How has radical feminist critique of vaginal intercourse influenced you?

I haven't said any of that, queenbathsheba. Re-read what I wrote.

Bonsoir why wouldn't you consider that some poeple may have a sex life that doesn't involve "the main event"

Surely some men who have problems still give pleasure to their partners. Some people may have difficulties because of illness, age or disability, should we assume they don't have and are not entitled to any sex life because sex "without penetration is a bit bleugh..."

Why would I think they were gay?

Sad and unemancipated and in need of a good shrink, yes, perhaps!

Not that people need a penis for penetration obv but still.

Sex without penetration is a bit bleurgh for you. And while I'm sure lots of people would agree with you, some wouldn't. Labelling their happy sex lives as "bleurgh" seems rather harsh. But then that is your modus operandi.

At a wild guess I would imagine that you think that lots of women who post on feminism are gay, and are calculating to upset with your "sex without a penis is bleurgh" approach.

Maybe not, but on past form I don't feel bad for hazarding that guess.

Absolutely not that it is the only sex that counts. But that sex without penetration is a bit bleugh...

I haven't read any of the "critique" on giving up penetrative sex because you're a feminist mal but it's clearly not won a lot of supporters on this thread! OP is a troll BTW and has been banned now.

Are you two saying that penetrative penis in vagina sex is the only sex that counts?

I find that really odd, it casts aside a whole range of activity that is enormously enjoyed by many people, and means that gay people don't have sex, which is clearly nonsense.

"For women penetration is not the main event...so why would sex need to be framed around before or during penetration?"

What???????????????????!

Penetration is most very definitely the main event!

"For women penetration is not the main event...so why would sex need to be framed around before or during penetration" -

Do you mean for some women Sakura?

It is the main event for me and DH, without sex ending up with penetration, it wouldn't be classed as full sex by either of us , it doesn't matter if I've had one orgasm or five beforehand, I still want penetrative sex with him because I really , really enjoy it, nothing else comes close , psychologically speaking , not oral, not mutual masturbation, they are both very nice and can result in orgasms for me but I wouldn't feel fully satisfied without feeling his orgasm inside me and it can usually tip me into one last orgasm too.
As for the critique, I've never read so much garbage in my life.

I bet OP didn't expect this thread to be so much fun

I think PIV gets more 'credit' as sex than other activities since it's the only one that can result in pregnancy (usually).

But I agree it would be a good thing for the term to me more all-encompassing, but it's difficult to know where to draw the line when you start with a kiss and end in penetrative sex. I wouldn't want to say I've 'had sex' with someone I've snogged!

DH and I tend to do lots of lots of non-PIV, aka foreplay, when we romp in the bedroom, it's what we both prefer, but we generally finish up penetrative sex because it's like closure for us, I suppose, and we both like to come that way (can't believe I'm sharing this!), but it only last for a minute or two. It's the non-PIV that forms the main part of our sexual repertoire.

whatever the term just don't call it 'making love' I loathe it

also plenty of women are not that keen on foreplay more on 'afterplay' as it were when their real enjoyment starts IMHO

Shagging and fucking, etc, are 'hard' words because they're transitive. "Making love" isn't - but neither is it specific. I should remark that women can shag/fuck/have men, too, though: 'hard' works both ways!

It seems that penetration is something that men DO to women. But then again men are capable of mopping brows, feeding babies, showing some kindness, is that not doing.

Doing words are verbs, have I got that right? so when ever you use words like shagging or fucking and then add a noun, it seems that sex is somthing that is done to women.

Maybe we need to find different language. Although I find enveloping sounds like the guy has been swallowed up!

Gosh, this is all a bit of a headfuck

actually, that probably wasn't the best choice of words, was it?

Elephants, have just realised exactly the same thing. Weird indeed.

The term "foreplay" suggests that all that counts is the man.

For women penetration is not the main event...so why would sex need to be framed around before or during penetration?

So phallocentric

Just done a quick tally, and it appears that if 'sex' includes some penetration without orgasm, and/or oral sex, I've had sex with twice as many people as if you only count possible-pregnancy sex. Which is weird.

ROFL at stayfrosty's revelation :o

I get the feeling that Ms Lewinsky's sexual experience with Mr Clinton was pretty shit, tbh

Maybe it is irrelevant whether women come or not as quite a few men a. don't know how to make it happen and b. don't really care if it happens or not.

so it is irrelevant whether or not Monica Lewinsky came.
but then, she probably didn't....

Rofl am regarding the notches on the bedpost with disbelief.

I think it must be. Which means I've had somewhat fewer sex partners than I thought.

Gosh, better get a move on, my batting average has slipped.

Bloody hell tht's it isn't it

If a man comes in a vagina it's sex.

If he doesn't, it isn't.

Anyone else coming, is irrelevant.

Is that it?