Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Does penetration = presumption of power/control?

756 replies

skrumle · 17/08/2011 10:53

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 Confused 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?

OP posts:
LRDTheFeministDragon · 22/08/2011 21:03

As my male mate is fond of saying, If God hated men having sex with men, why did he put prostates so conveniently near our arses?

And you could say, if we women weren't geared towards lesbian sex, why make us so we can have multiple orgasms? Lesbian sex is the only way you can both have multiple orgasms ... wasted on heteros really, if we're doing PIV we have to stop when he comes.

(I think I have tipped over into TMI now, right?! Grin)

stripeybump · 22/08/2011 21:03

Lenin - do please get her over here!

LeninGrad · 22/08/2011 21:04

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

LeninGrad · 22/08/2011 21:05

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SardineQueen · 22/08/2011 21:05

Natural is whatever gets you off.

It's not people who are wrong, it's your cockeyed theory.

Honestly I can't beliveve you said that.

LRDTheFeministDragon · 22/08/2011 21:05

stripey - cross-posted, but your post of 20.43 doesn't contain logic. Where's teh logic?

SardineQueen · 22/08/2011 21:08

"I just see it as the exact activity our sex drives lead us towards"

You mean the exact activity your sex drive leads you towards.

LRDTheFeministDragon · 22/08/2011 21:09

Just as a tangent ... it's not unheard of, or even that unusual, for people who're virgins not to be sure exactly how PIV works. It can't be that obvious to our sex drives even if we're straight, can it?!

OTOH, most people work out how to wank all by themselves ...

SardineQueen · 22/08/2011 21:10

I have to go now, DH has come home and he's wearing a hat with a picture of a gherkin on it.

LRDTheFeministDragon · 22/08/2011 21:12
Grin

Enjoy.

ThePosieParker · 22/08/2011 21:23

Connection....meaning physical, not emotional or mental. And I have no doubt that two people in love feel connected and that two, three, four whatever people doing whatever they like can't enjoy the best sex they feel to do....

Surely sex as we know PIV is something that must be something 'special' or 'important' because it's a drive humans feel all over the world, regardless of society construction or links to the wider world. It is like this because from 'sex' PIV sex babies come. Humans have evolved this way, homosexual, oral, anal or whatever sex does not allow the human race to continue and therefore it is not deemed as important, it is not locked away, given to, kept, given away or anything. Same as monogamy has evolved in most societies......we 'western' feminists may wish to make more of this but some things are more about human nature than anything else, or at least the origins are. We don't have to accept it, we can change it but we cannot blame the 'patriarchy' for creating this.

LRDTheFeministDragon · 22/08/2011 21:27

Mmm, I don't see why tongues in mouths isn't equally intimate, really.

As to PIV being a drive humans feel all over the world ... well, so are most other kinds of sex, which don't get the same press! If there were societies that had never worked out any kind of sexual activity than PIV, you'd have a point. Are there?

The mere fact that many societies feel the need to ban other kinds of sex does rather suggest an element of coersion, IMO.

Malificence · 22/08/2011 21:28

I like cock, well, specifically the one belonging to my husband - that is all. Smile
I hate gherkins though.

LRDTheFeministDragon · 22/08/2011 21:29

Yes, they're a wee bit stingy I find, mal. All that vinegar.

startAfire · 22/08/2011 21:47

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

startAfire · 22/08/2011 21:49

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

MillyR · 22/08/2011 22:11

I heard Lenin's siren call and have returned to go on about evolution again.

Fitness (what most people are talking about when they say something is 'natural behaviour' or 'design') is measured in inclusive fitness. Basically, the evolutionary fitness of an individual is based on how many of their genes are passed on to members of the next generation who themselves are capable of reproduction. So, if I have two children my inclusive fitness is the same as that of someone who has four nieces or nephews - the amount of genetic material passed on will be roughly the same.

So, given that in the environment of evolutionary adaptation that anatomically modern humans emerged in, there were limited resources, people had to find enough food to survive. In addition to this, humans are a kind of species that put a relatively small amount of energy into procreation but a huge amount of energy into raising young (as compared to say, a fly or a fish). So a lot of human fitness is about being able to raise the young. It takes on average 18 years for a child to become energy independent from their carers in a hunter-gatherer society.

