Hard-hitting, incisive writing. I’m reminded again of your piece from a couple of years ago, where you wrote that most women underestimate the lengths some men will go to, to fulfil sexual desires. Forgive me, as I’m paraphrasing. And, I think the internet creates that groupthink bubble, where likeminded voices rarely dissent.
very well said. the point re cohorts and radicalisation is so often missed in this discussion. reminds me a bit of columbine & how Eric Harris helped bring out/accelerate the darker impulses in Dylan. that ability to nurture dark —> sick desires is so powerful when done behind the online veil. really important piece.
I agree that this is a process that we must try to understand, but I don't think the "radicalisation" thesis is very enlightening on its own. Most men consume pornography; it is only a small subset that are encouraged to engage in more and more depraved behaviour (in this way people's relationship with pornography is not dissimilar to people's relationship with drugs and alcohol - for most it's a relatively harmless indulgence, but it can also ruin lives). We can be horrified by these cases without succumbing to a moral panic.
Where exactly have you detected the "moral panic" about porn? I haven't anywhere claimed that *porn alone* has a radicalising effect, only referred to cases in which it played a part within a radicalising dynamic. When I talk about "material", I am very clearly referring to verbal as well as visual content. Nonetheless, I think it's worth pointing out here that "everyday" consumption of pornography is far more extreme and degrading than your casual attitude would suggest (when did you last look at pornhub? Violence and faux-incest are the norm), and men rarely pause mid-wank to consider whether what they're consuming is potentially harming them - or has harmed someone else in its production.
I didn't mean to suggest that you were inciting a moral panic, but I would argue that feminists such as Dworkin definitely have done so in the past. I am personally disturbed by the common conflation of violence with sex, I'm simply pointing out that men are for the most part able to pause mid-wank to consider the ethical implications of their actions. Why some (many? most?) choose not to do so is a complex psychological and sociological question.
I would strongly suggest that you reread Dworkin in the light of how pornography has developed since her death: she's been proved more right than wrong, despite the determined efforts to discredit her. As for your confidence that men are making conscious moral judgement mid-masturbation - again, a look at the pornhub homepage suggests the men who go there aren't even making moral statements pre-masturbation.
I agree that for the most part men are not making the best moral judgements when it comes to pornography, but that to me shows that Dworkin's strategy was a failure: her exaggerated fear of male sexuality made it easy to discredit her. We now live in a culture with fewer adverts with hot girls in bikinis selling beer but a proliferation of violent hard core pornography in everyone's reach. Obviously the Internet has contributed to the breakdown of empathy between the sexes, but I've not seen the likes of Dworkin trying to understand the male perspective (I might be wrong about this).
Define "exaggerated": she was raped and prostituted, I think perhaps it would make more sense for you to acknowledge that she might have known things you don't. And if you think she didn't try to "understand the male perspective", it's very clear you haven't read much by her. Start with Intercourse. It's phenomenal literary criticism, besides anything else.
Thanks for the recommendation - I'm sure her thought is more nuanced than it came across in the few interviews I've seen with her and the extracts from her works that I have read. By "exaggerated" I don't mean to diminish her own terrible experiences, but rather that we shouldn't take her as the last word on the matter (just as Paglia erred on the side of callousness). A Palestinian tortured by the IDF doesn't necessarily have superior insight into the nuances of the situation.
I'm not denying that the Internet has negatively affected sexual mores (among other things), but the Internet isn't going anywhere anytime soon, so we need to be clear-eyed about how to deal with the situation.
IDK "breath play" was in some movies and other media pre-internet. And my understanding (not an expert at all) is that there is some sort of semi-reasonable theory behind it even if it is legit super dangerous and stupid.
I definitely agree the internet has really changed how all this works and in some sense "spread" or "normalized" some things previously thought pretty extreme. But I think you want to be careful about saying things didn't exist pre-internet. Mistruths are generally an easily ignored path to persuasion.
Erotic asphyxiation has been around for centuries, but generally practiced by men, on themselves. I don't think it's the same thing as what is being sprung on women and girls today.
