"Intercourse/PIV is always rape, plain and simple."

I'm not that knowledgable about animal sex, but my understanding is that animal-blokes don't have a cultural expectation of PIV several times a week, do they?

No, they have a cultural hope of getting to have PiV a couple of times during mating season.

Except bonobos, a fifth of whose male offspring vanishes without a trace during puberty. I would not model human society after them without first finding out if the reduced number of males is necessary for it to work ... and what happens to those males. Maybe bonobos are much worse than any feminist extremist.

I think most of us know you can get pregnant even if there is sperm outside - it tends to find its way even . Even anal sex is not safe sex. And of course you can have virgin births these days with IVF. However most men and women are quite keen on PiV sex and most people in the West at least seem to manage it in a happy and consensual way. if they aren't into that or are asexual or don't want a partner or are gay or want an alternative form of sex they can choose it.

On the historial issue don't assume mankind always knew babies led to sex. Some cultures did not make that association.

There is also an interesting history book called the Origins of Sex i think it is by an Oxford academic that looks at the UK mostly and marriage, sex, babies etc from about 1066 (not earlier).

The ownership of children point mentioned above is also interesting. Most cultures including early kibbutzim found that taking a child away so it also sleeps away from parents to be brought up communally tended not to work very well (although it certainly relieves women of burdens). It is instead probably a useful instinct that most women and a good few men want to care for their children, that you put your child first before your political beliefs or causes or other people's children.

Well, there's always bonobos, Buffy :) I rather like their cheery approach to sex.

I'd be staggered if there is any reliable evidence (beyond the hyperbole of teachers trying to scare teenagers off sex) that conceptions have happened from sperm being placed externally on a woman's vulva

But we do agree that sperm can travel through the vagina, yes?

Putting it in there like you put a tampon or menstruation cup in would likely be a less reliable method of conception than PiV, but you can always try several times.

The statement that PiV is not needed for pregnancy is still valid, and does not mean more invasive methods are needed.

After all, just because some women need IVF doesn't mean it can be considered necessary for conception, either.

Stops women shagging someone else in the few days afterwards and therefore casting doubt on cave-paternity?

Evolution is not about catering to men. Even though one has good reason to think that.

It would be far more beneficial if all cavemen thought they could be the father of a child - they would treat it better, just in case. (Female lions have very elaborate strategies to prevent male violence against their cubs)

Or to start a race between the sperm of different men, so that the best genes win.

I am in the "sometimes, evolution makes things shitty" camp on that one.

we can conclude that the obsession with PIV in our culture has not much to do with conception

Well, it's certainly more complicated than that. I don't think feminism can ignore the long-standing ownership of offspring thing; it must be what's behind many cultural assumptions about women, power and heterosexual relationships (enforced or chosen.)

it's about... Something else

That's complicated, too, isn't it? We're capable of being transported by pleasure from it. I'm pretty sure we can put that down to evolution. Then there's all the politics of power & ownership. Which is extremely, fundamentally problematic.

sakura
I said up thread that I've had 2 conceptions that didn't involve any PIV
Both involved procedures that were FAR more invasive than any sex I've ever had
If you come from the philosophical starting point that PIV is traumatic to the point of being analogous to rape, there is no reliable alternative method of conception that wouldn't be equally traumatic.

I'd be staggered if there is any reliable evidence (beyond the hyperbole of teachers trying to scare teenagers off sex) that conceptions have happened from sperm being placed externally on a woman's vulva

There is nothing fixed or innate about murder - you have times and places with low or negligible homicide rates through to times and places of massacre. Nobody sits and goes massacres are just inevitable. There is a line drawn somewhere - and surely it is no murder/no rape is acceptable. If you don't think that is achievable, it is like shrugging and going well, it is always going to happen to someone. Really?

Yes. Also, rape rates are much higher than homicide rates. If one in four men ended his life by being murdered, I am pretty sure people would feel they have to do something about that.

Women being raped at that rate, though? People just stand by and say it's sad but there's nothing to be done.

And I think that rape is very much what should be discussed in a thread that is essentially about whether PiV is always rape. As feminists, we should aim to end rape.

A thread in which we discuss the question of whether PiV is good for women or very good for women, is rather pointless, is it?

