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

I think PIV is problematic and I do think it is oppressive that it is considered 'sex' and it is misogynistic that women are expected to do it several times a month or be considered unhinged and or 'frigid'.

PIV carries a high risk for the female and negligible risk for the male - and it is fetishised by male dominated society. Go figure....

And I've already stated my point of view on killing boy babies - I eat several a week. Next!

She absolutely does advocate it, she spelled it out in black and white. Anyone who links to her blog and says 'read this, she has good/interesting views' is OK with it.

Right, REALLY am going this time.

Yes I agree with OP "I can understand why PIV sex is inherently unsafe and that viewing PIV sex as the goal of sex is misogynous." that is how I feel too.

I see the PIV = inherently abusive as a thing to think about / talk about rather than a position that radfems are supposed to actually take (a bit like eating babies - it's not compulsory).

SF - Are you really

Beach - I do understand the POV now about it being oppressive so that was really useful. She explains it at a much more basic level than other stuff I have read which is great thanks.

And I hate the frigid label or the absolute outrage if a straight women suggests she has a male partner but won't be involved in PIV. It is absolutely part of the "bargain".

Also thinking about it more, the first time I had PIV I knew it would probably hurt a bit. But I very much thought that is just what you have to do and after the first time it will get better. When I look back I didn't truly think I had any choice. I did think I had a choice with my partner, but I didn't think not engaging in PIV was a realistic choice.

sardine - That is a really useful post, thanks

And Beach I forgot to say that I am very very disappointed in you. Only 7!!! You really are letting the side down

I think it is interesting that it is considered very extreme to even talk about PIV in a critical manner. We had a thread about it a while back and there were lots of people who were clearly uncomfortable with the notion that women might even be saying 'hang on a minute' about PIV as an institution in society.

Yes, only seven! Still, I linked to something written by someone on the internet who once discussed the hypothetical radical solution of killing baby boys as a potentially logical theoretical position with regards to the reality of the global abusing, raping, killing, maiming, trafficking, imprisoning and slavery of women by men. So that probably shook the patriarchy good and proper. It means I agree with killing babies you see.

In fact anyone who questions PIV agrees with killing babies dontcha know. (See first paragraph of post.)

Yes it is considered very extreme to even talk about PIV critically. But I understand that as that was my initial instinct on first reading something arguing that PIV was abusive. It is totally an ingrained fundamental given.

I would be interested in reading that other thread. Was it in feminism?

And Beach - you do realise what we have written about eating babies may come back to haunt us! I can see in a few months time someone posting - well don't listen to them they advocated eating male babies on another thread.

Yes I do. I shall laugh my behind off if it happens.

Here is the thread. www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/1281690-Does-penetration-presumption-of-power-control

Oh don't go Siegmund, we want to see the screen grabs

Which I suspect don't exist because you've made it up.

Oh and if you think it's hypocritical to be horrified that women are being forced to abort their baby girls while being absolutely in favour of women's right to control what happens to their bodies, then you are not very good at thought.

HTH.

Nom nom, scoff scoff, yum yum yum.

Right, that's the baby eaten, where's the lemon drizzle cake?

I have no idea what you lot are talking about

at me not being good at thought. Bit rich coming from a someone who reads from a script.

You know damn fine I haven't made it up.

Enjoy the drizzle cake, make sure you wash it down with a big cup of hypocrisy

So where are the links?

Where are the screen grabs?

DunnI about any eating of selective aborting of male babies that the linked-to blog may ever have advocated but I stopped reading after the second time of misrepresenting what transphobia is.

I think it's worth discussing/critiquing PIV in principle but I don't think that her arguments (from as far as I read) are going to cut it for most people.

Should it be BasilBabyBoyEater?

SF - the 100 million missing baby girls are not just unaccounted for on a census somewhere. Nor are they missing because there are an equivalent number of boys missing due to the statistical probabilities of abortion. They are missing because they have been aborted/murdered because they were girls.

