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

vesuvia - finally. Some logical thought.

"I think that men get a better deal out of PIV sex than women do. Some of the reasons are biological/medical and we can do little or nothing to change those, but some of the inequality is social and that could be changed..."

Right. So I agree we can't deal with the biological inequality. Only women can give birth and men can't. Unless you want to go down the road of 'making babies in a tank' and cutting men out of the process altogether and sex is just for pleasure in which case men would cheer as they would have no responsibility at all but lets no go there.

Now what social inequality are you talking about that we can deal with that isn't legally defined as rape?

Have you ever been penetrated, FreeWorker1?

From Dworkin's "Intercourse"* :

"He has to push in past boundaries. There is the outline of a body, distinct, separate, its integrity an illusion, a tragic deception, because unseen there is a slit between the legs, and he has to push into it. There is never a real privacy of the body that can coexist with intercourse: with being entered. The vagina itself is muscled and the muscles have to be pushed apart. The thrusting is persistent invasion. She is opened up, split down the center. She is occupied--physically, internally, in her privacy."

There is not an equivalence in the act. That's what's being explored here.

*Full text available radfem.org/dworkin/

FreeWorker1 wrote - "Why do feminists always define women as passive, not knowing their own mind, complete innocent victims in every interaction with any man. Its ridiculous and downright insulting to women."

In your head maybe, but not in the real world.

Bertrand - you are going to have to deconstruct your last post because I have literally no idea what it means. Sorry.

I think that PIV sex is not always rape (by the current legal definitions and current social norms).

Many of the comments on this thread come across to me as "penis-in-vagina sex can feel good and PIV sex reproduces the species, therefore any harmful effects on women as a class can be ignored".

It's similar to people saying "I like my job, and work finances society, therefore work is harmless to workers as a class" or "hard work never did anyone any harm". On the contrary, hard work has directly killed many thousands of people.

Even if a social practice is beneficial for some people or for society as a whole, I think it can still be worthwhile to examine problems caused by the practice. With the work example, even though a mine-owning billionaire may love his work of clinching deals while drinking cocktails on his super-yacht in Monte Carlo marina and he is very unlikely to die from rock dust in his lungs, we can still question why work is problematic for the male and female miners with lung disease caused by years of breathing rock dust into their lungs.

Likewise with PIV sex. People obviously like sex in a way and at a time of their choice, and that includes PIV sex. Just because PIV sex is popular and also effective at producing children, that doesn't magically make PIV sex always problem-free or have equal risks and benefits for men and women. I think the blog is a useful starting point for examination of various issues, but nobody has to agree with what the blogger wrote, just tolerate that it could be a useful catalyst for our own deeper critical thinking.

I think that men get a better deal out of PIV sex than women do. Some of the reasons are biological/medical and we can do little or nothing to change those, but some of the inequality is social and that could be changed, but only if we offer deeper thoughts than "I'm all right Jack" or "Bollocks".

Sorry, bold fail. Hope you can pick out the bit i mean.

FreeWorker1, please could you read the whole context of the C&P you objected to? Becaus her ebit you commented on was my the whole thing. Here -*"it's interesting that Freeworker has interpreted the 'pseudo intellectual' (shame about the sly dig, the discussion seems universally genuinely intellectual to me) discussion about the social conditions in which female sexuality is constructed as PIV = 'coercive act'.

Doesn't that just sort of show that there's something in the ideas we've been kicking around? Because who is the actor, the active, the agent of PIV in that statement? It's the man. So even the most banal everyday language to describe disagreement takes a theoretical position on active-passive*

Well this is where the fundamental premise of the thread is wrong:

"Because who is the actor, the active, the agent of PIV in that statement? It's the man."

There is no active and passive in PIV. Its mutual consent. Its active participation. Its mutual enjoyment.

If you define PIV as something a man 'does' to a woman well then yes that's where your 'feminist analysis' gets you to. The man is doing something to the woman whether she likes or wants it or not. That's how you eventually get to PIV is always rape.

You see. If you always define PIV in that way then its always rape. I don't define PIV as something a man 'does' to a woman at all. Its something among many things in both parties might like.

Why do feminists always define women as passive, not knowing their own mind, complete innocent victims in every interaction with any man. Its ridiculous and downright insulting to women.

Women are not victims of their sexuality.

I think it's more down to being the penetrated or penetrator and the subtle dynamics around that.

I think it is that, exactly. If you had a finger in your husband's arse, you could potentially hurt him. He would have to trust you that you wouldn't move in a way that'd be unpleasant to him.

Men don't trust women and most don't want to learn. That's apparent in a lot of legislation, from paternity tests to abortion laws. Women are pictured as lying liars who lie, as stupid and irresponsible. It serves the purposes of patriarchy.

I find it extraordinary that people could be turned off the whole idea of feminism because someone writes a very extreme blog

Some people will use everything as an excuse to be "turned off the whole idea of feminism". I rather suspect they never really liked the idea in the first place.

Imagine if those advice pages were about getting men to derive pleasure from anal stimulation of the prostate, instead of stimulation of the penis.

Many men won't even entertain the idea of anal stimulation, dh was keen to try anal when we first met, (late teens) and while we were both reading up on it, we came across an article that said about anal stimulation, he ruled it out straight away. Nothing was going up his arse without medical reason, but yet there we were, looking all over the net for ways to him to get his penis up mine without it hurting. One finger up his? no way not happening, big erect willy up mine? You should at least try it. Pointed out to him if he's so certain a finger up his will be painful, what makes him so sure his penis up mine would be enjoyable and not hurt. He never mentioned anal ever again.