Such an important essay, thank you for writing it. I wondered exactly the same thing as you did about both cases, and honestly felt like voicing either would risk suggesting what they did 'wasn't that bad'. But when abuse is as epidemic in our society as it is, I think we need to figure out how to provide a form of 'off-ramp' to these men who are being radicalised into escalating acts of harm. We also massively overlook the onward toxic dumpfire which shame can easily create, not least in the fact that Edwards and Pelicot themselves were both abused. This kind of shame and self-loathing mixed with the right internet forum easily increases risk to others. The only thing that destroys this evil shit long-term is the light, and we need to get more of it onto the cesspit if we are to make any real progress. This essay feels like a step in that direction.
Well, Pelicot has claimed to have been abused as part of his defence; I'm not aware of Edwards' claims, and couldn't turn them up on a quick google. I am on the whole sceptical about the theory that the abused become abusers, not least because if it were true there would be a lot more female sex offenders. I think the point about an off-ramp stands either way, though.
Well that’s embarrassing, was sure I read it in a write up in the times but maybe mixing up with one of the other awful stories around - should have checked again before responding. Agree it’s no mitigation!
See also: qanon, thinspo, pro-ana, pro-mia, DID, transgender ideology, TikTok Tourette’s. Although I suppose these are more about social contagion and cults than conspiracy.
Compared to the topic at hand, this doesn't register, but I think it's worth mentioning that there is a very common joke in fandom circles about hoping any given fanfic doesn't "awaken something" -- which certainly supports the idea that toaster fucking may be a gradual discovery.
Superb piece, one of several very good pieces on this appalling case I've read in the last week - all be women. I'd really like to read one by a bloke (but not me)
Many, many years ago I worked selling advertising space for Northern & Shell. It was a group classified so when you answered the phone you could get advertisers for magazines like Forum. Very quickly I went from believing that I was very open minded to having abject contempt for 'kink', because of their absolutely tedious proselytising. Obviously this was stuff that was harmless and legal, but the pathology was evident.
Hard-hitting, incisive writing. I’m reminded again of your piece from a couple of years ago, where you wrote that most women underestimate the lengths some men will go to, to fulfil sexual desires. Forgive me, as I’m paraphrasing. And, I think the internet creates that groupthink bubble, where likeminded voices rarely dissent.
A great piece Helen
"Like" feels like the wrong thing to apply to this, but it is excellent.
Thanks for writing this Sarah. It really meant a lot to read in its clarity and quiet rage.
very well said. the point re cohorts and radicalisation is so often missed in this discussion. reminds me a bit of columbine & how Eric Harris helped bring out/accelerate the darker impulses in Dylan. that ability to nurture dark —> sick desires is so powerful when done behind the online veil. really important piece.
I agree that this is a process that we must try to understand, but I don't think the "radicalisation" thesis is very enlightening on its own. Most men consume pornography; it is only a small subset that are encouraged to engage in more and more depraved behaviour (in this way people's relationship with pornography is not dissimilar to people's relationship with drugs and alcohol - for most it's a relatively harmless indulgence, but it can also ruin lives). We can be horrified by these cases without succumbing to a moral panic.
Where exactly have you detected the "moral panic" about porn? I haven't anywhere claimed that *porn alone* has a radicalising effect, only referred to cases in which it played a part within a radicalising dynamic. When I talk about "material", I am very clearly referring to verbal as well as visual content. Nonetheless, I think it's worth pointing out here that "everyday" consumption of pornography is far more extreme and degrading than your casual attitude would suggest (when did you last look at pornhub? Violence and faux-incest are the norm), and men rarely pause mid-wank to consider whether what they're consuming is potentially harming them - or has harmed someone else in its production.
I didn't mean to suggest that you were inciting a moral panic, but I would argue that feminists such as Dworkin definitely have done so in the past. I am personally disturbed by the common conflation of violence with sex, I'm simply pointing out that men are for the most part able to pause mid-wank to consider the ethical implications of their actions. Why some (many? most?) choose not to do so is a complex psychological and sociological question.
I would strongly suggest that you reread Dworkin in the light of how pornography has developed since her death: she's been proved more right than wrong, despite the determined efforts to discredit her. As for your confidence that men are making conscious moral judgement mid-masturbation - again, a look at the pornhub homepage suggests the men who go there aren't even making moral statements pre-masturbation.
I agree that for the most part men are not making the best moral judgements when it comes to pornography, but that to me shows that Dworkin's strategy was a failure: her exaggerated fear of male sexuality made it easy to discredit her. We now live in a culture with fewer adverts with hot girls in bikinis selling beer but a proliferation of violent hard core pornography in everyone's reach. Obviously the Internet has contributed to the breakdown of empathy between the sexes, but I've not seen the likes of Dworkin trying to understand the male perspective (I might be wrong about this).
