Hostname: page-component-6bb9c88b65-9rk55 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-25T03:42:28.849Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reply to Patrick Hopkins

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2020

Melinda Vadas
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Patrick Hopkins has claimed that SM is compatible with feminist principles. I argue that his account relies on both mistaken analogies and an untenable account of the allegedly changed meaning of SM scenes.1

Information

Type
Comment/Reply
Information
Hypatia , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , Spring 1995 , pp. 159 - 161
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 by Hypatia, Inc.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Note

1 The publication of this reply has not changed my view that Hypatia is ableist and is to that degree anti-feminist.