Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

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:
Original poster
skrumle · 18/08/2011 18:39

hmmmm SGB i think that is probably true in terms of that perception of "real" sex, although i think the power thing is slightly different where it's not just perception but biology. i think that to be penetrated is automatically more submissive than to penetrate?

your second para is something that i find interesting - i think there is that cultural understanding but your example is about the man coming. which is a really pervasive view, that when the man comes the act is "done", whereas the woman coming doesn't define anything - so oral sex performed on a woman is foreplay rather than a stand alone event whereas oral sex on a man is a complete act all on it's own. i find i do it myself, i don't mind whether or not i come every time we have sex but i find it weird if my H doesn't...

OP posts:
SardineQueen · 18/08/2011 18:55

The romeo and juliet thing seems to be getting mentioned a lot at the moment.

That discussion is complicated by the fact that abortion is illegal in Ireland (the place where the law is) and it seems to be overlooked a lot that the case that raised the original debate was one where initially the complaint was the sex was not consensual (memory foggy on the detail though TBH).

Just chucking that in Smile

Original poster
skrumle · 18/08/2011 18:59

was it you that posted about that on one of the other threads SQ? i actually tried googling and couldn't find anything other than the story about the appeal being denied - couldn't find details of the original case, or any other example of it being used in Ireland.

OP posts:
TrillianAstra · 18/08/2011 19:01

I agree with kallista

IMO penetration only = power/control if it is non-consensual or if the partner being penetrated is submissive by choice.

But really anything being done non-consensually is about power/control, the penetration part is irrelevant.

SardineQueen · 18/08/2011 19:03

"although i think the power thing is slightly different where it's not just perception but biology. i think that to be penetrated is automatically more submissive than to penetrate?"

That view is a result of patriarchal thinking throughout society.

There are plenty of positions where the person being penetrated is the one in control Wink

The idea of penetrator = powerful and penetratee = submissive comes from an idea of sex where the woman lies there on her back while a man does sex to her. ie not a great idea of sex!

TrillianAstra · 18/08/2011 19:09

If we're just doing semantics

penatrator/penetrated sounds as if the penetration is the active thing

engulfer/engulfed sounds the other way around

AyeRobot · 18/08/2011 19:31

enveloped

solidgoldbrass · 18/08/2011 20:15

Or you could say 'enclosing'. Just imagine always referring to PIV sex as the woman enclosing the man, or indeed anal sex as the ^enclosing of penis or object by the other partner.
Enclosing a penis (or finger, or sex toy) can be pleasurable and deeply desired. It would be daft to say that it gives no physical stimulus to the encloser; but equally daft to say that it is the only valid form of sex and the most enjoyable.

SardineQueen · 18/08/2011 20:31

It's all "en" words

engulfed
enveloped
enclosed

entrapped
engulfed
engorged
enraptured

entertained?

She entertained his engorged enraptured member with encapturing enveloping engulfing (runs out of ideas) enemas.

Could I compete in that badly described sex award thing do you think? Grin

jennyvarnishessthewoodwork · 19/08/2011 00:54

Penetration versus engulfed: that's a really interesting angle! (Angle? Sounds like innuendo now... Hmm)

jennyvarnishessthewoodwork · 19/08/2011 01:16

Oh, and to muddy the waters (for those who don't have answers before the questions are actually asked): where does impotency and performance anxiety sit with the outright POWER definition?

LRDTheFeministDragon · 19/08/2011 01:22

Grin Sardine, please bring out the novel soon? Wink

I'm really interested by this idea about how we define sex.

I find it really strange that sex is also defined as 'when the man comes inside the woman - oh and ideally if it's good the woman comes. once.'

Women can orgasm quite a lot, that's how our bodies work. Even perfectly nice and sane men seem surprised by the idea that, erm, one orgasm and then you're done isn't always my ideal experience.

I also think it's strange how, with PIV sex, it's rarely acknowledged that for lots of women (most?) what is making them come is the friction across her clitoris from the bit of the man that brushes against it - which isn't necessarily his penis, is it? It's sort of the bit where the stomach bumps into the pelt (terminology here?!). When I first worked that out I thought I was anatomically really weird because no-one tells you! I thought you were meant to have an orgasm on the inside ... where there's no clitoris. Strange, isn't it?

sakura · 19/08/2011 01:24

" when the man comes the act is "done", whereas the woman coming doesn't define anything - so oral sex performed on a woman is foreplay rather than a stand alone event whereas oral sex on a man is a complete act all on it's own"

This is brilliant Skrumle!! Yes, this is exactly it. As I mentioned earlier, a man could go to a prostitute, stick his dick in her for five minutes, come and that is considered by our culture to be SEX.

Sex is defined as "the man coming inside an orifice."

"Foreplay" is a hideously patriarchal word, WHen I was having the time of my life as a young teen, where I was always orgasming and PIV was never on the menu, how was that in any way "foreplay"?
Foreplay to what?? That was IT.

sakura · 19/08/2011 01:28

yes that's the other point LRD. Men can generally come once, or maybe twice or thrice in an evening. But the ability of a woman's body to absorb pleasure is immense. Women can be insatiable.
So the idea that the event is over when the man comes serves men and male sexuality.

