Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

"All PIV is rape" - why I don't think this is helpful in giving women control over their sexual destiny

96 replies

PacificDogwood · 01/06/2014 10:59

Ok.
Bear with me.
I am writing this down to get it right in my own head.
I would love it if somebody who knows more about RadFem theory could explain it to me.

I don't disagree with 'All PIV is rage' statement as an almost philosophical argument - I think I do get it.
But - it is such a radical statement for most 'normal' people who will see PIV as part of their every day sex lives and therefore as a statement is quite alienating and potentially off-putting rather than inviting debate or encouraging self-reflection.

I feel very strongly that women, particularly today's young girls/women (say, younger than 30 or so), are under terrible pressure to be sexually active very young and do things as a matter of course that would have been considered quite hard-core in my adolescence. I'd much rather somebody's first sexual experiences included nice gentle PIV rather than deep-throat oral or anal sex. If all PIV is rape, what on earth is some of the other stuff that goes on?
And I appreciate that there is no such thing as a 'better' or 'worse' rape, but it seems to minimise what women who survive abusive relationships or sexual assault go through.

I'd rather see young people to be encouraged to be respectful to each other, to fully expect to enjoy sex (I know - there's a radical concept! Wink) and to not be made uncomfortable with whatever their choices are (whether that is to say 'No' or to swing from the chandeliers).

Be gentle with me, I don't post here v often and I am not well read on feminist theory. I suppose I am actually asking more about the 'practical' side of how this statement is helpful to the cause.

OP posts:
PacificDogwood · 01/06/2014 14:14

Do you know, the more I think about it the misquoting of the concept seems like an attempt to make it sound so ludicrous that everybody goes 'WTF?", dismisses it as mad and all debate is shut down…. Hmm

Yes, it's not a practical instruction on how to conduct your sex life, it's a challenge to perceived ideas. That's how I see it anyway.

OP posts:
AICM · 01/06/2014 14:19

Bill

I can deal with the broader question you ask at the end. That seems a good starting point for philosophical debate.

I accept that all PIV is rape is a misquote. But a misquote that some people have taken to; so the principle of all PIV is now out there.

As a starting point for debate its pretty poor. Simply because it is so obviously untrue, it makes us look a loony and, as so many feminists have children, not even feminists go along with it.

PacificDogwood · 01/06/2014 14:20

As a starting point for debate its pretty poor

That's my feeling and that's why I started this thread.

OP posts:
itsbetterthanabox · 01/06/2014 14:33

AICM have you had mutual masturbation, oral sex without piv? It would probably give you the same stress relieving relaxing feelings without the risk.

AICM · 01/06/2014 14:37

Yes I have and no it didn't.

Gripneededfast · 01/06/2014 14:52

Desired and consensual PIV is normal, but accepting PIV as a necessary part of any sexual encounter and relationship is not normal and should be challenged.

itsbetterthanabox · 01/06/2014 15:07

I'm surprised because the release of orgasm is know to have relaxing stress relieving results but I'm not sure what particularly about piv would do that more so.

Beingfrank · 01/06/2014 15:17

AICM I agree with you. For me, penetration is a vital part of sex and I find an orgasm without it quite frustrating. Perhaps I am unusual?

AICM · 01/06/2014 15:19

I orgasm through PIV. I'm well aware that not all women do.

However I must respect that fact that you clearly know my body better than I do and you clearly now what makes me orgasm better than I do.

itsbetterthanabox · 01/06/2014 15:20

I wasn't saying that. But you can also orgasm through oral or mutual masturbation yes? There's the clincher. Same result without the risk.

BertieBotts · 01/06/2014 15:29

For me it's not the same. Sometimes not-PIV is adequate, sometimes I want PIV. It is a different level - possibly I'm socialised to think this, but it feels that way to me. I remember as a teenager having a conversation with my cousin and she described it as the feeling of wanting to be close to someone, which magnifies until you want to be so close that they are literally inside you. And I have related to this very much since I started having PIV sex myself.

