I knew that from the time of the suffragettes, feminism had always been split between -- well, Emma Goldman's a perfect example when we said, "It's not my revolution if I can't dance to it!" (and here she was clearly talking about fucking). Now we can read her love letters and learn that she had "G spot" ejaculations and was bisexual and was this and that and that she loved sex; she felt part of her sexual politics was to embrace "free love"! When I read her memoirs I thought, "Nothing has changed -- I feel exactly the way this woman does!" I am a free love enthusiast!" That's what they called it then; that's where I am now. She was promoting a very strong, exciting vision of women's sexuality.

On the other hand, there were always feminists who in the old days were epitomized by Carrie Nation; she felt that women were moral guardians and that femininity was a Vice Squad! Sexuality to her was "male"; and maleness was almost equated to a rapist mentality. And that idea really appalled me, because it took all the sensitivity and diversity and power behind what drives masculinity and femininity and just reduced it to really ugly, ugly stuff.

[...]

If you understand that Andrea Dworkin is the reincarnation of the Marquis de Sade, her whole things makes sense! She's a severely repressed sadist. I just have to say: read her novel Ice and Fire as a companion piece to Sade's Justice, and you'll realize that they are the exact, same story...