Does penetration = presumption of power/control?

Are you quite sure you're not just into point-scoring LRD? One tongue-in-cheek question and all this faux-outrage. Really!

Just to let everyone know, I've had an email from HQ saying that prolesworth and sakura are definitely NOT the same poster!

HTH.

This is an incredibly boring post, but I thought I'd better answer LRD's question.
LRD, there are different disciplines that look at it from different perspectives.

The original point that someone else made about PIV urges was an evolutionary psychology type of point (although I've not read of an evo psych making it, but it is still that kind of point):

Women want X now because women in the past had to do X for our species to evolve (although they probably said nature/design).

I've argued from an ecological perspective that women did not do X in the past. I would also argue from that perspective that whatever X women did in the past does not mean they will have an urge to do X now, in a totally different environment and culture. So I fundamentally disagree with the whole premise of evo psych anyway (and AFAIK evolutionary biologists aren't interested in evo psych either).

And there are lots of people who aren't interested in evolution or biology at all, and will study Palaeolithic people from an entirely social perspective, looking at things like burial rituals, art, tools and other stuff as expressions of culture.

LRD "Trust me on this, I am a lot brighter and better-informed than you are." I think that says it all really. Sorry, who was the arrogant one again? For someone who doesn't wish to be caught up in it, can I just remind you that you've spent about four hours throwing insults in my direction?

It was me who wanted to challenge and discuss the idea that PIV should be avoided by women in developing countries and that the men of wives and GFs of women who dies in childbirth should be considered murderers. It was you who wanted to drag it to a personal level.

GothAnneGeddes - you are right, I have reviewed that thread and there is indeed plenty of robust 'challenging'.

SAF - if you read it again you'll see that that can be interpreted in two ways. Either I wish to drag it down, or I believe that the extreme posts drag it down. Which do you think I mean? I think you just proved my point about people being inclined to misread something.

Yes, definitely felt like that StartaFire. Also there was a certain "ick" factor with the giving bit as well.

Maybe it's just me, but as a teen oral sex seemed a bigger deal than penetrative sex. It still does actually, I see it as more intimate. I had penetrative sex (absolutely willingly) with my first 'proper' boyfriend at 17 but oral sex only a while later. Before then I'd gone no further than kissing. I've only had oral sex with men with whom I've been in long term relationships.

Jenny, 'radical' means 'at root'. It does not mean 'far left'. Trust me on this, I am a lot brighter and better-informed than you are.

FWIW, I have reported this thread. The misquoting, accusations of misquoting, accusations of sockpuppetry and so on are all far too much and I have no idea what's going on. Can I suggest anyone else who, like me, is getting confused by all of this takes a break and hopefully HQ will be along soon to let us know. There is clearly something very odd/personally motivated in some of the posts and I don't want to get caught up in it myself.

Bye for now.

Jenny FYI, if you were to look at the 'Why are men gynaecologists?' and the recent thread about smear tests in Poland, you would see that Sakura's ideas and use of language are often robustly challenged by other feminists here, the same as any input, by any other poster.

Back on track. One thing I do not like in the PiV debate is the framing of pregnancy as doom and the scarmongering language. I'm not denying statistics, but some of the terms used to describe pregnancy are also the kind used by gynaephobic men, e.g parasite, ripping your body apart etc and it dismays me to see feminists use them.

So radical left does not mean far-left? I think you should check your dictionary.

I'm pretty sure we're at least equal in the misrepresentation of what each other says LRD, and to suggest that it's me that is getting in the way of discussing the OPs is ludicrous when it's me wanting to talk about PIV and you who wants to talk about me and everything that I'm doing wrong; my vocabulary, my agenda etc etc etc ad infinitum.

Oh fgs - the first bit is a summarised section of the second bit. Proles you could make splitting hairs an Olympic sport.

'PIV is manslaughter' is a theme contained within the perfectly reproduced quote.

"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"

Or in other words, the PIV that the men had with the women who didn't want the pregnancy is bordering on manslaughter.

I just do not understand why so much energy goes into personal attacks on me and so little into actually talking about the questions I am trying to ask.

jenny, that is not an apology. As I have already said, I wasn't 'making a funny'.

It is insulting to misrepresent people continually, which is clearly what you are doing. If I misread a post, I apologize. It happens all the time, of course.

