Radical feminism and PIV

Eclectic: when I am told I am confused because I dare to offer an opinion I really can't be arced to give a considered response. Life's too short.

I thought courts referred to either claimants or complaining witnesses in all cases?

Interesting people get so squawky over one radfem with no real power speculating wildly about eliminating male foetuses. Has it escaped their notice that people who are far more fucking mad than Femonade are coming out with suggestions that, for instance, women whose foetuses have died in utero should be forced to carry those dead foetuses until their due dates, because Abortion Is Wrong? Or that, in cases of rape or DV and not in any other type of violent crime the victim should not be referred to as a victim in legal proceedings but as the 'accuser'? Or that women who miscarry should be charged with murder and face the death penalty? Thing is, the nutters who are saying this sort of thing are nutters with power. They are elected officials with the ability to propose changes to laws and have those proposals seriously.

Xenia, my description of "hook up" sex came from two young women who graduated with good degrees from Cardiff and York Universities respectively a few years ago. They very much fit the mould of what you would probably call "clever girls." They did describe the quite ingenious strategies they used to avoid having sex with men when they didn't want to have sex with them from imaginary boyfriends back home to pretending to be drunker than they were and trying to get the men to drink more so they'd be too drunk to do anything. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't. Both had experiences that meet the legal definition of rape, although neither referred to it as that.

Surely though, young women shouldn't have to employ elaborate strategies to avert sex with men when they don't want sex. Surely they shouldn't be in a Hobson's choice position. Surely the young men who don't want to coerce women into sex they don't want shouldn't be pressed to conform to this indicator of masculinity, else be labelled gay and/or risk abuse from their peers.

And, there is something deeply unsavoury about the way you've referred to "vulnerable young women" with whom I work. It's true, they don't all benefit from the financial, educational and class privileges of the "clever girls" nor do they always have the positive family and social support networks that may help them avoid or at least employ useful strategies so they aren't coerced into sex they don't want.

Is it that the "vulnerable young women" are just collateral damage to preserve male sexual entitlement - that it's acceptable for them to put out, particularly if it saves the "clever girls" from having to deal with unwanted sexual attention? You suggest they "give sex to any man going," as if this is something to be expected, par for the course for "vulnerable young women," so nothing to get aerated about. Hmmmmm.

"I think you're confusing entitlement with want.

You reckon?"

Thats a really well thought out response, i can you truely have grasped an understanding of rad fem.

Is it me or does PIV automatically characterise the penis as the active "do-er" and the vagina as the passive recipient. Why is it never VAP - vagina around penis sex?

I agree with what you are saying messy and am all for sending out the message that penetration isn't the be all and end all of sex.

What I find worrisome is if you go from the positive message "sex can be great fun without penetration, so there's no need to hide the sausage everytime, and anyway, not wanting to have penetrative sex doesn't mean there's something wrong with you" to the negative message "penetrative sex is wrong and dangerous and bad for you, avoid it at all costs"

There should be a balance. People should be encouraged to explore their sexuality whilst keeping safe, and that includes trying out things as well as saying "uh, no, I don't fancy that" or "no, not in the mood tonight, sorry".

And what is important, is that this is promoted to people of all sexes.

In my view girls are much more assertive and better at saying no (when they want to). the fact they may want to say no less than when they risked pregnancy is wonderful. I accept there will be some vulnerable girls who feel pressured but I don't feel it's the majority by any means and because I have 3 university age+ children I know quite a lot of people that age.

I think Kritiq is talking about the pressure that girls/young women feel that they can't say no. I can certainly assert to that when I was younger. In my peer group there was the idea that if you went so far, but then stopped you were a "pricktease" and that was a very bad thing to be, or that you were "frigid" which was even worse. Of course if you liked it too much you were a "slut" and then people just mocked you.

It's hard to grow up and be curious about sex whilst trying to sidestep all the reputation traps, and reputation is so important at that age, well any age I guess.

And that was before the whole mad media sexualization went rampant so I can't imagine what it's like now.

I think the biggest silencing tool is posting "this is a silencing term".

I think you're confusing entitlement with want.

You reckon?

i wonder why derailing is such a crime, it's my guess that it's just a tool used to silence people. i think it's only natural that threads will evolve , people can still adress the op with there post, even if it has evolved.

i dont have any after 16 anyway, but you knew that from my spelling.

"What I can't understand is why so many people post here to mainly derail threads and also I can't understand why (semi) educated posters, both male and female, can't get their heads around the very basic fact that sex shouldn't just be purely PIV however that is the general perception in society."

With regards to the derailing, we are all still talking at PIV. I think possibly talking about camping might be more of a derailment.

The assumption that we are semi-educated is rather ridiculous as its not based on any kind of fact, you dont know what level of education any of us have.

