Does penetration = presumption of power/control?

I wonder what it costs to have a baby in the US, including ante natal care. Even if you have insurance I suspect there's a large excess, and women probably (?) come after children as the most under-insured group.

Are you seriously suggesting that we get men of ALL (my capitalisation) countries to stop having sex with women?

Even if the woman WANTS to have sex with that man? Of her own free will and own accord??! (obviously, rape is different) ?

No wonder the trolls pick on this section of the site. It is so very easy of them to debunk certain posts.

Never mind, though, if your suggestion was ever taken seriously, we need not worry about global warming because it would be the end of the human race.

Oh GOD, is jenny suggesting eugenics for third world women?

Jesus Christ Jenny, have a heart! Are you actually doing what patriarchies do and mininizing or trivlializing the dangers of PIV to women. Those dangers are magnified for some women.
DId you know that the US has one of the highest maternal death rates in the world, number 42 for maternal health after Kenya. The reason are 1) over-medicalization of childbirth and sky-high C-section rate (there is a high correlation between C-section and maternal death) and b) the health system is designed in such a way that a large number of women do not have access to decent ante-natal care.

So in a country such as the USA, where pregnancy is a significant cause of death, I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that men who have PIV with a woman who doesn't want to get pregnant, is bordering on manslaughter.

Surely the focus should be on getting men of all countries, and of all walks of life, to stop having PIV with women, especially if men don't actually know what sperm does. And it seems to me that many men don't really know what their penis does, when it's inside a woman's vagina. Otherwise why do they keep having PIV? With women who don't want to bear their child?

Jenny, I might not have been a member very long but I would devoutly hope that anyone would 'know' me well enough to know that I am clearly not suggesting some sort of eugenic programme in which women outside of the West do not have children.

But if childbirth is a dangerous and fatal activity, why should women put themselves in danger? Why would a loving husband want to do that? Unless free and open discussion has been had, and it is a step they both wish to take, I don't see why PIV sex is something that isn't generally avoided.

If contraception was suddenly banned by the UK government, I wouldn't have PIV sex unless forced.

Off thread, but we often assume that NGOs can only benefit the developing world. Like most things, however, this isn't always the case.

I heard recently about a charity that gave away water filters - an obvious aid you'd think. True - except that it also put out of business a small firm within the local community that was making water filters. This is clearly not a model for economic growth!

From Wiki:
Natural disasters and conflict are also major challenges, as the resulting economic problems people face can drive many young women and girls into patterns of sex work in order to ensure their livelihood or that of their family, or else to obtain safe passage, food, shelter or other resources. Emergencies can also lead to new patterns of sex work, for instance, in Mozambique the influx of humanitarian workers and transporters, such as truck drivers, can cause sex workers to move to the area. In northern Kenya, for instance, drought has led to a decrease in clients for sex workers, and the result is that sex workers are less able to resist their clients' refusal to wear condoms

I'll never forget reading about how men in a refugee/aid camp were demanding sexual favours from women and girls for handing over bars of soap paid for through international aid. It's stupid and naive but I'd always seen the news reports and thought of those places as a safe haven - the battle was to get there. The reality is that women are often alone with their children in a place without protection.

The point about economic pressure point is very true. Why haven't condoms stopped the spread of Aids in Africa? Why are women still being infected by their husbands? Because they can't actually get the man to wear a condom. And if women turn to prostitution to support their children after their husbands have died of Aids related illnesses, and they themselves are HIV+, men pay them more to have sex without a condom. And then go back to their wives ...

Proles - I'm answering the OP in that yes, I do think that the act of penetration is a dominant and powerful activity.

I think there is a difference between countries wherein women cannot protect themselves and countries where they can and still choose to have PIV sex. I don't think PIV sex is a patriarchal conspiracy, just a biological necessity which makes the male/female power balance skewed from the outset. It's the cause of inequality, not an outcome of societal inequality.

I wonder how many women, given a real and meaningful choice, would reject all future PIV sex in favour of other stimulation. I for one would grieve the loss of it. I believe I can't be alone in seeing it as the pinnacle of sexual behaviour (hetero) and my favourite and craved activity.

"And if that woman lives in a country where childbirth is the single biggest killer of women, then I simply cannot understand why PIV sex is considered anything but something to be avoided. I think sakura is bang on when she characterises it as a complete disregard for a woman's life."

So you're also saying that people in developing countries shouldn't have children VG? I know feminism has a bad rap as being the preserve of middle class white women, but really? Are you really saying this?

I was one of those who genuinely thought sex was something that was becoming more equal, until I read Sheila Jeffereys saying that as long as women don't have true economic equality, sex can never be a level playing field.

And that's so true, isn't it? If a woman can't leave her husband, it doesn't have to be because he's a frightening abuser. It could be as simple as there's no money for her to live anywhere else. Her family might not take her in. She might live in a culture where single women are even more at risk of sexual attack than married women. There's loads of reasons for it.

