Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Radical feminism and PIV

330 replies

EatsBrainsAndLeaves · 23/05/2012 11:57

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

OP posts:
SigmundFraude · 25/05/2012 11:36

'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.'

Oh give over, they're all in the relationships section, they haven't gone far!

Beachcomber · 25/05/2012 11:57

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.

Yes, I agree with you. I get that some people don't wish to discuss these things themselves but I'm always a little bewildered as to why posters get involved in discussions about things they don't wish to be discussed. Most odd.

I'm an atheist but I don't feel the need to go and tell the spiritual/faith lot that their discussions are extremist and INSANE. Perhaps because I have manners and am not threatened by things I don't agree with being discussed?

I think a lot of radical feminists got put off posting here due to trolling and personal attacks. It is tiresome, tedious and a waste of time trying to have discussions under a constant barrage of 'rad fems are insane, nuts, extremist, anti-sex, oppressive, bullies, nasty, read too much, prudes, express their views too much, don't explain their views enough' type stereotypes.

The personal attacks are pretty unpleasant too.

Beachcomber · 25/05/2012 11:58

The irony can be quite good value though Grin.

Alameda · 25/05/2012 12:12

I think the 'expanding' troll ('can you expand on this' 'can you expand on that' obviously he says other things too) genuinely sincerely believes in the broken record technique, if he just repeats himself everywhere he will eventually succeed in changing people's minds, because he has so much faith in his way of seeing things it has become 'common sense' to him. We all need a sense of purpose and meaning in life I suppose.

But it is a bit like going onto any board, like the one about tents and caravans, and chuntering on about how mental you'd have to be to go camping when there are perfectly nice hotels.

Beachcomber · 25/05/2012 12:24

I'm quite baffled by the 'I have an earnest and genuine interest that requires you to spend time going over things I fundamentally disagree with and I think are loopy' vibe, quite bizarre too.

I wonder if I popped over to camping and asked the caravan fans to spend lots of time explaining the basics of caravanning to me, after having posted masses of times that I think caravans are rubbish and the people who use then crazy, if I would get a good reception?

I'm thinking.......not.

Feminists however, especially radical feminists Have A Duty to Explain Things ad naseum whilst being called insane and abusive bullies. Otherwise they are Letting Down Their Cause and Putting People Off Feminism or Not Allowing Genuine Folks To Understand.

Once they have finished doing the explaining they get called names for being patronising and domineering.

It is the law.

EatsBrainsAndLeaves · 25/05/2012 12:25

Yes it is the law sadly. Which is why it was useful to have the links above posted, it has really helped me to understand the argument better. But I cba with the same old same from those who just want to attack and derail

OP posts:
Alameda · 25/05/2012 12:27

(I do actually think camping is completely mental though Blush)

EatsBrainsAndLeaves · 25/05/2012 12:29

I don't!!! Grin

But the point is you wouldn't go over there and tell them that.

OP posts:
Alameda · 25/05/2012 12:33

I'd like to think I have better things to do with my time, but am probably just too lazy. And I have that mental disorder where am not sufficiently arrogant to appoint myself Changer Of Minds.

EatsBrainsAndLeaves · 25/05/2012 12:34

I think for me it is definitly the lack of arrogance

OP posts:
Alameda · 25/05/2012 12:37

camping is a properly extreme activity though isn't it? the wholesale rejection of all known physical comforts, is it a sort of masochism

I might even find out for myself this summer if my daughter has her way and we die of heat exhaustion pushing a dodgy campervan around Sardinia

thechairmanmeow · 25/05/2012 12:39

i cannot belive after what i have been witnessed to on these threads,( radfems wadeing in to give a victim a good verbal kicking) that you have the ordacity to cry boohoo and mistreatment when someone disagrees with you.

feminism interests me, and has become more interesting to me over time , i'm not a woman, but i can identify an in justice when i see one, as arther daily said, "you dont have to have measells to know you can get spots".

