All PIV = rape??

[Flashbangandgone]

Stumbled across this article...

witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/piv-is-always-rape-ok/

Seems not only to be strongly arguing that all PIV is necessarily rape, but is incredulous that a feminist could think differently! AIBU to think this is bonkers or has the virtually the whole population of women (who don't think this way) just been brainwashed?!

Lost my post! In the meantime, Buffy said much of it.

Surveys of, say, frequency of sex for married couples, don't mean "how often do you go to bed to give each other pleasure?" - they mean "how much PIV do you have?"

Bumbley, on a thread about abortion, the shop has sailed, whether in the case of a pregnant poster or a more general case of what posters would do if pregnant. To discuss "no PIV" then can have the smack of "should've kept her legs together" as Buffy says.

Buffy, this article isn't saying that PIV shouldn't be synonymous with sex. It's saying that all PIV sex is rape.

I think an article discussing why PIV is considered synonymous with sex by many people would be an interesting one and would receive a different response than accusing all men of being rapists and suggesting that women are never actually capable of giving consent.

FWIW I think it would be interesting to see what response your post would have received on the abortion threads from other MN Feminists. If that idea is presented as an option by people they consider to be misogynists, it doesn't tend to be something they will consider.

AHell, it's talked about in the context of how to prevent unwanted pregnancy and how no contraception is 100% effective. If abstinence is ever suggested as an option (meaning abstaining from PIV) it isn't well received. It isn't brought up in a 'you should have just abstained' way.

The anal sex debate rages on here, but even for women who enjoy it, there an acknowledgement of its potential harm if done as an "everyday" practice. There's no such clarity around PIV which, whilst it shouldn't damage the orifice, does have risks of harm for women and usually depends on women applying long term hormones to themselves (which have their own side effects) to reduce those risks.

bumbley

Yes your reading skills are awesome

I personally would like to know about your view re no PIV means less abortions

I am not trying to trap you, Hence me saying pm if you would like

I know thats dont have PIV sex doesnt go well on an abortion thread

I also know that threads move on and a few of us have moved on from the PIV equals rape bit

I dont think its rape, i think that if there was no PIV except to ttc there would be less abortions

You are dodging the question each time which leads me to believe that you agree with me but dont want to say so in case it follows you around the forum

Fair enough, but i wish people would just say i dont want to answer instead of dodging the question, its timewasting

And happy to say that my post may not have been clear in its intend to ask you the question but other posters have been clear

Maybe you are someone who doesnt like to move on from the original OP...but i very much doubt that

To add to Buffy's point, in the here and now.

There's lots of people calling for the Olympic Games to be moved out of Rio (impossible given how close it is to happening).

If we are so worried about the Zika virus, then all we have to do is practice safe sex or not practise PIV.

This seems incomprehensable to many people, even if they aren't ttc.

bumbley

Sorry, should clarify

I dont need you to answer the question...i did in my original post

I just wanted my post to be very clear about what i was asking (as it probably wasnt clear before )

This article has been discussed at least twice before, as linked by me upthread.

It's a helpful jumping off point, as is Dworkin's original, for looking at the practice and meaning of PIV. On this thread, of course, we are largely taking a Western perspective - in other cultures, (and indeed in many British relationships), the woman does not have true freedom not to consent;

whilst the coercion of a husband who will sulk and strop if you say no may not negate consent in the eyes of UK law, it certainly puts that particular act of PIV in the running to be a rape.

"Lie back and think of England" may now be a somewhat light hearted meme, but in a culture where marital rape was only made illegal in 1991, how many women are truly in relationships where they could opt out of PIV for months on end and get/give sexual kicks another way?

I don't agree entirely but in some ways I do.
There is a huge focus on PIV as the only 'real' sex which means most couples engage in this every time even though it is far more pleasurable for men than women on the whole. Female centred sex acts take a back seat.
Secondly yes piv sex is hugely risky to us in a way it isn't to men. Pregnancy causes physical changes, pain, loss of income and potential life long complications or death. It's only in very recent times in wealthy countries such as Britain that we are able to access reliable and cheap/free contraception. Women throughout history and in a lot of the world now can't. Even so, no contraception is 100%. We also catch STIs easier than men and piv sex can cause vaginal disturbances- utis, thrush, bv etc. Many, Many women find piv painful at some point in their lives yet feel they should be doing it.
Combined these two factors mean I do think we are pushed to consider piv the only option and to forget the risks in order to please male sexual desire. I think in a more equal society sex would not centre on PIV in the same way.

