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 would think the alcohol and drug abuse would come from the negative view from society, being accepted..... (not that it should be viewed like that)

Honestly I now feel I have to qualify any comment with I am not homophobic. Ffs.

posie, I think you're being a bit unfair. Your posts are very hard to follow; I've struggled to understand them a lot and you have - I realize it was accidental - totally denied writing something you did write at least once. It is not easy to follow. It's not surprising we are not understanding what you're trying to say.

I do think, after stripey's pretty shocking and awful post, I wanted to take care not to offend anyone and care to distance myself from that homophobia. That is what you have to do when a conversation turns nasty, IMO. It's not a personal attack on you, it's confusion over where you stand on these issues.

I do think Milly's posts really show that terms like 'natural' and 'biology' and 'evolution' are much more fraught than at least I knew ... they can't just be flung into the discussion without us considering what they mean and whether we're being truthful about social conditioning or not.

True!

I think sakura's point a while back about the kind of sex teenagers have before they get to PIV is quite relevant here - they're almost in another world from adults and there is a mini-society in which it's normal to do oral/manual sex but not PIV, just because that convention has grown up (in response to PIV being 'real' sex, of course, but it's still interesting).

I kind of lost track of this thread, being away for a few days. Do we still think that Sakura's other points, such as 'PIV is manslaughter' and 'women in developing countries shouldn't have PIV (and therefore children)' are also perfectly valid?

"So in a country such as the USA, where pregnancy is a significant cause of death, I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that men who have PIV with a woman who doesn't want to get pregnant, is bordering on manslaughter.

Surely the focus should be on getting men of all countries, and of all walks of life, to stop having PIV with women"

jenny - I recognize sakura's points as generalizations (up to her if she means them like this but that is how I read them), and yes she's quite right.

An awful lot of men and women do not realize there is an alternative to PIV. An awful lot of women think it is their duty to have PIV with men. Of course there are also many men and women who simply have PIV because they enjoy it and have access to birth control (lucky us!), or because they want to have a baby. But you cannot fault the basic point: if as a society we did not think PIV were such a definitive sexual act and so important to men's 'needs', we'd have no unwanted pregnancies, no women dying in childbirth, no women dying of pregnancy complications, no babies growing up without mums, and quite possibly a whole lot less sexual assault (I live in hope).

It sounds dramatic, but it's a good ideal to have IMO.

I like Sakura's posts even though I think they're bonkers disagree with them, because they make me think and help me to formulate my own opinions. I do feel weird though about other posters excusing her, explaining what she 'really meant' etc.

jenny - i don't fully agree with them but i think they are valid discussion points in the context of this post...

i've also been off the thread but just wanted to say:

• snort at the "love a bit of cock" (tis indeed sad that posters feel the need to pre-emptively defend)
• PIV doesn't necessarily involve the missionary position so i found the posts about the joys of full body contact/intimacy/eye-contact in relation to PIV a bit odd
• thanks to whoever posted the Andrea Dworkin material. not finished reading it yet but it's very interesting (and pretty prescient of some of the arguments seen on this thread)

I don't think Sakura is 'bonkers' and I certainly didn't mean my post to explain what she 'really meant'. I'm offended by that, actually. In my post I distinguish between my views and hers because I have a brain all of my own, thanks very much, and I will state my own views when I'm asked whether I agree or disagree with a position, not a precis of what I imagine someone else thinks!

skrumple - v. good point about the missionary position.

LRD - I didn't just mean you - throughout the thread, people have referred to Sakura's points and as she hasn't returned to discuss them, several posters are defending her points by saying she wasn't being literal, etc.

Proles - that is a direct quote. I am not shit-stirring as you so kindly paint it. I am genuinely rather put out that people can suggest these horrendously over-reaching things and be tolerated.

These two things have most defnitely been said:

1. Men who do not actively fight against sexual agression have shared responsibility for it.

1. Men who have PIV with their wives and girlfriends in countries where there are high rates of death from child birth are tantamount to murderers.

I am also rather put out that people leap to defend these statements by suggesting that they mean something else, or are sarcastic or generalisations (how is being a generalisation a defence?)

LRD, I agree with what you say in your second paragraph, but as you point out, these outrageous statements often stem from a basic point that is entirely valid. Because the basic point is valid (and many of my posts on this thread agree with the power analogy and PIV-focus of sex if you look back) it does not mean that you can take them to endless lengths and use them to call men murderers and rapists. I think people should question why they are so keen to defend Sakura and so keen to undermine anyone who dares criticises her.

Proles - I'm pretty sure Sakura did say those things (on iPhone app so difficult to look back upthread, but I recognise them) so Jenny isn't stirring.

X-post Jenny

stripey - in that case, it won't be 'just' me you've offended.

It is bloody rude to tell me that I'm 'defending' someone's posts just because I express my own opinion of them.

IMO you are shit-stirring - you used two different kind of quotation marks but to put anything in quotes while discussing another poster does indeed suggest that they made that exact point, and sakura didn't at any point state: 'women in developing countries shouldn't have PIV (and therefore children)'

'LRD, I agree with what you say in your second paragraph, but as you point out, these outrageous statements often stem from a basic point that is entirely valid. Because the basic point is valid (and many of my posts on this thread agree with the power analogy and PIV-focus of sex if you look back) it does not mean that you can take them to endless lengths and use them to call men murderers and rapists. I think people should question why they are so keen to defend Sakura and so keen to undermine anyone who dares criticises her.'

jenny - I didn't say these statements were 'outrageous', actually.

I didn't call men murderers or rapists.

Please stop putting words in my mouth, it is very rude. I don't give a flying fuck whether or not you agree with sakura, that's between you and her.

"So in a country such as the USA, where pregnancy is a significant cause of death, I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that men who have PIV with a woman who doesn't want to get pregnant, is bordering on manslaughter.

Surely the focus should be on getting men of all countries, and of all walks of life, to stop having PIV with women"

This is a direct cut and paste from this thread.