Does being a RadFem mean that you can't like anything to do with males and PIV?

Your Nigel sounds lovely!

Coming back to the opening post, in my experience over the past 25 years or so, there are massive variations between women who describe themselves as radical feminists. I fine it a bit when I see either those who don't describe themselves as radical feminists saying "but this is what radical feminists believe," but equally when I see a radical feminist saying the same thing, or insisting you have to tick this, this, this and this box or you aren't a "genuine" radical feminist.

I'm not big on labelling people anyhow - ideas, streams of thought, political perspectives, yes, but not people.

I have heard the "nigel" term used a few time and I have to confess, I don't particularly like it. On one hand, it reads like a feminist attempt to find a counterpart to "her indoors," or "the wife," to describe male partners, with a feminist twist (and using one silly term to counterbalance another silly term is still silly, in my book.)

I think the idea though is that "a nigel" is supposed to be a man who's the "exception to the rule," a sort of, "well, yes men are sexist, but not my Nigel." While it's true that sometimes women can fail to recognise or even excuse the exertion of male privilege by their own male partners or men close to them, that doesn't mean that any woman who has a male partner or man who is close to them is living in denial. Unfortunately, I've seen the term used in blogs and such in that way - what comes across as a means of dissing or at least making fun women for not being "good enough feminists" because they maintain connections with men in their lives.

I had a cat named Nigel once though, so actually, that's what I think of most when someone says, "your Nigel." He was a fluffy ginger tabby, btw.

Well, that's great TheFeministsWife, but you're in a tiny minority, globally speaking.

This discussion clarifies my view that PIV, for women, is a risk-reward balancing exercise. For me, really good PIV is worth the risks (which obviously I mitigate as best I can) but mediocre sex isn't. It also reinforces why men should ensure that their female sexual partners are enthusiastically rather than passively consenting (and why men who whinge and pressure for PIV are twats).

I found it really difficult to get my head around the PIV argument until I really got what it was. Which is that it's problematic that only PIV = sex in our society and any number of other mutually fulfilling sexual options are dismissed as merely foreplay. That PIV is seen as the "goal" of sex and that "foreplay" exists in order to get one or both partners "ready" for the "actual" sex part. It is problematic that so much importance is placed on it, for example, if you met someone who didn't like oral sex, that would be slightly unusual, but not really worth commenting on, yet if someone did not enjoy PIV they would probably be regarded as odd, could be the subject of some concern or even have it suggested that they might have a medical problem.

But I haven't read the article, perhaps it's a case of the argument not being fully explained, or perhaps she really does have a skewed view of it. I would have thought that PIV which involves no coercion and is just as important as any other aspect of a couple's sexual practices, is not the problem, but this does not stop the pervasiveness being problematic. You can enjoy something while acknowledging that there are problems with it.

For example, it's like objecting to people who say porn is degrading, because the film you made, willingly, with your husband last week wasn't degrading at all and was empowering. It doesn't stop it being degrading for someone else.

A Nigel is a man.

TheFeministsWife - good name btw I like that it's both sarcastic and oxymoronic - I know that in a western, priviledged society it's good to be safe and cosy in a relationship because you both put so much into it you couldn't possibly destroy that. But that's not everyone's position. Certainly I was once in your position and it lasted 18 years but suddendly he turned nasty and said that once the first child was born things changed. He went off to his affair partner and still remains with her. She has no children and that's how he likes it .

I had five pregnancies and three live births with him. I never felt my life was in danger but my first live birth was fraught after it was discovered she had pooed in the uterus, and hence was in danger of swallowing meconium. Her life was in danger and I would have been despondent had she died (which could have happened).

We aren't all so privileged to have a life like yours, happy that I am for you. I thought FCM's post was an honest appraisal.

What's a Nigel?

I'm trying to find out but I can't.

In 'biological' terms it's not the most natural thing in the world, if at say 20 you have four kids and what seems as a lifetime of PIV in front of you, the outcome looks grim. Unless you take, YES YOU WOMAN, precautions to prevent pregnancy, or know the tricks to get rid of it. It just seems like monotonous monogamy.

To those that think that the author of the post in the OP's link has never had a relationship or a 'shag', or is in emotional distress, or is mentally ill should check this out.

factcheckme.wordpress.com/2011/02/03/how-to-lose-a-nigel-in-9-years/

Agree with your last paragragh sunshine.

"I do feel that PIV is often presented as the only form of sex worth having. Everything else seems to lead up to it. I think this is very much a patriarchal construct and is due to greater degree of importance placed on the male orgasm - which signifies the end of the act in many encounters."

PIV sex is the gold standard to which all other sexual experiences have to measure up and towards which all sexual encounters have to move. if you don't want it regularly you are a freak. As the MN relationship board points out regularly. And the fact that most sexual encounters are not intended to lead to pregnancy makes this even more absurd.

Look if you think it's all crap and not worth discussing, that's your choice.

But there's no need to get aerated about the fact that other people are happy to shoot the breeze on this one and discuss it.

Sorry we can't just be kneejerk "this is all a load of baloney" for you. You have the option to take that POV but this is the feminist section and it's valid to discuss anything here from a feminist POV even if it's only to throw it out as not worth while. But we prefer to have more interesting discussions than just "this is crap" "yeah it really is" "oh man, that's such rubbish" "yeah, you're so right". That would be dull, no?