It used to be a problem for me, other feminists expressing opinions that I found ridiculous or appalling, and staying that to really be a feminist you must agree. But then I grew up. My opinions are as valid and as feminist as any other feminist's opinions.
I've come across the 'all piv is rape' view before, I roll my eyes at the bullshit and feel sad that someone has had the sort of experiences that would make them feel that way. I've been told many many times that the sex I enjoy (I'm kinky, sub, masochist) isn't feminist and that I don't really enjoy it and my partner doesn't really love and respect and value me and is an abuser. But no one gets to decide that for me and certainly no one gets to tell me that I am not a feminist.

I've read some very extreme 'feminist' poetry that called for all male foetuses to be aborted among other things. It just made me feel sad. I think you'd have to be somewhat unwell and very unhappy and likely have been through some appalling experiences at the hands of men to get to that point. It did not make me think "oh, that's what feminism is". Feminism is a broad church. There are billions of women alive, we're not all going to agree on everything. As long as we agree that women and men are equal and try to work towards that, that's good enough, surely?

Have been meaning to look this up for a while, here is some global info on marital rape:

In 2006, the UN Secretary-General's in-depth study on all forms of violence against women stated that (page 113):[20]

"Marital rape may be prosecuted in at least 104 States. Of these, 32 have made marital rape a specific criminal offence, while the remaining 74 do not exempt marital rape from general rape provisions. Marital rape is not a prosecutable offence in at least 53 States. Four States criminalize marital rape only when the spouses are judicially separated. Four States are considering legislation that would allow marital rape to be prosecuted."

Excuse that daft question but what is PIV?

And some more country specific info:

"In some countries, notably jurisdictions which have inherited the 1860 Indian Penal Code (such as Singapore, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Burma) and some countries in the Commonwealth Caribbean region, the laws explicitly exempt spouses from prosecution (for instance, under the 1860 Indian Penal Code, which has also been inherited by other countries in the region, the law on rape states that "Sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife is not rape").[22]

An example of a country where the rape law explicitly excludes a husband as a possible perpetrator is Ethiopia; its rape law states:[23] "Article 620 - Rape: Whoever compels a woman to submit to sexual intercourse outside wedlock, whether by the use of violence or grave intimidation, or after having rendered her unconscious or incapable of resistance, is punishable with rigorous imprisonment from five years to fifteen years". Another example is South Sudan, where the law states: "Sexual intercourse by a married couple is not rape, within the meaning of this section". (Art 247).[24] "

Thank you Wikipedia

So, taking a global perspective and giving consideration to how free consent really is if your husband is picked for you by your parents/local religious leader, possibly when you are in your early teens, and PIV is viewed as his conjugal right, even if marital rape is nominally illegal in your country... is all PIV rape? No, but there's a hell of a lot of unwanted PIV happening to women across the world every night.

(mumof, it's "penis in vagina" sex. Tehre are loads of other types of sex but most people in straight relationships see PIV as sex. It is a bit of a legal issue. it's not adultery in English law unless ther eis PIV sex and when Clinton in swon testimony said he has not had sex with that woman - Lewinksy - he being a lawyer was correct - she gave him oral sex - there was no PIV. I do love law at times)

Rufus

I'm not sure if you read my posts after my reply to you. I'm not avoiding the question or refusing to move on from the OP. In my post to you I was trying to make it clear that mrsb hadn't said what you were insisting she had. I maintain that asking why I'm not 'anti-PIV'(in the context of it all being rape) is not the same as asking if less PIV would mean fewer abortions.

As I said above, this has come up on abortion threads before. I have been one of the people suggesting that if you really don't want to get pregnant then you should abstain from sex - even if only at certain times of the month (alongside other methods of contraception). This suggestion has not been well received. That's why I made the point to Buffy that it would be interesting to see the response if it is a fellow MN-Feminist suggesting it rather than someone considered to be a misogynist by the MN-Feminists on the abortion threads.

simply* asking

You see, bumbleymummy, when you suggest abstinence it is in the context of avoiding pregnancy because you are an anti choice forced birther. So naturally you are going to get different responses to someone suggesting that there are lots of alternatives to PIV that couples might enjoy-and which might actually give women more pleasure.

Feminists are viciously mocked for suggesting that maybe women should NOT think of PIV as synonymous with sex, NOT feel that they should always have sex this way, NOT feel as though it isn't proper sex if a penis hasn't been inserted.

I think the reason that line of thinking is not taken seriously is that if women want sex to not be PIV, they may have to do it with each other, as the men will go off to find women willing to do it the way that works for them. (Presumably the mockers don't regard that as a valid solution to the problem.)

Bert, it's being suggested in that context because it's an abortion thread and methods of contraception and their failure rates are being discussed. The point has been made on those threads that PIV isn't the be all and end all of a sexual relationship. It doesn't make a difference to the responses. Some people are obviously too caught up in the 'you are an anti choice forced birther' to consider it as a valid suggestion. That's why I wonder if someone like Buffy would get a different response on those threads if she was also suggesting it as a way of avoiding unwanted pregnancy.