Good article about 'sex' (totally worksafe, don't panic)

Hmm this old thread hasn't aged like a fine wine... Where is solidgoldbrass these days?

Trans* people might be a small minority but in an article that is specifically about challenging phallocentric heteronormative sex, it seems reasonable to use cis to denote exactly which group you are talking about.

I always thought CIS and TRANS was a biochemical term See, that would have made my degree sooooo much more interesting

It is interesting but I find it entirely without love, care, compassion, empathy, joy and enthusiasm.

I could drum up a few more words. But I don't want to make it even more negative.

Seriously, sex is joyful. But sex is what exactly? Is it that penis in vagina (PIV) is the default? Or rampant rabbit in vagina RRIV? Or any object? Because if you are in possession of a vagina you are seen by the opposite sex as an object, due to centuries of patriarchial influence.

It wasn't always that way. Sex is joyful no matter who you have it with, but it doesn't have to involve a penis(i), fist, object. It is about intimacy and a sharing of excitement, and physical communication that is non threatening. It is about being entirely comfortable with the person you are with.

To clarify, the 'that's not what I see' comment is in relation to your characterisation of feminist debate.

That's not what I said nor what I see SGB.

Is there a possibility that there are women who like a man sticking a fist in her vagina? Yes possibly, I imagine that in a world of billions there are.

Is this the predominant experience of most women? I'd say not.

Does the porn industry represent it for those women who desire it? No I'd say not.

Does this representation damage sexual relationships and the treatment of women? I'd say yes.

My focus is not on women who love having a fist in their vagina, whether they exist or not. I don't particularly care. My focus is on the rest of us.

Coercion is not, ime, about getting women to engage in acts they enjoy. It's about pushing the envelope further and further, legitimised by being able to say it's 'normal' and you're a 'prude' if you don't. Of course there are lots of different experiences. But to deny that one in favour of saying all sexual acts are on a level playing field does not match my experience.

And who is being fisted more often, who is more frequently represented in porn as being fisted, and who is coming under pressure from their partner to be fisted? Of course nothing is ever all one or the other. Just as I can well imagine there are some men around who, for example, do more that their fair share of housework whilst the woman they live with says it's men's work, but the exceptions don't negate the broader gendered problem.

Sorry, I'm not sure i've made myself clear. I think that fisting is extreme no matter whether it's heteronormative or whether it really is popularly used in 'queer sex'. It is extreme because it is so violent and awful.

But the personal is the political is it not?

Fisting is a pornified, objectification, misogynistic trait. It perpetrates women as holes. Who gets the satisfaction from this. I would say that fisting is 95% described in porn as hetero. And normal.

Read Dworkin's "Pornography: Men possessing Women."

Not all queer sex is 'extreme' or different or whatever. Fisting and "kinky stuff" is still extreme though.

I agree that current conceptualisations of 'proper sex' are heteronormative and sexist but it is problematic to use porn and film classification as some kind of arbiter of public perceptions of sex and what is normal sexual behaviour.

It's an article about sex, pure and simple, and not politics at all. If you think that normal sex is problematic enough without getting into the less common variations, you might well come away thinking the article ignores too much.

The reference to fisting occurs in "A trend we tend to see in film classification and porn classification is that non-normative kinds of sex are seen as more dirty. Things like fisting, strap-ons, some kinky stuff - they're 'extreme.' And they also tend to be kinds of sex that queer people have more. So: queer sex is 'extreme', it’s 'niche'..."

How should we respond when we hear about some kind of sexual activity that we don't find personally relevant? "I hope they don't do it in the streets and frighten the horses" and then turn the page, I'd say.

I don't like the article much I must admit. I can't quite put my finger on it but it's probably as someone said earlier - that it side steps all political issues. And I object to the suggestion that it is heteronormative that fisting is seen as extreme. I mean really?

The article is good, but the usage of "cis" is alienating me and others, it seems.

How is discussing 'cis' being transphobic? I don't fear transpeople.

Cis is a widely used scientific term, nothing to do with cissie. Its used, for example,for cis-isomerism as opposed to trans-isomerism. I use it all the day through and molecules aren't sissy.

Interesting article. Cis is definitely Latin by the way- it's used to describe chemical bonds. In a trans bond, the atoms/ groups are attached on opposite sides of a carbon-carbons bonds, while in cis bonds the atoms are on the same side of the C-C bond. It is kind if vaguely irritating to see it used in a non chemistry sense!

There's no such thing as changing sex, so transsexual is not a word that should be used. Transgender is fine. And cissie is a word that is used in online forums. That article mentions Julia Serango, who still has her penis and is proud of it.

There are people (a small minority) who are born with both male and female genitalia. A genetic test confirms their sex now, though there are a few who have xxy or xyy.

The term "cis" comes from the Latin. The Romans recognised "Transalpine Gaul" on the north side of the Alps, and "Cisalpine Gaul" on the south side, in northern Italy. So if someone feels their body and psyche are mismatched, they are "trans"-sexual, and they need to cross over (maybe). Someone whose body and psyche match is "cis"-sexual, and is already on the right side. That's the origin. Don't make stuff up.