"Intercourse/PIV is always rape, plain and simple."

[partialderivative]

I was trying to find out what piv sex meant when I came across this blog.

witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/piv-is-always-rape-ok/

I was rather taken aback by its premise.

Other quotes include:
...intercourse is NEVER sex for women...
...intercourse is inherently harmful to women and intentionally so...

Is this a commonly held view point amongst feminists? Or just the extreme radical side.

I am not posting this to be goady, if anything quite the opposite.

I find it extraordinary that people could be turned off the whole idea of feminism because someone writes a very extreme blog and a group of other people say "Well, that is clearly bonkers, but it's interesting to explore the possible thread of truth that is often present even in the most outré viewpoint"

I am not surprised at all, i know many people incapable of critical abstract thought.
When ever i cook (which is rare) i always judge what i have cooked, or how else can i improve. People can not understand that i am not being mean and a downer, but being abstract critical.

The writer was making the point that defining enjoyable sex as some specific activity that you need to convince, coercive or bribe your partner into doing is a bit suspect as a concept in that it implies that an activity is more enjoyable the less any woman would want to do it.

Isn't PiV the start of that?

I mean, let's take a look at sexual things one can do:

• Touching nonsexualized body parts: Most women are up for that.
• Touching breasts: Likewise, most women like it when a man they are sexually interested in does this.
• Manual sex: Likewise.

All of the above are categorised as "petting" and defined as "not real sex" by the majority of people - or at least the most vocal people.

• Mouth-on-penis: Many women don't like it. Men consider it almost as good as PiV.
• Penis-in-Vagina: Most women will only do it if certain precautions are taken, because of the pregnancy risks. There is also a tendency to wait longer before doing it and wanting to know the partner better than with other sex acts.

PiV is considered my most to be the most enjoyable sex act evah.

• Penis-in-Anus: Pain potential is higher than with PiV, STD risk is very high - is considered naughtier and more enjoyable than PiV in cultures where contraception is available, considered second best in cultures where it is done to preserve the woman's virginity and/or avoid pregnancy.

It is rather interesting that you rarely read romance novels where the most lovingly written sex scene is about cunnilingus, is it? It is always about PiV, the crowning moment when the heroine first risks pregnancy.

Imagine if those advice pages were about getting men to derive pleasure from anal stimulation of the prostate, instead of stimulation of the penis.

Many men won't even entertain the idea of anal stimulation, dh was keen to try anal when we first met, (late teens) and while we were both reading up on it, we came across an article that said about anal stimulation, he ruled it out straight away. Nothing was going up his arse without medical reason, but yet there we were, looking all over the net for ways to him to get his penis up mine without it hurting. One finger up his? no way not happening, big erect willy up mine? You should at least try it. Pointed out to him if he's so certain a finger up his will be painful, what makes him so sure his penis up mine would be enjoyable and not hurt. He never mentioned anal ever again.

Anal seems to be a mainstream thing now, I know some women like, but some men also like the finger up bum thing and if that's as enjoyable for the man as I've heard I do wonder why there isn't as much info about practising that safely, women told to do it as a way to spice up sex life, main feature in many porn films etc the way anal is. Could it be, on some level, subconsciously maybe, that being penetrated makes them less powerful? Submissive? I dunno what word I'm looking for... My friend used to think it was because it had gay connotations but I'm not so sure. I think it's more down to being the penetrated or penetrator and the subtle dynamics around that.

Again I hope I'm making sense, and I'm thinking as I go so apologies if it's all waffle.

I find it extraordinary that people could be turned off the whole idea of feminism because someone writes a very extreme blog

Some people will use everything as an excuse to be "turned off the whole idea of feminism". I rather suspect they never really liked the idea in the first place.

I think it's more down to being the penetrated or penetrator and the subtle dynamics around that.

I think it is that, exactly. If you had a finger in your husband's arse, you could potentially hurt him. He would have to trust you that you wouldn't move in a way that'd be unpleasant to him.

Men don't trust women and most don't want to learn. That's apparent in a lot of legislation, from paternity tests to abortion laws. Women are pictured as lying liars who lie, as stupid and irresponsible. It serves the purposes of patriarchy.

Well this is where the fundamental premise of the thread is wrong:

"Because who is the actor, the active, the agent of PIV in that statement? It's the man."

There is no active and passive in PIV. Its mutual consent. Its active participation. Its mutual enjoyment.

If you define PIV as something a man 'does' to a woman well then yes that's where your 'feminist analysis' gets you to. The man is doing something to the woman whether she likes or wants it or not. That's how you eventually get to PIV is always rape.

You see. If you always define PIV in that way then its always rape. I don't define PIV as something a man 'does' to a woman at all. Its something among many things in both parties might like.