EvenLessNarkyPuffin · 19/08/2011 01:31

Someone mentioned the other day writing about tropes. Is there a good book/site for a newbie on the portrayal of women in film/tv?

stripeybump · 19/08/2011 01:39

The power thing is a bit chicken and egg though, isn't it? I don't think PIV sex is a result of patriarchy, but it might be the cause of patriarchal thinking, quite naturally.

A man is more powerful during PIV / reproductive sex, so we fetishise female submission in sexual behaviour, and in the rest of life.

PIV sex has been going for a long time (and I can't see the trend ending anytime soon) and women enjoy the submission aspect of it - like it or not, women in general do have the urge to be penetrated.

If I want to be submissive and flirtatious and even coy in the bedroom because I enjoy my partner's dominant sexual behaviour, does this then spill over to the rest of our relationship and male/female relationships in general?

LRDTheFeministDragon · 19/08/2011 01:45
  • I'd like to see that too.

stripey - PIV being sex could be the result of patriarchy, though? Maybe?

I know what you mean about the urge to be penetrated - but again it's a language thing. I reckon if society defined sex differently, I'd feel an urge to be 'touched there' or for 'pressure here', or whatever. I mean, I don't just want anything up there, it's got to be the right pressure, size, texture ... it's kind of odd we focus on one small aspect, the penetration.

(don't know if I am making sense, I'm slleepy!)

stripeybump · 19/08/2011 01:51

I genuinely really enjoy PIV sex - it's my favourite way to orgasm, and I feel so close to my DH when we're kissing, rubbing bodies together head to foot and he is entirely filling me Blush

It seems to me the obvious peak of sexual pleasure is PIV sex - the organs are built o match beautifully! it's not a compromise for me, I don't feel short-changed, it's perfection. And it makes total biological sense. That's why I think it's pointless looking at it as an effect of the patriarchy - it seems much more likely to be an effect.

stripeybump · 19/08/2011 01:52

Doh - more likely to be a cause obv!

LRDTheFeministDragon · 19/08/2011 01:59

stripey, I don't follow but maybe because it's late.

I agree with you (and most of teh thread by the sound Grin) that PIV is lovely and wonderful. But the fact that PIV is defined as 'real' sex (other things are 'oral sex' or 'foreplay' or whatever), that aspect of PIV being sex is strange to me, and seems likely it's the effect of a weird sexist set of attitudes.

It's like if we said 'eating' only means the times when you swallow a lump of food whole and feel it push past your voicebox - it's not wrong, that is eating, and I lurve gulping icecream like that ... but it's also a kind of slanted way to describe it, too.

differentnameforthis · 19/08/2011 04:10

  1. Better

  2. Yes

  3. He reacted by adhering to my wishes. We did this for a yr while we decided what contraception to use after dd2. There was no problem on either side, and no pressure to have PIV, as you put it.

Wamster · 19/08/2011 08:25

There's always something to moan about, isn't there? The original post was a fair enough question, but here we go again: same old nonsense.

It's very simple, really, if a man and woman both consent to sex, then there is no issue. None at all. Up to them. Who cares? I don't. Men and woman enjoy sex, if they want it, up to them.

As for the original post, it is like two drivers going out and driving after consuming a bottle of whisky each. One of them gets home without harming anybody else, the other crashes into a tree and is badly injured.

The drunk drivers= two youngsters who mutually agree to sex (note I do not use word 'consent')

The unharmed driver=the boy
The driver who gets killed = the girl.

In the tale above, do we say: 'The unharmed driver was morally better than the harmed driver? No we do not. Nor do we say: 'The harmed driver was better than the unharmed driver'.

They are BOTH guilty of a crime i.e. drink-driving.

The outcome is just a matter of luck. sometimes sex leads to pregnancy, sometimes not. The actions that led to the outcome were exactly the same two drunk people driving and the actions of a girl and boy having sex are the same, too. That is, they are roughly the same age and agree to it. The law should treat them the same i.e. prosecute both (daft, daft idea imo) or let it go.

VictorGollancz · 19/08/2011 09:07

Even with happy enriching legal consensual sex, there is an disparity regarding the outcome of PIV sex. It's stupid to pretend there isn't. Even in our rich country with free contraception and abortion rights - it's still women who bear the brunt of contraceptive failure.

Wamster · 19/08/2011 09:17

Even if women do bear the brunt of contraceptive failure, as long as they have chosen freely to have the sex that led to the pregnancy, then I can't get angry about it.

I just don't see the issue. Feminism is about ensuring that women have the right to have their decision to have sex or not taken seriously, it's not to decide for women if those decisions are wise or not.

I think it very dull for a woman to have sex without taking precautions if she does not want to get pregnant, but it's her choice.

Wamster · 19/08/2011 09:19

What do people want to do? Stop people having consensual sex? Good luck with that one.