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?

Well, if they are qualitatively different what exactly is the quality that PIV has that mutual masturbation doesn't?

PIV doesn't necessarily involve orgasm (even for the man), doesn't necessarily involve any pleasure for the woman, doesn't necessarily involve any emotional intimacy, and doesn't necessarily involve possibility of a baby.

Why should PIV be so special that we need a special word to describe someone who hasn't experienced it, when we don't have a special word to describe someone who has never had oral sex, someone who has never had their genitals touched by another person or someone who has never had an orgasm in the presence of another person?

Melpomene
"PIV doesn't necessarily involve orgasm (even for the man), doesn't necessarily involve any pleasure for the woman, doesn't necessarily involve any emotional intimacy, and doesn't necessarily involve possibility of a baby."

All true. None of which detract from the fundamental fact that, on it's on, cumming into a women's mouth will never get her pregnant. That constitutes a fundamental biological difference between your mouth and your genitals. The social values men place on PIV are, to varying degrees, based on this fact.

Although regarding oral sex and pregnancy I'll concede that I may have missed the relevant episode of Embarrassing Bodies.

"Why should PIV be so special that we need a special word to describe someone who hasn't experienced it, when we don't have a special word to describe someone who has never had oral sex, someone who has never had their genitals touched by another person or someone who has never had an orgasm in the presence of another person?"

So go ahead and invent some new 'special' words. I'm not stopping you.

Well, if they are qualitatively different what exactly is the quality that PIV has that mutual masturbation doesn't?

Babies.

Apart from babies, PIV orgasm is qualitatively something else entirely from any other sort of orgasm... and the relationship with one's partner also something else entirely different.

Which gets us back to the point that many of us are trying to make as feminists: historically the concept of "never had PIV/virgin" has been considered important - for women, much more than for men - because, in most cultures at most times in history, contraception has been nonexistent/unreliable and it has often been deemed wrong and worthy or blame/shame/worse for a woman to become pregnant before or outside of marriage.

But now, in the UK and in much of the rest of the world, we have reliable contraception. In much of the world the stigma about having babies outside of marriage is disappearing, and surely most feminists would support that. All of us here (I hope) would agree that for women sex should be about pleasure and not just about conceiving babies. And sex that is pleasurable for women often doesn't involve PIV. So perhaps it's time that we moved towards promoting the idea that PIV is not the only way to "have sex". (Obviously we still need proper sex education and access to contraception; nobody's saying we should pretend that non-PIV sex is equally likely to lead to pregnancy.)

Significant numbers of women don't have orgasm from PIV. If you say that PIV is somehow on a different plane from other sex, what are the implications for women who only orgasm from oral/masturbation? An orgasm from oral sex can feel very different to an orgasm from manual masturbation, and different again from an orgasm caused by a vibrator. They all have different qualities, but are all equally valid as sexual experiences and can all involve a great deal of intimacy with a partner and emotional intensity.

I thought the discussion was about sexual pleasure, not procreation. If either partner has been sterilised or is otherwise infertile, you won't get babies out of PIV any more than you will get them out of ejaculating anywhere else.

Am I picking up from some folks that the possibility that a pregnancy could occur (even where virtually impossible) is what makes PIV "top of the pops" when it comes to sex acts? Helxi, are you suggesting that this is what makes men in particular drawn to PIV over other forms of sex? I'm asking specifically because you seemed very unhappy when my understanding of your use of the term "quality" was different from what you meant it to be. I just want to be sure I am understanding what you are saying.

Bonsoir, again if one has a partner of the same sex, there will be no PIV, so what about those relationships and the sense of closeness between these couples?

How could I know? I'm heterosexual and I want and need PIV sex and orgasms!

Melpomene
"And sex that is pleasurable for women often doesn't involve PIV."

How often, exactly?

Because this statement suggests that PIV is often unpleasurable, therefore unwanted and so qualifies as a form of rape. Whilst this may score highly in a game of feminist-trope bingo, I'd prefer to see some reliable data.

Melpomene
"Significant numbers of women don't have orgasm from PIV. If you say that PIV is somehow on a different plane from other sex, what are the implications for women who only orgasm from oral/masturbation? An orgasm from oral sex can feel very different to an orgasm from manual masturbation, and different again from an orgasm caused by a vibrator. They all have different qualities, but are all equally valid as sexual experiences and can all involve a great deal of intimacy with a partner and emotional intensity."

The implications are that they need to get a boyfriend who, whilst engaging in PIV to satisfy his desire, will engage in behaviours which will satisfy her desire. Partners who don't give as much as they take go to the back of the queue.

Sexual equality in action, yes?

KRITIQ
"I thought the discussion was about sexual pleasure, not procreation. If either partner has been sterilised or is otherwise infertile, you won't get babies out of PIV any more than you will get them out of ejaculating anywhere else.

Am I picking up from some folks that the possibility that a pregnancy could occur (even where virtually impossible) is what makes PIV "top of the pops" when it comes to sex acts? Helxi, are you suggesting that this is what makes men in particular drawn to PIV over other forms of sex? I'm asking specifically because you seemed very unhappy when my understanding of your use of the term "quality" was different from what you meant it to be. I just want to be sure I am understanding what you are saying."

From a male perspective I would suggest vaginal sex is generally the most intimate psychological and physically intimate form of intercourse. You can try and frame this from a cultural perspective if you wish, but in evolutionary terms preferring hand-jobs over PIV isn't going to get you very far in the biological fitness stakes.