beachcomer, as your addressing me i'll still adress you.
'glass houses' beachcomber, if you dont want people getting personal, dont make personal remarks to them. also, i diddnt call you anything, simply pointed out that your post doesnt explain what PIV critical means , only kicks back against it's possible adversaries, who's phantom opinions you have chosen for them, i certainly havent heard them here.

my position hasnt changed, i'm open to a proper debate about this, without the adversarial tone, i really want to understand the thinking behined the whole 'PIV critical' thing. the radfemhub states that "all posts muct be PIV critical". well suround yourself with 'yes women' and sycophants and you will have that safe area devoid of other opinions or common sense for that matter.
it's like you want to have a conversation where one set of opinions are silenced.

Alameda · 25/05/2012 12:40

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

EatsBrainsAndLeaves · 25/05/2012 12:40

No camping can be fun. I actually like the work of camping - the walking down to the sink to wash plates, boiling a kettle, etc. Although admittedly we mainly eat at the pub!

But I always see it as a cheap holiday. What I can't fathom are friends who spend loads on camping equipment and paying for pitches on more expensive sites. I look at what they spend and just think, you could be in a b&b for that price.

And a campervan in Sardinia sounds great - although not so sure about the dodgy bit!

OP posts:
Huansagain · 25/05/2012 12:43

Campers don't want to change society, they want to go camping.

It seems to me RadFems do want to change society, it's quite hard to glean exactly how society should be though.

I've read views on porn, transwomen, PIV sex and separatism, but what actually are Radical feminists objectives?

thechairmanmeow · 25/05/2012 12:43

i'm also an athiest but i spent a whole evening a few years ago in the spitfire bar in alexandria talking about religeon with an austrailian catholic preist, we diddnt judge each other, allthough we clearly thought differently about things.
i could have told him that he might as well belive in the tooth fairy as god, and he could have told me that i will burn in the eternal flames of desire in my afterlife. but we diddnt, and it was a very enjoyable evening.

Alameda · 25/05/2012 12:44

but where do you poo? I like my Armitage Shanks or continental equivalent beneath me

I can't imagine just curling one out on the grass of a campsite somewhere?

thechairmanmeow · 25/05/2012 12:45

thank you for that insight alameda, i'm deslexic actually.

EatsBrainsAndLeaves · 25/05/2012 12:46

Huans - I think part of the issue here is that posters like me are exploring ideas. That means I can't answer your questions about what do all radical feminists think/want, because I don't know.

I know radical feminism is about saying its not enough just to reform things e.g. chnage a few laws, try and educate a few men. What is needed is to totally change how society is run. And I agree with that. What would it actually look like? Who knows?

OP posts:
EatsBrainsAndLeaves · 25/05/2012 12:47

Alameda - In the toilet of course! You go to a basic campsite with a shower and toilet block and a couple of sinks to wash up in with hot water.

OP posts:
BasilBabyEater · 25/05/2012 14:04

"'m pleased that elecric shock, WW and other less radical feminists are here these days "

Yeah I bet you are.

Hmm
EatsBrainsAndLeaves · 25/05/2012 14:05

Love the name change!

OP posts:
thechairmanmeow · 25/05/2012 14:19

whats meant by that basil?
are there too many people here with the 'wrong' opinions?

HmmThinkingAboutIt · 25/05/2012 14:54

Perhaps if people didn't insist of using the ridiculous term PIV and making this sweeping statement that the goal of sex as being misogynous, you'd get a better debate on the subject.

Instead with the initial wording of the thread, it gets started off with a wholly negative approach to the subject where women are straight away painted as victims and have no free will of their own.

I just feel rather than questioning whether RadFems think that PIV is inherently abusive you are actually doing the same thing, by saying its 'inherently unsafe'. And I'm not sure that the OP even in questioning the idea that sex is inherently abusive really gets very far at all from that line of thinking. Yes there are risks in having sex, but then there tends to be risks in pretty much everything you do in life, so I'm not sure that critically tearing it apart is helpful or going to achieve much. For the majority of women its a risk that they calculate and decide also has benefits to, for them as well as their partners.