Why get so irritated that people want to discuss it?

FWIW I don't think anyone has said that they accept the premise of the article without question. But the thread has moved on from the original article and we're discussing related issues.

Your outrage is misplaced. It's OK to discuss things. In the rest of the world, we don't discuss stuff like this, so it's interesting to take what is not a generally promoted view and see what's what in it. If you don't find it interesting, I'm sure there are plenty of other threads which will interest you.

I find it preposterous that people discuss hideous winter boots in such detail wiht such a lot of links. But that's fine, I don't have to join in. I'm happy to leave them to it. One day, I might even click on one of those boots links myself (but if I do, take me out and shoot me because it will mean I have given up on life and joy).

I rest my case.

Anyone who says "You are not a real feminist if..." and ends that sentence with anything other than "...you think men are better than women" or similar is automatically taken off my list of people whose opinions are worth listening to.

What. The. Actual. Fuck?

The feminist section on Mumsnet has really given me food for thought on many issues in the last few months, particualrly wrt to issues such as rape, the sex industry and women's place in society in general. I think that is fantastic.

However, the very fact that the above article is being given more than a second's thought before being discounted as a load of absolute baloney, makes me realise why most of Mumsnet steers well clear of this section.

The woman writing that article has major issues and is obviously incredibly pissed off she was born a woman. For me, feminism should be about celebrating women being women, and creating a place of equality for them alongside men, without putting down either sex. PIV is just biology, you cannot change the fact that men have a penis. Of course, PIV is not the be all and end all and a healthy relationship can consist of all different kinds of sex, but that is not what is being said here is it? She is saying that PIV is a terrible, dangerous act and that you are not a real feminist if you engage in it.

The horrible language and generalisations in that article tell me that the writer has had some horrible experiences and has obviously never been in a loving relationship which is very . However, to put across her thoughts as some sort of ideology (and for people on here to accept it), is just a whole load of crap and really does give 'feminism' a bad name.

Yes point taken Sakura but by modern medicine, I mean post war - IE when doctors did know they had to wash hands etc.

I'm referring to pre-industrial society when talking about high mortality rates. Even when midwives were in charge rather than doctors, giving birth was an immensely dangerous undertaking.

I'm not saying what we've got is anywhere near satisfactory atm btw - the death rate is still too high and many women's birth experiences are horrific thanks to the conveyor belt approach to labour.

Well, your quote has no context.
But I have seen discussions of what Mary Daly calls Biophilia (love of life) vs necrophilia (love of death.) So a culture that promotes violence, war and domination over others can be called necrophilic in this way of thinking.

I spent a happy couple of hours reading the Radfem blogs.

Very interesting reading. A lot more strident views than on here, but definitely thought provoking.

I thought the comments policy was interesting, and you'd be a brave man to post. (or trans) but I didn't quite get what :

'carnivorous and necrophiliac behaviors of men' was?

Any clues?

ETA: the men who pushed the midwives out , that was

Basil, "modern medicine" caused a lot of deaths for women. The men who pushed the midwives didn't even know that you were supposed to wash your hands!! So "doctors" would go straight from cutting up a corpse to delivering a baby. Hundreds of women died from infection this way. And all the while these doctors of "modern medicine" were claiming that they were better at helping women than those "dirty midwives." They invented all sorts of unecessary and humiliating procedures, such as the lithotomy position, which hindered birth and caused many deaths.

I don't think any of the radfems in that article said that sex (PIV) isn't pleasurable did they...
If you go there, you're definitely missing the point.

What they're asking is.. is it worth it ?

For women, that is.

Of course it's worth it for men! There's zero risk of pregnancy for them!

But when there's a risk of pregnancy for the woman, you have to ask yourself why so many men are doing PIV. If I knew that sticking my finger in someone's ear might cause them to have an (unwanted) blood clot in the nose that would need to be removed via an operation, I would think long and hard before sticking my bloody finger in someone's ear.
Men, though, don't think sticking their dicks into women is a problem at all. Which really makes you wonder how women are seen in men's eyes.... FOr them, the pleasure is always worth it insofar as (STDs aside), they're not going to experience any painful side effects.

No contraception is 100% effective. The pill has horrible side effects (thrombosis, blood clots, cancer) .
Abortions come with risk of hemorrhage. Pregnancy comes with risk of death (don'T believe me, check out the maternal mortality rates. The US has one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the world after Kenya, because of its obsession with C-sections)

When I say lesbian in that context, I meant a woman who had only had sex with women. Just to clarify.

I think that at least when it comes to sex education, more emphasis should be put on non-penetrative sex in order to combat unwanted pregnancies etc. At the moment, in most media and in schools, use of condoms seems to be the 'responsible' angle when teaching young people about sexual safety. This puts girls at risk not only of physical disatisfaction, but also through their experiences they may become accustomed to male pleasure being more important than female pleasure.

In some publications aimed at young men I've seen oral and anal sex advocated to prevent pregnancy (not oral from boy to girl, mind). There needs to be a change from such a focus on the penis and 'losing one's virginity' should surely not still mean piv. Are all lesbians virgins in that case?

Young women, and men, would be sexually and emotionally empowered and liberated if they were not taught simply to 'remember to use a condom'. PIV should be presented as one of many sexual experiences, but the risks involved for the person being penetrated must be conveyed.