claiming that online porn demonstrates how the male psyche is fueled by the need to hurt and humiliate women sexually
I don't see a contradiction, since I don't think she is making this claim. This would be hard to determine by textual analysis, though, since I'm sure my own context for the article is just as subjective. I'll write her and ask if she'd be willing to comment, but of course then we're into postmodernism, and the intent of the author being irrelevant to your interpretation.
In the meantime, I think that Vargas-Cooper is coming more from a 90's feminist-backlash position than the earlier 70's 'men are evil' view. Or maybe it's slash-backlash: "He answered, almost without thought, 'Because that’s the only thing that will make you uncomfortable.' This was, perhaps, the greatest moment of sexual honesty I’ve ever experienced—and without hesitation, I complied. This encounter proves an unpleasant fact that does not fit the feminist script on sexuality: pleasure and displeasure wrap around each other like two snakes."
I think her point is that we need to acknowledge the forces that exist (including a desire to degrade) without giving up or pretending they don't exist. But I don't think she feels that this is exclusive to males, nor that this is the primary fuel of the male psyche. And I think her point is that two players are needed to maintain the illusions, and that not all illusions should be thrown out. She didn't smack him across the face and pay for her own cab ride home, rather she took the honesty as a compliment and stayed.
I disagree, I think the article is very clearly making that point.
The premise of the article is that the attempt to attack/suppress violent porn is wrongheaded because it's based on the notion that violent porn warps men's sexuality. The author claims it's wrongheaded because men's sexuality is inherently violent.
I think one needs to consider the piece as a whole, and it's likely effect of making porn a more acceptable mainstream topic for discussion in the future. But I'm comfortable with interpretations that are contradicted by different levels of the text, and think that we should judge by final effect rather than intermediate argument. I think the apparent contradictions are more likely intentional (at some level) rather than oversight.
I don't see a contradiction, since I don't think she is making this claim. This would be hard to determine by textual analysis, though, since I'm sure my own context for the article is just as subjective. I'll write her and ask if she'd be willing to comment, but of course then we're into postmodernism, and the intent of the author being irrelevant to your interpretation.
In the meantime, I think that Vargas-Cooper is coming more from a 90's feminist-backlash position than the earlier 70's 'men are evil' view. Or maybe it's slash-backlash: "He answered, almost without thought, 'Because that’s the only thing that will make you uncomfortable.' This was, perhaps, the greatest moment of sexual honesty I’ve ever experienced—and without hesitation, I complied. This encounter proves an unpleasant fact that does not fit the feminist script on sexuality: pleasure and displeasure wrap around each other like two snakes."
I think her point is that we need to acknowledge the forces that exist (including a desire to degrade) without giving up or pretending they don't exist. But I don't think she feels that this is exclusive to males, nor that this is the primary fuel of the male psyche. And I think her point is that two players are needed to maintain the illusions, and that not all illusions should be thrown out. She didn't smack him across the face and pay for her own cab ride home, rather she took the honesty as a compliment and stayed.