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?

I think it is an extreme view without some sort of qualification to the statement, but as both you and Malificence want to argue over premises that nobody other than you two is making, perhaps I should leave you two to sort out these differences between yourselves!

You think it's an extreme view that women have the desire to be penetrated?

It's how we're designed!

Ok fair do's, if I'm missing the point of the thread I'll step back and lurk for a bit if that's ok with you littleblue

I'm not religious so I don't think we are 'designed' at all.

I would agree with the statement that some women want to be penetrated at some stages in their life, but not others, and within those stages in some sexual encounters, but not others.

I have no intention of arguing with mal. I said nothing about her points about urge to be penetrated but she started on me for offering opinion for some reason.

I think that I agree with Sakura that the view is often in mainstream media that piv is the only thing and it doesnt concentrate on other sex areas, especially clitoral stimulation which is very important to most women. I find it disheartening when I read material on the internet or hear women in RL that put up with no or very few orgasms and seem intent on pleasuring the man but recieving little in return. There is nothing wrong with PIV but it is a whole lot more pleasureable if you have already orgasmed through oral/manual or are very turned on which some men dont bother to do/or dont realise the importance of due to mainstream media conditioning.

I think probably most women have the desire to be penetrated some of the time but probably not all the time / every time. I have never felt that penetration in the context of a mutually consenting relationship to be particularly submissive, although it can be. If anything, I think it makes M's feel quite powerful though i've not really analysed why particularly deeply. Certainly not submissive for me though.

I don't think you are missing the point SB. I just think that your point is different to, rather than in opposition to, what other people are saying.

mumwithdice - yes, I did say I didn't believe it was always like that and that it wouldn't have been the same in all strata of society. That's dead interesting though - what happened between the 17th century and now to make womens' orgasms supposedly unimportant? Does the book go into that?

sardine - So you don't think it's interesting that almost everyone who posted made sure to state that they enjoy PiV sex?

Yes, lots of us have, haven't we? There might be a bit of defensiveness there I suppose, but OTOH, if we're discussing PIV, is it so strange that we've started from our own personal attitudes to it?

re: the 'urge to be penetrated' - I think I made this point too. Given that this is how babies are made it would be odd if we hadn't evolved to enjoy it. I don't think that's a particularly extreme view is it? Of course, just because we've evolved that way, doesn't mean it serves us well in today's world, or that it's the only 'right' way to have sex.

Coital alignment position.... sorry just been out!!

"as its been said a few times on this thread"i like cock"[which sardine has pointedout]
well-personnally i dont care who does and who dont....however if someone is finding this important to point out....then actually..they might not be equel." Eh? So if on a topic of PIV where it's insinuated that women would prefer not to have it and are subordinate for doing so then surely a woman's preference is pretty relevant!!

I think much of this has got to do with privacy too and porn, the lack of other types of sex being discussed, and religion. Afterall sex is dirty but you can have it if you want to have children....so no anal, no BJ's, no Cunnilingus.....just, well, sex.

Proles: my response.

"cust:Just so i am fully aware then.

You ABSOLUTELY DO NOT want to hear NON FEMINIST views in the feminist section?

so as a non feminist i am catagorically not welcome to debate any given subject here?

That isn't what i said. And it does get tiring constantly defending yourself against things you haven't said."

it wasn't aimed at you though was it? - it was in response to startafire startAfire Sat 20-Aug-11 23:23:02 fuck the fuck off comment

so what if as a non feminist i want to discuss issues that affect women - it doesn't make me a feminist, it doesn't make me look at these issues from a feminist perspective mecessarily - just becuase it involves women. but i am interested

i shouldn't comment - i am de-railing and silencing[?]

"And as others have said - there is a difference between not being a feminist but being interested and just telling people they are mad, stupid, man haters, must be damaged etc etc."

what i said specifically was this - so please do not just make statments like that in a commentary that begins with MY username

I said ..." i can't even believe that the suggestion of piv = subjugation is even a conversation that is being normalised.

this[meaning this debate] is insane and all i can think is that some people have some very serious issues, i cannot find another explaination for this debate to even take place"

and i stand by it. i haven't mentioned man hating, called anyone stupid.

"The reality at the moment on these boards is that it is impossible to have an interesting feminist conversation without being derailed and abused by non feminists and people who are self identified feminists but disagree with anyone and everyone on every thread rather than it being occasional no i'm afraid i cannot agree with this because x, y and z but i can see that there is some relevance in a and b etc."

i don't understant this statement, not sure at this point whether this is still rfering to me or not and i cant understand why i cant question and ask things without being told to fuck off and having posters be passive aggressive. I even siad - explain to me - what is it i am missing?

