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?

LRD, I agree entirely that sexual intercourse is not the only enjoyable form of sexual activity, however, I don't know why you are denying that sakura wants sexual intercourse stopped.
She says so herself. Her posts are very controversial and polemic; it is the language she uses. Her choice and she is free to say it, but, please, I am reading it correctly in her post at 13.47 friday.
It is posts such as these that give those wishing to troll ammunition to slag off the site, can you not see this?
skrumle, sexual intercourse has always been with us, if it were not we would not have matriarchal societies because without sexual intercourse they would not exist, either. People in matriarchal societies want sex, too.

i'm not a man. - although not sure why i have to point this out - i think its because being a woman must give you more credit? i mean otherwise it wouldn't need mentioning.

i recognise that this is a feminist forum. being a non feminist my views sometimes match and sometimes dont.

so here it is

how a person has sex is a choice, if your a willing participant and you are getting mutual pleasure - this is all that matters

this is important - if you are a willing participant in any form of sexual activity, this is all that matters.

if you get off licking smelly trainers and don't need penetration - or even another person - good for you.

But i will not be told, i will not even have it implied - that becuase i prefer a penis inside my vagina that i am subdugated. that this is a form of subdugation.

what it is is mutual pleasure.

and i can't even believe that the suggestion of piv = subjugation is even a conversation that is being normalised.

this is insane and all i can think is that some people have some very serious issues, i cannot find another explaination for this debate to even take place

and for this debate inparticular to have as many participants as this

Sakura[and anyone else]can say what they want-whether anyone else agrees on not.
this is a feminist board and trolls shouldnt be used as amunation to silence anyone.

sparky

I agree with custy. It is hugely insulting to equate what is a combination of basic design and pleasure as subjugation. Physically it fits and works plus it is highly pleasurable.

custy and noddy, you've both missed the main point anyway.

Am NOT going around in circles, my previous posts are there for you to read, should you feel inclined

I like PIV and don't see it as subjugation. That as a concept has been mentioned on this thread, but by someone who said that she felt that PIV was subjugtion and enjoyed that aspect of it.

I'm interested in the fact that, given that most sexually active women aren't trying to get pregnant, we still consider PIV as 'full sex' or 'sex' and anything else as somehow lesser. A form of sex that generally brings men to orgasm but not women (the majority of women don't achieve regular climax by this alone).

If that does not interest you, fine. It interests me. Why is everything else considered 'foreplay' when the purpose is pleasure?

ive read them and my vie is as below - i shall take the same passive agressive stance and not explain further - becusae i realise how much that helps a debate about these things shall i? says custy in a passive aggressive ironic sarcastic tone

what do you mean by sex inequality?

and no, i don;t think its helpful to presume

All I can say about the subjugation aspect is that sex can be used to subjugate people but that it also can be a mutually rewarding and pleasurable activity. I think this is a fair comment.

I am not sure that people see other forms of sexual activity as being of less worth, but even if they do then, well that is up to them, as long as they are doing it of their own free will.

I think that although orgasm may not occur during sexual intercourse for many women, that may not be the purpose of it for them, anyway, they may get pleasure from seeing their sexual partner orgasm -I think that it is fair to say that for a lot of people sex is a mutual activity and not just a competition to get the most orgasms and the sensations produced from the act may be of worth even if no orgasm is acheived. Just a thought.

Indeed, dare I say it, the idea of a competition for orgasms seems a very male-centric view of sex.

'the idea of a competition for orgasms seems a very male-centric view of sex.'

Do you mean sex isn't about the orgasm for women??

I'm sorry, sakura. I didn't mean to sound whiny about it. I did read where you said you liked PIV.

Prolesworth, wrt to the defensiveness thing, can I offer another possible explanation? Or rather, how I felt? It isn't that I don't believe in sex inequality or that I have seen anyone say that they don't like PIV sex. I felt, even though no one has said this specifically, that I was somehow being labeled a bad feminist for liking PIV. So my back went up.

I acknowledge that this is my issue, but that is my tuppence worth on the defensiveness part.

On topic, I agree with the premise that PIV does imply a certain amount of control and I also agree that there are many other ways to have sex or be intimate. With that in mind, I find it interesting to note that PIV is often referred to as 'full sex' which makes me . Why is that?

but there absolutely shouldnt be that presumtion that only feminists will come on the feminist board. that is really cliquey and not inclusive and actually...properly pants. becuase people who either dont know about feminism or dont agree with feminism do come to look and debate here.

so you are saying that unless you think that women are given unequal treatment - generally- you will not understand this argument

i am saying that i think i understand the argument, but i don't agree with it. and if it is clear i am getting the wrong end of the stick - explain it to me in laymans terms

this is simply not complicated. if two consenting people enjoy piv - whats the problem - and why is it more complicated than that?

Patriarchy? Sexual intercourse? It's evolution, surely? We wouldn't procreate before love and language if it didn't feel nice.

I like PIV, I like it because I like it, I like it because DH loves it.

I think to talk about power and sex re PIV is bizarre, the act itself can be used in power struggles but it's the sentiment not the act. Most of us enjoy PIV as part of a wider sex life.

I completely agree with Custy.

what this has turned into is a discussion on the assumtion that PIV = full sex

but where is the power context?

i am partic interested in this argument that piv =power and control, i don't understand why anyone in a committed consentual happy relationship - would think that

PIV can be used to exert power and control. PIV can be nice, intimate and something lots of couples enjoy.

I picked up on something sakura said way back on the thread when she talked about true equality in sex coming when a man is vasectomised.
I do agree with her on that, I never knew that having a vasectomy was an issue for some men until regular threads on MN pointed it out to me and it actually shocked me that some men refuse to have vasectomies, even when their wives have medical problems that mean pregnancy is a very real danger for them, the amount of women who thought it's the woman's duty to be sterilised was staggering! Despite the fact that the failure rate for vasectomy is 10 times lower than for female tubal ligation.

Most of the men I know well have been snipped, my DH, my BILs, my FIL, cousins etc. Surely it's what decent, loving men do for their wives when they've come to the joint decision not to have more children?

I do think that PIV (or rather penetrative sex of any sort) is very important in most peoples' sex lives, it is in mine, it creates an intimacy that nothing else can.

startAfire Sat 20-Aug-11 23:23:02
"lets put this really bluntly - if you have zero interest in discussing feminist issues in feminist terms with a shared foundation of basic feminist ideas why not fuck the fuck off out of the feminist topic?"

Whilst not directly refering to me (i think) this does infact relate to me.

it does interest me that you would only want to hear the views of feminists. i think this is a rather blinkered view of the world.

regarding vasectomies - indeed i agree completely that it is what a loving partner should do.