Define "exaggerated": she was raped and prostituted, I think perhaps it would make more sense for you to acknowledge that she might have known things you don't. And if you think she didn't try to "understand the male perspective", it's very clear you haven't read much by her. Start with Intercourse. It's phenomenal literary criticism, besides anything else.
Thanks for the recommendation - I'm sure her thought is more nuanced than it came across in the few interviews I've seen with her and the extracts from her works that I have read. By "exaggerated" I don't mean to diminish her own terrible experiences, but rather that we shouldn't take her as the last word on the matter (just as Paglia erred on the side of callousness). A Palestinian tortured by the IDF doesn't necessarily have superior insight into the nuances of the situation.
Brava!
Yeah, I don't know. I'm old enough to remember sex in the 70s & 80s. There was no choking. Ever. Now there is. Why is that?
I'm not denying that the Internet has negatively affected sexual mores (among other things), but the Internet isn't going anywhere anytime soon, so we need to be clear-eyed about how to deal with the situation.
So…you’re saying that what we need to do is exactly what Sarah was doing in her post.
IDK "breath play" was in some movies and other media pre-internet. And my understanding (not an expert at all) is that there is some sort of semi-reasonable theory behind it even if it is legit super dangerous and stupid.
I definitely agree the internet has really changed how all this works and in some sense "spread" or "normalized" some things previously thought pretty extreme. But I think you want to be careful about saying things didn't exist pre-internet. Mistruths are generally an easily ignored path to persuasion.
Erotic asphyxiation has been around for centuries, but generally practiced by men, on themselves. I don't think it's the same thing as what is being sprung on women and girls today.
Well said, Sarah. 'One of the questions that didn’t seem to occur until it was too late was: what if “your people” are better left unfound?'
Yes, yes, yes. I remember reading this article when it came out, in 2000, and how it struck me then. Extremely prescient. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/12/a-new-way-to-be-mad/304671/
It's an absolute classic. One of the best pieces I've read.
At least one of Pelicot’s rape pals was doing the same to his own wife. Most of them probably were.
Brilliant piece, Sarah - thank you.
You articulate so much of what I am thinking and unable to here.
Such an important essay, thank you for writing it. I wondered exactly the same thing as you did about both cases, and honestly felt like voicing either would risk suggesting what they did 'wasn't that bad'. But when abuse is as epidemic in our society as it is, I think we need to figure out how to provide a form of 'off-ramp' to these men who are being radicalised into escalating acts of harm. We also massively overlook the onward toxic dumpfire which shame can easily create, not least in the fact that Edwards and Pelicot themselves were both abused. This kind of shame and self-loathing mixed with the right internet forum easily increases risk to others. The only thing that destroys this evil shit long-term is the light, and we need to get more of it onto the cesspit if we are to make any real progress. This essay feels like a step in that direction.
Well, Pelicot has claimed to have been abused as part of his defence; I'm not aware of Edwards' claims, and couldn't turn them up on a quick google. I am on the whole sceptical about the theory that the abused become abusers, not least because if it were true there would be a lot more female sex offenders. I think the point about an off-ramp stands either way, though.
Well that’s embarrassing, was sure I read it in a write up in the times but maybe mixing up with one of the other awful stories around - should have checked again before responding. Agree it’s no mitigation!
See also: qanon, thinspo, pro-ana, pro-mia, DID, transgender ideology, TikTok Tourette’s. Although I suppose these are more about social contagion and cults than conspiracy.
Definitely all part of the same phenomena, albeit without the sexual aspect in most cases.
This was a well written piece clearly stated.
Compared to the topic at hand, this doesn't register, but I think it's worth mentioning that there is a very common joke in fandom circles about hoping any given fanfic doesn't "awaken something" -- which certainly supports the idea that toaster fucking may be a gradual discovery.
Superb piece, one of several very good pieces on this appalling case I've read in the last week - all be women. I'd really like to read one by a bloke (but not me)
Many, many years ago I worked selling advertising space for Northern & Shell. It was a group classified so when you answered the phone you could get advertisers for magazines like Forum. Very quickly I went from believing that I was very open minded to having abject contempt for 'kink', because of their absolutely tedious proselytising. Obviously this was stuff that was harmless and legal, but the pathology was evident.