"Feminism has no real space. All spaces in society tend to be dominated by the rhetoric of patriarchy so yes it would be nice if a space specifically created for feminist discussion could be allowed to be that! There are many areas of MN i find no agreement with but i don't spend my time there telling them they're wrong."

well i dont spend my time here telling feminists they re wrong either - please do a history search - yes i do post here occasionally - but not in a mad stalkery way that is being suggested

"I suspect what is happening is that people are mistaking feminism for AIBU and a place to come vent and fulfill needs for a good old barney. sadly being the one tiny bit of space we have to be feminists it clearly isn't fair for it to get constantly shut down by people who don't even believe in feminism."

on the contrary = i just want someone to explain how a penis in a vagina = power/control in any way. i get told to fuck the fuck off - get treated quite terribly actually and yet seem to be portrayed as the villain of the piece. Well - No my little femmy friends - that shit won't stick. as much as you are going on about how badly you are treated - i think you need to look in the mirror [you in this context refers to the feminst posters of mumsnet who post specifically in the feminist section on feminist subjects and interact wth feminists and non femists alike who disagree with them and then call them names]

Custardo, I summarised the arguments that had been forward on the thread in a post at 16.43 today.

Custardo, I would say if you wanted to discuss issues that affect women generally, there's the whole of MN to do it. If you want to discuss issues that affect women from a feminist perspective, then the feminist board is the place to do it.

so i have to be a feminist?

what does from a feminist perspective mean if not that?

Pose, you said:

'if on a topic of PIV where it's insinuated that women would prefer not to have it and are subordinate for doing so then surely a woman's preference is pretty relevant.'

Where has somebody on this thread said or insinuated that women who are not 'subordinate' never want to have PIV sex?

It means drawing on feminist arguments and analysis rather than drawing on mainstream arguments and analysis. I'm not a neoliberal but I could undertake a neoliberal critique of something by drawing on their arguments in order to discuss something.

1. On a psychological level, some women feel submissive when they do it (as argued by SB).
2. On a cultural level, we have phrases like 'getting fucked' which have connotations of submission (can't remember who said this).
3. The person being impregnated is at risk of pregnancy and/or the side effects of contraception, and there are greater physical risks associated with being penetrated than penetrating people (as argued by radical feminists).
4. Many women don't orgasm from PIV sex alone, so women may prefer to engage in other sexual acts but don't get enough of them because men want PIV (sort of as argued by Sakura).

excellent summary of the argument. thank you

my response.

1. i agree with you that it gets complicted beyong personal experinece, however i do think that unless there is evidence to suggest otherwise, it is a huge generalisation to suggest that women feel - or even 'some women' - what does 'some' mean? 3. 30. 300? feel submissive

1. This is a good example of the kind of debate i have read int he feminist section, and leads me to go off and have a good old think about it. Yes there is this 'done unto' kind of language. The woman is not part of the equation, is depersonalised and almost an object.

yes yes - can see that there is this language in society - agree there is, and think that actually i like to fuck and i like to tell dh that i am going to fuck his brains out etc. i do think that women should enbrace this language.

HOWEVER, i do not see that this has anything specifically to do with power/control of PIV sex. this is a cultural topic - a topic all of its own an intersting topic. but not the topic of discussion

1. the person being impregnated. - well depends on the contraception how it is being used and by whom - and may i suggest that if you are afraid of having sex becuase you think you are going to get pregnant - but have sex anyway. that there is a whole other power dynamic already in place in that relationship if you feel co=erced into having sex where you might get pregnant.

1. as i argued - as long as two consenting adults do whatever it is to flat their boat - then fabulous.

again, not sure where the giving/taking power dynamic is in this situation. if men want to only have PIV - then you have either got little confidence to be able to say something, or you have yourself a man who can just think about sex and get hard - that same man has himself a non confident woman who wont complain and that same man will then go straight into sex and gets no pleasure from seeing his partner pleasured.

i really don't think this man is the norm

startafire was that in reference to me? if so please explain

Lenin, i can see your point of view. I apologise for using that term

startafire, i think you were pretty rude and mean with the fuck off comment actually, you haven't been very nice at all

I've been following this thread from the start and apart from the derailment (which looked like it was getting back on track), it has been fascinating reading.

I can honestly day I have never thought about this issue before and a lot of these posts have been real eye-openers. Obviously I must therefore be categorised as 'insane' to find this debate so interesting.... This thread has really given me another way of looking at PIV and some of these posts resonate very strongly - thoughts I had never actually articulated to myself, either.

So - can we acknowledge that while something is inherently unequal, it does not necessarily manifest itself in an unequal way? For example, a lot of people use sex in all its guises to be intimate and close with their partner, especially in long-term, loving relationships.

So - they're engaging in an unequal act but as equal people, with an outcome that is mutually satisfying and even beneficial to their relationship. Obviously they don't need to engage in PIV to achieve this, but supposing they do?