So much in society would improve if we removed the emphasis on PIV.

[AnnieLobeseder]

Now don't get me wrong, I like PIV sex and don't believe it's quite as dreadful as some others do. But I have been thinking about the opinions expressed on these boards about how damaging it can be, and I see the point.

I'm a long-term married women with a monogamous partner who as has a vasectomy. So the risks of STDs and pregnancy are much lower (hopefully zero!) than for a young single woman who may choose to take casual lovers. So while I may enjoy PIV with little risk, for that young single woman, the risks are much higher than for her partners.

Then there are teenagers. Teenage pregnancy can leave a young women with much lower future prospects than if she had children later in life, and quite often the father doesn't stay in the picture. The cause of this, quite obviously, is PIV. If young people, and even older people who still face risks of STDs and pregnancy, were taught that ALL sex is sex, not just penetration, then everyone could have a satisfying sex life without these risks.

If there were no such thing as virginity, young people could slowly progress from kissing to oral and other sex acts without the need for the one big moment where penetration occurs.

I'm not a man, so I'm not qualified to comment, but I have to wonder if a man's orgasm outside of a vagina is really such a runner-up prize to orgasm within a vagina. If there's not much difference, WTF is PIV such a big deal? Is it a societal thing? But it's so widespread across the world that it seems unlikely.

Is it because PIV allows a man to orgasm even if the woman is uncooperative? Whereas with other methods, eg hand or mouth, she needs to be willing?

Surely if we removed the emphasis from PIV being such a big deal, things would be so much better, from there being fewer unwanted pregnancies, to fewer women suffering health issues from STDs or pregnancies (and men would have fewer STDs too), to couples probably having a deeper and more fulfilling sex life as they found new and creative ways to pleasure each other.

Yes, I know that I'm preaching to the converted for the most part here, and pardon me while I just get my thoughts down in print.

The bottom line of what I was thinking is, surely it would be beneficial to target a campaign at teens, instead of suggesting abstinence or pushing condoms (or perhaps alongside), with the message that All Sex is Sex, and All Orgasms are Good Orgasms. Spark the idea in their mind that perhaps PIV isn't the be-all and end-all, and that it's not an ultimate goal that needs to be hit.

Am I making any sense?

Agree mooncup - massively sweeping statement from Bonsoir.

I always thought lack of orgasm from PIV alone was more likely due to the intrinsic difficulties with positioning than any deep seated neuroses - but maybe I'm just not doing it right.

These last few posters who are having a go at me obviously haven't read the thread properly. I'm not suggesting PIV be stopped, or actively discouraged, nor will I deny that it's a biological urge.

But you can't tell me that the concept of virginity, or the fact that it applies only to PIV, thus PIV being considered the only 'real' sex, is not a man-made, construct. Why can't all sex be sex, so that if a woman chooses not to engage in PIV, there is no pressure on her to do so, with her partners happy to engage in other sex instead.

For example, many couples don't engage in oral sex for one reason or another, and while some of us may not entirely understand why not, we shrug and leave them to it. But if a couple decide not to engage in PIV there would be outrage at one/both of them being denied their right to 'real' sex.

The main thing people need to be taught about sex is that everyone having it should be enjoying it. Sexual activity should be about mutual pleasure, though admittedly this will involve taking turns to be the one getting and the one giving as plenty of sex acts don't involve immediate gratification for the active participant (you don't come from wanking someone else off).
But it should be absolutely Lesson 1 in sex education: if the other person is not participating with visible, tangible and audible enthusiasm then stop and find out what's wrong.

These last few posters who are having a go at me obviously haven't read the thread properly

Oh come off it, just because we disagree doesn't mean we haven't read the thread properly or are "having a go". It just means we don't think you are right.

IMO you haven't read the answers properly, in that we are trying to point out that PIV is what it is because it deeply biological. It's not a "man made" construct, it makes babies, which is what all life on earth is ultimately about, and which is why humans are so extremely interested in it above all other things.

I totally agree Annie, there are lots of things that people just don't like or choose not to do for various reasons and nobody blinks an eye, but when it comes to PIV it seems it's a different story.

I think it's unlikely that anyone would choose to only use it for procreation, though. Perhaps I'm too conditioned (quite probable!) but I think it's just so inbuilt that it's hard to imagine not doing it.

However, I'm sure that not all lesbian couples use dildo type toys, and they must find that satisfying enough, and I know there's a sizeable proportion of gay men who don't enjoy anal sex, so they must get by perfectly fine without penetration also. It shouldn't be such a stretch to imagine large numbers of heterosexual couples also being happy without PIV sex.

