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?

From Wiki:
Natural disasters and conflict are also major challenges, as the resulting economic problems people face can drive many young women and girls into patterns of sex work in order to ensure their livelihood or that of their family, or else to obtain safe passage, food, shelter or other resources. Emergencies can also lead to new patterns of sex work, for instance, in Mozambique the influx of humanitarian workers and transporters, such as truck drivers, can cause sex workers to move to the area. In northern Kenya, for instance, drought has led to a decrease in clients for sex workers, and the result is that sex workers are less able to resist their clients' refusal to wear condoms

I'll never forget reading about how men in a refugee/aid camp were demanding sexual favours from women and girls for handing over bars of soap paid for through international aid. It's stupid and naive but I'd always seen the news reports and thought of those places as a safe haven - the battle was to get there. The reality is that women are often alone with their children in a place without protection.

Off thread, but we often assume that NGOs can only benefit the developing world. Like most things, however, this isn't always the case.

I heard recently about a charity that gave away water filters - an obvious aid you'd think. True - except that it also put out of business a small firm within the local community that was making water filters. This is clearly not a model for economic growth!

Jenny, I might not have been a member very long but I would devoutly hope that anyone would 'know' me well enough to know that I am clearly not suggesting some sort of eugenic programme in which women outside of the West do not have children.

But if childbirth is a dangerous and fatal activity, why should women put themselves in danger? Why would a loving husband want to do that? Unless free and open discussion has been had, and it is a step they both wish to take, I don't see why PIV sex is something that isn't generally avoided.

If contraception was suddenly banned by the UK government, I wouldn't have PIV sex unless forced.

Oh GOD, is jenny suggesting eugenics for third world women?

Jesus Christ Jenny, have a heart! Are you actually doing what patriarchies do and mininizing or trivlializing the dangers of PIV to women. Those dangers are magnified for some women.
DId you know that the US has one of the highest maternal death rates in the world, number 42 for maternal health after Kenya. The reason are 1) over-medicalization of childbirth and sky-high C-section rate (there is a high correlation between C-section and maternal death) and b) the health system is designed in such a way that a large number of women do not have access to decent ante-natal care.

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, especially if men don't actually know what sperm does. And it seems to me that many men don't really know what their penis does, when it's inside a woman's vagina. Otherwise why do they keep having PIV? With women who don't want to bear their child?

Are you seriously suggesting that we get men of ALL (my capitalisation) countries to stop having sex with women?

Even if the woman WANTS to have sex with that man? Of her own free will and own accord??! (obviously, rape is different) ?

No wonder the trolls pick on this section of the site. It is so very easy of them to debunk certain posts.

Never mind, though, if your suggestion was ever taken seriously, we need not worry about global warming because it would be the end of the human race.

I wonder what it costs to have a baby in the US, including ante natal care. Even if you have insurance I suspect there's a large excess, and women probably (?) come after children as the most under-insured group.

Actually, that's a bloody point, Sakura. I avoided saying 'Western', but didn't really think about why. Obviously broad generalisations can be made, but there's no guarantee that any pregnancy is safe.

Why is PIV 'sex'?

Wamster, honestly, is that really what you're getting from this thread?

It's interesting that we're all talking about sex-that-makes-the-baby, and perhaps how that should be avoided in favour of other many, many sex acts that exist, and you're taking that as 'men should stop having sex with women!'.

Actually yes, perhaps women would benefit if we stopped putting that one sex act as the only act that is SEX.

I mean, I can't be the only person in a relationship where 'sex' does not always mean PIV?

"Are you seriously suggesting that we get men of ALL (my capitalisation) countries to stop having sex with women?"

Nope, not sex, just PIV.

Or if women do have PIV I think they should stop kidding themselves there is any "equality" about it. Where is the equality in death? Eh? IF you're dead because some doctor fucked up your C-section, because he thought cutting your baby out of you would be more efficient than patiently waiting for you to birth in your own time, then how is that "equal" to a man's orgasm?

All I'm saying is that women should stop kidding themselves about PIV and "equality"

And men should stop pretending they don'T know what that white sticky stuff does to a woman, when it gets inside her vagina. And if they do know, then what the hell are they doing when they impregnate women who don't want their children? Surely men should take responsibility for their actions? We're not six years old. "She made me do it, miss"

It's the ONLY form of sex that will ensure that the human race continues.

sakura With respect, people WANT sexual intercourse, OK? It is a fact. Both men and women want it. The ONLY time it is ever wrong is if one of them has been forced into it. This is commonly known as the sane view.

Just because the outcomes are unequal doesn't make PIV sex 'wrong', Wamster, or mean that women are 'wrong' for participating in it. But it does mean that the disparity in outcomes and risk need to be openly acknowledged.

Your digs about mental health aren't on.

Why are you so concerned about death, sakura? Surely life and death are two sides of the same coin and sexual intercourse is thus absolutely essential for the continuation of the species?

I don't like people dying unnecessarily, but I appreciate that in order to have life, reproduction must take place.

THat is what is commonly known as the malestream patriarchal view, wamster.

Of course men want it, where is the risk? It doesn't exist.

The big question is, why does malestream culture minimize the risk of PIV for females. Why does malestream culture ignore the clitoris? More importantly, why does malestream culture tout the LIE that PIV is somehow equal ? It can never be equal.