There are well-discussed arguments that PIV is problematic from a feminist pov, or it can be, even without considering rape. They get dull when opponents of those arguments never listen to men or read what they write and/or don't start from a neutral position when thinking about them.

'Women need to stop raising male children. Women who raise male children are digging the graves of other females. Nobody wants to bite that bullet (except lesbian separatists) but it must be done.'

'it occurs to me that a female ob/gyn that was willing to perform sex-selective abortions on male fetuses would be giving a gift to the next generation, and preventing the future generation of girls and women being eaten alive.' (FCM)

'I think womyn need to stop giving birth to any more males?'

'i think a biological solution would be a radical solution. such as dispatching male babies at birth.' (FCM)

'Abortion of male foetuses is a relatively better solution. I also heard there are some pre-conception sex selection techniques for het womyn (e.g. Shettles? method) but I?m not sure if they work well?'

'Men oppress us, so it?s no good getting annoyed at women for raising boys, although I certainly agree that lowering the male population is important, and I?ll never forget those two midwives who killed every boy baby for decades to prevent the warring between the tribes.That is a hopeful, positive story.'

'Females don?t have to kill baby boys. Just not nurture them. Females are forced to birth baby boys, but beyond that a female?s physical actions are her own.
Males will die without the constant infusion of female energy that they get from our wombs and from our lives. They are perfectly welcome to take the male infants from the hands of the midwife, and what they do with it from that point is their decision.'

I'm not going to bother addressing this to SF because conversing with him/ her is neither edifying nor entertaining, but for any lurkers out there, the reason that it is not inconsistent to be horrified by women being forced to have abortions they don't want, versus supporting their right to have abortions they do want is, er. the word want there.

I support a woman's right to control her own body. Women who are being forced to abort their fetuses when they don't want to, are not in control of their own bodies. Women who are denied abortions they want, are not in control of their own bodies. Ergo, I'm against both.

I very much doubt that there are many people out there who are so hard of thinking that they don't already get that, but just in case. You're welcome.

Context please Sigmund?

You could always link to the whole article, then people could read them for themselves.

As I said (and I am female, incidentally) some of these comments have been removed, so there is no point linking you to the article, although you know precisely which article I am referring to.

You keep asking for context. Are you saying, that if the context was given and you agreed with it, these comments would be appropriate?

Um, no I don't SF, I read tons of stuff on t'interweb and I don't remember all of it.

But I'm flattered that you think I'm a walking encyclopaedia.

We're not mind readers... Sorry, Sigmund. I really have no idea which article you're on about...

And as Basil said, CONTEXT PLEASE!

BRB, just off to cook my son. Should I stew him or fry him?

Basil, I don't think it is just a question of whether or not a woman wants an abortion, it is also why she wants to have an abortion.

Why did she want to have the sex that ended in a pregnancy? This leads back into the whole PIV as norm issue.

Why did she/her partner choose or not choose a particular form of contraception? How safe and reliable was it? How available was it?

Does she want an abortion because she doesn't have the means to support that child and nobody else will help her? What is the social context around women not having means to support children?

Does she want an abortion because she doesn't have the means to support a disabled child and nobody will help her? What is the social context of that?

Does she want an abortion because nobody will support a female child?

Does she want an abortion because the means of support for her other children will be removed?

Does she want an abortion because having a child will make her homeless?

Does she want an abortion because of the social stigma as a consequence of her being too young, too old, unmarried or having too many children already in the eyes of society or her husband or family?

Does she want an abortion because she was raped? What is society doing to end that?

Does she want an abortion because of inadequate health care for her and any baby she might have?

There will be some women who have abortions for good reason, but there will also be many women who want an abortion because a society has created negative conditions under which they became pregnant in the first place, and/or a society has created conditions under which it would be intolerable or impossible to raise a child, impacting on the mother, the child and other children she is responsible for already.