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?