For me sex is about being close to someone and/or stimulating good feelings and nothing to do with stress relief. PIV is closer than other forms - it's pretty much the closest thing you can do, in my opinion. MM is a step removed, oral is pretty much give or take, you can't do both unless you're talking about 69 (but even then I don't personally find it as close) anal isn't close IME. There's something about facing each other, holding each other, bodies pressed together, moving at the same time about PIV which makes it feel closer than other things to me, and the closeness of sex is very important to me.

If you're going pure good-feelings wise then it's not necessarily better than anything else, it depends what you're in the mood for.

I do think it's a big deal that it's seen as "real" sex whereas "everything else" ... isn't? It's generally thought of as the end goal. I like that this can be challenged, I like that this isn't always the case in my relationship - and it was looking at articles about PIV where the titles made me feel uncomfortable which made me feel more comfortable/happy to express this at times when I felt it. So I'm glad that the sentiment is around but the quote, especially if it's misreported, isn't really getting this across which is a shame.

MostlyMama · 01/06/2014 15:32

Sorry but thats how sex works sweetheart. You sound like you are saying even consensual 'PIV' is rape? Correct me if I have misread.

MostlyMama · 01/06/2014 15:33

Oh wait I have read another comment, reads as 'you aren't a real woman if you can't get yourself off?

CrotchMaven · 01/06/2014 15:41

If no-one wants to read the whole book, radgeek.com/gt/2005/01/10/andrea_dworkin/ gives a summary, part of which is below.

"If I had to try to summarize what Dworkin is saying while standing on one foot, I’d try this woefully abridged summary of her major theses:

(1) that patriarchal culture makes heterosexual intercourse the paradigm activity for all sexuality; other forms of sexuality are typically treated as “not real sex” or as mere precursors to intercourse and always discussed in terms that analogize them to it

(2) that heterosexual intercourse is typically depicted in ways that are systematically male-centric and which portray the activity as iniated by and for the man (as “penetration” of the woman by the man, rather than “engulfing” of the man by the woman, or as the man and woman “joining” together—the last is represented in the term “copulation” but that’s rarely used in ordinary speech about human men and women);

(3) that the cultural attitudes are reflective of, and reinforce, material realities such as the prevalence of violence against women and the vulnerability of many women to extreme poverty, that substantially constrain women’s choices with regard to sexuality and with regard to heterosexual intercourse in particular;

(4) that (1)-(3) constitute a serious obstacle to women’s control over their own lives and identities that is both very intimate and very difficult to escape;

(5) that intercourse as it’s actually practiced occurs in the social context of (1)-(3), and so intercourse as a real social institution and a real experience in individual women’s lives is shaped and constrained by political-cultural forces and not merely by individual choices;

(6) that, therefore, drawing the ethical lines in regards to sexuality solely on the basis of individual formal consent rather than considering the cultural and material conditions under which sexuality and formal consent occur makes it hard for liberals and some feminists writing on sexuality to see the truth of (4); that

(7) they therefore end up collaborating, either through neglect or endorsement, with the sustanence of (1)-(3), to the detriment of women’s liberation; and

(8) feminist politics require challenging both these writings and (1)-(3), that is, challenging intercourse as it is habitually practiced in our society.

But, while I hope this helps clarify a bit, you really should just read the whole book for yourself to understand what’s going on."

JugglingFromHereToThere · 01/06/2014 15:51

I can see that many women probably have a lot of bad sex in the course of their life-times, and agree with you PD that we should help our young people expect sex to be mutually enjoyable.
But just thinking of for example the times when my partner and me were trying for a baby - we have two DC now - to say that all PIV is wrong or is rape seems quite offensive to many really.
It's more radical a statement than I'd want to be making, especially as I think the concept of consent is pretty crucial to women's well-being. I get that the issues are made more difficult in terms of whether that consent is always freely given in a patriarchal society, with often less than ideal relationships between women and men and within relationships.

calmet · 01/06/2014 16:01

Only a small number of people who have probably not read Dworkin, or don't understand her, say that all PIV is rape. Dworkin herself did not say that. Crotch has given an excellent summary.

