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?!

I don't think its fair to say that women who reject this type of lunacy are anti feminist Bert.

I don't understand....Some posters say that mentioning this article is just an excuse to "bash" feminists by taking what is an extreme viewpoint and presenting it as "this is what feminists think".

They then go to great lengths to explain why such a viewpoint is actually not that daft after all (when you think about it). In other words despite all their apparent disagreement, they spend their time telling you why they think the author is actually making an interesting point, it's not terribly convincing. It's the equivalent of Corbyn saying, "well... you know I don't agree with Ken but I can see why he said it".

it

Nope, most people kn here have said that PIV is not rape

Most people have said that PIV is not the be all and end all of sex and it can be harmful to women

Two completely different things

If someone says "I don't agree with X at all" but then spends all their time justifying how one might arrive at a position where they think that X is 'the truth' and none of it explaining how they arrived at what is their claimed real position (being the apparent disagreement)....what does that normally mean ? "i'm not a racist, many of my best friends..." etc.

Itll

Take environmentalism.

My reaction to global warming might be to turn the lights off and the heating down.

Greenpeace's reaction might be to sabotage a coal fired power station.

It is not that we disagree on the underlying issue (here, that establishing true, free consent is problematic in a patriarchy) but that we have moderate/extreme approaches to the solution (here - moderate is things like better education as to the risks of PIV, extreme is assuming consent is impossible and classing all PIV as rape).

Isn't "I don't agree with her but she is saying some interesting things that it might be productive to talk about" an acceptable position, then? It certainly is in the nuanced, thoughtful world I live in.

"I don't think its fair to say that women who reject this type of lunacy are anti feminist Bert."

I didn't.

It's all a bit McCarthy-ist...........

AHell

I would argue that her position and your one, are irreconcilable. You can't teach that PIV is OK when you believe that it is the worst thing a man can do to a woman. Also, she is not advocating any solution, she is stating that PIV is always a traumatic and violating act for a women. Instead of admitting that you have no common cause in this reagard, it seems that you can't bring yourself to criticise her because she also believes that women are oppressed by men.

Person A "PIV sex is always traumatizing and damaging to a woman"

Person B "Well, I don't agree with that. But I do think there is a discussion to be had about the expectations men and women and society in general have about what constitutes "sex". And the patriarchal idea that lies deep in our society that sex is something men do to women. Obviously many women do enjoy consensual PIV sex very much, but for those that don't- or who sometimes don't- it would be good to widen the definitions. What do you all think?"

See? Simple really.

Donald Trump: "We should ban all muslims from the US, because we don't know which ones are terrorists and which are not"

Bertrand: "Well, I don't agree with that, but there is a wider discussion to be had about why some muslims feel such hatred towards the US."

yeah, right.

My approach might be slightly different if a realistic potential Prime Minister was planning on introducing legislation banning PIV sex............

"Instead of admitting that you have no common cause in this reagard, it seems that you can't bring yourself to criticise her because she also believes that women are oppressed by men."

You are incorrect. If you bother to read the thread, I have stated clearly that i disagree with her and find some of her posts unpleasant.

However, as I have engaged with you repeatedly in the past on your own strange views (for example around women in sport) and found it a disingenuous experience, I doubt this time will be any different. So don't be surprised if I don't engage further.

I dont get it

Why the interest in getting people to make a stand

Here we go

I DO NOT BELIEVE SHE IS RIGHT ABOUT ALL PIV SEX BEING RAPE....I DO THINK THAT MUSING ABOUT A WORLD WHERE THE DEFAULT POSITION IS NO PIV SEX IS INTERESTING

She isn't saying it's the worst thing a man can do to a woman. That would be murder etc.

I think it's a really interesting topic to think about. I have had times in my life with more or less PIV sex (I graduated a virgin by the way which is one reason i did well in life arguably as no early child birth). Our control over our sexuality is a really fascinating issue and of course in some families with effectively forced marriages girls have no control.

No one on here thinks all PIV sex is rape. As a lawyer my view is that rape is whatever the state in a particular jurisdiction says is rape as rape is purely a legal invention.

The only good feminist is a Patriarcy Positive Feminist........

Patriarchy.

Buffy - what I find interesting is why some palpable horseshit prompts such chin stroking because it was written by a feminist. I am unaware of anyone looking at MGOTW or the like and saying "Well, I disagree with most of this, but lets examine the reason these men feel this way." i.e. none of the feminists on this thread can simply disagree without a big BUT... which leads one to conclude that they respect the author and her point of view. In other words if anyone writes total crap under the banner of radical feminism, they must have a point on some level. However it looks like we just need to agree to differ.

Re the trump analogy, his statements are not helpful in prompting a rational discussion about why US foreign policy (if that is what it was) gave rise to terrorism.

...which of course was not what he wanted anyway.

"In other words if anyone writes total crap under the banner of radical feminism, they must have a point on some level"

Did you not find any of the discussion on this thread interesting at all? Not even one single post?