Everyone likes PIV, I think that's a given. The question is, is it WORTH IT for women? (we all know it is for men, every single time)

And PIV for reproduction is not really what we're talking about here, is it. We're talking about PIV for pleasure. I can't remember which feminist said it, but once people realized where babies came from they should have stopped having PIV for pleasure and found other ways to orgasm.

Except the opposite has happened. In patriarchal societies, it seems that PIV is seen as the only real sex that exists. IF there is no PIV, or if a man doesn'T come inside some orifice or other, it "doesn't count"

We've gone in the opposite direction. Patriarchal definitions of sex are completely anti-woman

PIV causes death in women

not men

hence the concern

"I don't like people dying unnecessarily, but I appreciate that in order to have life, reproduction must take place."

These sentiments would be fine in a matriarchy. After all, giving birth is a little like going into battle. After praying to be shot in the head to make the pain stop, I myself realized that women sort of transcend life and death when they give birth. Now in a matriarchy, women would be celebrated and given their rightful place as amazons.

Instead what we have is a culture that pretends men and women's participation in reproduction is somehow equal

It is not.

Men... men have no contact with death the way women do. Women who have given birth have looked death in the eye. No man needs to preach to women about death.

not to mention the fact that patriarchal medicine causes untold pain ,death and suffering to women.
When men first entered the birthing chamber, as "doctors" they didn'T even realise you were supposed to wash your hands. There are historical records showing that they used to go straight from cutting dead bodies in autopsies to delivering women's babies, causing infections and death in thousands of women.

It hasn't got much better. mANy male ob/gyns are completely ignorant about the female body. They don'T know, for example, that breastfeeding prevents heamorradge by contracting the womb and bringing it down to size. THroughout the twentieth century many male-run hospitals were inimical to breastfeeding and heavily pushed formula.

THere is a very high correlation between C-section and death.

Male doctors invented episiotomy, believing it would be helpful to prevent pelvic floor weakness or incontinence. It did the opposite, evidence now shows, and yet ob/gyns throughout the world continue with this unecessary practice.
So the colonization of birth, by men, has caused a lot of pain, death and suffering to women.

How can you say that men do not have contact with death the way women do? What nonsense! What of those soldiers who died in their millions in the two world wars?

I did not mean to take the mickey out of anybody who is mentally ill or disabled in any way, but I really think your views (not necessarily you as a person) on this subject are insane.

It doesn't matter if you-or anybody else -thinks it is worth it to have sexual intercourse people do think it is worth it.
I'm not going to argue with them. The only time I get angry is if the woman (or man) is forced into it against their will.

Sakura I find your posts really interesting, although I disagree with you on a fundamental point.

Can you address the point I have made a couple of times on this thread, which is that I and many other women recognise the inequality inherent in PIV sex and enjoy it and accept it as part of the beautiful and complex nature of hetero lovemaking. Reproductive issues aside, I enjoy the dominance over me that penetration causes. I'm addressing the OP at its simplest and agreeing that penetration = power and yet I still want it, and want to submit to it.

Now is it possible, given my situation (a common one) of being a woman living on the West where I have a considerate and faithful husband, and access to contraception, that I accept the physical dominance of my male partner in the arena of sexual behaviour yet am not oppressed in any other part of our relationship?

Or by submitting to male dominance in my sex life, does this cause me to be respectful/fearful/submissive with men in general?

I don't think people are going to stop PIV sex, so I think looking at the politics of it is more useful. My experience of PIV personally is better than any other form of stimulation, Sakura yours is not - we should both recognise that this colours our opinions and try not to extrapolate. As I previously posted, I would be interested to know how many women in the West would give up PIV sex given the huge consequences it can bear - I'd say not many.

I think sakura's going to give herself a hernia with all this Overton Window shifting.

I'm a bit wary of how much to post in the current climate, but I would suggest that there are lots of women who give up PIV sex, at least for a time. There are numerous threads on MN about it.

Stripey, I'm with you and as to your survey, I wouldn't give up PIV at all.

"My experience of PIV personally is better than any other form of stimulation, Sakura yours is not -"

stripeybump First of all, you don't know anything about which type of stimulation I prefer, (although I alluded to it earlier in the thread) you're just making assumptions.

I'd agree with you that not many women in the west would give up PIV right now, too. Many of them are in relationships with men who would not stand for it, and so the possibility is not even on the table. The relationship would end.

Add to that, culture influences sexuality, of that I am certain. How many women think PIV is sex, think a man going down on them is "weird" but get turned on from giving blow jobs? Judging by our culture I'd say, "quite a few". Isn't it strange how female sexuality sort of caters so well to men, nowadays. It wasn't always like this.
So I would say, we don't know to what extent culture influences us, and it would be interesting to see what female sexuality looks like outside of a patriarchy

Although I won't be giving it up any time soon, without access to contraception and/or abortion services, I would. I cannot imagine the trauma of an unwanted pregnancy and childbirth.

Even then, abortion isn't an option for all woman. Contraception isn't an option for all women.

JEEZ is there any way of making a sticky on all my posts saying, "it's a given that 99.9999% of women like PIV, due to nature and all that"

I, for one, never said I didn't.

that last post was to stripey and mumwithadice and the people who are going to come on again and say,
"but i like PIV"