And if that woman lives in a country where childbirth is the single biggest killer of women, then I simply cannot understand why PIV sex is considered anything but something to be avoided. I think sakura is bang on when she characterises it as a complete disregard for a woman's life.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with looking at sex in our society through a feminist lens.

Watching the television especially american crime dramas give me the clear idea that women are "prey"
Ditto adverts on the tube for cab services
Magazine covers tell me that men are interested in women as sex objects and the media reflects that in a way that it doesn't the other way around (why is another question)
Media usually presents male sexuality as active and female as passive
Sex is often still considered by young people and indeed many who should know better as something that a woman "has" and a man has to try and attain it, meaning that most people see more minor coercion as normal "mating" behaviour and a lot of the time even more major coercion and assault as "one of those things"
Sexual assaults including rape as predominantly carried out by men on other men, women and children

And so on and so on.

Now many people see through this stuff, rise above it, don't conduct themselves in these ways. Although I don't think I know any men who wouldn't be perfectly cheerful about seeing a poster of a scantily clad woman looking passively enticing (come and get it).

So this conversation is relevant and purposeful.

jennyvarnishesthewoodwork, yes, OK, your rephrasing is more elegant.

Proles - sex does carry the risk of pregnancy, yes. That's why we need protective laws. It recognises that PIV sex is what both men and women want and protects women. Law is generally moving in the right direction on this - men can be prosecuted for rape, and are forced to pay maintenance for the results of a pregnancy.

How well these laws work is different...

Can I rephrase one of your statements, Wamster?

"It also gives everyone a reduced sense of feminism's credibility because they see a nonsense blanket statement such as it ALWAYS being men's fault to deflect from legitimate topics such as rape and lose a little faith in the movement."

Same meaning - just extended it a bit to include RL.

Reading thread with interest as it's moved on somewhat from when I posted last night.

I believe there is a inherent inequality in the act of PIV sex and that simultaneously both men and women do want to do it.

A good society recognises that this enigma puts women in dangerous situations - alone with a man, penetration happens - she needs protection not just due to possible pregnancy but also because in general men are physically stronger than women .

Your title is correct IMO - penetration is assumed to be powerful because it is. It's powerful and we crave it and fear it. The law is there as a tool to protect us, but often gets it very wrong.

"Women in famine areas are being raped as they walk with their dying children in search of food. It's not a rare occurrence. What is that if not a total disregard for that woman's life?"

I absolutely agree with this sentence. Rape as a tool of war is a hideous crime and I'd hardly be disputing that would I?

However, the original statement includes wives and girlfriends and so the principles of war crimes are extended to normal couples in developing countries. Sakura seems to be denying these couples the right to have families because of the lack of medicinal care and accuses the fathers of being murderers. I'm sure this is not what is intended directly (I hope not anyway) but the argument, as is often the case, starts with an ugly truth and then lashes out indiscriminately and excessively in terms of scope and wild-eyed condemnation.

Therefore, I have my usual complaint; the very worst of male behaviours (with some long consigned to history) are used to explain the dynamics of everyone.

Prolesworth It makes me feel very sad that men are raping women full stop but, yes, of course the added information that it is happening when women are walking to find food brings home how terrible it is.

sakura women may need abortions for a number of reasons: rape, coercion may not be amongst them.

The women I know in my life who have had abortions have not been coerced into sex, they've chosen to have it freely.

I am sorry but it is a blanket statement to say that the blame (if any is attached to abortion) is always with the man.

It also gives the trolls an excuse to discredit the feminist boards as baloney because they will pick on a nonsense blanket statement such as it ALWAYS being men's fault to deflect from legitimate topics such as rape.

then you've got the sex industry. Condoms are not 100% effective. You've got literally thousands of men fucking thousands of women and handing them cash to wash their hands clean, and none of those men gives a fuck if the woman they've deposited their sperm into gets pregnant, ends up with complications, becomes incontinent from the birth, or dies of toxemia or heamorraging.

Wamster the problem is that in patriarchies we can't really tell whether or not intercourse is coerced.

Is a woman having sex with her husband because he's going to get all sulky on her if she doesn't? Is she herself in denial about this because facing the truth would mean she'd have to leave him and she's got nowhere to go?

Actually the whole abortion thing is a misnomer.
No human being should be forced to go through pregnancy and childbirth if she didn't specifically choose to have a baby. that goes without saying. Women aren't farm animals.

But the point many people miss is that getting women to concentrate on their "abortion rights" takes the focuse away from the men. Why do women need abortions? Eh? WHY?

Because some man thought his orgasm was more important than her body.

Left wing men have never made any secret of the fact they support abortion for very cynical reasons. It's so that they can have unfettered access to women's cunts without any consequences to themselves.

All this mess is because patriarchy refuses to define sex as anything other than PIV

"Men believe their orgasm is more important than the life of the woman they're fucking."