When some of us say, hang on a second this is all bollocks, the debate gets turned to outside the first world and theres more sweeping statements about how women are the victims of sex.

Well yes of course they can be, but I also think its a tiny bit patronising and making massive assumptions to say its the only thing going on and how women in the first world are the only ones who might shock horror enjoy sex, and might have genuinely loving relationships.

My major problem with RadFeminism, is not only its obsession with women as victims but also its utter inability to look at things in a positive way or make positive comment about things. Its all about the bad stuff and theres no balance whatsoever to whats said. There is a need to associate everything with stuff that is inherently bad purely for debating purposes and to tar everything with the word misogynist, often to make things appear worse than they are and to make everything black and white.

If there is risk to sex, then I'm not sure thats completely a bad thing. The OP certainly makes the automatic assumption that it is a bad thing.

There are plenty of people who are drawn to risky and find it exciting and more attractive for that very reason. Why do people do loads of things they know they shouldn't? I think its something that applies to both men and women. Everything from having a quickie in a public place where you might get caught to having a full blown affair when actually someone has no intention of leaving their partner.

Equally, the element of risk, can make you stop and think and prevents you from engaging in things without considering consequences. Again, I do believe it goes for men and women, though not necessarily in equal measure.

Imagine life where there was no risk whatsoever in having sex... risk is a natural thing to control the balance of things in nature.

Having a debate where we are all supposed to go, well PIV is bad as it is risky and its used to abuse women is not a debate. Like someone else has said, thats surrounding yourself with 'yes women'.

Abuse very rarely, if ever, is carried out by PIV alone. Its accompanied by other forms of violence and abuse. Focusing on the act of PIV, I find pretty unhelpful really.

I've got to say, I'd have a lot more time for some debaters if they were capable of uttering a note of positivity and critically assessing something as having benefits as well as negative elements. Give women some power in what you say too, instead of helping to take it away. The world is not black and white, and I really do think it does a disservice to women to completely ignore another side of the coin, because it doesn't suit the argument you want to have and how you want to control it. Critically assessing something, is not just being sourfaced and saying how we are all victims.

KRITIQ · 25/05/2012 15:00

I hope folks won't think I'm diverting too much here, but can I ask a question or two for clarification?

The discussion generally is about PIV (i.e. Penis in Vagina) sexual intercourse and whether or not some radical feminists see the practice as inherently misogynist and abusive, and why they believe this to be so (if they do.)

It seems to be coming through that while some here recognise PIV can be used as a tool of abuse and control, it can also be pleasurable as a sexual practice and for the purpose of conception, if you want to have children. The tricky issue is that I don't think it's that easy to distinguish between what a woman genuinely wants from what women have been socially conditioned to believe that they want.

Thing is, if we focus on PIV as a practice being problematic, could we not be missing the fact that other forms of sexual contact can also be abusive, can also present risks to physical and emotional health and well-being?

What's prompted me on this is a convo with a colleague who works with vulnerable young women and girls. Many of them are being coerced or forced into engaging in sexual acts that don't necessarily involve PIV, but these are most definitely abusive and controlling. For example, girls are "expected" to give blow jobs to their boyfriend's mates, or they are pressured to film themselves or go on webcam masturbating. In pornography, the dominant images aren't necessarily about PIV, but involve things like anal sex, oral sex and ejaculating on the face. Young men seem to be picking up the message that PIV isn't the be all and end all of sex, but they are expecting women to perform sexual acts that also carry risks of physical or psychological harm. The other problem for young women is that because these acts don't involve PIV, they don't see what's happening to them as "genuine abuse."

First off, I just wanted to clarify whether those who are saying PIV is inherently problematic regard other forms of sexual contact as "okay," (and I don't think they do, but it's just not being mentioned.)

And, I suppose the other question is might there be a risk of focussing so strongly on the practice of PIV being the problem that we miss the wider context that there are other sexual practices that can be used to abuse and control women that aren't being discussed and analysed so much?

Swipe left for the next trending thread