FWR split continued

[RebeccaMumsnet]

We have decided to start a new thread about this as the other thread was near capacity and taking a while to load.

Here is Justine's post from earlier on

We can give a Radical Feminism topic a go if that's what people want and see if it works. Obviously we need to be crystal clear that no one is obliged to post in one particular place and no one should feel excluded from any topic but we could test it out, and see if it helps resolve tensions. We'll do that in the next few days.

There are a couple of other things to think about as well.

First, those who come onto FWR to derail and inflame. We acknowledge that we have been too slow in the past to spot these posters for what they were. We're sorry about that and hope we're a lot quicker at dealing with them now. We're all for opinions but we do draw the line at posters whose only obvious intent is to goad.

And secondly, this idea that FWR can be an unwelcoming place to those who aren't following the 'party line'. Judging by posts on recent threads and by our inbox this is a view of a significant number of Mumsnetters and obviously that's not a healthy situation. Mumsnet is a place for discussion and for diverse opinion and it's the exchange of ideas and tolerance of differing opinions that makes it the board it is.

We do hope threads like this help to clear the air a bit and remind everyone that, whatever the differences of opinion, the FWR board will only ever be the stimulating, thought-provoking, enriching place we'd all like it to be if people feel that they can express themselves without being jumped on.

Please do continue to let us know your thoughts.

'if damage is going to happen, it will happen to a woman and not a man'

That's still quite absolutist though, right? As yellow said, it's more likely to happen to a woman, but it's not like men don't get STIs etc.

Btw we don't have to keep talking about this, not trying to have a PIV thread! am honestly just trying to understand the language of all this, because I do think semantics is a big hurdle on these threads.

Yes, it's not really about the PIV particularly so much as it is semantics.

Dreaming, I can see what VG is saying just by applying it to me and my immediate circle. I've been pregnant 6 times and have three children. I've had one termination, two miscarriages and twice lost significant quantities of blood. I have permanent damage to one hip from my second delivery. Taking the pill has too many side effects for me to be feasible long term and using condoms failed to prevent pregnancy. I have never contracted an STI but several friends have, including herpes, chlamydia and genital warts, all of which caused further problems.

I enjoy having sex but all of those things have come about as a direct result of having it. DH enjoys having sex too but it hasn't led to the same events as it has for me. Acknowledging this isn't, in my mind, the same as saying that I shouldn't have or enjoy sex.

We disassociate these things from sex in a way that we didn't prior to effective contraception, but they are all risks faced by women as a direct result of sex. I wouldn't use the precise phrase VG has, but that's not really a barrier to understanding her point.

I think though - if you took it to extremes and every woman in the w

Bloody hell Yellow, you're an excellent debater! You should find a way to do it for a living, I bet you could do a lot of wonderful things. xxx

Sorry, I'm back.

"women don't orgasm"

In what way is that accurate? How is any argument that includes inaccurate statements of fact, supposed to be taken seriously?

This is one of the reasons I find debating on fwr so frustrating.

Hester, I totally agree with Victor's point that PIV sex is more damaging for women than men -- I guess that's why I'm wondering, why not just say it like that? To say PIV sex is damaging for women, full stop, is where I disagree, because I think context is everything.

I would agree that PIV is risky for women, full stop. It always has the potential to cause harm, really. But damaging is implying that the harm is always caused.

I suspect that my language would be seen as diluting the argument though, would that be right?

Not to me, dreaming.

Eclectic, I'd presume VG means that the majority of women don't reach orgasm through PIV sex alone. I don't think that's controversial.

I'm a teacher, I debate for a living.

"Put the pen back in the box. No, not in John's hair, in the box. Why? Because I want you to put it in the box so that someone else can use it. Because it's not nice not to share. I'll give you £20 to put the pen in the box."

Thanks Hester, well there certainly is going to be misunderstandings if everyone is not following the same semantics. I find it very confusing...

To be fair the conversation was about PIV. Within that context, Victors statement made sense to me.

The PIV thing baffles me

Sex is short for sexual intercourse, which is defined as PIV. Doing other things for sexual pleasure, isn't actually sex. If people count how many partners they have had, they count how many people they have had sex with, not how people they have been intimate with. While I understand that the act of sex can be damaging, you can't change what it is.

