I'm not sure who made the claim, but I read that during the 1970s feminist movement some claimed that all sex was rape. Why did that person think that women could never have consensual sex?

Comments

The person most associated with this claim was Andrea Dworkin, though she was not alone in asserting it. The claim was a bit hyperbolic, but reflected an interesting, controversial claim. Consent, she argued, presupposes rough equality. If you are a violent person holding a gun, and ask me politely for all of my money, even if you don't threaten me, my handing it over is nonconsensual. And that is the case, on this view, even if, had you not had the gun, I would have consented, out of generosity, to give you the cash you wanted. The presence of an unequal power relationship, and the background of potential violence renders consent conceptually impossible.

Now, Dworkin argued, given the tremendous power disparity between men and women in the culture of the USA in the 1970's and 1980's, and the prevalence of domestic violence with men as actors and women as victims, a man's request for sexual activity is too much like your request for cash with the gun in your hand and a history of violence. Even if a woman, on this view, would have been happy to engage in sexual activity with that person absent the background coercion, the fact of coercion makes consent conceptually impossible.

That, I believe, was the heart of the argument. And it does point out one of the many horrible consequences of power disparity, of a culture of violence, and of such evils as sexism and racism, hyperbolic though it may be.

The claim(nowadays, at least) is mostly associated with feminist legal scholarCatharine MacKinnon---and it is restricted to heterosexual sex inparticular, not homosexual or lesbian sex. Before we proceed, note thatthere is a slight error in the question. The writer moves from "rape"in the first sentence to (in effect) "nonconsensual" sex in the secondsentence. However, it is still being debated whether a nonconsentdefintion of rape is as adequate as, or more adequate than, adefinition in terms of "force." (MacKinnon's writings are implicated inthis debate.) For an account of some of the philsophical arguments, seeJoan McGregor, Is It Rape?, Ashgate, 2005.

Hereis one version of the claim in MacKinnon: "Few women are in a positionto refuse unwanted sexual initiatives" from men ("Feminism, Marxism,Method, and the State: An Agenda for Theory," in Feminist Theory: A Critique of Ideology,edited by Nannerl O. Keohane, Michelle Z. Rosaldo, and Barbara C. Gelpi[Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press, 1982], pp. 1-30, at p.18). In patriarchy, women do not have the social and economic power torefuse sexual advances from men, in which case their agreement to sexwith them is fraudulent, and that makes heterosex into rape. Her pointhere seems to be that women cannot genuinely consent to sex inpatriarchy, since real consent requires equality, and so if rape isunderstood as nonconsensual sex, there is no non-rape heterosex inpatriarchy.

For defenses of the thesis that woman cannot consent to sex in patriarchy, see Carole Pateman, Carole. "Sex and Power" [Review of Feminism Unmodified by Catharine A. MacKinnon]. Ethics 100:2 (1990), 398-407, and "Women and Consent." Political Theory 8:2 (1980), 149-68. Reprinted in The Disorder of Women: Democracy, Feminism, and Political Theory. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1989, 71-89.

We also find inMacKinnon: "Compare victims' reports of rape with what pornography saysis sex. They look a lot alike. . . . [F]or women it is difficult todistinguish the two ["rape" and "intercourse"] under conditions of maledominance" (MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State.Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1989, pp. 146, 174). Hereand elsewhere MacKinnon seems to assume a "force" definition of rapeand claims that the forcefulness of heterosex in patriarchy turns itinto rape. See also John Stoltenberg, who links up with MacKinnonthrough Andrea Dworkin. For him, pornography "reveals . . . an addiction to force and coercion for [male] arousal; Refusing To Be a Man: Essays on Sex and Justice (Portland, Ore.: Breitenbush Books, 1989), pp. 120-21.

Thereis also Robin Morgan (perhaps before Dworkin, even): "rape exists anytime sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by thewoman, out of her own genuine affection and desire. . . . How manymillions of times have women had sex "willingly" with men they didn'twant to have sex with? . . . How many times have women wished just tosleep instead or read or watch the Late Show? . . . Most of thedecently married bedrooms across America are settings for nightly rape("Theory and Practice: Pornography and Rape" [1974], In Going Too Far: The Personal Chronicle of a Feminist.New York: Random House, 1977, 163-69, at pp. 165-66). Exercise for thereader: disentangle the "nonconsent" and "force" strands in Morgan'snotion of rape. The core of Morgan's idea can be found in the writingsof Victoria Woodhull in the late 1800s and even in Bertrand Russell's Marriage and Morals (1929).

I associate recent defenses of this claim with criticisms of "sex positive feminism," which stresses ways that embracing and affirming their their own sexualities can help feminists to resist the patriarchy and can empower themselves and others; the basic criticism by MacKinnon and others is that the immoral consequences of patriarchy are so intense and pervasive in our culture that they undermine this sort of sexual liberation.

So, for example, in some articles Catherine MacKinnon's position is stronger and more radical than the one Alan describes because her pessimistic view extends to all expressions of sexuality, and is not limited to heterosexuality. In "Sexuality, Pornography, and Method: 'Pleasure Under Patriarchy'", MacKinnon argues that there exists in our patriarchal society a "rape culture" that is so strong that it is internalized even by those who oppose the patriarchy most strongly. Her pessimistic conclusion is that this makes morally problematical all sexual activity, including for example masturbation and homosexual sexual activity. Thus her article ends with this haunting conclusion: "I do not know any feminist worthy of that name who, if forced to choose between freedom and sex, would choose sex. She'd choose freedom every time." (That conclusion is a quote from Ti-Grace Atkinson's article "Why I'm Against S/M Liberation.")

Read another response by Jay L. Garfield, Alan Soble, Andrew N. Carpenter

Read another response about Feminism, Sex