If there are, for example, two sisters who meet two men and they both have two kids, that is four adults attempting to feed eight people. If there are two sisters and one is meets a man and one meets a woman, and only one sister has two kids, there are four adults attempting to feed six people. Obviously people tend to help their sibling's children and the children of people they are socially bonded to ( and some species, particularly those closely related to humans, form social bonds through non-procreative sexual acts). Now, if a bad year comes, the entirely straight family has a higher chance of starving to death than the family which includes the lesbian sister because there are more of them. Thus, the genes of the lesbian sister pass on to her nieces or nephews, and her lesbianism has led to high inclusive fitness.

This is then connected to Posie's point about Western women. The whole PIV issue is of greater importance to those living a more impoverished existence. The average birth spacing in hunter-gatherer societies is 4 years. One of the African languages word for starvation is literally 'first child second child.' It refers to starvation as a result of children being born closely together. A household group cannot be energetically independent unless the birth spacing is about 4 years. Now, part of that 4 years is explained by approximately the first 9 months of breastfeeding making a woman unable to conceive. But after that, there is a huge period of time in which women somehow avoid getting pregnant.

Some of this could be explained by infertility as a consequence of a restricted diet, but some of it also must be explained by people choosing to do things other than have PIV sex. It would seem then quite natural for want of a better word, for women to either turn to other women for sex and only turn to heterosexual sex for procreation, or for women to spend a lot of their time wanting to have sex with men in ways unconnected to procreation. Because if our early ancestors felt an overwhelming urge to have PIV sex all the time, they would have died of starvation and none of use would be here.

LeninGrad · 22/08/2011 22:18

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ThePosieParker · 22/08/2011 22:19

No, let's not put words in my mouth SAF. I mean universal, hence I used the term universal. I know on every thread, yawn streeeetch yawn, you like to attribute attitudes to me that simply don't exist, but I growing increasingly bored of you and this area of your rather obtuse behaviour.

your assumption that sexual desire, hormones and drive is not biological is really clutching at straws. It is not just behaviour and for some individuals it is not behaviour at all....ask a homosexual Muslim or Bible belt Yank whether or not their sexuality is behaviour based. But allowing for homosexuality in human nature is a right and proper thing to do, it's not about permission for that biology and desire. But not recognising that PIV is biological driven is frankly crazy. The other parts of our sexual behaviour/activity comes from pleasure receptors as well as PIV.

Oh please enlighten us all how the human race would survive without PIV, tell us all how we'd all get here today if not for PIV.

The assumption that in order to have a discussion about PIV and the way it is essential and is natural/nature etc must mean that other sexualities aside from heterosexual is not nature/natural/normal is pretty offensive. Noone says that all types of sexual activity can't be either positive or negative, controlling or submissive is crazy.

LeninGrad · 22/08/2011 22:22

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MillyR · 22/08/2011 22:23

I should also say that I'm not advocating that we all return to four year birth spacing any more than I would advocate we all get off the internet and go out and spear a gazelle. What evolution has given humans is the ability to use our brains to adapt to the situation we find ourselves in, mostly through social means, and not to carry on living in a situation that hasn't existed in Britain for 10,000 years.

LRDTheFeministDragon · 22/08/2011 22:24

That's fascinating Milly.

I have no proper evidence, but I've also heard people (jokily) justify lots of the advances of civilization as people trying madly to free up time to have sex ... I reckon it's possible we modern people actually think loads and loads more sex is normal than people used to centuries ago. As I say, no proper evidence for this (sex is notoriously hard to research), but even if you just look at something like the schedules of people in medieval England, loads of couples basically only slept in the same house a few days per year - no wonder, if you knew your wife was likely to die whenever she became pregnant!

ThePosieParker · 22/08/2011 22:24

Huge period where they somehow avoid getting pg.....and definitely not withdrawing? Definitely abstinence or 'other than PIV' sex?

LRDTheFeministDragon · 22/08/2011 22:26

Massive cross-post.

posie, PIV gets women pregnant, we know that. So? Do you really only have sex because you want to get pregnant? Even animals have sex for pleasure. So we can't pretend it's as simple as reproduction.

LRDTheFeministDragon · 22/08/2011 22:28

withdrawal isn't a very effective method of contraception.

It's also remarkably shite if, like many primitive societies, you don't know it is sperm that make women pregnant, as opposed to the penis itself.