Could be, Casualty I like evolutionary examinations of stuff - and get simultaneously annoyed by childish assumptions that evolution Always Does What's Best. No, it doesn't. It does what works well enough. Honestly, if you were designing bodies from scratch you wouldn't have all the peeing, pooing, fertilising and young-producing equipment in the same place! It's ridiculously unhygienic, mechanically inefficient and cumbersome.

There are loads of alternative and less difficult reproductive strategies. The way mammals do it isn't 'best' - it seems to work well enough, so here it is. And, due to inherent design flaws, is liable to cause infections & injuries.

I can't believe people on here think PIV is necessary for conception People have been doing the old turkey baster method since forever, sometimes in cases where the husband was sterile and a neighbour "helped"out the childless couple.
We were taught in sex Ed in school that if sperm gets into contact with the vulva, not even the vagina, it can make its way up there all by itself.
Therefore we can conclude that the obsession with PIV I our culture has not much to do with conceptionnot really it's about... Something else

I've just read Witchwind's series on intersectionality, where the above quotes about servants & wives originated. She's right. It's an exploration or exposition of the basic premises of radical feminism. The whole point of feminism is to understand that we live with patriarchy, see how it works - and to change things so that (eventually) women and men are properly free with equally balanced powers.

Ideas on how those changes might be effected vary, just as they do within any reform movement.

I decided to give her pages on love & heterosexuality a miss, as we're clearly coming from different places on that.

Stops women shagging someone else in the few days afterwards and therefore casting doubt on cave-paternity?

I get UTIs after sex as well; the advice I got from my doctor was to go to the bathroom immediately after and pee, which worked usually.

Cervical pain at certain times of the month - yes; paradoxically if I remember correctly in the luteal phase for me, which was a problem as I used the sympto-thermal method of family planning. These days, I would be very wary of having sex if a baby hadn't been discussed as a possible outcome, or no condom was involved.

Consent- I think the idea of exploring and expanding this explicitly is worthwhile. I am trying to teach both DC the concept of bodily autonomy and that hugs (age appropriate) both parties need to want. Separated H used to be bad for demanding hugs and kisses from the DC (and me) so some re-education has gone on there. You can't touch someone if they don't want to be touched.

Not had time to follow the thread - but I don't share the view that violent crime is always going to exist. I am sorry but I will talk about rape again on this thread - because what people understand by rape and the acceptable boundaries around sexual practice and consent can be and have been (over time and in different countries and contexts) redrawn; there is nothing fixed or innate about rape. There is nothing fixed or innate about murder - you have times and places with low or negligible homicide rates through to times and places of massacre. Nobody sits and goes massacres are just inevitable. There is a line drawn somewhere - and surely it is no murder/no rape is acceptable. If you don't think that is achievable, it is like shrugging and going well, it is always going to happen to someone. Really?

VV - not sure its a utopia I'm aiming for. Just some practical stuff we could do. I wonder if something like a really well made TV programme would be the right way - a series say aimed at young people with real people talking frankly. Young men in my generation (I'm almost as old as Garlick) used to be avid but secretive Cosmopolitan readers. I found it quite a revelation although I only used to read it in the dentists on the odd occasion obviously. We probably need a modern internet version of that phenomenon.

I don't really want to talk about rape on this thread again. How we prevent rape is a whole other big thread and I don't have any instant answers. It will take a long time and I don't think sadly we can completely prevent it any more than we can completely prevent murder.

.

Garlick I saw an article about schools having such a scheme, great idea to involve boys in change from a young age.
I felt silly posting about the pain thing earlier, but just felt bothered by the statements made by the pp. I'm glad I did know as it's been very positive hearing other's stories (though I'm sorry for the difficulties you've had).

I think it is a bit too optimistic to hope to change society simply by telling people that bad things are bad and that they should intervene if they see them happen. I kind of think people know that already and are deciding that they want things to stay the way they are.

I hope I am wrong and just too pessimistic. :(

By the way, the reason why women are not encouraged to intervene if other women are being assaulted is likely because that would put them in harm's way, too, and it is assumed they wouldn't want to risk that.

I liked the recent, sadly tentative, initiatives to encourage men to intervene if women are being harassed or assaulted. It'd clearly be wise to encourage women as well. These initiatives have included advice not to be passive when rapey jokes & comments are made, not to let victim-blaming-in-advance go unchallenged, and strong anti victim blaming messages.

But, my god, we need a great deal more of it. I don't feel we're likely to get it under current circs. So I have to hope that cultural change and social media will help improve the power balance.