Radical feminism and PIV

[EatsBrainsAndLeaves]

Hi just wanted to ask radical feminists and their allies their views of piv sex, I have no one I can ask in RL about this.

I can understand why PIV sex is inherently unsafe and that viewing PIV sex as the goal of sex is misogynous. But I really can't fathom the view that PIV sex is inherently abusive. Can anyone explain it very very basically? And do all radical feminists think PIV sex is inherently abusive?

Thanks

What influences do you think are important in this, Eclectic?

I miss Sakura too! I was just thinking about her. Spooky.

Yes she is, because it about controlling the agenda, rather than exploring a range of views.

Influences on what in particular? PIV being seen as inherently abusive?

beachcomber - how about you provide an analysis to the question I asked instead of parping off because allegedly nobody is interested in analysis? I'm genuinly interested in the response.

I also miss sakura and dittany

On that note I am calling it a night.

No, Eclectic. I know that was the original point of the thread, but as nobody on here actually holds the view that it is inherently abusive, I think we've all started talking about it more broadly.

I was wondering what influences an individual, or a group of people, to view it as more or less important, or more or less frequent than other than other parts of their sex life, or other parts of their relationship, or other parts of their life.

Sorry if that is a bit waffly.

Why is Dittany not around? Tis a great shame.

how about you provide an analysis to the question I asked

Why?

I'm not a public service here to sell, explain or do the groundwork on radical feminism for other people.

Your questions are a matter of political exploration that you will get much more from if you explore and experience yourself.

I might feel inclined to explore them with you if this thread were less adversarial. But it isn't, so I don't.

Waste of time. Good luck with your genuine questions though.

Me too SQ. Good night.

Personally, I think your attitude to PIV is a very individual thing. We are all different and have different experiences.

Some influences could be:

Physical- you just don't find it stimulating
Emotional- very complicated could be a range of factors, your upbringing, your relationships, your self esteem

Obviously, social contexts are very powerful so culture is important. Contraception is a key factor in making sex safe.

Your relationship with the person you are having PIV with.

In short, there are a myriad of factors whih are unique to each individual and contribute towards their attitudes and beliefs about PIV.

Patriarchy is not the only one. To assume that one factor trumps all the others is completely ignorant.

I'm trying to think about three different things (and I think we might all be talking at cross purposes):

1. How it sometimes gets presented as violent, or aggressive, or about power in depictions in culture when that isn't how lots of people experience it when they do it.

1. In the UK often think it is central to their sex lives. What happens if you are straight and you don't want it to be central? Is it easy to find somebody to be in a relationship with who also feels the same way. I think Dan Savage talked a bit about this. How do other people view those people? Sometimes people think it is some kind of psychological problem, but then I suppose some people think all manner of sexual preferences are psychological problems.

1. Do people have a completely different attitude to what they desire if they live in a time or place with no contraception?

sorry, x post.

Like I said, all those points you mention have an influence on how someone views PIV. It doesn't make their views wrong or right or mean they have a problem. Problems arise when how they view PIV causes contradiction in their lives, when their viewpoint is not aligned to other things they might want or think. It's not anyone else's business what your attitude and beliefs about PIV are, as long as it is not havering a detrimental effect on your own life and causing you turmoil.

This is why I have a problem with generalisations.

1. What about the menz?

Ha! They can have half shares in points 1-3. They can't have their whole own point.

Exploring it myself won't get me very far though with the question what the radfem point of view is, as that's something I don't identify with. I

t's funny how on the one hand there's complaints about people not being interested in analysis and when people do show interest they get told to do it themselves anyway.

Pun presumable not intended - re "point"...

if thecchair's partner suddenly said - "no sex we're British" or "I have taken a vow of chastity" or "my sex drive has dried up no more sex" or "don't fancy you any more, no sex" or sex is abuse, no more of that or only oral sex you on me or whatever that is changing the goal posts. Couples in long relationships have to cope with the other changing but if the original deal was there would be sex just as the original deal might be the woman earns £200k and will always work or we are both quite slim and hate fat people and neither of us must never get fat or both hated chidlren and one suddenly wants them, the issues then are the same - is this a change I can live with because I love that person or is it too big a change?

