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

It is bizarre when we have this natural programming to have sex in this way, even if we are female.

Strangely, there seems to be such a strong emphasis on it being a bad thing. Odd considering how many woman say of their own free will that their children are the best thing in their lives...

It is nutty to say that woman only have PIV because they are trauma bonded. Sorry.

The interesting thing about this thread is the focus on western liberal democracies.

If you look around the world at certain countries there is no doubt that PIV causes more trouble than it's worth (for women anyway). To coin a phrase - of course in countries where the consequences are frequently death/permanent disability and women's "choice" as to who they have sex with, how and when is not really a choice at all it is a lot more than a bit of "trouble".

And many people would argue that it isn't exactly all roses in liberal western democracies either.

Not sure why this conversation is so narrow in its focus.

Technically you don't need it to keep the human race going as there are other methods to grow babies these days.

Of course people can choose what they do but it's good to take an informed choice and consider the feminist implications. Plenty of people choose to celibate and many women are gay. There are plenty of ways to swing a cat if you want to swing it at all.

What is the radfem reading then of the situation when women are not happy at not getting as much PIV as they would like, e.g. whilst trying to conceive, or once they're pregnant (and he's reluctant due to all kinds of unfounded fears)?

It's not only men who want it, and sometimes it's men who want it less than their partners.

How is it narrow in its focus? The OP is about PIV being inherently abusive, whih admittedly is a very narrow focus, however, the posters have opened up the discussion. Of course PIV can be abusive so can anything.

I would say it was integral to society as a whole, because if it wasn't, we wouldn't be here to discuss it endlessly. Fact It's a pitty that Pandas are not that bothered about it. As it is many women go through abortions (no I'm not anti-choice) every year because PIV is seen as the main course to all het sexual activity.

We are made that way, most women enjoy PIV, I guess this is the big joke, women are made to suffer for something they enjoy whilst men run very few risks.

Even the law recognises that their is a difference between sexual assault and rape. Rape is rightly considered a more serious offence???? Therefore a difference between all other sexual activity and PIV or any other orifice?? ah.....but no not quite. A man forcing a women to perform oral, would that still be rape or is that assault?

'But you see, nobody is saying that PIV is not sometimes fun and nice.'

Really? I don't recall seeing a single 'PIV is fun and nice thread' in FWR.

'We are saying that it is a bit weird that it is considered to be the mainstream definition of 'sex'.'

Why is it weird though? Seriously. Why is it weird that it is considered the mainstream definition?

'And we are saying that it carries a disproportionate risk for the female partner.'

Not particularly in the West.

'And we are saying that it seems to carry a disproportionate level of importance (fetishization) within male dominated society.'

Well, as always, this is your viewpoint. And who is to say that your viewpoint is the correct one? It is one of many, all jostling to be heard.

"We are made that way, most women enjoy PIV, I guess this is the big joke, women are made to suffer for something they enjoy whilst men run very few risks. "

Women is a generalistion of epic proportions. I don't suffer through having PIV with my partner. I enjoy it, it carries no risks and it has given me my beautiful son. Please dont generalise in such a careless way, it doesn't help your viewpoint.

It's all pretty basis. It's how we continue the species so not surprisingly men and women both tend to like it, although not all of them.

"What is the radfem reading then of the situation when women are not happy at not getting as much PIV as they would like, e.g. whilst trying to conceive, or once they're pregnant (and he's reluctant due to all kinds of unfounded fears)?"
If they want more than is on offer which is not uncommon? I suppose they could buy it in or take a second man/husband or ditch the first one.

I suppose they could buy it in you make it sound like ordering a pizza.

To generalise, you have to at very least have mainstream backing and robust evidence, even then it could be an inaccurate portrayal of the facts.

NO body is generalising in the quite the way you think and even if I generalise, by definition electic I do not mean you as an individual.

SQ, but the western view IS relevant too and we are told we should ignore that because of all the bad stuff elsewhere. And I'd like to hazard a guess and suggest that I'm sure women outside the first world like sex too. Just a thought...

Lack of medical treatment after having a child, is not about the act of having sex in my mind. Its about a lack of health care in general that extends beyond lack of services for women.

How about separating abuse from sex rather than insisting that the two can not be separated. Abuse is abuse. Sex is sex. You can have abusive sex, you can have loving sex. Not all sex is abusive. This is using the theory that because sex is sometimes used as an abusive weapon, it must be an abusive thing to do across the board, which simply isn't true. Not to mention that humans as a species are drawn to risk and thrive and enjoy it...

Taking the idea and suggesting that women only have sex because society tells them or because they are afraid of their partner in some way is stupid. Its being in denial that loving relationships exist throughout the world and that women take an active free choice in having it.

But then I think that suits the purposes of RadFems to deny that good relationships between men and women are achievable and do exist.

"'We are saying that it is a bit weird that it is considered to be the mainstream definition of 'sex'.'

Why is it weird though? Seriously. Why is it weird that it is considered the mainstream definition? "

Because lots of people have sex lives that do not include PIV and they are still having sex.
Because people's sex lives (especially young people / early sexual experiences) would be a lot better all round for so many reasons if PIV and male orgasm were not seen as the definition of "sex".
I'm sure there's more but I'm very tired and can't be arsed to think more at the mo.

Gosh.

A feminist space, within which, the concept that PIV is not the be all and end all of sex, being considered an extreme point of view, how, um, patriarchal.

Used to be all fields around here, and all that.

But "buying it in" doesn't work with the anti-prostitution stance in radical feminism.

When I was in that situation, I left my then boyfriend, as I simply didn't want to give up sex for good at age 22.

I was just asking the question as PIV is here always discussed as something men want and women are conditioned to want, or coerced into. So it'd be interesting to get the, err, critical analysis of the situation when tables are turned.

"NO body is generalising in the quite the way you think and even if I generalise, by definition electic I do not mean you as an individual."

It is certainly an education in the English language being on this board.

"I guess this is the big joke, women are made to suffer for something they enjoy whilst men run very few risks. "

How is that not a massive generalisation? Women? But of course I must have misunderstood because most of this debate is in riddles.

Would it be possible for people to open their mind to the fact that patriarchy might not be the only influencing factor in life?

Oh, yes please, I think economics is the big baddie really.

I wonder if women worried about PIV before we had coinage?

There is quite a lot of evidence to suggest that ancient nomadic peoples tried to keep the birth rate low.

PMSL at the 'don't talk about the war' attempts to shut down feminist discussion and analysis.

Except it isn't funny. It is a shame. Why do people do this?

We have desires as women. They are not restricted to men. They are not an exclusive man privilege. Would be nice if that was recognised too. I thought that was a feminist way of thinking. But it appears not.

I suspect attitudes vary depending on availability of contraception.

"PMSL at the 'don't talk about the war' attempts to shut down feminist discussion and analysis.

Except it isn't funny. It is a shame. Why do people do this?"

Are you indirectly ( which is far too common on threads) saying that considering that patriarchy is not the only influence in people's lives is equivalent to saying don't talk about the war. I love how there is so much ambiguity in some of these posts. I also love how there are some very standard techniques used to try to stop people from posting.

Righto. I think I'll just myself off this depressing (feminist) thread where (feminist) exploration, discussion and analysis are Not Wanted.

Vashti, I suspect contraception has a large role too.