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?

Just been catching up (skimming I admit) and the religious stuff is fascinating. I was also wondering about the idea that PiV = full body contact, that it's the most intimate thing you can do (not for me and my friends it wasn't, as other posters have said too), and not being able to have eye contact during oral sex

Anyhoo.

Just saw this LRD "'the swelling of flesh' tells you they want to have sex. That's pretty penis-centric and frank, so I would guess there's still an emphasis on PIV." and wanted to point out that women's genitals become engorged when they are aroused too.

SaF - good point re. shame. I only mention enforcement because it's interesting how resilient people can be (look at homosexual clubs in the early part of the 20th century!) to laws they know are daft.

There are still people who are quite ashamed by the idea of non-missionary sex, too.

sardine - so they do. I have to say I'm not sure a male monk (for it was he) would know that, but I may be doing good old practical medieval peeps a disservice there. They're often quite earthy.

Yes, I think that's really important - the Catholic Church is actually quite unusual even among Christian sects for saying that sex must be only for procreation. Before the Schism, the Christian Church didn't say that, and the Orthodox and Anglican Churches still don't. It is quite an odd view, really!

Good point LRD!

the catholic church have actually changed their official stance now and it's procreation or the strengthening of the marriage bond...

Abusive PMs?

FFS.

I thought that while the sex rules were all being laid down, and the upper echelons were having arranged marriages, all the commoners were at it like billy-o in the hedges.

However I am crap at history so that is probably wrong. Anyone know?

I don't read popular historical novels either, spoons. I like stories about robots

I can't remember where I got this idea from

well, it was very recently that it changed!

i can remember being at church about 20 years ago and one of the returned-from-the-missions spare priests giving a sermon about how sex was only for the purposes of procreation and if you really had to have sex with someone it should only be another catholic. particularly remember it because one of my (protestant) neighbours was sitting in front of me as she was engaged to a catholic and his rant was mortifying - it did include a gem about there being no good reason to marry a non-catholic!

Karma Sutra Anyone? Obviously not a Catholic text!!

Interesting you say about Romans, the ruins around Vesuvius had plenty of pictures showing adventurous sex.... [i think]

But homosexuality is still shameful, well where I live (Bristol), they are more likely to be much more tucked out of the way than lap dancing clubs. (anyone interested we have two more licence applications to fight in Bristol with short deadlines, see fawcett)

see here

I think that Vesuvius erupted some time before the Romans converted to Christianity though.

Sardine - I dunno about hedgerows but I am working on a text where someone does a sermon about how people really should stop having premarital sex in graveyards (!) as it's a wee bit disrespectful.

I thought that the Romans were rather fruity before that.

Although Spoons will probably say I have been reading too many historical novels. Or watching too many carry on films

Graveyards are good as they are usually deserted.

I imagine that young people's thinking on these matters might not have changed much over the centuries!!!

Yes, it did. But prior to Catholicism it seems our Italian friends were enjoying a bountiful sex life.