Which is why I suspect 'making the female pregnant' is a significant subconscious driving force behind male desire for PIV, however unlikely the reality of pregnancy may be. Unlike Homo Sapiens contraception such as the pill, condoms, vasectomies, etc... haven't been around for the last two hundred thousand years; human sexual biology (from which sexual psychology stems) currently can't possibly catch up with its self-created environment.

Am I picking up from some folks that the possibility that a pregnancy could occur (even where virtually impossible) is what makes PIV "top of the pops" when it comes to sex acts?

Correct - it's the gold medal in the 5 billion year evolutionary race.

Helxi, you are completely twisting my words. I'm saying many/most women enjoy oral sex and non-penetrative clitoral stimulation. Of course it doesn't follow that all PIV is rape or that PIV isn't pleasurable for the majority of heterosexual women. (sigh). What I'm saying is that I don't think "sex" should be equated with PIV, and that it's possible as a heterosexual to have a fulfilling sex life that doesn't always/ever include PIV - this includes teenagers at the start of their sex lives, as mentioned in the OP.

"that it's possible as a heterosexual to have a fulfilling sex life that doesn't always/ever include PIV"

I think that this is just plain wrong.

AnnieLobeseder
"Is it because PIV allows a man to orgasm even if the woman is uncooperative?"

My apologies, Melpomene. The OP implies a direct link between rape 'being "uncooperative" and PIV. Just checking that you weren't following on in that delightful vein of feminist thinking.

For the reasons I've already given, whilst it's possible for some to have a fulfilling sex life without PIV I don't think it's ever going to become popular with regard to it being considered equivalent to masturbation.

Some women orgasm more strongly/regularly with PIV. Some by other means. Ditto men.

Surely this can't be controversial???!!!??? Not in 2012 .

Bonsoir,

you cannot speak for every woman. We're all wired differently. I accept that some women want to do PIV every time they have a sexual encounter and have their easiest/best orgasms from PIV. Brilliant, if that's working for them and their partner. But many others - myself included - have their easiest/best orgasms outside of penetration and don't want to do PIV every time they have a sexual encounter. Equally brilliant, if that's working for them and their partner. I resent the suggestion that a mutually enjoyable/orgasmic sexual encounter between two people can't be fulfilling or 'real sex' because it doesn't involve PIV.

And what if you're heterosexual but you can't do PIV because of a medical condition or disability (whether temporary or permanent)? There are plenty of people with disabilities who can't do PIV but still have fulfilling sex lives.

"And what if you're heterosexual but you can't do PIV because of a medical condition or disability (whether temporary or permanent)? There are plenty of people with disabilities who can't do PIV but still have fulfilling sex lives."

So fulfilling that I'm sure if you gave them the option of correcting their dysfunction they'd probably turn you down.

Not read whole thread but I just saw this on the list of threads and was shocked to see what looks very much like homophobia

In fact skimming through the thread I am quite shocked at some of the posts.

Kind of glad not to be involved in this one

Helxi - not sure how you twisted my commenting that men can orgasm through PIV without the woman being co-operative (which happens to be a simple fact) to my putting forward the notion that all PIV is rape. I don't see it as rape unless it is, in fact, rape.

The fact that women have evolved hidden oestrus and are sexually responsive at any point in our cycle - even at times when we are not fertile - strongly suggests that sex for humans is not just for procreation but has a bonding function too - look at the relationships board and you can see how common it is for relationships to take a nose-dive when sex is lacking, even if a pregnancy is the last thing a couple want. I believe we are rather similar to bonobos in this respect and they get up to all sorts.

In the 'biological fitness stakes' it's advantageous to keep your relationship alive so you're not left alone to raise your young (obviously this is not such a problem these days when lone parenthood is a viable option) - lots of adventurous, varied sex can play a key role here.

I love PIV with the right partner but I've never had an orgasm through it - along with approx 70% of women according to Shere Hite. I love it as part of a very varied sexual repertoir - but there are way too many lazy, self-centred bang-bang-splotch PIV merchants out there, who can't see past PIV as the main event and anything else is just what you have to do to get your PIV. There are way too many men who don't give a shit whether their partner is enjoying herself (or is even awake in some cases ). PIV is about the only thing you can do in such circumstances so Annie has a very good point when she says, '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?'

I strongly disagree that 'vaginal sex is generally the most intimate psychological and physically intimate form of intercourse' - oral sex feels far more intimate to me and, with a lot of partners, PIV is actually just dull. Maybe it's the most intimate form of sex for men but it's not all about you, is it?

And yes it's insulting to homosexual people because it implies that what they are having is not 'real' sex.

And I fully intend to continue having a satisfying sexual/sensual life with DP into old age, whether his cock is up for PIV or not.

How do you propose the emphasis on PIV is reduced? I actually prefer PIV to other sexual acts. Isn't it about what people want to do? Aren't you assuming the majority of people would rather do other things if the felt less pressure to have PIV?

Not read whole thread but I just saw this on the list of threads and was shocked to see what looks very much like homophobia

So preferring PIV sex is now homophobic?

An awful lot of men seem to regard recieving oral sex as a 'special treat' and far more exciting and desirable than PIV.

All of the comments on this thread which talk about PIV as being the only worthwhile sex act, that an orgasm doesn't count unless it's PIV, that not having PIV is a dysfunction, that PIV is the gold medal, so so many comments on this thread which say that people who are not having PIV (for whatever reason) are not having real sex.

It's just patent nonsense and offensive frankly to all of the people who are havign very merry sex lives thank you very much without a penis up a vagina in sight.

Saying that PIV is superior to any other sort of sex is homophobic, yes.

Because you are saying that all gay people are having crap sex / not real sex. That's not a very nice thing to say, now, is it.