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?

Personally, I don;t think that PiV is the most intimate thing you can do with someone. When I was younger and discussed it with my friends, they said the same.

Surely what people see as the most intimate thing will vary between people.

Also on hollywood, there is no reason why a different sex act might not be there in place of the usual PiV. The reason none of us raise an eyebrow at PiV being represented in films sometimes with quite low certificates is because it is the patriarchal default of what sex is. Hollywood reflects society, not vice versa.

If "sex" was going down on someone while wearing a hat with a picture of a gherkin on it, all the films would show people sexily donning gherkin hats and fade to the fire/out the window as they headed south.

PiV is sex in patriarchy, it is considered the ultimate act and all others are lesser. Thus excluding loads of peoples sex lives from even being considered sex.

Which is just stupid.

It would be much easier if it was all a conspiracy. Then we could send in Tom Hanks (or some female, feminist equivalent) to hunt down the group of people in the room with the strings, uncover the whole thing and get on with our lives.

Unfortunately it is about social institutions and systems, which are made up of lots of people and their thoughts and behaviour. Which is why we all keep discussing what our thoughts and behaviour are, and how they came to be that way, and if we could or should change them.

You know, this:

'If "sex" was going down on someone while wearing a hat with a picture of a gherkin on it, all the films would show people sexily donning gherkin hats and fade to the fire/out the window as they headed south.'

and this:

'It would be much easier if it was all a conspiracy. Then we could send in Tom Hanks (or some female, feminist equivalent) to hunt down the group of people in the room with the strings, uncover the whole thing and get on with our lives.'

Make me remember why MN feminists are so bloody brilliant.

stripeybump - 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.

I'm one of those who has said that I think there's a natural, biological urge for PIV in most men and women. That's not the same as saying it's the ultimate sexual activity. I think it's a natural biological urge and I think it's put on a pedestal by the patriarchy. Just because it's natural doesn't mean it serves us well in the modern world where the vast majority of sex is for pleasure.

grinning at LRd there BTW!

Your post got a solemn nod of agreement Plenty of pubgardens

I'm genuinely surprised and educated by this thread! PIV is the most intimate form of sex for me, I assumed it was for the majority of hetero people. It seems not to be so on this thread.

I would never, ever express this irl and perhaps I shouldn't here - but in the interest of a full and frank anonymous discussion, I do feel that gay men and women miss out on the most natural, fundamental lovemaking activity possible. I'm not at all religious, I just see it as the exact activity our sex drives lead us towards, and that individual negative experiences shape possibly negative feelings toward it - whether distaste or pressure generated by media or porn, or thoughtless / unskilled partners, also influenced by media or porn.

I'm sorry if people find this offensive, I'm sure I'm in the minority on here to think that and I've only just realised I think that through this thread.

Absolutely there are things that are more intimate than PiV for me.

There are things that I wouldn't do with a man until I really knew him and trusted him, PiV would be something I'd do much earlier on.

TBH I'm surprised that others don't feel that way as well! Just shows there is a whole variety out there.

I genuinely don't feel the way you do about PiV stripey, that's just how it is. I'm sorry you haven't found many people to explore your ideas with but I guess you've learnt that how you feel isn't by any means universal!

Crikey.

I'm really shocked by that. (Not you, Lenin, by Stripey).

I love PIV but I am well aware I am in the minority of women for whom it is one of the easiest ways to achieve orgasm. Most women have to work at it. I don't for one minute believe gay men and women have less intimate sex!

you have just demonstrated what i was trying to say earlier on stripey.

sparky

Some of the best sex I've ever had has been when neither me or DP had an orgasm. It was quite obvious early on that neither of us were going to get there and once those goalposts were removed, it opened the way for all sorts of wild, fun experimentation. Some of the worst sex I've ever had is when some bloke has been determined to 'make' me come.

While I'd generally prefer to have an orgasm, I'm wondering if the problem is not so much the lack of focus on women's orgasms as the complete focus on men's orgasms. I know they go on about blue balls but oddly, DP has never suffered.

What DH and I decided last night was that sex should be redefined as any act between two or more people, that results in orgasm for at least one of them.

His other idea was to reclassify PiV sex as "PiV sex" so you would have oral sex, anal sex, PiV sex. So sex wasn't shorthand for just PiV any more.

I prefer my idea

So you go to bed with someone, or even a whole load of people, and you do some stuff and you come. That's sex, isn't it? You go to bed with someone and you make them come. That is sex!

plentyof pubgardens interesting x-post

does anyone on the thread know what sex is any more?

I know sardine but I'm not telling!

Lenin - the thing is, I would have thought that you're the generic kind when it comes to sex acts as opp. to orientation. Most women seem to prefer oral or manual, not PIV (forgive me if I'm wrong and you don't do oral/manual, I'm extrapolating from my lesbian mates! ). It's people like me who're the minority.

Lenin - I'm sorry.

Maybe it is ignorant. I'm quite a scientific but liberal person so I don't want to think that gay sex is anything other than natural, but my thinking about PIV sex has led me to this logical conclusion

at Lenin.

stripey - explain the logic?

The other thing is, surely, that most people go for a combo, as it were.

You don't just have one sort of sex when you have sex, you do a variety of things. The entire experience is sex. No matter what particular combination of things it involves IYSWIM.

LRD - see my post of 20.43 to see my logic, flawed or otherwise.

stripey I am aghast at your last post there.

Logically you think gay sex is unnatural?

Your logic is flawed, as it assumes that your feelings about PiV are universal, when this thread has clearly shown that they are not.