Why do feminists always define women as passive, not knowing their own mind, complete innocent victims in every interaction with any man. Its ridiculous and downright insulting to women.

Women are not victims of their sexuality.

FreeWorker1, please could you read the whole context of the C&P you objected to? Becaus her ebit you commented on was my the whole thing. Here -*"it's interesting that Freeworker has interpreted the 'pseudo intellectual' (shame about the sly dig, the discussion seems universally genuinely intellectual to me) discussion about the social conditions in which female sexuality is constructed as PIV = 'coercive act'.

Doesn't that just sort of show that there's something in the ideas we've been kicking around? Because who is the actor, the active, the agent of PIV in that statement? It's the man. So even the most banal everyday language to describe disagreement takes a theoretical position on active-passive*

Sorry, bold fail. Hope you can pick out the bit i mean.

I think that PIV sex is not always rape (by the current legal definitions and current social norms).

Many of the comments on this thread come across to me as "penis-in-vagina sex can feel good and PIV sex reproduces the species, therefore any harmful effects on women as a class can be ignored".

It's similar to people saying "I like my job, and work finances society, therefore work is harmless to workers as a class" or "hard work never did anyone any harm". On the contrary, hard work has directly killed many thousands of people.

Even if a social practice is beneficial for some people or for society as a whole, I think it can still be worthwhile to examine problems caused by the practice. With the work example, even though a mine-owning billionaire may love his work of clinching deals while drinking cocktails on his super-yacht in Monte Carlo marina and he is very unlikely to die from rock dust in his lungs, we can still question why work is problematic for the male and female miners with lung disease caused by years of breathing rock dust into their lungs.

Likewise with PIV sex. People obviously like sex in a way and at a time of their choice, and that includes PIV sex. Just because PIV sex is popular and also effective at producing children, that doesn't magically make PIV sex always problem-free or have equal risks and benefits for men and women. I think the blog is a useful starting point for examination of various issues, but nobody has to agree with what the blogger wrote, just tolerate that it could be a useful catalyst for our own deeper critical thinking.

I think that men get a better deal out of PIV sex than women do. Some of the reasons are biological/medical and we can do little or nothing to change those, but some of the inequality is social and that could be changed, but only if we offer deeper thoughts than "I'm all right Jack" or "Bollocks".

Bertrand - you are going to have to deconstruct your last post because I have literally no idea what it means. Sorry.

FreeWorker1 wrote - "Why do feminists always define women as passive, not knowing their own mind, complete innocent victims in every interaction with any man. Its ridiculous and downright insulting to women."

In your head maybe, but not in the real world.

Have you ever been penetrated, FreeWorker1?

From Dworkin's "Intercourse"* :

"He has to push in past boundaries. There is the outline of a body, distinct, separate, its integrity an illusion, a tragic deception, because unseen there is a slit between the legs, and he has to push into it. There is never a real privacy of the body that can coexist with intercourse: with being entered. The vagina itself is muscled and the muscles have to be pushed apart. The thrusting is persistent invasion. She is opened up, split down the center. She is occupied--physically, internally, in her privacy."

There is not an equivalence in the act. That's what's being explored here.

*Full text available radfem.org/dworkin/

vesuvia - finally. Some logical thought.

"I think that men get a better deal out of PIV sex than women do. Some of the reasons are biological/medical and we can do little or nothing to change those, but some of the inequality is social and that could be changed..."

Right. So I agree we can't deal with the biological inequality. Only women can give birth and men can't. Unless you want to go down the road of 'making babies in a tank' and cutting men out of the process altogether and sex is just for pleasure in which case men would cheer as they would have no responsibility at all but lets no go there.

Now what social inequality are you talking about that we can deal with that isn't legally defined as rape?

I don't think FW is a GF, buffy. He's very impolite, though.

[[http://www.robot-hugs.com/but-men/]]
Frame 5 in particular

Sorry, link fail

cartoon

Frame 5 in particular freeworker1

SoftDrifted - Dworkin's description of the physical process as experienced by a woman is what many women enjoy. Possibly not Dworkin, possibly not you. If the woman consents and the man consents then yes that is the biological fact but its up to the couple in question to agree that and if they do there is absolutely nothing biological, social, legal or ethically wrong with it.

The Dworkin passage makes me uncomfortable.

In my perception and most of my adult experience, both man and woman are similarly vulnerable. I don't feel I'm being penetrated or invaded (I certainly did while being raped.) My role, to me, is not submissive. I find penetrative sex far more satisfying than the other sorts.

I'm fully aware that the majority of women don't feel like this - and also that I'm by no means unique. I can't speak for all the others; in my case, it's a combination of biology - my body likes PIV - and some very deliberate reconstruction of my ideas around sex, which was my response to the dissonance between what my body likes and the social messages I was receiving about submission & gatekeeping.

