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 camp

what happened there? crazy phone, wrong tab

The difference is, Electric, as far as I'm aware, the contraceptive pill is only ever prescribed to women. Therefore, its risks are unique to women.

Sure there's risks with most drugs. But most drugs are available to both sexes.

These bits re an increased risk of breast cancer and thrombosis... They're not just side effects. It's an INCREASED RISK of something that can potentially kill you...

Seahouses

Well, you can argue it any way you see fit. That doesn't make it valid. People will see what they want to see. The fact is its much safer and biologically easier to prescribe the pill. Please, to all of you lurkers, question some of the radical ideas in this area of mn. IMO radical feminism doesn't hold the answers to life anymore than radical Scientology does. It may seem to make sense at the outset, but when you are having doubts, please explore the doubts fully rather than look to be convinced.

Fwiw, looking to explore the theory that PIV is abusive is ridiculous and I'm glad not many people have given it lip service. Shit stirring springs to mind.

That should hav said "inherently abusive" to quote OP.

Seahouses - I haven't read Dworkin's intercourse so I can't comment on that. I have read a few radical feminists who have said all PIV sex is inherently abusive. But I do say in my post, do all radical feminists generally think PIV is abusive?

So I didn't know if this was a generally held view or not, hence the question. I also didn't understand why some radical feminists thought it was. It doesn't mean I am necessarily going to agree with them, I just wanted to understand the argument.

Why so you think you will understand the argument? Arguments can be very powerful but that doesn't make them valid. Why ate you concerned with such a question?

I thought that it was a shit stirry OP too. I mean only in its consequences, not its intention.

To me, it's like exploring the question, is rape ever right? You know it's not whether one person argues it well or not...

By consequences, do you mean posts like mine?

No, it's lovely to read such impassioned posts. I meant overall. But now I have Carly Simon in my head so thanks for that.

This was not set up as a thread to explore whether PIV is inherently abusive - I really don't want the shit that would come with a thread like that. That is why I specifically addressed it to radical feminists and their allies.

No a good argument does not mean it is valid. But if I dismiss an argument I want to know why I am dismissing it. I know exactly why I would dismiss the argument that rape can ever be right. In RL when people ask what I think about something, I will reasonably often say I don't know because I don't understand the issue enough e.g. foreign policy for UK in a particular country.

Well, my mother named me after carly Simon so thats very insightful :)

It's a great song :)

Not many radical fems have contributed so I guess the theory is pants :)

Not true Almeda. The pill is prescribed to women over 35 who smoke. I'm 44 and one of them. The mini pill is most usually prescribed. I'm happy to live with the minimal risks as I no longer bleed heavily for 3 weeks out of 4, have sore breasts all the time or have crippling 2 day hormonal migraines every month. The contraceptive side is just a bonus to me. DP would happily have the snip tomorrow but it wouldn't solve my peri-menopausal issues.

And I like PIV sex along with non PIV sex. So what?

"A human being has a body that is inviolate; and when it is violated, it is abused. A woman has a body that is penetrated in intercourse: permeable, its corporeal solidness a lie. The discourse of male truth?literature, science, philosophy, pornography?calls that penetration violation. This it does with some consistency and some confidence. Violation is a synonym for intercourse. At the same time, the penetration is taken to be a use, not an abuse; a normal use; it is appropriate to enter her, to push into (?violate?) the boundaries of her body. She is human, of course, but by a standard that does not include physical privacy. She is, in fact, human by a standard that precludes physical privacy, since to keep a man out altogether and for a lifetime is deviant in the extreme, a psychopathology, a repudiation of the way in which she is expected to manifest her humanity" Dworkin

radgeek.com/gt/2005/01/10/andrea_dworkin/

I am inclined to think that PIV is something that men do to women. I don't agree with the arguments about danger/contraception/death in child birth. I do think however that women are more emotionally invested because women's boundaries are violated, she is entered into, not just in a physical sense but psychologically. I do think that in society, in literature, films, pornography that the act is a violence delivered upon women and a way of oppressing women and reminding them of their status as object without integral boundaries or power.

Busters - I am not here arguing that PIV sex is inherently wrong.

But just thought I should say that just because someone likes a particular behaviour, doesn't mean that it is good for them. For example a teenage girl with low self esteem may like the attention of a leery older man who is effectively trying to groom her - but we would all I think condemn that behaviour and say it wasn't good for her.

But I am not talking about PIV here, just the common assumption that because we like something that means there is no inherent problem with it.

If posters want to discuss PIV sex might it be an idea to start a new thread on it?

"But I am not talking about PIV here, just the common assumption that because we like something that means there is no inherent problem with it."

You are questioning and talking about PIV indirectly, do you really think others don't see that. Denial or disingenuously, either way, people will have their own perceptions of what you are saying. Believe it or not, dressing it up doesn't actually change the meaning :)

I'd love to participate in your new thread.

Electic shock, I happen to enjoy PIV, I am simply highlighting the reality of it and Dworkin's writing on the subject. If you have nothing of interest to add only insults perhaps you should go pick a fight on a different playground?