A chatty, questions and random comments thread

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

There used to be a lovely 'Chat' thread where we could all be silly or just comment/witter on about stuff, and I've not seen it since this place got renamed to 'Chat'. Would it be a good time to have another random chatty thread going? I think there are some newbies having a look around after the thread about calling yourself a feminist, so maybe it would be a nice thing?

So people can ask random questions or make comments without feeling they have to jump right in to an ongoing thread or write an OP, if they don't want to.

Ahh, yes. I met someone who started doing that in the 70s and still does. I found her really interesting but I can't get my mind around it!

And separatism, which is similar but not the same.

Btw I like that way of putting political lesbianism, is that a quotation?

I am roughly quoting it from Sheila Jeffreys

Ah, thanks.

I like her writing style very much.

Oh, me too. I can't take it all in, not all the time. So you are not alone!

There is a big issue with PIV (penis in vagina) sex. I'm assuming political lesbians and separatists also have concerns about heterosexual sex, but since I'm neither I won't be able to talk about them.

The thing with PIV is that it is so often presented as 'the' definitive form of sex, as if there's no other way to have sex. Which is really rude to lesbians/gay men. And some women don't find it terribly easy to come during PIV, though others do. The jury is out on that one. And thirdly, PIV is more likely to get you pregnant/transfer STDs than some other kinds of sex.

That's it in a nutshell, I think. I might as well say now to save time, that loads of women on here enjoy PIV, because for some reason (well, us all being humans who're naturally fascinated by sex, I guess) people always end up asking that.

I think the issue isn't so much to do with saying 'PIV is evil, we should never do it', as thinking 'isn't it odd how sex gets to be defined the way it is?'

It's related to the fact that, if you think about how we learn to think of sex from being teenagers, sex is defined as when the man comes, right? So if you went to bed with someone and he didn't come, you might say 'oh, yes, we tried to have sex but then the phone rang and we didn't finish', that sort of thing. I mean, it's interesting how a lot of woman-related stuff is relegated to 'foreplay'. My mate (who's a lesbian) gets really fed up that women's magazines discuss her entire sex life as 'foreplay' when talking about heterosexual sex, which is quite rude when you think about it.

I hope some of that makes sense, I'm rambling a little!

"FoodUnit's description of sex-positive feminism made me wonder if there is a stance that views heterosexual sex negatively?"

I don't mean to be confrontational but I'd be interested to know what it was in my description that led you to wonder that.

BTW that was a good description of how feminists critique the PIV-centricity of most sexual discourse LRD

"I'm not sure I agree that sex is defined as when the man comes though, I haven't heard that before. To me sex is when you and another person are intimate, whether that involves penetration or just external touching iyswim?"

I find that quite amazing. There always seems to be a 'finish him off' kind of expectation, whereas 'finish her off' is not what I've heard much in drunken pub conversations. Perhaps things have really changed, but the fact that what you described would often be referred to as 'foreplay' implies PIV is real sex. And there is a definate misogynist school of thought where a man can be said to have 'scored' when he has engaged in PIV.

"FoodUnit it was just word association really. It's not something I'd heard of before and when you said Feminism that says broadly 'if it is sex it is good' it made me wonder if there was a feminist viewpoint that considers heterosexual sex as 'bad'. It was just a connected thought."

Thanks for the explanation. I just want to elucidate where I was coming from.

Radical feminists think that nothing is above radical feminist analysis, not even our most private thoughts and fantasies, or secret behaviours.

Clearly this is going to piss people off because a lot of people believe politics has some sort of dividing line from the personal- their "mind is their castle" as it were.

Radical feminists recognise a spectrum of sexual abuse as forms of violence against women from childhood sexual abuse to rape to pressured acts to... It goes on. Radical feminists recognise the content of sexual fantasy often mirrors these abusive acts, etc, and asks 'where does this come from'? Sadly it is often revisiting previous sexual abuse, childhood and otherwise.

The people who believe that 'all sex is good' or my sex is my castle, find any political analysis of sexual fantasy or behaviour intrusive and negative. They also tend to silence one-another to prevent discussion of abuse. They are in 'happy happy sex land where anything goes and no one judges'. And of course this perspective is massively supported by the sex industry and sex abusers themselves.

In trying to prevent any analysis of the gendered and abusive nature of much sexual activity, there is an urge to brand anyone who dares to go there 'sex-negative

The perfect way to do this is to describe those who support a culture of silence about abuse 'sex-positive' and by implication anyone who speaks out 'sex-negative

That's more what I was implying about the 'all sex is good' stance

It means if it gets someone off it must be good and above criticism.

That's why they have a bit of trouble defining what abuse and rape actually are. Its very confused and quite messed up.

"But the friends I am close enough to to discuss sex with seem to have very equal sexual relationships (not sure that's the right term but I hope you understand what I mean)."

That makes sense. For me too my friends and I have more equal relationships - but sadly many have had abusive acts inflicted in their teens and early twenties because of the kind of received male-centred view of sexuality, misogyny and naivity too.

Joyful do the men who abuse their female partner also abuse their male friend, say one who is physically weaker than them so they "could"? If so, they are generally violent, if not then misogyny is probably in theirs somewhere.

FU brilliant post about nothing being above analysis.

I make decisions , say, about my body hair which I am well aware are in the context of today's society, I acknowledge both the decision and the analysis.

In there, not "theirs"

Damn you gin Autocorrect!

No problem about questioning...

"When you refer to 'the abusive nature of much sexual activity' do you mean actual cases of abuse where one party is uncomfortable or unwilling, or can it apply where both parties are willing?"

In that I was referring mainly to the first, but herein lies the problem. How about if someone is both uncomfortable, has an aversion, but is also willing? For example prostitution where someone is willing to get over the discomfort and aversion to achieve payment? Or in the case where someone has suffered childhood sexual abuse and wilfully seeks out a recreation of that abuse? Or someone wants to come across as liberated and hot since she's been conditioned to believe her human validation will be found in pleasing others that way?

'Willingness' or 'consent' is not so clear cut, especially within a culture that is male-centred.

Just cutting and pasting from the other thread my definition of my own feminism, and wondering what group it's most akin to. I don't tend to think in terms of power structures, more in terms of neuroscience, if that makes any sense. i.e. not so much that men are getting together to oppress women, but that very large numbers of (i.e. most) men continue to display maladaptive and illiberal misogyny.

"for me feminism is about freedom from misogyny, and goes hand in hand with general freedom from misoxeny (hatred of strangers).

continue to display, or worse, increasingly display