I'm aware, too, of course, that women risk more in sex with men. Both partners can't be equally vulnerable in that respect. They can, though, share equal concern & responsibility for her welfare.

My discomfort with today's posts here, as with the Dworkin excerpt, is that a definitive view seems to be emerging - clitoral-only orgasms are always best; PIV is invasion; women are always 'done to' in sex - that's just as unhelpful as the view being queried.

I've been wanting to say I think this has arisen from the very socialisation under examination: it's as if posters can only envisage PIV as a bloke forcing/penetrating/breaking into a woman. That vision is patriarchal porn.

None of my efforts to say this are proving effective. I'm just stumbling along, hoping to get something across in the end ...

I've been wanting to say I think this has arisen from the very socialisation under examination: it's as if posters can only envisage PIV as a bloke forcing/penetrating/breaking into a woman. That vision is patriarchal porn.

It is also the reality in which women live. We cannot just pretend to live in a feminist utopia. We have to work with what is there. And what is there is that men rape and coerce women frequently. Men who are selfish in bed are commonplace.

What is there is a very strong pressure to have PiV, with clitoral orgasms being considered "foreplay" at best.

On the other hand, men are not expected to even try out penetration to see if they like it.

Therefore, I really do not get why you see a problem with a view of clitoral orgasm as always best emerging (which I don't think is happening, all or most people here wrote they don't agree with the blog post by witchwind) in this tiny thread in the whole big internet that is full of PiV-porn. Why do you feel uncomfortable with that? Is your enjoyment of PiV so fragile that it cricitism will break it?

I read the article and thought it was offensive, extremist nonsense. I see the original responses were very critical of it (and of the OP for posting it as several as posts were questioning her motives).

The discussion seems to have moved on to the point that no-one questions that an individual woman can consent but , if one considers women as a class, there is chin scratching that maybe the writer has a point. The point being that women are so conditioned to accept heterosexual intercourse as the norm that whilst individual women may consent , as a class they can't and/or why is heterosexual intercourse accepted as the norm?

Many of you have mentioned other activities ; there are a few posts referring to other activities which are not just alternatives but are stated to be better and more pleasurable for women- not qualified as being better for the poster concerned, but better for all.

I am only sexualy attracted to men. I'm not interested in digital stimulation (frankly I'm always going to be better at that than any man - if that's what I want I'll do it myself) Cunnilingus is a huge turn off for me. I hate it. No doubt, not being a feminist, I've never properly thought about why this should be. If I weren't so brainwashed I would realise how wrong I am. To that extent I agree with Freeworker. I dislike intensely the idea that women are eternally oppressed.

And as for that Dworkin quote- you can feministplain as much as you like but I will not take that as anything more than applicable to her own troubled self.

What I find odd is there is a thread about the fact a dangerously misguided female Scottish MSP is pushing for pimping and brothel keeping to be legal in Scotland.
It has a tenth of the traffic of this thread.

Maybe you think it's just a domestic Scottish matter . It isn't. Many of you live in the UK. Have you no opinions on the possibility that in part of the UK it might be possible for men to buy women (and presumably also young men) to wank into or over with no shame or repercussions? Imagine the re-marketing opportunities for Gretna Green. The Old Smithy can be the New Knocking Shop

Does this type of discussion put people off feminism? Well it's fascinating to read. I will no doubt be told my opinion doesn't count, (being of the female sex but not a feminist) but the lack of interest in the "let's allow brothels in Scotland " as opposed to the huge interest in attempting to find a shred of sense in that article certainly gives me no incentive to think feminism has any relevance for me.

Garlick - I am agreeing with your post. There is a lot in there to think about. One point I pick up is your acknowledgement of the complex relationship between the physical and the emotional aspects of sex.

Given the arguments I have had on the thread it sounds trite to say I am sorry you were raped but I am genuinely sorry. Its something I haven't experienced but I know and as you explained it isn't sex..

Have you no opinions on the possibility that in part of the UK it might be possible for men to buy women (and presumably also young men) to wank into or over with no shame or repercussions?

See, you are not a feminist. If you were, you'd know that this topic has been discussed to death. Have you ever considered that, maybe, everyone has already formed an opinion on this and don't want to discuss it anymore?

I gave it a try, but am already fed up with talking to the pro-prostitution lobby. There is no use in talking about it. I am not from Scotland, cannot influence Scottish politics, and therefore, it doesn't really matter what I think.

Also, if you don't think feminism has any relevance for you, why don't you go and celebrate that women are treated as sex objects? If you reject feminism, you submit to patriarchal notions of what you should be, i.e. a sex object.

Don't complain about feminists not protecting you from oppression while you sit there and twiddle your thumbs and enjoy your PiV.