I think unfortunately OP you're simply overoptimistic. Your thesis is that the world would be a better place if we deprioritised PIV sex, but actually in sections of our teenaged culture where PIV sex has been superseded other forms of sex are used just as effectively to coerce and harass young women. It's not about the activities, it's about the attitudes.

Whatmeworry - I still don't think you're getting the point I'm trying to make. At no point have I denied that PIV is a deeply biological thing. I said that virginity is a man-made construct, and that the huge emphasis on PIV as the only real sex is also man-made.

You can file for divorce if your partner doesn't provide PIV. In some countries women are killed for participating in PIV before marriage. There is no other sex act where this is true, except perhaps anal sex, which is also about a man penetrating a woman. How is that biological?

I will certainly agree with Dilys that all attitudes to sex could do with changing, so that it is always seem as an act which should be mutually gratifying.

I'm not naive enough to think that this thread is anything other than an intellectual exercise, btw.

Virginity is not a man-made construct. You have either had penetrative sex or you haven't.

Of course it's man-made! Why on earth does it matter in any way if you've had penetrative sex or not? The concept is not instinctive or intrinsic to our human nature. The idea that you are "a virgin" before penetrative sex and "not a virgin" afterwards is entirely artificial.

Why on earth does it matter in any way if you've had penetrative sex or not?

Um......babies?

So because you're taken part in an act that may possibly lead to a baby, your whole status in the eyes of society should change? How bizarre. And you can get pregnant without penetration.

Yeah virginity is a man made/cultural concept. Definitely. And you can get pregnant while still being a virgin, technically, if you insert the sperm or fertilised embryo manually.

OP - you clearly do not understand the definition of a man-made construct. Hence your very laborious and over-thought OP.

What's your definition of a man-made construct, then...?

An example of a man-made construct is marriage.

So what you're saying is the concept of having had sex or not is not man made. Which I would agree with. But applying different states to the before and after and giving each a name is the man made construct, yes?

It's not a different state and it isn't conceptual. Virginity is a mere descriptor of a factual situation (= never had sex). When I lost my virginity nobody knew apart from the two people involved and it changed nothing whatsoever about my relationship to the world.

Losing your virginity is about as conceptual as getting a sun tan

Okay, having sex is not conceptual. The significance attached to it is. Can we at least agree on that? While no-one knew about you losing your virginity, in some cultures having done so could cost you your life is it were outside of marriage. Hardly a 'natural' situation.

In modern Western society (which is the one you are talking about in the OP), losing your virginity has zero social impact, other than in some insignificant cult-like marginal groups.

AnnieLobeseder
"Why can't all sex be sex..."

Because mutual masturbation and genital-to-genital intercourse are qualitatively different.

The significance attached to virginity, or the lack there of, is a social construct. It has different meanings and connotations for men and women, even for gay and straight people. In my experience, it IS still significant in our society in terms of an individual's value or status. It may have a different meaning than in other countries and within specific faith or cultural communities in the UK, but it isn't yet extinct as a signifier.

Helxi, surely sexual pleasure is a subjective concept rather than an absolute one. Simply what turns on one person might not turn on the next. An activity that is "qualitatively better" for you might not be so for another person. If one insists that PIV is somehow superior, you are already writing off the sex lives of Lesbians or gay men as inferior to those of straight folks. Is that what you intend?

Helxi
"Because mutual masturbation and genital-to-genital intercourse are qualitatively different."

KRITIQ
"Helxi, surely sexual pleasure is a subjective concept rather than an absolute one. Simply what turns on one person might not turn on the next. An activity that is "qualitatively better" for you might not be so for another person. If one insists that PIV is somehow superior, you are already writing off the sex lives of Lesbians or gay men as inferior to those of straight folks. Is that what you intend?"

I never said what you've quoted me as saying. Not even close. I'd call that a strawman argument but it's so poorly constructed it just looks like a mess.

Your use of the term "qualitatively" implies that you see differing levels of "quality" in different types of sexual activity. What in the world else did you mean?

A qualitative difference describes a situation where there is a fundamental difference between A and B, i.e. A possesses, or lacks, a quality in relation to B. This is in contrast to a quantitative difference where the value of a particular variable would be greater or lower in A or B.

If I had used the latter expression in relation to the relative cultural capital I associated with homo/hetro sex acts then you may have had a point to argue.