Try to think of in relation to medicine. You get a lot of blog posts out there that misunderstand medical research and so give the wrong information, or misleading information. So if you want accurate medical information, you go to a reliable site.

It is the same with radical feminism. You get a lot of women new to radical feminism who start a blog, without understanding the theory. So what they say may be their own beliefs, but it has no basis in radical feminism theory. You need to go to trusted authors and sites to read about radical feminism.

AICM · 01/06/2014 16:11

Calmet

I agree that only a small of feminists are saying this.

But that does mean that some feminists are saying this.

"PIV is always rape" IS now part a of feminism and it's very damaging to feminism. The only phrase that is more damaging is the phrase "All men are rapists" and to be honest the two are really not that far apart.

calmet · 01/06/2014 16:19

Sure we can't stop people saying things that make no sense.

The all men are rapists is actually a misquote. It comes from a quote that explains when a women is walking down a street late at night by herself, and a man that she doesn't know starts walking behind her, she doesn't know if he is going to rape her or not. So she for her own safety, has to act as if all men are potential rapists.

This is actually pretty uncontroversial. If a stranger knocks on my gran's door, she rightly acts in a way that means she treats everyone as if they could be a con artist. So she doesnt invite tehm into her home, she keeps the door on the chain, that kind of thing.

calmet · 01/06/2014 16:41

This blog post explains the "all men are potential rapists"

researchtobedone.wordpress.com/2012/10/18/for-those-who-dont-understand-schrodingers-rapist/

scallopsrgreat · 01/06/2014 17:26

I think when someone like Dworkin challenges the norm it will always be misinterpreted, deliberately or otherwise. Some people are heavily invested in maintaining whatever norm it is and others are just frightened or not interested in looking beyond their sphere.

This doesn't mean these views shouldn't be articulated just because they will be open to misinterpretation or misrepresentation.

RhondaJean · 01/06/2014 21:01

Right home but still on my phone.

I find this concept massively disempowering.

I accept we are living in the remains of the patriarchy but i refuse to live my life as if I am still under make control it let it dominate my thoyghts

I am not a passive being in my sexuality. I am a part if proceedings, an active agent in what happens. To insinuate that I am in any way not, does me a huge disfavour. I may be coming from the viewpoint of a privileged, educated, financially independent first world woman but THIS IS MY IDEAL and only by supporting and encouraging other women to become active agents in their lives, including by embracing their sexuality and accepting that actually if us okay to enjoy fucking, it can be controlled and empowering and fulfilling, and encouraging men to learn to control their sexuality so that it becomes a fulfilling act for women, will change begin to happen.

The sexual repertoire is huge; women's capacity for pleasure is huge and far exceeds men; we live in a time when risks are minimised. Embracing a concept like that proposed by dwprkin shuts down the concept that some of us actually not only enjoy copulating as opposed toastie nation etc but sets us back in exploring embracing and releasing female sexual potential.

RhondaJean · 01/06/2014 21:02

Damn phone. Sorry.

itsbetterthanabox · 01/06/2014 21:18

Again though how do you know you would think piv necessary if you hadn't been told from a young age that it is? Did anyone read the article?
Just pretending patriarchy doesn't really exist and that we all are doing just as we please does women more of a disservice because we won't strive for real freedom if we think we are already free. Isn't it weird that all these free thinkers still act in identical ways?

calmet · 01/06/2014 21:21

It reminds me of all the young women I talk to who insist they only shave their pubic hair because they want to and it was their idea alone. Ignoring the fact that most women above a certain age, don't shave.

Margaret Mead an anthropologist has written how in some tribes she studied, PIV was rare. Other kinds of sex were more common.

Beachcomber · 01/06/2014 21:23

Dworkin's point is that female sexuality is defined by males via a male perspective.

She is arguing for true liberation of female sexuality and arguing against a male (supremacist) proscriptive dictated imposed version of female sexuality.

What she is saying is extremely pro woman and pro female sexuality. Of course lots of people interpret what she is saying to be antisex, which it isn't, it is anti sexism .

She is arguing for true sex freedom.

Swipe left for the next trending thread