Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Does penetration = presumption of power/control?

756 replies

skrumle · 17/08/2011 10:53

Was chatting with my H last night and mentioned the Romeo and Juliet law in Ireland that's been discussed on here a few times. Anyway, when I asked if he thought it was reasonable his immediate answer was "no". I then asked him: if our son was gay, and started a conversation about a sexual experience that he was unhappy/uncomfortable about would he be more likely to feel that our son had been forced/co-erced if he was the one penetrated rather than penetrating and got a Confused in reply...

I have to be honest, when I read the original thread on here my automatic view was that to protect girls over boys like this was to deny the fact that girls enjoy sex too, almost like taking a step back. When I read the thread fully though and thought about the implications for girls I probably did start to think that girls should have more protection than boys.

So, should there be a presumption that penetration equals a greater degree of control? So two heterosexual 15yos - greater responsibility lies with the boy to ensure that this is what both of them want?

OP posts:
LRDTheFeministDragon · 23/08/2011 19:12

Grin at 'loots'.

But I don't think pointed out PIV wasn't the only form of sex ever done in the past is the same as saying lots of sex=feminist liberation. It's perfectly possible that (for example) the attitude towards women improved in some feministy ways under Christianity, but was still broadly shite and with much room for improvement. The issue for me is, why as a society did we get to, and stick with, the idea that sex=PIV?

Malificence · 23/08/2011 19:09

Abusive PMs, that's really not on Angry
No matter how het up I've got over having myself/my marriage/my husband insulted ( and yes, there have been lots of insults from certain feminist posters) over the years, I've never resorted to abusing people by PM, it's nasty and very childish.

LRD, I agree 100% about your body being trained in it's responsiveness, we've kind of figured out over the years that my cervix is responsible for DH's orgasms, it's highly active during high arousal/orgasm , as is my g-spot area, he's now so conditioned to my body that only my orgasm/ the way my vagina acts during my approaching orgasm, sets him off. I've said it before on other threads and been totally ridiculed but it's hardly the kind of thing to make up and it has actually caused practical problems.
If having sex with the same man for 28 years doesn't train your sexual responses, I don't know what will!
Your body absolutely does change after childbirth and as you age, I didn't have sensitive nipples until I was over 40 Confused and oral sex does far less for me than PIV these days, my orgasms feel much stronger too according to DH but I wonder if it's because we have a lot more sex than say, 3 years ago and consequently my muscles are stronger?

sieglinde · 23/08/2011 19:05

Loots! Nope, lots - but loots might well have a useful meaning. Brothel = women = commodity = for sale.

LRDTheFeministDragon · 23/08/2011 19:05

Oops, I posted without looking properly and crossed with your serious post posie. Sorry!

sieglinde · 23/08/2011 19:05

Vesuvius was 79 AD, so after Christ but well before Constantine. And why a feminist would be keen on Pompeiian brothels is I fear beyond me. The tendency to equate loots of sex with feminist liberation is the curse of our age. often just the opposite is true; did anyone hear the shiver-inducing piece on the Romanian sex trade lately?

startAfire · 23/08/2011 19:03

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

ThePosieParker · 23/08/2011 18:56

Yes, it did. But prior to Catholicism it seems our Italian friends were enjoying a bountiful sex life.

SardineQueen · 23/08/2011 18:56

Graveyards are good as they are usually deserted.

I imagine that young people's thinking on these matters might not have changed much over the centuries!!!

SardineQueen · 23/08/2011 18:55

I thought that the Romans were rather fruity before that.

Although Spoons will probably say I have been reading too many historical novels. Or watching too many carry on films Grin

LRDTheFeministDragon · 23/08/2011 18:55

Sardine - I dunno about hedgerows but I am working on a text where someone does a sermon about how people really should stop having premarital sex in graveyards (!) as it's a wee bit disrespectful. Grin

SardineQueen · 23/08/2011 18:54

I think that Vesuvius erupted some time before the Romans converted to Christianity though.

ThePosieParker · 23/08/2011 18:53

see here

ThePosieParker · 23/08/2011 18:52

But homosexuality is still shameful, well where I live (Bristol), they are more likely to be much more tucked out of the way than lap dancing clubs. (anyone interested we have two more licence applications to fight in Bristol with short deadlines, see fawcett)

ThePosieParker · 23/08/2011 18:50

Interesting you say about Romans, the ruins around Vesuvius had plenty of pictures showing adventurous sex.... [i think]

ThePosieParker · 23/08/2011 18:46

Karma Sutra Anyone? Obviously not a Catholic text!!Grin

UsingMainlySpoons · 23/08/2011 18:45

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster
skrumle · 23/08/2011 18:40

well, it was very recently that it changed!

i can remember being at church about 20 years ago and one of the returned-from-the-missions spare priests giving a sermon about how sex was only for the purposes of procreation and if you really had to have sex with someone it should only be another catholic. particularly remember it because one of my (protestant) neighbours was sitting in front of me as she was engaged to a catholic and his rant was mortifying - it did include a gem about there being no good reason to marry a non-catholic!

OP posts:
SardineQueen · 23/08/2011 18:39

I don't read popular historical novels either, spoons. I like stories about robots Grin

I can't remember where I got this idea from Hmm

UsingMainlySpoons · 23/08/2011 18:38

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SardineQueen · 23/08/2011 18:36

I thought that while the sex rules were all being laid down, and the upper echelons were having arranged marriages, all the commoners were at it like billy-o in the hedges.

However I am crap at history so that is probably wrong. Anyone know?

UsingMainlySpoons · 23/08/2011 18:33

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SardineQueen · 23/08/2011 18:25

Abusive PMs?

FFS.

Original poster
skrumle · 23/08/2011 18:20

the catholic church have actually changed their official stance now and it's procreation or the strengthening of the marriage bond...

OP posts:
startAfire · 23/08/2011 18:19

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

UsingMainlySpoons · 23/08/2011 18:18

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.