In “Desire, Recognition, and Unjust Sex”, Ann Cahill argues that a concept of “desire” is more useful than a concept of “consent” for understanding what is, or is not, ethical sexual interaction. This paper is about Ann Cahill and how she challenges the issue of sex. She says that the notion of consent has been violated but never explained why for the notion of consent. Cahill says that it is not about sex but the violence, this is where male dominance comes to play. When one thinks about the term “Unjust Sex” they think that it is non-consensual. An example is rape. Rape again is an example of unjust sex or the other possible meaning is that “just” sex is only sex, in short, male domination. In the article, she states “If heterosexuality
…show more content…
And if consent can’t do the job of distinguishing rape from “normal” heterosexual intercourse, neither, for MacKinnon, can desire, precisely because women are constructed as sexual beings who find dominance and aggression sexually appealing.” (Cahill, 304-05) This point is evident to my argument because consent plays a big part in this paper. What Cahill is saying in this quote is that consent has a lot to do with heterosexual …show more content…
To answer this question, then. In the article, Cahill states, “From MacKinnon’s perspective, to distinguish rape from “normal” heterosexual sex by virtue of violence, or even the lack of consent, fundamentally misunderstands two traits of contemporary heterosexuality: first, its compulsory nature, that is, the degree to which women especially are required to be heterosexual and to engage in heterosexual practices; and second, the necessary entwinement of dominance and eroticism in hegemonic heterosexuality, whereby men qua men are expected to infuse their sexual subjectivity with aggression and women qua women are supposed to find that aggression sexually appealing, and respond with the proper degree of submission.” (Cahill, 304) Cahill is stating that submission is very popular and most women tend to like to rather than the very little that does not. Based on the quote that Cahill says, the second option is something continues to happen. For example, the fifty shades of grey franchise. This book and movie is quite popular with the women of today. It discusses male dominance and a fine line of pain and pleasure. The franchise shows that women are more consenting now than compared to
And if consent can’t do the job of distinguishing rape from “normal” heterosexual intercourse, neither, for MacKinnon, can desire, precisely because women are constructed as sexual beings who find dominance and aggression sexually appealing.” (Cahill, 304-05) This point is evident to my argument because consent plays a big part in this paper. What Cahill is saying in this quote is that consent has a lot to do with heterosexual …show more content…
To answer this question, then. In the article, Cahill states, “From MacKinnon’s perspective, to distinguish rape from “normal” heterosexual sex by virtue of violence, or even the lack of consent, fundamentally misunderstands two traits of contemporary heterosexuality: first, its compulsory nature, that is, the degree to which women especially are required to be heterosexual and to engage in heterosexual practices; and second, the necessary entwinement of dominance and eroticism in hegemonic heterosexuality, whereby men qua men are expected to infuse their sexual subjectivity with aggression and women qua women are supposed to find that aggression sexually appealing, and respond with the proper degree of submission.” (Cahill, 304) Cahill is stating that submission is very popular and most women tend to like to rather than the very little that does not. Based on the quote that Cahill says, the second option is something continues to happen. For example, the fifty shades of grey franchise. This book and movie is quite popular with the women of today. It discusses male dominance and a fine line of pain and pleasure. The franchise shows that women are more consenting now than compared to