Your 'interpretation' of radical is incorrect. It is as incorrect politically as in any other way. I've already told you what the word means.

As to this 'conversation': I want to talk about the subject of this thread - which sakura didn't start. I am interested in other people's views. I wish, frankly, that you'd shut up so the rest of us could carry on talking about PIV sex. Ok?

LRD - I admitted I misread one of your posts and apologised. Here it is again:

"sorry, I din't spot that you were making a funny at my expense"

I even included the typo, look!

I can't apologise for you being insulted though as you were insulted on your own interpretation of something that you thought I said. My interpretation of radical wasn't wrong in a political sense - if my feminist dictionary isn't so good I'm not sure why this should exclude me from the conversation; I'm catching up. Besides which, you aren't immune from misreading posts are you? (Or do you think you are?) It isn't me who refuses to move on is it?

If you have no interest in talking about Sakura's views then you have a funny way of showing it; we'd hardly be having a 'conversation' if you'd not answered my initial post would we.

get off your high horse, for God's sake!! See you later then!

Was that totally made up proles? Sorry, I can't scan 23 pages, I'll lose track, but is it genuinely something sakura never said at all?!

If so that is really not on.

Still no apology then, jenny? You're sitting here, telling me you were wrong, you misrepresented and insulted me ... and somehow it's still all my fault eh?

Give it a break would you.

We wouldn't have to worry about semantics if your vocabulary were better. I'm sorry that's blunt but it is the case. Radical does not mean far left or far right, either. You're just wrong. Accept, apologize, move on.

Right then.

Are Sakura's ideas extreme? I dunno, but what I've seen on this thread hasn't bothered me. I've said why. You want to talk to her, you'll have to wait til she gets home from work or whatever and replies. No point in badgering the rest of us about it, we're not her and can't help you.

"jenny, you said you'd read that I wanted to challenge radical and extreme feminists. There is nothing whatsoever I've said to suggest that. In fact I'm pretty sure you were on a thread where I pointed out that the two things don't mean the same."

Oh Lord, I really do have to spell everything out, don't I? When I read that particular post, I did not read what you had actually written, but took it to mean something else. When I went back and re-read it, I saw that my initial interpretation was incorrect - and said so. What I think you have read into my posts is that I read somewhere else that you had in fact said those things. So, we agree that there is nothing to suggest that you had and that it was my mistake - one that I held my hand up to. If for one second you gave me the benefit of the doubt, you might not automatically find the most negative interpretation of what I say and blacken my character accordingly. This is the same as the 'you cannot' and 'one cannot' thing, which incidentally, you still haven't acknowledged was your misreading.

To clarify:
No you did not call all men murderers.
No you did not say you wanted to challenge all radfems.
I never said you said either of those things
You are labouring under the misapprehension that I have.

And so to radical feminism. OK, maybe this is my misapprehension and stems from trying to use the same terminology as other people - if they have already self-identified as radfem, it makes it easier to use the term. However, I took it to mean radical as one would use radical to describe far-left or far-right. I shall use extreme from here on in if that is what we can both understand.

So many of these conversations boil down to semantics. Do you not find it really really tiring to be picking through people's use of language rather than their ideas?

I still say that -

Many of Sakura's ideas are extreme
No one really seems to challenge these extreme ideas.
They do like challenging me when I challenge Sakura, though!
Extreme ideas make it easy to ridcule 'mainstream feminism'.

Can I use mainstream feminism as a term or do you want me to provide an overly technical description with a hundred caveats first?

I would think 'feminism 101' would be exactly the same as 'radical feminism 101'. The differences would properly emerge later on, between those who remain radical and those who diversify.

This is purely and simply a semantic issue. It is not complicated.

jenny, you said you'd read that I wanted to challenge radical and extreme feminists. There is nothing whatsoever I've said to suggest that. In fact I'm pretty sure you were on a thread where I pointed out that the two things don't mean the same.

I think you're having a pisstake. I can't prove that but you are doing nothing to change my opinion.

However: 'radical' means 'at root'. It does not need to be 'opposed' to another kind of feminism. You are thinking of 'extreme' feminism, which, purely semantically, implies the presence of some other contrasting form. They are quite different words and mean quite different things.