Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Radical feminism and PIV

330 replies

EatsBrainsAndLeaves · 23/05/2012 11:57

Hi just wanted to ask radical feminists and their allies their views of piv sex, I have no one I can ask in RL about this.

I can understand why PIV sex is inherently unsafe and that viewing PIV sex as the goal of sex is misogynous. But I really can't fathom the view that PIV sex is inherently abusive. Can anyone explain it very very basically? And do all radical feminists think PIV sex is inherently abusive?

Thanks

OP posts:
Alameda · 24/05/2012 00:46

it was a 'why is there so such widespread faith in counselling when nobody has really got to grips with measuring its unwanted or adverse outcomes' or something like that

maybe it was in chat and it was a name change or two or three or four ago

some people got a bit touchy at the very suggestion, bit like the questioning PIV thing

(sorry for my part in derailing Blush)

Original poster
EatsBrainsAndLeaves · 24/05/2012 00:42

What thread about counselling?

OP posts:
Alameda · 24/05/2012 00:37

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

BustersOfDoom · 24/05/2012 00:31

Don't disagree Eats but there has been some pretty full on threads here that have implied that consenting, adult PIV sex is always a submissive female act, which I disagree with. It can also be a female enveloping the male and taking control.

Original poster
EatsBrainsAndLeaves · 24/05/2012 00:31

Look eclectic I'm not stupid. I know you have come on this thread to have a go when all I wanted was some links to understand some arguments better. So I am not going to post any more in response to arguments about PIV. Thanks for the links and thoughts folks.

OP posts:
MiniTheMinx · 24/05/2012 00:30

Electic shock, I happen to enjoy PIV, I am simply highlighting the reality of it and Dworkin's writing on the subject. If you have nothing of interest to add only insults perhaps you should go pick a fight on a different playground?

EclecticShock · 24/05/2012 00:30

I'd love to participate in your new thread.

EclecticShock · 24/05/2012 00:29

"But I am not talking about PIV here, just the common assumption that because we like something that means there is no inherent problem with it."

You are questioning and talking about PIV indirectly, do you really think others don't see that. Denial or disingenuously, either way, people will have their own perceptions of what you are saying. Believe it or not, dressing it up doesn't actually change the meaning :)

Original poster
EatsBrainsAndLeaves · 24/05/2012 00:26

If posters want to discuss PIV sex might it be an idea to start a new thread on it?

OP posts:
EclecticShock · 24/05/2012 00:25

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Original poster
EatsBrainsAndLeaves · 24/05/2012 00:21

Busters - I am not here arguing that PIV sex is inherently wrong.

But just thought I should say that just because someone likes a particular behaviour, doesn't mean that it is good for them. For example a teenage girl with low self esteem may like the attention of a leery older man who is effectively trying to groom her - but we would all I think condemn that behaviour and say it wasn't good for her.

But I am not talking about PIV here, just the common assumption that because we like something that means there is no inherent problem with it.

OP posts:
MiniTheMinx · 24/05/2012 00:20

"A human being has a body that is inviolate; and when it is violated, it is abused. A woman has a body that is penetrated in intercourse: permeable, its corporeal solidness a lie. The discourse of male truth?literature, science, philosophy, pornography?calls that penetration violation. This it does with some consistency and some confidence. Violation is a synonym for intercourse. At the same time, the penetration is taken to be a use, not an abuse; a normal use; it is appropriate to enter her, to push into (?violate?) the boundaries of her body. She is human, of course, but by a standard that does not include physical privacy. She is, in fact, human by a standard that precludes physical privacy, since to keep a man out altogether and for a lifetime is deviant in the extreme, a psychopathology, a repudiation of the way in which she is expected to manifest her humanity" Dworkin

radgeek.com/gt/2005/01/10/andrea_dworkin/

I am inclined to think that PIV is something that men do to women. I don't agree with the arguments about danger/contraception/death in child birth. I do think however that women are more emotionally invested because women's boundaries are violated, she is entered into, not just in a physical sense but psychologically. I do think that in society, in literature, films, pornography that the act is a violence delivered upon women and a way of oppressing women and reminding them of their status as object without integral boundaries or power.

BustersOfDoom · 24/05/2012 00:17

Not true Almeda. The pill is prescribed to women over 35 who smoke. I'm 44 and one of them. The mini pill is most usually prescribed. I'm happy to live with the minimal risks as I no longer bleed heavily for 3 weeks out of 4, have sore breasts all the time or have crippling 2 day hormonal migraines every month. The contraceptive side is just a bonus to me. DP would happily have the snip tomorrow but it wouldn't solve my peri-menopausal issues.

And I like PIV sex along with non PIV sex. So what?

EclecticShock · 24/05/2012 00:14

Not many radical fems have contributed so I guess the theory is pants :)

EclecticShock · 24/05/2012 00:13

It's a great song :)

EclecticShock · 24/05/2012 00:12

Well, my mother named me after carly Simon so thats very insightful :)

Original poster
EatsBrainsAndLeaves · 24/05/2012 00:07

This was not set up as a thread to explore whether PIV is inherently abusive - I really don't want the shit that would come with a thread like that. That is why I specifically addressed it to radical feminists and their allies.

No a good argument does not mean it is valid. But if I dismiss an argument I want to know why I am dismissing it. I know exactly why I would dismiss the argument that rape can ever be right. In RL when people ask what I think about something, I will reasonably often say I don't know because I don't understand the issue enough e.g. foreign policy for UK in a particular country.

OP posts:
Alameda · 24/05/2012 00:07

No, it's lovely to read such impassioned posts. I meant overall. But now I have Carly Simon in my head so thanks for that.

EclecticShock · 24/05/2012 00:04

By consequences, do you mean posts like mine?

EclecticShock · 24/05/2012 00:02

To me, it's like exploring the question, is rape ever right? You know it's not whether one person argues it well or not...

Alameda · 24/05/2012 00:01

I thought that it was a shit stirry OP too. I mean only in its consequences, not its intention.

EclecticShock · 24/05/2012 00:00

Why so you think you will understand the argument? Arguments can be very powerful but that doesn't make them valid. Why ate you concerned with such a question?

Original poster
EatsBrainsAndLeaves · 23/05/2012 23:57

Seahouses - I haven't read Dworkin's intercourse so I can't comment on that. I have read a few radical feminists who have said all PIV sex is inherently abusive. But I do say in my post, do all radical feminists generally think PIV is abusive?

So I didn't know if this was a generally held view or not, hence the question. I also didn't understand why some radical feminists thought it was. It doesn't mean I am necessarily going to agree with them, I just wanted to understand the argument.

OP posts:
EclecticShock · 23/05/2012 23:57

That should hav said "inherently abusive" to quote OP.

EclecticShock · 23/05/2012 23:56

Fwiw, looking to explore the theory that PIV is abusive is ridiculous and I'm glad not many people have given it lip service. Shit stirring springs to mind.