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?

Unless I am trying to get pregnant my husband never comes in me. We have sex for a bit but usually both orgasm through 69. That way I dont use contraception and we both like it best. Dont do it for any feminist reasons but loads of men much prefer coming in a girls mouth to piv (depends howgood you are at bjs though ) It pleases everyone then but we dontdo it for feminist reasons we just do it cause we both enjoy it

Also I dont count anything as sex unless both the woman and man have orgasmed. A man shouldnt orgasm before he has made a woman orgasm imo and decent husbands wouldnt do it as its not treating a lady right. If you have got a man that doesnt do that then ime he will probably be selfish,useless man in all areas of life.

Also any man with half a brain surely must realise that if they focus on thewomans pleasure and she always have an orgasm she will very frequntly be up for sex, regardless of whether they have young children, or busy lives. As ime and from my friends if the sex they have with their dps/dhs is good they have a near constant high sex drive and if it seems like a chore and they get nothing out of it then they dont. Which surely should be obvious and expected.

Also defninitely dont agree with wamsters view on orgasm yes of course its enjoyable watching your husbands pleasure everyone would agree with that, but I also think most men think the same the other way round. My husband has said he couldnt enjoy sex if he just did whatever to me and then came without knowing I was mutually satisfied and rightly so!!!

I namechange frequently to be able to post about whatever I fancy without fear of being outed irl. But I understand that others want to maintain their MN persona, preventing them perhaps from being able to engage in a topic involving personal disclosure.

I guess this discussion is a bit dead in the water anyway - I'd only say to the radfem contingent that it would be useful if you:

a) treated differing opinions with respect and engaged with them rather than saying 'you've missed the point' etc.

And b) if someone comes on to deliberately derail, don't allow it to happen!

I think every thread I've ever posted on in the MN Fem topic I have endeavoured to be polite and non-confrontational, have thought that some of the louder voices on here are extreme to the point of ridiculous but don't feel the need to attack or get all defensive (although I was accused of defending PIV when I was attempting to examine the physiological cause of subjugation) but they always end in the radfems attacking and defending. If you think Wamster was posting rubbish, try to move on quickly rather than endlessly navel-gazing!

The 'radfem contingent'? Someone posts and invites conversation and discussion of a topic. It doesn't mean that the everyone 'agrees'. It is designed to start an exploration of the issues. Posters come on and deliberately misinterpret one line and start name calling. Or treat this as AIBU. Or trot out the same lines about man hating feminists.

It makes a pleasant change when it's regular MNers doing the insulting I suppose

Ok, since I need to be specific - sakura became very defensive and quite dismissive of my views, imo. I posted because I thought I could contribute to the discussion and she and Proles made it clear I was 'missing the point'. A minor annoyance to me, and tbh the more I try to engage on here, the more clearly it appears that it is only views in agreement with the most radical that are accepted and not insulted on here. It's annoying because I know I'm not alone in wanting to discuss feminist issues, but the MN definition of feminist is considerably more strict than is necessary. I know that in theory anyone can post here, but on this thread alone it's made clear that only posters who fit certain criteria are allowed to.

If a woman had vaginaismus the couple wouldn't have sex either. They would have a sex life. Virginity is also covered only by PIV/PIA isn't it?

Of course, there's plenty of posters who have engaged with those who are feeling ignored, and are ignored themselves. Because if those who feel ignored actually engaged, they might have to stop posting about feeling ignored. Etc.

'an elitist obtuse club where hating men is a pre requisite to posting'

That's really tring to discuss and engage.

Victor, I was silent on this thread for pages while I awaited the bickering to cease. I posted again only to agree with Custy re the impossibility of debate on here!

If the debate has got back on track, I'm happy to join in.

LessNarky - I didn't post that

Get back to the OP, can we?

Posie - interesting re virginity only applying to PIV.

I knew several people in my teens who were against the idea of sex before marriage. They did everything except what they perceived as 'full' sex, mutual masturbation, oral, kissing etc. I do fail to see the moral difference in engaging in this activity compared to PIV, but I think it's also the Catholic view. They are still 'virgins'. Doesn't bringing someone to orgasm count?

Stripeybump, I think it is a good thing that you have felt you could come on here and speak honestly about your feelings about sex. I can understand that it must be disappointing when you don't get replies, although to be fair you have had replies, they just haven't been about your interest in sexual submission.

Your point seems to be that you find being penetrated to be a submissive act, you think that some other women also feel this way. Well, that's great for you and these other women that you are all comfortable with your sexual experiences.

I think what you have to appreciate is that a great many women don't feel that way about penetrative sex. I find sex in general to be a very simple, innocent, natural, uncomplicated and authentic way of communicating and feeling close to another human being. I don't feel dominated by having a penis inside me, nor do I crave to be dominated.

So I'm not sure that your feelings are going to be discussed in any great detail when a lot of people don't have any experience of those feelings. I understand that you have answered the OP from your personal feelings, but it doesn't have the more shared understanding that discussing issues like pregnancy or physical risks does.

I don't think it has anything to do with being more or less radical than anyone else; it is just to do with it being about your particular situation rather than something shared by women in general.

Thanks littleblue

I don't mean to be all foot-stampy and complaining no-one's listening, but being told I missed the point when I felt I entirely addressed the OP was annoying. Thanks for your post.

I think there are both historical/cultural and biological reasons why it has come about that PIV + male orgasm = 'full sex' and nothing else is supposed to count.

On the historical front, until relatively recently, people weren't marrying for love or sexual fulfilment, they were marrying to forge economic links between families and to produce 'legitimate' heirs. Women's orgasms didn't matter because they weren't necessary for pregnancy to occur. Even for men, it probably wasn't really important if he enjoyed sex with his partner, as long as he could bring himself to do the deed. Questioning whether sex was satisfying or not would probably have been seen as quite odd in a culture where all that mattered were viable and 'legitimate' descendants. I don't think it was always that way and probably not to the same extent in all strata of society but that's the dominant culture we've inherited, parts of which still manifest now, e.g. the use of the term 'bastard' as an insult, the idea that it's so much worse for a woman to have sex outside of marriage than for a man, the still-lingering stigma of infertility ... so if what was most important about sex was procreation then 'full sex' must at least include its possibility.

Then there's the biological stuff. I think there are strong biological drives for both men and women to enjoy PIV. That would make sense in terms of evolution. There is also a very strong biological drive to reproduce, even if it puts you in mortal danger. It's amazing what women will put themselves through to have children, from coming off medications they need to undergoing IVF. Then there's something about penises ... they generally need to be 'enveloped' () in something (vagina, anus, mouth or hand) in order to achieve orgasm.

I'm quite hopeful that things are changing though, albeit slowly. The general acceptance of gay and lesbian relationships and the growing acceptance of BDSM means that PIV isn't particularly where it's at for lots of people now.

As much as I love PIV, I do look forward to the day when a quick lick-job is seen as a worthwhile act in itself.

Proles - no you didn't, that phrase was used by Sakura to Custy and to Noddy.

You did however agree with Sakura when she became annoyed that I had posted about PIV sex, reducing it to 'I like PIV sex' which was frustrating when I'd tried to be analytical about the submission aspect.

Most women get frustrated really? I would have thought that most women wouldn't know any better what with the patriarchy controlling their sex lives .

And I think sex is the marker for virginity because sex is for procreation and the risk of having it was always having another mouth to feed.