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?

Because 'sex' is an abbreviation for sexual intercourse. Other types of sexual pleasure may be derived that do not involve penetration, of course, but they would be prefaced with the words: 'oral' or other words.

If people say these acts give them as much satisfaction as actual intercourse (or more or less) then, up to them, I take them at their word. It's not for me to dictate what turns them on!

ALL these acts can be used to exercise dominance and control, though, forcing a woman to give a blowjob by way of example.

It is the way sexual acts are carried out that is the deciding factor in whether or not power or control is being used to dominate NOT the sexual act (whatever that may be) itself.

Wamster, in Somalia right now, and other places in the world, where there is inadequate access to food and trained midwives, men are actually impregnating women, if you can actually believe it. They actually are.

Knowing there's a chance their wife/girlfriend/prostitute might not make it out of the pregnancy alive

but they're still doing it

When you know the consequences of your actions, and you keep doing it, the only conclusion one can make is that you're doing it on purpose

Men are impregnating these women on purpose

This is nothing less than calculated murder

If I knew that sticking my finger in somebody's ear meant that a life-risking growth would appear there, or a root canal in their tooth, I wouldn't do it.

Why do men keep doing it? Why do they impregnate women who don't want to carry a baby? BUt more specifically, why do men impregnate women in war zones and places of famine? Are they murderers? IMmoral? THick as shit? Uneducated about what their penis does when it goes inside a woman's vagina?

I really think the answer to my last post is:

Men believe their orgasm is more important than the life of the woman they're fucking.

Wamster[10.11]
[wheras in Britain...where we repect a womans right to abortion if she wishes it.......]

actually-i dont feel this is strickly true.
there is still women in this country that are not "allowed"abortion or/and contraception.ok by law they are bit not by theyre husbands.
also-theres women that havent got a choice[either way]with contraception/abortion due to things like disability.
therefore[i feel]that penatration would be power.[in some cases]
also-lesbian sex isnt seen as real sex sometimes-unless a fella is sitting there watching-then somehow it becomes real.
ive lost count of the times a fella has asked me if he can watch or been told"sparky-what you need is............".
because of what i am ive also had shouted at me"wheres ya dick"
so.....yes..i think that penis=power[in theyre eyes]

sparky

sakura If the women have zero choice about whether or not they partake in the act of sexual intercourse, I agree with you.

"Men believe their orgasm is more important than the life of the woman they're fucking."

Actually the whole abortion thing is a misnomer.
No human being should be forced to go through pregnancy and childbirth if she didn't specifically choose to have a baby. that goes without saying. Women aren't farm animals.

But the point many people miss is that getting women to concentrate on their "abortion rights" takes the focuse away from the men. Why do women need abortions? Eh? WHY?

Because some man thought his orgasm was more important than her body.

Left wing men have never made any secret of the fact they support abortion for very cynical reasons. It's so that they can have unfettered access to women's cunts without any consequences to themselves.

All this mess is because patriarchy refuses to define sex as anything other than PIV

Wamster the problem is that in patriarchies we can't really tell whether or not intercourse is coerced.

Is a woman having sex with her husband because he's going to get all sulky on her if she doesn't? Is she herself in denial about this because facing the truth would mean she'd have to leave him and she's got nowhere to go?

then you've got the sex industry. Condoms are not 100% effective. You've got literally thousands of men fucking thousands of women and handing them cash to wash their hands clean, and none of those men gives a fuck if the woman they've deposited their sperm into gets pregnant, ends up with complications, becomes incontinent from the birth, or dies of toxemia or heamorraging.

Prolesworth It makes me feel very sad that men are raping women full stop but, yes, of course the added information that it is happening when women are walking to find food brings home how terrible it is.

sakura women may need abortions for a number of reasons: rape, coercion may not be amongst them.

The women I know in my life who have had abortions have not been coerced into sex, they've chosen to have it freely.

I am sorry but it is a blanket statement to say that the blame (if any is attached to abortion) is always with the man.

It also gives the trolls an excuse to discredit the feminist boards as baloney because they will pick on a nonsense blanket statement such as it ALWAYS being men's fault to deflect from legitimate topics such as rape.

"Women in famine areas are being raped as they walk with their dying children in search of food. It's not a rare occurrence. What is that if not a total disregard for that woman's life?"

I absolutely agree with this sentence. Rape as a tool of war is a hideous crime and I'd hardly be disputing that would I?

