What constitutes sex?

[stripeysocks111]

My DP and I got into a conversation about what actually constitutes 'sex'. His view is that an act is only sex if it involves penetration, anything other than that is a 'sexual act', whereas I'm of the view that sex definitely does not have to involve penetration.
Any views to keep this discussion rumbling on are most welcome!

orgasms for both parties, howsoever achieved :)

I agree with your DP.

@stripeysocks111 I agree with your partner.

Thanks for the replies. My feeling is that in a 'dictionary definition' human biology context sex does involve penetration, but that is also quite a gendered, male-focused view of (heterosexual) sex, I.e. that it's not 'real sex' unless it involves piv. Whereas people can have - and women in particular can have - very satisfying sex that doesn't have to involve piv.

Bill Clinton was right!

Although - what do lesbians do?

(I realise I've interpreted "penetration" as PIV (or PI-anything), which may not have been what you meant OP.)

ShavenConnery my (male) DP very much meant PIV. In fact his comment stemmed from his view that 2 women could never replicate that!
Not meaning to drip feed the context btw. I was just trying to frame the original post in as unbiased a way as possible!

His view is that an act is only sex if it involves penetration

I agree, and think that that is what most people would think was meant if someone announced that they 'had sex last night'.

I would find it misleading if someone told me that they had sex with so-and-so if we were talking about something oral or mastebatory happening, but no penetration.

His view is that an act is only sex if it involves penetration

not trying to attack, but am inclined to see this as homophobic tbh
boils down to 'lesbians don't have real sex' - lucky that he enjoys straight sex and doesn't have to confront such issues except in the theoretical sense or I suspect he would see things differently

IMO everyone who experiences sexual orientation must be allowed to use the word 'sex' to describe the particular sexual acts which are possible within the confines of their biology. You can't shut one group off from being able to use such an important word because of your normative leanings, word-meanings have to work for us, because isn't the goal to communicate? Very few contexts will merit there being any distinction made between the particular type of sex being had, so you have to look at the motive involved in doing this via designating lesbian sex as only 'a sexual act' when the word 'sex' carries so much more sociopsychological weight. Given that it's an inefficient use of language, what then are people really wanting when they privilege PIV above anything else, since they can't claim it makes much sense in a world where we are feeling increasingly less social pressure to repress bi/homosexuality?

velourvoyageur I completely get what you're saying. That's what was rubbing me up the wrong way - the implication that it's not 'real' sex if it's not piv - but you've put it much more articulately than I could!

I also made the point to him that most women struggle to orgasm through piv, so it's possible for women with a partner of either sex to have a 'good sex' without piv needing to happen. The idea that it only becomes 'real sex' if piv happens is very gendered to me and - perhaps inadvertently - seems to minimise female pleasure.

not trying to attack, but am inclined to see this as homophobic tbh

Talking about what a word means and what it ought to mean are two different discussions.

In terms of current comonly understood usage I think the "penetration" meaning is what most people would understand.

Of course you can argue that it ought to become accepted as meaning whatever you think it ought to, for whatever political or moral reasons you think this.

So on what it currently means I think DP is correct. On what it ought to mean, well you can redefine sex to mean 'anything sexual' so as not to feel as if you are being homophobic, but I think a lot of people are still going to see penetration as being in a different category, more 'important' or 'special' or more of a 'milestone' than oral or other things, and so will just find a new term to mark it out as distinct from the other things.

I agree, and think that that is what most people would think was meant if someone announced that they 'had sex last night'

well those people would either be lazy or not very bright, wouldn’t they, especially if they knew that the person was a gay adult female? And, crucially, they'd know they were being lazy.

And it's not really a different discussion for you though, it seems, since your use of the word ‘misleading’ introduces some sort of moral note into the mix which really doesn’t belong here as no one owes you an account of their private sex lives. Would you like us to say, ‘I performed a sexual act last night and had it reciprocated’? It’s very clunky isn’t it, almost makes us not want to even talk about our realities at all and stay invisible. Let's see, what's more colloquial, at least halfway accurate and not 'misleading'...should we say 'fooling around'? Your sex is Real Sex but my sex is just inconsequential messing about?
More generally, the very act of asking the meaning of a word in this manner confirms that there is no consensus supporting it, and so you necessarily do from that moment invite discussion around what 'ought' to be, because language-use is structured artificially wrt the zeitgeist. The two can't be separated.

To return to your (alleged) first point, I'm saying that many people are not straight and as such will only see PIV as one sex act among several, thanks to efforts made to increase LGB visibility. It's not the 90s anymore. While we clearly have progress to make, given today's climate, I really wouldn't be so confident in arguing that most people are so loyal to such a strict definition of sex.

(It does already have a distinct term - PIV - and sure, give it all the additional names you want, just as long as plain 'sex' isn't it)

Agree stripey

velourvoyageur, let me clarify. If a straight person announced that they had sex most people will understand this to mean penetration. If no further qualification or information is given. Because "sex" on its own means penetration. It is fine to use sex outside of penetration (with a human) if it is qualified. ie 'I had sex with my hand' or a golf course hole etc etc. Nobody will misunderstand that and think PiV happened.

If it is a lesbian who announces that they had sex with another woman then this is a qualified context. So no, most people would not be left thinking PiV occurred.

Yes I agree that value is being attached when people see penetration as being more of a 'milestone' than getting a handjob say (apologies for rudeness). But in and of itself what is wrong with that? Do we really have to see a kiss or a feel as being 'the same' as oral, or oral as 'the same' as PiV and there can be no 'ordering'.

And dicussing what a term currently means - even one which is associated by some with a value - is still a different dicussion than discussing a change in what the term ought to be referring to.

People only tend to use terms like 'fool around' because they want to euphemise for the sake of politeness. But if they really wanted to they could just state the spoecific act or acts. I am sure there are unclunky ways to do this without requiring us to redefine sex to mean anything sexual.

One last thing, just because something is not "sex" that does not make it "inconsequential". It is just different.

It does already have a distinct term - PIV - and sure, give it all the additional names you want, just as long as plain 'sex' isn't it

On the other hand, if people just used PiV instead of "sex" then wouldn't the same arguments apply? By referring to something only happens in a heterosexual context you are being homophobic? Whether you call that sex or PiV? Or by referring to PiV you are implying that anything that is not PiV must be inconsequential?

Or is it that the word "sex" itself carries its own magic and mustn't be the preserve of opposite sex sexual activity.

I can sort of understand that if it is the latter. People do get attached to words and want them, even if it means redefining them.

Just asked DP about this and he agreed penetration was essential for 'sex'. So I asked if gay men can have sex but not lesbians. Final decision was that a penis was essential. I think he realises he's being ridiculous.

Lesbians fuck with their fingers, hands, fists and with dildoes sometimes. They generally experience orgasms as a given. They have wild raunchy penetrative sex. They fuck. I speak as a sexually experienced lesbian who has been filled much more satisfyingly by women then ever by men.

Sex is penetration with a body part into another’s genitals, not mouth.

A blowjob isn’t sex, same as the equivalent lesbian act.