Radical feminism and PIV

How is it narrow in its focus? The OP is about PIV being inherently abusive, whih admittedly is a very narrow focus, however, the posters have opened up the discussion. Of course PIV can be abusive so can anything.

What is the radfem reading then of the situation when women are not happy at not getting as much PIV as they would like, e.g. whilst trying to conceive, or once they're pregnant (and he's reluctant due to all kinds of unfounded fears)?

It's not only men who want it, and sometimes it's men who want it less than their partners.

Technically you don't need it to keep the human race going as there are other methods to grow babies these days.

Of course people can choose what they do but it's good to take an informed choice and consider the feminist implications. Plenty of people choose to celibate and many women are gay. There are plenty of ways to swing a cat if you want to swing it at all.

The interesting thing about this thread is the focus on western liberal democracies.

If you look around the world at certain countries there is no doubt that PIV causes more trouble than it's worth (for women anyway). To coin a phrase - of course in countries where the consequences are frequently death/permanent disability and women's "choice" as to who they have sex with, how and when is not really a choice at all it is a lot more than a bit of "trouble".

And many people would argue that it isn't exactly all roses in liberal western democracies either.

Not sure why this conversation is so narrow in its focus.

It is bizarre when we have this natural programming to have sex in this way, even if we are female.

Strangely, there seems to be such a strong emphasis on it being a bad thing. Odd considering how many woman say of their own free will that their children are the best thing in their lives...

It is nutty to say that woman only have PIV because they are trauma bonded. Sorry.

But you see, nobody is saying that PIV is not sometimes fun and nice.

We are saying that it is a bit weird that it is considered to be the mainstream definition of 'sex'. And we are saying that it carries a disproportionate risk for the female partner. And we are saying that it seems to carry a disproportionate level of importance (fetishization) within male dominated society.

That's all.

Plus it is sort of revelatory that some people start calling other people nutters for pointing out the above (rather obvious) facts.

Bizarre.

*Because all the PIV that happens in the world happens for the survival of the human race

Not But of course!*

That's not actually what was said in the post ?

Yes. All of it.

Black and white. No grey. Sound familiar?

Well, I like Willy Up Fanny. Or WUF-ing as me and my DH delightfully have nicknamed it due to the absurdity of the term.

Strangely it drives me nuts if I am deprived of it for long periods of time. I am fairly sure I'm not brainwashed about my 'need' for this.

As for the pill. Yes its evil. Obviously. Yes there are bad sides, but then I tend to think that RadFems are just miserable and want to find the negative in everything just to prove a point about how oppressed they are anyway.

I don't think it needs critical examination really. It kind of takes the fun out of... You either like it or you don't.

Abuse is abuse. Its doesn't need a willy up your fanny to be abused. In the majority of cases where WUF-fing is used to abuse, there is a history behind it over a period of time and manifested in a variety of ways, not just through WUF-ing.

And Ms Femonade is just out of her tree and needs psychiatric help. She's an extremist.

Nuff said.

Right.

Because all the PIV that happens in the world happens for the survival of the human race.

Not But of course!

Sigmund, you took the words right out of my mouth.

'Right. Because sex = PIV, huh?'

Nope, but it's preferable to tedious clit twiddling on my own, or even not on my own. Sex may well equal PIV to some people, because they like it, not because they're branwashed patriarchal tools.

'Don't suppose you have ever given birth and then been told at the 6 week check up when they examine the state of your stitches, etc that you can 'start having sex again' i.e. PIV again?'

Well I have given birth. And I was told I could start having sex again at 6 weeks. And I thought 'Hmm, not quite ready, maybe in 8 weeks'. No drama, no feminist analysis, just a 'ta very much, but I'll do it when I'm ready'. Easy.

'Have you never noticed the institution of prostitution which exists primarily because PIV or PIO (penis in orifice) is considered something that men have a right to?'

Can't be bothered with this one.

'PMSL that you are invoking the; feminist analysis = radfems don't like sex (and pearl clutch at the idea of others doing the sex) trope.'

