this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2024

345 points (90.4% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35726 readers

3091 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)

Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.

Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.

Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.

Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.

Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.

Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.

Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.

Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.

Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

345

Why isn't jerking off more valorized as an easy dopamine hit that's also literally good for you? (lemmy.world)

submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

325 comments fedilink hide all child comments

people have been demonizing it for most of the AD years i think but it's quite pleasant really. are there any proven negative effects?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Andrea Dworkin: No, I wasn't saying that and I didn't say that, then or ever. There is a long section in Right-Wing Women on intercourse in marriage. My point was that as long as the law allows statutory exemption for a husband from rape charges, no married woman has legal protection from rape. I also argued, based on a reading of our laws, that marriage mandated intercourse—it was compulsory, part of the marriage contract. Under the circumstances, I said, it was impossible to view sexual intercourse in marriage as the free act of a free woman. I said that when we look at sexual liberation and the law, we need to look not only at which sexual acts are forbidden, but which are compelled.

The whole issue of intercourse as this culture's penultimate expression of male dominance became more and more interesting to me. In Intercourse I decided to approach the subject as a social practice, material reality. This may be my history, but I think the social explanation of the "all sex is rape" slander is different and probably simple. Most men and a good number of women experience sexual pleasure in inequality. Since the paradigm for sex has been one of conquest, possession, and violation, I think many men believe they need an unfair advantage, which at its extreme would be called rape. I don't think they need it. I think both intercourse and sexual pleasure can and will survive equality.

It's important to say, too, that the pornographers, especially Playboy, have published the "all sex is rape" slander repeatedly over the years, and it's been taken up by others like Time who, when challenged, cannot cite a source in my work.

http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/MoorcockInterview.html

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

All she's saying is that she meant maritial sex is a form of violence because maritial rape was legal, which wasn't even true.

It's a distinction without a difference.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

All she’s saying is that she meant maritial sex is a form of violence because maritial rape was legal, which wasn’t even true.

She's saying women cannot legally consent to sex in marriage when marital rape is legal. She wasn't saying that all sex was violent, she was saying it was all not the "free act of a free woman" because wives were property of their husbands and could be legally raped even if they denied sexual consent.

Also, marital rape was fully legal in the entirety of the US until the 1970s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape_in_the_United_States

You seem to have a pretty loose grasp on the issues here. I get that you didn't like the Barbie movie, but that all that means is that you didn't like the Barbie movie.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

She was and she says it in both that and other wrirings and publically.

"Male sexuality, drunk on its intrinsic contempt for all life, but especially for women's lives, can run wild."

"Hatred of women is a source of sexual pleasure for men in its own right."

She argued that penetration was a form of "occupation".

"intercourse remains a means or the means of physiologically making a woman inferior"

She labeled women that had sexual with men "collaborators".

But defenders like you will split hairs to make it seem like her demonization of male sexuality is just made up by her critics.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

But defenders like you

Lol, I literally have never heard of the lady until this thread, but sure it's me with an agenda.

With better reading comprehension instead of "man get real angry when word men used to describe things men do generally" even those quotes aren't saying what you think they're saying...and that's with no attribution or sources so I don't even know if they're misquotes.

EDIT: Also you sidestepped your completely invalid claim that marital rape was illegal always because you argue in bad faith