However, the original statement includes wives and girlfriends and so the principles of war crimes are extended to normal couples in developing countries. Sakura seems to be denying these couples the right to have families because of the lack of medicinal care and accuses the fathers of being murderers. I'm sure this is not what is intended directly (I hope not anyway) but the argument, as is often the case, starts with an ugly truth and then lashes out indiscriminately and excessively in terms of scope and wild-eyed condemnation.

Therefore, I have my usual complaint; the very worst of male behaviours (with some long consigned to history) are used to explain the dynamics of everyone.

Reading thread with interest as it's moved on somewhat from when I posted last night.

I believe there is a inherent inequality in the act of PIV sex and that simultaneously both men and women do want to do it.

A good society recognises that this enigma puts women in dangerous situations - alone with a man, penetration happens - she needs protection not just due to possible pregnancy but also because in general men are physically stronger than women .

Your title is correct IMO - penetration is assumed to be powerful because it is. It's powerful and we crave it and fear it. The law is there as a tool to protect us, but often gets it very wrong.

Can I rephrase one of your statements, Wamster?

"It also gives everyone a reduced sense of feminism's credibility because they see a nonsense blanket statement such as it ALWAYS being men's fault to deflect from legitimate topics such as rape and lose a little faith in the movement."

Same meaning - just extended it a bit to include RL.

Proles - sex does carry the risk of pregnancy, yes. That's why we need protective laws. It recognises that PIV sex is what both men and women want and protects women. Law is generally moving in the right direction on this - men can be prosecuted for rape, and are forced to pay maintenance for the results of a pregnancy.

How well these laws work is different...

jennyvarnishesthewoodwork, yes, OK, your rephrasing is more elegant.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with looking at sex in our society through a feminist lens.

Watching the television especially american crime dramas give me the clear idea that women are "prey"
Ditto adverts on the tube for cab services
Magazine covers tell me that men are interested in women as sex objects and the media reflects that in a way that it doesn't the other way around (why is another question)
Media usually presents male sexuality as active and female as passive
Sex is often still considered by young people and indeed many who should know better as something that a woman "has" and a man has to try and attain it, meaning that most people see more minor coercion as normal "mating" behaviour and a lot of the time even more major coercion and assault as "one of those things"
Sexual assaults including rape as predominantly carried out by men on other men, women and children

And so on and so on.

Now many people see through this stuff, rise above it, don't conduct themselves in these ways. Although I don't think I know any men who wouldn't be perfectly cheerful about seeing a poster of a scantily clad woman looking passively enticing (come and get it).

So this conversation is relevant and purposeful.

I was one of those who genuinely thought sex was something that was becoming more equal, until I read Sheila Jeffereys saying that as long as women don't have true economic equality, sex can never be a level playing field.

And that's so true, isn't it? If a woman can't leave her husband, it doesn't have to be because he's a frightening abuser. It could be as simple as there's no money for her to live anywhere else. Her family might not take her in. She might live in a culture where single women are even more at risk of sexual attack than married women. There's loads of reasons for it.

And if that woman lives in a country where childbirth is the single biggest killer of women, then I simply cannot understand why PIV sex is considered anything but something to be avoided. I think sakura is bang on when she characterises it as a complete disregard for a woman's life.

"And if that woman lives in a country where childbirth is the single biggest killer of women, then I simply cannot understand why PIV sex is considered anything but something to be avoided. I think sakura is bang on when she characterises it as a complete disregard for a woman's life."

So you're also saying that people in developing countries shouldn't have children VG? I know feminism has a bad rap as being the preserve of middle class white women, but really? Are you really saying this?

Proles - I'm answering the OP in that yes, I do think that the act of penetration is a dominant and powerful activity.

I think there is a difference between countries wherein women cannot protect themselves and countries where they can and still choose to have PIV sex. I don't think PIV sex is a patriarchal conspiracy, just a biological necessity which makes the male/female power balance skewed from the outset. It's the cause of inequality, not an outcome of societal inequality.

I wonder how many women, given a real and meaningful choice, would reject all future PIV sex in favour of other stimulation. I for one would grieve the loss of it. I believe I can't be alone in seeing it as the pinnacle of sexual behaviour (hetero) and my favourite and craved activity.

The point about economic pressure point is very true. Why haven't condoms stopped the spread of Aids in Africa? Why are women still being infected by their husbands? Because they can't actually get the man to wear a condom. And if women turn to prostitution to support their children after their husbands have died of Aids related illnesses, and they themselves are HIV+, men pay them more to have sex without a condom. And then go back to their wives ...