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?

LRD[16.31]-spot on.

sparky

'There is a clear divide on this thread between posters who think that PIV sex is naturally and biologically the ultimate sexual activity for both men and women, and those who think that PIV sex is put on a pedestal by men through the media and other patriarchal means.'

SQ this is what I mean. I totally agree that piv sex is focused on by men through the media and think that relates to sakuras point that piv on its own with little foreplay, or focuses on other means such as clitoral stimulation during piv means women get a raw deal. There is a media focus on the womens sole purpose being to pleausre a man but womens pleasure is not a big deal as they care more for the closeness, dont care for the orgasm just to be close to their man etc or other crap you read in articles/the media all the time Women are taking this in and you always see it written on threads on the net and I wasnt talking about anyone on this thread. I just think that this is a cultural message pushed by the media eg mens first in bed pleasure is more important

(sorry if crapply put hope you get jist!)

Also totally agree with your last message LRD dragon.

Having recapped the thread (I am looking after dd at same time nightmare!) I have realised in the time it took me to write to sq that sparky wrote everything that I meant. I agree with sparkys last post.

Agree with that post jellybeans.

Anyone remember that scene in naked gun where brilliant funny bloke and priscilla presley get it on, and they have all this ridiculous imagery taking the piss out of hollywood & old tv

brilliant funny bloke = leslie nielsen BTW!

I purposely didn't say PIV when discussing intimacy.

'WE're not told that PIV is better than anything else, it's a natural urge for most people that sexual encounters lead to this. It's how you and I both came to be here. And the thought that Hollywood movies don't show other sex is purely because other sex acts are more about sex than 'love making' and intimacy. A blow job, cunninglingus cannot have long loving looks.'

• quoted from posieparker on p. 15 (emphases mine).

Someone stole your computer and posted this under your name then posie?

Ah, okay that was about mainstream Hollywood, so you think it should have a plethora of anal, mutual masturbation and 69ers to show 'sex'?

And I was shocked because I had posted about intimacy and close bodies, kissing and eye contact but that post seems to have disappeared.

I still think the intimacy of PIV is the total connection of two bodies which is not possible, for many people, any other way.

Sorry, posie, I just don't follow what you're trying to say.

I understood that post I quoted to refer to PIV in the context of intimacy, and I think that's also what you're saying in your last post, so am I to ignore the post where you changed your mind, or am I misunderstanding whether or not you did change your mind?

I'm not suggesting you shouldn't feel PIV is intimate if it is to you - that's lovely and I like PIV too. But the point is, not everyone feels like that, and all of us are heavily socially conditioned to feel like that, despite the obvious disadvantages of PIV for women. Hence this whole discussion.

I don't really see why Hollywood shouldn't show other sex than PIV - of course it should! Would be great. Just look at the positive reaction Brokeback Mountain got, for an example.

Btw, I've never struggled with eye-contact during cunnilingus/blow jobs - you just look up, don't you?

Ah LRD, that was between men. And all sex in Hollywood is for the male gaze, look at Sharon Stone wanking in the bath without using her hands!!

And I can't imagine, maybe this is me, saying 'I love you' with a mouth full of cock!!

Whilst I do see that PIV is the most pushed acceptable sex I can't help feeling it's a hangover from religion and sex being dirty except for procreation, sex is not supposed to be fun. I'm not sure it is the patriarchy alone although religion is a male construct that's purpose above and beyond anything else is to oppress women, control fertility etc. FGM doesn't come out of concern for a woman's enjoyment of even PIV, however.

I also agree that the media forces 'making love' that is apparently guaranteed to achieve mutual orgasm, but I can't imagine that shapes every grown woman's sex life.

posie, the fact it was homosexual sex is part of my point. The automatic equation of PIV to 'proper' sex is homophobic as well as sexist. Likewise, the fact that Hollywood sex is for the male gaze is a bit of an issue for me as a feminist, too.

Me too. Don't ever ruin your film enjoyment by doing the Bechdel test.

I don't think it's proper but I don't think it's a conspiracy against women, I think it's more about anything deviating is unnecessary to reproduce. I think it's a religious thing, which I guess is a male thing.....

oops full circle.

I don't think doing the Bechdel test ruins film enjoyment; it just gives you a tool for picking films that don't require you to watch them with some kind of cognitive dissonance.

When you say it's not a conspiracy - I agree in the sense that there aren't a secret group of misogynists sitting in an office somewhere pulling the strings. But there is a structure in society that coerces us, and that structure is part of a larger set of structures (including religion, as you say) that reinforce each other and perpetuate these ideas about sex that are not good for women, and sometimes (as sakura says) actively bad for women.

... what I'm getting at is, it may not be a 'conspiracy' in the sense that insider trading is a conspiracy, but it ain't coincidence either.

Indeedy so, start. Just thinking out loud I guess.

Nope, connection is physical...the meeting of minds and bodies, enjoyment and so on is available in a plethora of ways,. Anal sex is not physically possible for some people. And I haven't used the term 'proper sex'.

And I'm not sure any woman with a wide and varied sex life would cite PIV as their favourite and most pleasurable sex.

I don't get what you're saying 'nope' to, posie?

PIV isn't physically possible for some people. So?

As I said before, if you read the thread, you will see that some people do equate PIV with 'proper' sex. You don't, but that doesn't mean it's not an issue.

(Btw, I think PIV is my favourite - but I would be the first to admit my sex life isn't wide and varied! )