393244>dworkin>levy
>>18399718Such a thing never existed ad that isn't even what incels want.
>>18393287The problem is that many gender theorist/sexologists/sociologist sandwich whatever research or insights they have in between turgid moralizing that makes it difficult to parse for actual value-neutral truths. Camille Paglia is maybe the only one that doesn't do this.
>>18399755The raped
>>18400636No, they also come from christian backgrounds
>>18399755>She intentionally made herself fatNo wonder her Lesbian relationships remained unfulfilling. Aside from the fact that acerbic critical activist-intellectuals aren't pleasant to be around unless they know how to rein in that part of themselves.
>>18393251Anon I literally spend time with women every day and enjoy it. Hating women is an internet retard thing, not real life.
Tweet is still unrefuted
>>18401056It literally existed for all of human history until the Sexual Revolution and especially the Smartphone Revolution
>>18403336How were the sexual dynamics of humanity from pre-history to nineteen fifty socialistic? Why do you even make such a massive generalization in the first place?
>>18394490>this seems like another work which strips women of agency and treats men as the inherently active element of the ecuationThis is basically the case though. I do believe all interaction between men and women is rooted in rape.
>>18403441>How were the sexual dynamics of humanity from pre-history to nineteen fifty socialistic?Because men were able to have sex?
