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?

sakura Fri 19-Aug-11 13:47:04 It's page 5. I look forward to your apology Proleworth.

... any reply to me, Jenny, or apologies for misquoting what I said when it was about six posts above yours, so hardly difficult to quote accurately?

The last part that you have quoted of Sakura's is from a paragraph where she clearly states that she is referring to women who do now want to get pregnant.

This kind of confusion that you are creating is why quoting conventions exist.

If you want to quote somebody, state where or when they said it, put what they said in quotation marks, if you stop quoting them part way through their sentence, end the quotation with an ellipsis so that we know you have omitted part of their sentence.

Also, don't misrepresent them. Sakura was clearly referring to women who don't want to get pregnant; she said so twice.

Milly - it says 'women who don't want to get pregnant' within the quote, so it is hardly out of contect is it?

I'm amazed by how we are still not referring to the quote, but my bringing it up. This is what it says:

In the USA, men who have PIV with women who do not want to pregnant are bordering on manslaughter.

Is anyone denying that this is what it says? Is anyone saying that, yes, men in couples who engage in PIV where procreation is not the aim, are potentially guilty of manslaughter?

Listen, whatever. If you think jumping down my throat is the more valuable concern of feminism than challenging the lunatic fringes that are contained within it, then that's up to you.

"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). "
LRD, that makes very little sense to me , most pregnancies (within relationships) are wanted I imagine and you would still have maternal deaths and complications because all pregnancies carry risks. Some women deliberately put their health at risk because they want children, going so far as to refuse cancer treatment etc.
I don't think that our society does actually value PIV very much tbh - judging by posts on MN and other forums, men don't particularly care where they ejaculate (as long as they do) and men like my DH who only orgasms via PIV are very few and far between.

Then there is porn, PIV is the least favoured sexual activity in that particular medium, it wouldn't surprise me if a large amount of "fertility problems" are in fact caused by people not knowing that a man has to ejaculate inside a woman to stand a chance of conception - if all you know about sex has come from porn, you would barely know that PIV even existed!

mal - yes, I take your point that there will still be women who desperately want a baby, to the detriment of their own health. But I made that point in the context of men and women who don't recognize that PIV is not and need not be the definitive version of sex and that men do not 'need' PIV. In that context, I think my point stands.

jenny, in 'jumping down your throat' (or rather, asking you not to misquote me and being offended when you do!) is challenging the 'lunatic fringe'. I can do both at once, you know.

Quite LRD, but please do so!

Are you not accepting that I did not misquote you then then? I'm surprised given the prevelence of the random 'you' in English that you didn't realise this was how I was using the word! Perhaps you use 'one' all the time? Are you the Queen?

Seems Proles has 'slashed and dashed'.

'Please do so!'?

Are you admitting you're deliberately being the 'lunatic fringe' now? Is this a wind-up?

I absolutely agree that men (and women) as a group don't need PIV to have a full and enjoyable sex life, but I do believe that it is a primal urge in most of us, wanting to penetrate/be penetrated.

We'd cope if we were no longer able to have PIV but I wouldn't be happy about it, sex would be far less enjoyable without it for me, even though we enjoy other sexual activities immensely. I don't consider sex without PIV to be not "real" sex though and I don't think that orgasms (mine or his) are necessary for great sex either.

I'd be quite surprised if lesbians had sex without any kind of penetration at all, be it fingers or toys, orgasms are much stronger with something for your contracting muscles to grip and release, a woman's physical response is surely the same whether she's gay or straight? I need something inside me to have a decent orgasm.

I'm sorry, I'm not interested in engaging with someone who's taking the piss.

Eek, sorry, that wasn't to you mal!

FWIW, I think people vary re. penetration - I like it myself but not during oral sex, no! It's really distracting somehow.

I think, like you, I enjoy PIV and wouldn't want to see it 'off the menu', so to speak. Realistically, that's not going to happen. But it would solve a lot of problems if it did happen for women who don't want to get pregnant.

I would love to know more about what Milly was saying, actually. I would like to know how much you feel that social attitudes have shaped even the kind of academic research into prehistoric sexual/social behaviours that can be done? I know some people say it's hard even to try to research this stuff because sometimes the parameters of the discipline already force you towards certain ideas and away from others. What I mean is, can we ever really know about these things in an objective way (and does it matter)?

Fair enough, now you see, oral without any finger action for me is a bit well, boring , sorry DH - ( he knows this btw ) He could be there all day and although enjoyable, it wouldn't get me there. Hey ho, be boring if we were all the same.

Actually, on another forum, there is a woman who has apparently been married for quite a few years and they've never had PIV, she has a phobia of pregnancy and they seem to manage ok.

Isn't anal sex the traditonal method of avoiding pregnancy? (alongside withdrawal) Most women really wouldn't get much enjoyment out of that I imagine.

Exactly! It'd be boring if we were all the same.

I think as well it'd be fascinating to know how much what we enjoy is the result of society telling us it will feel good - like, I'd never thought to find someone running their nails over you (not scratching exactly, gentler than that) erotic, but it is great. You almost have to tell yourself not to expect it to tickle, though! It's funny how much the sensation gets interpreted differently by your own body depending on how you think about it or expect it.

Poor woman having a phobia of pregnancy though - that must be scary.

I think oral sex/manual is more common among teenagers as a way of avoiding pregnancy - I think anal is still seen as quite hardcore!

But maybe I'm going off-topic again, sorry.

And thanks all, I don't think I'll ever think of PIV in the same light!!

LRD - sorry, I din't spot that you were making a funny at my expense. I thought you said you could challenge me AND the more extreme radfem views within these pages. You weren't though were you.

No, no - as you were everyone. Clearly it's fine to use all manner of hyperbole as long as it's pro-feminist, but completely anti-feminist to query it.

SAF - we hadn't 'moved on'. The issue was just ignored and put down to me causing trouble - again. I simply do not get this unwillingness to challenge even the most bizarre statements. Occasionally someone might grudgingly admit that they don't always agree with some of the radfem posters, but no one ever has the courage to say it directly do they?

I have no problem being a pariah, however, and will continue to 'cause trouble' whenever I see things posted that exceed 'feminism 101' and drag it down the point where the real anti-feminists can ridicule it.

"I have no problem being a pariah, however, and will continue to 'cause trouble' whenever I see things posted that exceed 'feminism 101' and drag it down the point where the real anti-feminists can ridicule it."

so glad you're here to save us from ourselves...

LRD[15.00]
you have some excellent questions in this post..id be very interested aswell.

sparky

I wasn't 'making a funny', Jenny, and I never mentioned wanting to challenge radical feminists, or extreme feminists. Again, you are putting words into my mouth that I never said.

I think you are pissing around. I think you did mean to admit you're the lunatic fringe on this thread and you did mean to wind me up by saying it, and now you're hoping you can backtrack and point fingers. Leave it out. It's childish and its obvious, and you're spoiling the discussion for everyone else.