STI's - the man must have got infected by woman to be able to infect the next woman. I don't get how you can just blame the man

Pregnancy - I believe it as we are the people who get pregnant, it's up to us to protect ourselves (which crosses over to STI's) So we have a choice to abstain, be intimate in ways that don't involve sperm reaching our ova and use contraception or insist out partners do. Again, it isn't the man's fault if we agree to no contraception

Lesbianism - I have never been attracted to another woman. I would never want to be intimate with another woman. I believe you are born gay or straight. So that would leave many women unsatisfied in their intimate partnerships

And the orgasm thing - I'm one of the few (?) that only orgasms through PIV - no amount of oral or hands will work (and believe me, I've tried)

Can we take a vote? :)

PIV is risky to women IMO.

That being said, I enjoy PIV and experience multiple orgasms. However I'm also very aware of the risks that come along with it and made my DP get tested before we began a sexual relationship. The efforts I have to go for contraception is nothing compared to DP.

This doesn't mean I think PIV is evil and women should be ashamed for enjoying it (I LOVE it!) I just think it's a feminist issue because really, it's an issue that almost exclusively effects women.

I don't think there's anyway around that in any form of communication, Eclectic. We all use words slightly differently depending on all kinds of factors including age, background and experience.

"PIV is damaging" = incredibly lazy language and quite lazy thinking. It's the reason why I avoid conversations like this: You (VG in this case) are defending an indefensible position while making an important point. You lose credibility because of the logical fallacy in your choice of words.

No-one who fails to understand basic logic can claim to be any kind of analyst.

"Crossing the road is lethal". It is sometimes, but that's a risk we choose to take because the fact is crossing roads is NOT lethal, it carries a risk of death. We carry on doing it as we've evaluated the risk and decided it's outweighed by the benefits. It can be lethal; there is a risk of death.

I picked someone up on a FWR thread - she gracefully acknowledged my point - where she said that because men rape, men as a class are rapists. This is untrue: rapists are men and the class of men contains rapists.

"PIV is risky for women" - yes, it is. Indeed, all penetrative sex is more risky for the penetrated than for the penetrator. Why do you not say this instead? When you say something "is" something, you're stating an intrinsic, unavoidable quality of that thing. Penetrative sex is risky because that risk is always present. It is not damaging because damage is not always present.

Please will this forum's feminist analysts use logical analysis in their statements?

I thought the PIV argument was because women are so much susceptible to STI's and of course, the only ones who can face an unwanted pregnancy?

If I'm wrong would someone please explain to me? I'd like to hear both sides and learn. :)

Agree with garlic and I really don't see how anyone is going to understand each other if we do not stick to correct semantics for the English language, especially on a "written" forum.

It doesn't make me wonder if semantics are being ignored in order to make a more powerful point? That's not very objective is it?

Good analysis garlicbutt.

Ms Cellophane - does that mean, in your view, that lesbians who have never been with a man are all technically virgins? Or gay men for that matter? Or does sex count when it's anal? In which case why doesn't oral count? As soon as you start looking at it like that, the whole idea of PIV as "sex" and everything else as "intimate" sort of falls apart.

I think a lot of feminist ire against PIV stems from this absolutist (word of the day) view on what sex is. Why is PIV seen as the only thing that counts as sex?

What is the correct semantic field for this discussion, please?

Women ARE much more likely to catch STIs. The exchange of fluid makes it so. Not much fluid from a woman actually goes into the man, a whole ton of fluid goes inside the woman from the man.

Also, can I please point out as a point of order that garlic has criticised both my position (fine) and me (not fine), and not one person has criticised that?

yellow, you have explained at length that criticising the poster is alienating. But you have just praised garlic who has done just that.

This is why I trust to 'report poster' and to the judgement of MNHQ.

Where did she criticise you? I didn't see her as criticising you, I believe that your argument had logical fallacies.

Victor, I've not criticised your position at all. I've criticised your language because your language invalidates your argument, which, as I've said, is an important one.