Well if they do, they're doing a mighty fine job of appearing that they don't.

'PIV is integral to male dominant society, indeed one could say that it is fetishized. Fact.'

I would say it was integral to society as a whole, because if it wasn't, we wouldn't be here to discuss it endlessly. Fact.

'Folks get uncomfortable and often personally attacking when feminists question the role of PIV. Fact.'

Because it's ridiculous. That is all.

Right. Because sex = PIV, huh?

Don't suppose you have ever given birth and then been told at the 6 week check up when they examine the state of your stitches, etc that you can 'start having sex again' i.e. PIV again?

Have you never noticed the institution of prostitution which exists primarily because PIV or PIO (penis in orifice) is considered something that men have a right to?

PMSL that you are invoking the; feminist analysis = radfems don't like sex (and pearl clutch at the idea of others doing the sex) trope.

PIV is integral to male dominant society, indeed one could say that it is fetishized. Fact.

Folks get uncomfortable and often personally attacking when feminists question the role of PIV. Fact.

Bit like you have with me really....

Please don't address me if you are unable to do so without getting personal and posting manspaliny assessments ('worst of all' etc).

Only mentioned it as you remind me of a friend I have who is an author.

Eats, are you planning on writing a book about rad fem and the Internet?

i allready looked at the link above eats and i'm seriously none the wiser.

beachcomer, what yous ay is simply imcorrect

it isnt a radical idea that vaginas are not predominately here for teh benifit of men, never heard anyone say that they were.

i cant speak on behalf of the patriachy but i have never heard anyone suggesting that women should engage in PIV all the time nor that men have a right to, last i heard women decided who and when they have PIV anything else is rape, or do you mean that PIV is the price women pay for marrage? that would be very 1950's of you, do you really not think that some women enjoy PIV?

your sarcasm is unfounded, no one is saying these things, your fighting the demons who live between your ears.

but worst of all, you say "see how folks dont even likes PIV being discussed in a critical manner", as though it's some subversive element the establishment want kept quiet because if it got out the very fabric of our society would crumble around us.

actually beachcomer some people simply like sex, thats all

Yet again we see how folks don't even like PIV being discussed in a critical manner.

I'm frankly amazed that it isn't perfectly obvious that women take a risk with their health, their future and potentially their lives every time they have PIV and that that might be a problem. This is mainly because vaginas (the V in PIV) lead to wombs. Vaginas are not predominately there for the benefit of men (radical notion I know).

And yet PIV is considered, in patriarchy, to be an activity that women should engage in all the time, men have a right to, and you are a nutter if you can see the misogyny a flaw in the plan.

Dang that patriarchy is good.

Yes SeaHouses - exactly. I think the idea has evolved from a misreading of Dworkin (which I first read 25 years ago and even then couldn't work out how some feminists thought she believed all PIV was abusive/rape,) which has morphed and evolved over time.

Actually, what notenoughsocks said sort of sums that up.

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. . . . 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.

The idea that it is always abusive is probably such a minority view that it is extremely unlikely anybody on here will have read anything on it to be able to explain the logic behind it.

i would like to understand the arguments better actually, mainly because they seem quite baffleing to me ATM.

statisticaly women have more chance of contracting an STD from sex.
women get pregnant, they have more to loose from a casual encounter.
i also get the bit about a woman being 'entered' , when you 'enter' a person with your penis it's easy to walk away again , but being left after haveing been 'entered' may be more problematical.
in short women have more to loose from PIV, but we allready know this, thats why women are more sensible about sex if a women askes a man in a club or bar back to her place for sex, he will probobly say "yes, lets get a cab", but the other way around and he would be sent away with a flea in his ear.

so, women have more to loose and consequently they are more careful about who they have piv with.

so far so good

can anyone explain why PIV is inherently abusive, not looking for a bunfight but i would really like to know the lodic behined it.

I didn't come in this thread to "have a go". It was in active conversations, I didn't know what PIV was. When I read the OP, I waned to share my opinion which is just as valid as anyone else's on this thread. This isn't a private area, anyone can join in.