Anal seems to be a mainstream thing now, I know some women like, but some men also like the finger up bum thing and if that's as enjoyable for the man as I've heard I do wonder why there isn't as much info about practising that safely, women told to do it as a way to spice up sex life, main feature in many porn films etc the way anal is. Could it be, on some level, subconsciously maybe, that being penetrated makes them less powerful? Submissive? I dunno what word I'm looking for... My friend used to think it was because it had gay connotations but I'm not so sure. I think it's more down to being the penetrated or penetrator and the subtle dynamics around that.

Again I hope I'm making sense, and I'm thinking as I go so apologies if it's all waffle.

The writer was making the point that defining enjoyable sex as some specific activity that you need to convince, coercive or bribe your partner into doing is a bit suspect as a concept in that it implies that an activity is more enjoyable the less any woman would want to do it.

Isn't PiV the start of that?

I mean, let's take a look at sexual things one can do:

• Touching nonsexualized body parts: Most women are up for that.
• Touching breasts: Likewise, most women like it when a man they are sexually interested in does this.
• Manual sex: Likewise.

All of the above are categorised as "petting" and defined as "not real sex" by the majority of people - or at least the most vocal people.

• Mouth-on-penis: Many women don't like it. Men consider it almost as good as PiV.
• Penis-in-Vagina: Most women will only do it if certain precautions are taken, because of the pregnancy risks. There is also a tendency to wait longer before doing it and wanting to know the partner better than with other sex acts.

• Penis-in-Anus: Pain potential is higher than with PiV, STD risk is very high - is considered naughtier and more enjoyable than PiV in cultures where contraception is available, considered second best in cultures where it is done to preserve the woman's virginity and/or avoid pregnancy.

It is rather interesting that you rarely read romance novels where the most lovingly written sex scene is about cunnilingus, is it? It is always about PiV, the crowning moment when the heroine first risks pregnancy.

I am not surprised at all, i know many people incapable of critical abstract thought.
When ever i cook (which is rare) i always judge what i have cooked, or how else can i improve. People can not understand that i am not being mean and a downer, but being abstract critical.

I find it extraordinary that people could be turned off the whole idea of feminism because someone writes a very extreme blog and a group of other people say "Well, that is clearly bonkers, but it's interesting to explore the possible thread of truth that is often present even in the most outré viewpoint"

I saw a disgusting and clearly inaccurate, insulting and vile post or article some time ago about those magazines that help you to convince her to do X for brilliant sex. The writer was making the point that defining enjoyable sex as some specific activity that you need to convince, coercive or bribe your partner into doing is a bit suspect as a concept in that it implies that an activity is more enjoyable the less any woman would want to do it.

Coincidentally, I just saw an article on vaginal dryness in elderly women and how it is a problem that needs to be treated with artificial hormones because it leads to pain during intercourse.

Apparently, not doing PiV just because the man can't get an erection anymore and the woman has vaginal dryness, is not an option - they both have to take medication to enable them to continue having PiV, because ... ?

Imagine if those advice pages were about getting men to derive pleasure from anal stimulation of the prostate, instead of stimulation of the penis.

Quite! And you also have to ask... for whose benefit would a vaginal orgasm, achieved after months of hunting (and that 'science' says only a portion of women can have), actually be, unless it was significantly better quality than a clitoral orgasm? Is it for the woman's pleasure? If it was, why not just have her partner get practising some fantastic oral techniques?

I'm not saying that no woman enjoys PIV, but I think it's fair to say that a fairly large proportion of women find they get sexual pleasure far more consistently from other forms of sex (oral, manual). And yet there never seems to be the "why don't you try oral instead?" advice. No, it's continue chasing the bloody vaginal orgasm.

Interesting point.

Imagine if those advice pages were about getting men to derive pleasure from anal stimulation of the prostate, instead of stimulation of the penis.

Ugh, posting fail.

Something else which comes to mind is that even when women's sexual pleasure is discussed, getting it via PIV often seems to be the focus. There are so many advice pages, magazine articles etc out there about the vaginal orgasm, PIV positions to increase 'her' pleasure most of them bloody uncomfortable and gymnastic-looking.

I'm not saying that no woman enjoys PIV, but I think it's fair to say that a fairly large proportion of women find they get sexual pleasure far more consistently from other forms of sex (oral, manual). And yet there never seems to be the "why don't you try oral instead?" advice. No, it's continue chasing the bloody vaginal orgasm.

I think that's... interesting.

Doesn't that just sort of show that there's something in the ideas we've been kicking around? Because who is the actor, the active, the agent of PIV in that statement? It's the man. So even the most banal everyday language to describe disagreement takes a theoretical position on active-passive.

Good point!

So, let's explore this a bit more.

If we assume that PiV = rape, with the man as guilty party, how would a law against PiV impact women's lives?

Negatives:

• Men would not often consent to PiV for fear of being accused of rape. Therefore, less sexual pleasure for women who like PiV. Women would have to work to win men's trust before getting PiV.

Positives:

• Almost no unwanted/unplanned pregnancy, as all legal ways to pregnancy would require an active decision for it.

• Restrictive abortion laws would not be as much of an issue anymore, as any unwanted pregnancy would be considered to have been caused by rape. Most people agree that abortion is necessary if there is a medical issue or the pregnancy was caused by rape, so the tensions between pro-choicers and anti-choicers would relax.

• All rapists whose victims can prove that there was PiV would go straight to prison, without any need to prove that it was not consensual PiV.

• Fewer single mothers, all single mothers would be paid child support, as a side effect of the fact that there are no more unplanned pregnancies.

No, no, we haven't, because that has never come up before and is BRAND NEW INFORMATION!

No, no, we haven't, because that has never come up before and is BRAND NEW INFORMATION!

Partial, dude, you must be delighted with how your thread has turned out.