Radical feminism and PIV

PIV is inherently unsafe for both sexes in some situations. Not all situations and not just females. Generalisation really is a killer....

So I'm seeing the disputed quotes occurring in the comments of that radicalhub.com blog in October and November of last year, is that right? Certainly not made up out of thin air.

It does seem as if there are a few people, at least when they're speaking theory and aren't using any kind of traceable name, who say the world would be better off without men. And presumably, they'd say women would be better off not having penis-in-vagina sex with men.

I don't think Dworkin ever went this far. I believe her idea was that women are assumed to want piv sex, when there's a whole range of levels of consent that women can have towards it, with full enthusiasm being much less common than it ought to be, given the amount of sex people are having. So she'd say that there should be less piv sex, and when men want it, they should give much more attention to whether women want it too.

Apologies Seahorses. I was just so excited about joining in again :-)

OK. Here is my thoughts on 'why':

Most of of my feminist theory - what there is of it - is grounded in the seventies and is outdated. However, I believe that there is sometimes a tendency for feminists, as all theorists, to follow a theory or train of thought to its rational conclusion. I am thinking here, for instance, of those old school feminists who claim that they were not allowed to take their young sons along to feminist separatist events and gatherings. As the OP says, PIV sex is inherently unsafe and that viewing PIV sex as 'the goal' is mysoginistic. It is not too hard to imagine how you could then, if you were being ruthlessly logical (as I think that link was in a sort of sense) how you could argued that PIV is always abusive.

Why is biology being ignored?

i agree with eclectic shock on this.

it's just a crazy idea from some person who maybe doesnt enjoy sex and the has worked out that women in general dont either and their all having sex to please the patriachy.

someone upthread said that PIV was 'cultural', well, caveman and woman diddnt have a turky baster so PIV was their only option and if they haddnt used it we wouldnt be here talking about PIV. and as chinese penises enterd chinese vaginas as african penises enterd african vaginas i see no cultural difference.

i do agree that PIV carries more risks for a woman than for a man, but thats nature, not the patriachy.

Whatever theory you are looking to research, you will find mountains of literature on it. Any debate can be debated either way. What you have to hold true are the common rules of humanity.

Rape not tape...

Does common sense not come into it anywhere and all the positive things about piv?

Don't have any hang up about critical thinking. I have a hang up about people looking to support and rationalise extremist views which are harmful.

Fair enough but to me it's like asking why do people think ok to tape someone. It's an extreme view that really its nt worth understanding from a philisophical standpoint. Maybe from a psychological one but what it has to do with feminism I really can't fathom.

is it just contextualising sexual acts you have this hang up about or any sort of critical thinking and questioning?

I don't think the OP is trying to find out if it is always abusive. I think she is trying to find out why somebody else would think that.

Anyone looking to find out if all PIV sex is abusive needs some serious counselling IMO.

Ok, so is piv abusive?

you said 'all sex', but the op only refers to penis in vagina sex - one sort of sex

Please explain... Yes it is about that and the theory that it is inherently abusive, are we not reading the same post?

it's just about penis in vagina sex though?

See the theory being discussed in the OP.

where has anyone said all sex is abusive?

I can't believe anyone in their right mind who isn't vulnerable reads this rubbish.

"Some say an earth with only 10% men will be a safe earth free of oppression. We need more of these visions."

Taken from the article linked. Crazy crazy stuff. Why is any of this stud interesting? It's like a cult, it's completely is hateful.

Agre with notenough. It's all about context... Feeding someone can be nurturing, lifesaving or abusive. To day all sex is abusive is ridiculous and I don even understand why you are researching this theory...

That link is mindboggling. Impossible to tell whether it's parody or someone unhinged being serious.

I haven't been here for a while but have suddenly got the urge to join in with MNfeminists for a bit - if ok.

On the OP's original point, I don't label myself a 'radical feminist' to the exclusion of other 'types' of feminism. I have found lots of elements of radical feminism helpeful to me although I amdit that my reading is lacking. To add my bit though, no I don't think that PIV is inherently abusive. Context is all - I think.

Was just about to link but I've noticed that Oncemoreintothe has..

No, Eclectic, they wouldn't find it remotely funny.