Marriage was always and to an extent remains a contract. You can have your Nikkah terms drawn up at a mosque, atheists can go to a family lawyer and have terms drawn up including pre nups and in many cultures you buy the bride with cows or gold. It used to be implied in English law until the early 90s that part of the deal on marriage was a wife consented to sex with the husband (and rape did not exist in marriage). That is suggested in parts of Islam too and when recently in somewhere in the Middle East it was proposed to make that clear in the law there was some complaint.

So it is simply an issue of change. Plenty of women and men choose to live without a partner and are terribly happy and loads are in gay relationships and more people are celibate than gay even in the UK. On a site for mothers you are likely find most people are married with children that does not give you a true picture of all humans in the UK, plenty of whom are not involved with any kind of penetrative sex.

actually, inshined in marrage law in both islam and judaism women have the right to divorce not only for non-consumation but simply if the sex stops.

and we all think 'how forward, especialy for islam and the way that islam treats women' but clearly the fact women can enjoy sex has been known for quite some time

WidowWadman, I already said this on the thread; I might feel inclined to explore them with you if this thread were less adversarial. But it isn't, so I don't.

If this thread were not hostile to the radical point of view I would gladly explore it with you. I have already had personal remarks made about me 'fighting demons between my ears' by thechairmanmeow because I have touched on the rad fem analysis of PIV. Sorry but I don't feel inclined to explore political and analytical issues on a thread that is hostile and personal.

I do happen to think that going away and reading by oneself is a good way to discover things, I agree that exchanging with others is of value too, however too much of the potential value is lost when a discussion becomes adversarial and personal. You may not identify with radical feminism, but surely if you are genuinely interested in it there is nothing to stop you reading about it?

I could tell you about what I have read about PIV in radical feminism but I will be judged as not liking sex/being a prude/fighting demons that only exist in my head/being an extremist, etc purely for presenting a point of view to you. Why would I do that? Why would I try to have a serious and explorational conversation with people who are hostile and playing 'gotcha'? No point, waste of my time and energy.

I'm not used to doing feminist discussion like that. I'm more used to people exploring ideas, asking questions and considering with respect another point of view, even if it is one they don't agree with, or feel comfortable with. The point is not to 'debate' or show up another person to be wrong or crazy - the point is to shift the Overton Window and chew the fat on ideas that are questioning of the status quo. The end result may be to reject the ideas but there is nothing wrong with talking about them.

thechairmanmeow I asked you not to address me if you couldn't refrain from getting personal. Shame your above post neither refrained from getting personal, nor respected my request.

BTW mansplaining doesn't mean that your contributions are worth less because you are a man. Your implication that I am being abusive towards you is unpleasant and not a little silly (but also extremely offensive with regards to abuse victims).

I'm reporting you for your personal attack on dittany. Not cricket to attack another poster who isn't even here to defend herself.

I certainly don't mind putting the argument for why it could be regarded as objectionable, although that is not my view. I can certainly understand how someone could put forward that position.

I also have no problem discussing this, it is an interesting issue to explore. But I would want to it to be a discussion rather than one side or person trying to win the argument.

I think the problem is that you put the words 'radical feminism' in your thread title.

Thereby you have sparked the interest of a number of posters whose posts are designed to be critical and attacking of radical feminism and indeed radical feminists as people. The point is not to explore an idea but to put a lid on it. The idea is crazy, the people who explore it have psychiatric issues, demons in their heads, issues about sex, etc. (And yet it is the radical feminists who are accused of nasty bullying behaviour )

Same old same old.

With a few nasty personal remarks about individual posters and a general sense of glee that there are fewer radical posters in this section than there used to be.

Charming.

Still I guess the world is a more comfortable place if we all sit around and express how jolly PIV is rather than analyse its place in male dominated society. Hardly a feminist discussion, nor a political one but hey, that seems to be the norm in this here 'feminist' section more and more these days.

Yes I should probably have used a different title. It is sad that we can't have an actual discussion on the issues and I do find it really interesting when we are able to do that on the feminism board. And I like hearing views that I haven't heard before. Even if I end up not agreeing with them, it helps to form your own views to hear them.

I can understand a critical analysis of PIV being attacked if posted in AIBU or CHAT, but here I think we should be able to actually discuss stuff like this. And I wasn't here when there were more radical feminist posting, but I wish they were still here. Although I can understand why they are not.