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

How many missing boys are there Beach? Are you saying that talking about and theorising about killing boys is OK then? Cos it's just talking, not remotely unhinged at all?

You have found a different outlet Sardine, it's called rad feminism.

Without the quotes (in context) it's hard to discuss what this person may or may not have said and whether they were serious.

The fact of millions of actual missing girls is quite a big deal though, I'd have thought, really shocking.

Sigmund much as it could be an interesting way to pass the time, radical feminists theorizing about killing boys as a logical (although unlikely in reality) radical solution to the oppression and killing of girls and women (something that is real and actually happens), is a bit off topic really for this thread isn't it?

How about both you and I comment on what Femonade says on PIV. Yunno in the spirit of not derailing good manners and answering the OP?

how can it be unhinged to just theorise about anything, especially about reducing the male population - unless you like war and genocide and various other almost exclusively perpetrated by men atrocities?

I'm in favour of doing it humanely of course.

SF, what point are you trying to make?

Nobody on here is going to attempt to defend an indefensible argument about killing children, be they boys or girls.

In terms of the website, which I haven't looked at, whatever comments may have been on there on this issue are no longer there. I am not really interested in seeing supposed screen captures or whatever of anybody's supposed internet comments, be they radical feminists or MRAs. A lot of it is highly misleading, doctored, out of context and so on, and is essentially just playground gossiping when the people in question have no real power. It is not as if we are uncovering secret CIA plots to steal our children. It would be better to discuss the actual argument in hand than get into this speculation about who may be harbouring a repugnant opinion or attitude.

I'm sorry Sardine, but when it comes to missing girls..how can you be so utterly horrified by that on the one hand, and utterly pro-choice on the other. How many millions of missing people are there here in the west?

Beach, FCM's comments on PIV are utterly incomprehensible. She is a nutjob of the highest order. I have no wish to enter into a discussion about her ravings.

Anyhow, I shall leave you all to it.

nutjobs raving incomprehensibly? that would never ever ever do

watch out for the packs of militant vigilante feminists when the cull starts though

Perhaps Sigmunde actually had this in mind from today's press and was so concerned and inadvertently derailed the thread?

www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-2148350/Female-foetuses-Beed-fed-dogs-hide-evidence.html

Ah, no this is just actual missing girls rather than ironic talk about metaphorical missing boys, so can't be...

Personally I've giving up eating babies - the indigestion's a real bugger.

It is perfectly possible to be pro choice and critical of the context in which an abortion takes place. And from what the women in that BBC article are saying, they didn't have much choice in the matter.

I love that the Daily Mail's suddenly a great read when something like this crops up! Yes I've read it, yes it's vile. As for metaphorical missing boys, I'll refer you to my post of 17:37:29.

Sorry to be so tasteless as to respond to the initial topic, but the thing to read is (of course) Andrea Dworkin's Intercourse. There's a discussion of what's in the book on Wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercourse_(book)

I did read it a couple of years ago, but my memory isn't clear enough to agree or disagree with whether the Wikipedia article gets the tone right or not.

Clickable link, sorry:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercourse_(book)

'It is perfectly possible to be pro choice and critical of the context in which an abortion takes place.'

Of course, it's still hypocritical though.

Thanks Tei, i will read it

"I'm sorry Sardine, but when it comes to missing girls..how can you be so utterly horrified by that on the one hand, and utterly pro-choice on the other. How many millions of missing people are there here in the west? "

If the girls can't be aborted then they are drowned in a bucket, thrown out in the rubbish, or die of malnutrition/starvation/treatable illnesses as the family do not want to expend any valuable resources on a mere girl. Hardly a better proposition, is it.

I would rather the girls be aborted than drowned at birth or left to starve.

The missing girls are an issue because it shows up the appalling attitude towards females in many parts of the world - they are unwanted and disposable. It is a small part of a big picture which goes on to include things like women being property, bleach being used to mutilate, "honour" murder, FGM and all the rest of it.

The abortion debate is different to the missing girls debate. The issues are different. The point of the argument is different.

It isn't hypocritical at all. Nobody is in favour of abortion being something that a woman ends up having to go through. Nobody is sat around thinking that they hope their daughter ends up having an abortion when she grows up. People just differ on how best we can change the context to reduce that being somebody's experience and replace it with something more positive. That applies to both the UK and India.

Sorry eatsbrains for going off topic.

No problem sardine

Sardine, I am not saying that those circumstances aren't abhorrent...of course they are, this does not happen on a massive scale though, abortions do. A lot of the 'missing girls' aren't actually dead, they are in society but aren't registered. Which brings it's own problems, and is unacceptable.

I am simply saying, that the author of femonade advocates the termination of male foetuses only. This is a fact, she does. It concerns me that people are OK with this. I am not OK with this, nor am I OK with the fact that there are a large number of missing girls...I'm not OK with any of it.

But who are you arguing against? Who on MN is saying it is okay?

Anyway, I am going to stop derailing. Really am going this time.

You say that she advocates that and people are OK with that.

I see no evidence that she does advocate it, or that people are OK with it.