In mainstream society kissing is also a large part of relationships and is expected to a degree. Is this inherently abusive? It does carry risk.

"It's the entitlement that is inherently abuse - to me anyway"

I don't understand what is meant by the term entitlement. It's a fact that no one has a right to have PIV with another person. It's about mutual consent, hence why rape is illegal. I think you're confusing entitlement with want.

there were allways girls who slept around more than others but even they could say no, i mean they probobly liked the attention and a night might end up with sex but only because they said yes, this stuff about girls feeling they cant say no, thats all new as far as i can see, no meant no back in the 80's and 90's when i was young.
i really dont know what could have happend to change that state of affairs.

i'm a man
and yes, in teenage and 20's sex was all i thought about......girls diddnt have such a problem saying no back then

Well there may be some vulnerable teenage girls who give sex to every man giong and you work with those, but I don't think the majority is in that category at all. I think girls can be incredibly assertive and say no. I have had 3 children at university recently and I know the culture there but I think clever girls at university certainly know how to say no if they want to,. Once you get beyond that gosh in general men are so keen to find someone to have sex with and women say no to them all the time. It is so bad that a good few men pay. Isn't that a constant male theme- how hard it can be to get sex? We need a man on the thread for this perhaps.

Grimble - yes, I agree that it's the "entitlement" that is the source of abuse and that's what needs to be tackled, rather than prescribing specific sexual acts, if that makes sense.

I know that sounds like "guns don't kill, people kill," but I suppose it's the same principle.

Xenia, I think we may have to agree to disagree on your last paragraph. Having said that, I'm speaking more in the context of girls and young women - the "next generation" of women, so to speak.

"Hook Up" sex is a common practice amongst university aged young people - where you go out with the expectation that you will have sex with someone, whether you like them or not. It's rude to refuse. You get yourself drunk or high enough so you can do it if you have to. If you really, really don't want to do it, you skip the bikini wax or leg shave because the only thing more humiliating than having sex with a man you can't stand is having any man see that you are hairy. It gives the "excuse" they need to be able to refuse.

I work with young women and girls who also don't believe they have the right to say no to sex - not just from boyfriends in committed relationships, but from boyfriends' friends and boys they hardly know. I posted this on a separate thread, but have a look at this NSPCC Report on Sexting and the extreme and constant pressure girls as young as 12 are under to take and share nude pictures or perform sex acts. It's become very, very normalised amongst both girls and boys that it's "just what you do."

I still prefer when there is a "choice" even if the choice comes about through conditioning than being in say Saudi where you are not even allowed to drive if you are female. Obviously I hope parents can educate children so they take reasonably free choices whatever the parental prejudice or view and guide when the parent thinks the child's view is objectively wrong.

I suspect we are not too much in a culture in the UK where women perform sex when demanded. I suspect it's quite the converse in most situations which is why men on the whole find it quite hard to get sex and women can probably have it 5 times a day from various men if they wanted it. Women say no rather a lot.

Interesting discussion and of course PIV involves risks. But I can't help thinking that it isn't so much what you put where that is inherently abusive but that it is an expectation that it is "normal" that females should perform whatever acts are demanded, as per Kritiq's point about e.g. blow jobs.

It's the entitlement that is inherently abuse - to me anyway.

Xenia, I'd go even further to say that the purpose and outcome of societal rules and traditions that restrict young women's sexuality (e.g. body covering, requirement of virginity for marriage, ostracising pregnant or sexually active girls - still practiced elsewhere, commonly practiced in the UK even 50 years back,) are just the same as sexualisation.

It's about conformity. It's about control. It's about maintaining collective male "ownership" of young women's bodies and how they use them.

With a burkha or a promise ring, the conformity and control is pretty obvious. What is devious, however, is that in our current "modern" society, there is just as much pressure for young women to conform to specific modes of dress, specific sexual practices that facilitate male control of women. What's more sinister though, is these are dressed up as "free choice" and even as "liberating" for the women involved. But, how much really is choice? What's worse, if you aren't "happy" with the outcome of your "choice," (e.g. sti, pregnancy, shame of nude photos of you splashed over the web, rape, etc.,) then it's tough, because after all, you CHOSE it.

Conformity and control with the illusion of choice is still conformity and control.

I don't think it's wrong to concentrate on that because that is where the greatest risk lies . However I agree that people of either sex need to be warned they should not be coerced into acts they don't want of course.

However the converse of this is that we also shouldn't say girls cannot have as much sex and boys and need to be protected. Girl as precious virginal madonna or else whore is used by many cultures and religions to keep women down and deny them the expression of their own sexuality. "Protection" of girls often can involve just as much abuse - FMG, the burka and chastity vows as much controls and damages teenage girls as does feeling pressured as KRIT describes.