Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

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:
thechairmanmeow · 23/05/2012 22:24

i agree with eclectic shock on this.

it's just a crazy idea from some person who maybe doesnt enjoy sex and the has worked out that women in general dont either and their all having sex to please the patriachy.

someone upthread said that PIV was 'cultural', well, caveman and woman diddnt have a turky baster so PIV was their only option and if they haddnt used it we wouldnt be here talking about PIV. and as chinese penises enterd chinese vaginas as african penises enterd african vaginas i see no cultural difference.

i do agree that PIV carries more risks for a woman than for a man, but thats nature, not the patriachy.

EclecticShock · 23/05/2012 22:26

Why is biology being ignored?

notenoughsocks · 23/05/2012 22:27

Apologies Seahorses. I was just so excited about joining in again :-)

OK. Here is my thoughts on 'why':

Most of of my feminist theory - what there is of it - is grounded in the seventies and is outdated. However, I believe that there is sometimes a tendency for feminists, as all theorists, to follow a theory or train of thought to its rational conclusion. I am thinking here, for instance, of those old school feminists who claim that they were not allowed to take their young sons along to feminist separatist events and gatherings. As the OP says, PIV sex is inherently unsafe and that viewing PIV sex as 'the goal' is mysoginistic. It is not too hard to imagine how you could then, if you were being ruthlessly logical (as I think that link was in a sort of sense) how you could argued that PIV is always abusive.

TeiTetua · 23/05/2012 22:29

So I'm seeing the disputed quotes occurring in the comments of that radicalhub.com blog in October and November of last year, is that right? Certainly not made up out of thin air.

It does seem as if there are a few people, at least when they're speaking theory and aren't using any kind of traceable name, who say the world would be better off without men. And presumably, they'd say women would be better off not having penis-in-vagina sex with men.

I don't think Dworkin ever went this far. I believe her idea was that women are assumed to want piv sex, when there's a whole range of levels of consent that women can have towards it, with full enthusiasm being much less common than it ought to be, given the amount of sex people are having. So she'd say that there should be less piv sex, and when men want it, they should give much more attention to whether women want it too.

EclecticShock · 23/05/2012 22:30

PIV is inherently unsafe for both sexes in some situations. Not all situations and not just females. Generalisation really is a killer....

EclecticShock · 23/05/2012 22:31

Why does it matter so much what one person... I.e dwokin, thinks? Surely it's about women in the majority?

EclecticShock · 23/05/2012 22:33

Not disagreeing with you tei, I just don't understand why people keep quoting the same feminists, theories and research moves on...

FrothyTheCrazyFeminazi · 23/05/2012 22:33

But doesn't it carry more risks for women, Eclectic?

Sorry, mainly observing here...

Alameda · 23/05/2012 22:34

sex isn't just about making babies though, in fact it hardly ever is

surely most of us do it for fun and PIV is one way of having fun but gets such an inordinate amount of emphasis you can't even question it without people assuming you mean all sex

it has never been the only option, am sure even when we were monkeys we found ways to stimulate ourselves while the males were enjoying lots of bum fun with one another

don't personally agree that it's inherently abusive but glad the common sense thought police haven't shut down the right to explore the ways places and times in which it might be

EclecticShock · 23/05/2012 22:37

Why do you think it carries more risks for women if you use condoms and pull for example. If you take precautions how does it carry more risks? You can make PIV safe.

EclecticShock · 23/05/2012 22:38

Pill not pull.

EclecticShock · 23/05/2012 22:40

Yes certainly in some times and places... It's abusive. The minority. Like feeding someone or acting in a way you think is loving. It is not akin to violence which is generally always abusive. Surely common sense can explain this.

RulersMakeBadLovers · 23/05/2012 22:41

PIV sex is not equally unsafe for both sexes. PIV sex (and it's consequences) has been a primary tool (har) used against women, along with more generalised violence. Perhaps not consciously. And perhaps, it could be argued, not so much among today's western women (although I would disagree with that).

The language around PIV sex (and anal sex) among some (many) groups of men suggests that it is not at all unproblematic from a feminist pov.

EclecticShock · 23/05/2012 22:43

Its all about the specific situation and context. Anything can be abusive in an inappropriate situation or context. It's not rocket science.

WidowWadman · 23/05/2012 22:44

What is actually the value of repeating the lie that penetrative intercourse is risk-free for men? They can catch STDs, too, y'know. And some of them kill. If a man thinks that he's safe from STDs, then that's something that should be challenged instead of being spun into some bonkers political point about how pentetrative sex is unsafe for women only.

EclecticShock · 23/05/2012 22:45

Yes because it's call PIV, penis in vagina, so therefore logically when it is abusive in certain situations it's against women. But penetration is also used as a tool against men.

Alameda · 23/05/2012 22:45

the pill brings far too many dangers of its own, ideally we could develop a fully reversible vasectomy which would be great from prevention of pregnancy point of view though - when men decide they are ready to start a family they could have it reversed

and condoms to protect from disease but that's all penetrative sex involving a penis isn't it, not just vaginal?

don't see how you can extol hormonal contraception for women and then talk about common sense

EclecticShock · 23/05/2012 22:46

Completely agree, PIV has risks for men and women, it's up to individuals to protect themselves against it.

EclecticShock · 23/05/2012 22:48

alemanda please elaborate, your post didn't make sense to me.

WidowWadman · 23/05/2012 22:49

Ah, the old chestnut about evil hormonal contraception again. The evil hormones which help countless girls and women to not have to go through agonising pain every few weeks.

What is the anti-pill sentiment about? Does it interfer with magic womb special powers woo?

EclecticShock · 23/05/2012 22:49

A fully revisible vasectomy would no doubt bring increased risk to the male as norhing is perfect.

RulersMakeBadLovers · 23/05/2012 22:50

It's not equally risky. And yes, to the hormonal contraception point.

EclecticShock · 23/05/2012 22:52

Why is it not equally risky?

WidowWadman · 23/05/2012 22:53

Thing is, would you trust a guy who said he had his vasectomy in order to secure condom-free intercourse? As pregnancy is a higher physical risk to the woman, personally I'd want to be 100% sure that all necessary precaution has been taken. Which, in a casual encounter would have to be a condom at the very least, but preferably backed up with a second method, in case of condom failure.

Alameda · 23/05/2012 22:55

I don't know about magic powers but lots of women can't have the pill. Anyone over 35 who smokes, for example.