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

I mean IIRC that was how dittany said the definitions worked, how I have phrased my post looks a bit funny there somehow.

Dittany used to say that liberal feminists wanted to work within the current system to effect change gradually, while radical feminists believed that the whole system at the moment is inherently rotten and it needs to be swept away and replaced with something new.

I haven't read the article (yet) but I wouldn't have thought that having heterosexual sex means you can't be radical. I guess the blog is one person's opinion, as opposed to an official rule!

"you see, any man who demands PIV or engages in it for that matter is making himself dangerous to women, by definition. and when a woman trusts a man to keep her safe?if that man demands or engages in PIV with her, he is exploiting that trust.

....... because the sad, sick truth of it is that every single man with whom we have ever had intercourse is just some tool who laid pipe, at our expense.."

I'm taking a wild guess here but I surmise she has never experienced a loving relationship with a man. What she said may be true of her experience but cannot be generalised to the vast majority of relationships.

So... by extension... does that mean my DH only loves me because of becoming 'trauma bonded' to me each time he samples my cooking ?

Sorry to lower the tone

Hmm. I think there's a fair bit of conflating going on in that post. Yes, you can see the act of PIV sex as "endangering" towards women, but putting oneself in a vulnerable position without fear is part of an intimate relationship isn't it? Further, women taking part in PIV sex with a fleeting partner, in a one night stand for example, providing they are fully consenting are doing so out of lust and can do so without forming a close "war-buddy" like attachment.
The blogger also seems to deny that there are situations where men are more attached than women (other than as an owner of a possession). I would disagree with this position.

I mean, letting someone else drive you around is putting you in more danger than PIV sex (I would have thought) and while we may trust our partners more in this regard we also let many other people do it (e.g. taxi drivers, bus drivers etc.).

LOL great article.

Wht's missing from it, is an acknowledgement that for most PIV sex (I hope) what women don't feel is terror, but lust.

I think she's falling into the old trap of believing the cliche about women becoming emotionally attached to men after sex. That assumption is just wrong I think - women are every bit as capable of having meaningless uncommitted PIV sex as men are and then moving untroubled onwards afterwards. If there is any truth in the cliche, then I'd argue it's because of patriarchy's demand that women be the gate-keepers of sex and the shame and guilt and loss of good reputation that it has imposed on women who have PIV sex outside of patriarchy -sanctioned circumstances - a much more likely scenario IMO, than trauma bonding.

However, I think when it comes to rape, she has a point - many rape victims are trauma-bonded to their rapist - but again, I'm not sure if that's an inherent response re PIV, so much as an emotional/ social response re not wanting to self-identify as a rape victim.

Though very interesting article

You can get a range of opinions under one label.

I suppose there's a radfem spectrum also.

Like you, I guess I'd be at the wishy washy end of radical feminism.
I define radfem as wanting to reorganise society to put female experiences & preferences on a par with male, but personally I'd keep things like het pairbonding and PIV. More people like them than not, and there should be no value judgement placed on what way you organise your sex and emotional life.