Does penetration = presumption of power/control?

[skrumle]

Was chatting with my H last night and mentioned the Romeo and Juliet law in Ireland that's been discussed on here a few times. Anyway, when I asked if he thought it was reasonable his immediate answer was "no". I then asked him: if our son was gay, and started a conversation about a sexual experience that he was unhappy/uncomfortable about would he be more likely to feel that our son had been forced/co-erced if he was the one penetrated rather than penetrating and got a in reply...

I have to be honest, when I read the original thread on here my automatic view was that to protect girls over boys like this was to deny the fact that girls enjoy sex too, almost like taking a step back. When I read the thread fully though and thought about the implications for girls I probably did start to think that girls should have more protection than boys.

So, should there be a presumption that penetration equals a greater degree of control? So two heterosexual 15yos - greater responsibility lies with the boy to ensure that this is what both of them want?

Flipping heck. As far as I am concerned sakura can say what she likes, -I find her views a bit over the top, but not bang-head-against-brick-wall irritating in the way I find those who deny what she has (clearly) said.

She said at 13.47 friday that men should stop having sex (piv) with women.
Also, men who had sex with women who did not want to get pregnant should be charged with manslaughter if woman dies as a result of any pregnancy resulting from the sexual act.
I honestly do not know what she means by this-does she mean a woman willingly having sex with a man but not wishing to get pregnant by him or, a woman who is raped by the man who gets pregnant as a result?
If the former, i.e. mutually agreed to sex then how is it right to prosecute the man? .
If the latter, then he should (obviously) be punished.
I think sakura means that men should be punished even if sex is mutual- a very radical feminist stance.
Given this radical feminist stance, is it so very hard for those who deny (on her behalf- a bit of a patronising cheek in itself- who are other posters to speak for her?) what she said to believe she actually does want men and women having sex? It's no leap of imagination for me.

I am actually treating sakura with more respect than a lot here- I am taking her at her word, not patronising her with guff like 'She is being sarcastic' or 'she did not mean that'.

SAF....You really do take the biscuit. You posted a sarcastic post about women being frustrated for having PIV as the main dish in the bedroom, in response to stripey....

How on earth do you know about most women's sex lives, is there a survey somewhere? Satisfying sex lives are not only for the enjoyment of the enlightened, most women, I know, probably have a full and varied sex life.

ThePosieParker is right; the arrogance displayed by some here that only enlightened women can enjoy sex is deeply annoying.

I actually asked sakura if she meant that sexual intercourse between men and women should cease at friday 13.02, her reply?

'Nope, not sex, just piv sex'. She F*ing well said that sexual intercourse between men and women should cease!! I. Am. Not. Making. It. Up.

Now this to me is a bit nuts, but, I'll tell you what, give me sakura and her radical feminism (although it does make the site a target for misogynist trolls) any day of the week then the patronising feminists who think that other women cannot enjoy sex as they haven't seen some (imaginary) light!

So much anger and so many assumptions. The Mn feminists set women back if anything

SO glad you agree

PlentyofPubGardens, I've been reading Antonia Fraser's The Weaker Vessel which is about women in 17th century England. Apparently, at that time, the female orgasm was considered necessary for conception so everyone was very concerned with female pleasure.

Also, those who were poor had more freedom to marry than the aristocracy where it was all about alliance. They didn't have many other freedoms, but that was one of them.

Germaine Greer has an Interesting chapter on the question in the OP, in "the whole woman".

She links it to animals (where allowing penetration signifies a kind of submission) and prisons (the guy who is (unwillingly) at the receiving end of penetration is definitely the weakest one), as well as expressions as "I'm fucked" which is not a good thing, is it? The power is more with the fucker than the fuckee however you turn it.

I think that is important to remember that in a lot of cultures around the world, many people (mainly women) are not in consensual relationships as we understand it. In very patriarchal societies for lots of reasons women are having sex which they would not see as rape and nor would their partners or society but it is nonetheless sex that they do not want. In some countries (well I can only think of one at the moment but still!) rape in marriage is legal. In many countries there are a lot of women whose only option really is to agree to sex with certain men whether they want it or not.

For that matter in the UK there are a lot of women agreeing to sex that they do not want, because of pressure.

In all of those instances it would possibly be better if the sex that they were having was not sex that could result in pregnancy and all that that entails, especially when it is sex they don't want in the first place, and most especially in areas where there is little access to contraception, ante-natal care, abortion and all the rest of it.

chandon when men joke about homosexuality it is quite clear that the person being penetrated is the person that they do not want to be under any circs. But then I guess that's because they associate being penetrated with being female and it's a threat to masculinity? Or maybe they just think it would hurt! Although the feeling I get is that it's the former most of the time. And there is lingo about "owning" isn't there although I'm not down with the kids or down with prison inmates in america, I just watch too many cop shows

That should be when straight men joke about homosexuality.

Obviously

Frankly the idea that 'sex' is only intercourse is anything more than the issue of procreation, hymen breaking and so forth is pretty bizarre. It's the ultimate connection between two people, it's what we've evolved to do, how we work, carry on the species. To suggest that the politics surrounding it make the ultimate act more ultimate is peculiar. Of course one feels slightly different as the penetrator as opposed to the penetrated, but that's not ultimate power and submission, I can understand how one can over think this. In fact it seems many feminists have far too much time to think about how unfair everything is, even things which cannot be changed. You cannot change PIV, thank god, you cannot escape the human desire, more often than not, to do it in order to procreate and so it's best to work with the relationship around it. The sexual relationship also, teach women to ask for what they want if their partner isn't forthcoming. Surely part of an adult relationship is being adult.

I agree with your post at 15.34, sardinequeen.
It's a complex issue. I don't think it's as simple as painting the men as the bad guys; they may genuinely believe that the woman is doing it truly of her own free will and not because they have little choice.
I do think it is the patriarchal system rather than individual men.

I suppose it could also be argued that to some women procreation is worth all the attached risks, the point is, though, is that they do not have the freedom to make the choice?

Stayfrosty.....Rape is not PIV, it's rape. Putting those two things in a sentence as one in the same is insulting. Like saying being a single/young parent isn't risk free or being black or whatever..... it's something that David Starkey would assert.

BTW I wasn't saying PIV is only to procreate but where we get our biological desire to do it.

I can see, though, why the women here who express the view that sex is truly mutual for them are also right, because it is absolutely true for them. It truly is not a case of all piv sex being undesirable and a hardship for ALL women.

That blog post is shocking.