"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.

Haven't RTFT. I've been raped. I've had sex. I am really fucking annoyed that anyone thinks they're the same thing.

Consensual sex doesn't result in the special form of PTSD that is rape trauma syndrome. I just really needed to say that. Hiding thread now.

I didn't mean to turn this into a thread about bonobos. It's just that I like to present them as alternative evo-psych sources, particularly as the evidence says humans, chimps and bonobos evolved from the same common ancestor. We're as much like bonobos as like chimps.

@slugs: Bonobos. Everyone has sex with everyone, so the males protect and feed all the young ones, as they could be theirs.

Also, birds. Peacocks and other beautiful male birds have a strategy of impressing females with their beauty, so that they get to mate with as many females as possible. They are not worried about females also mating with less pretty males, as this would not be logical for the females to do.

Ravens, on the other hand, are monogamous, thus maximizing the number of males that get to reproduce. Male ravens do their fair share of parenting the young.

Human men want to have their cake and eat it. They want to be ugly and do no parenting work, and still get to reproduce.

It is a strategy that has worked so far for them, evolution-wise, but I don't think it is a good or fair one. I also don't think it is the only possible one.

@Garlick: Bonobos are very close to humans and chimpanzees, genetically. How could they have completely different offspring sex ratios?

I suppose it is theoretically possible. Though that would still put us in a situation of having to change our sex ratio if we want human society to work like bonobo social structure. (Which would be a feminist scheme many men could get behind. )

pear, really sorry that happened to you.

Partial, it's a real shame your thread title has upset pear. Surprised you haven't been back to the thread, TBH.

I think the writers I consulted - very quickly, I admit - proposed the f/m ratio is an evolved circumstance that enables their peaceful lifestyle, VV. Males don't have to compete for females; they get plenty of sex opportunities. They don't care which children are theirs.

I wonder whether, subliminally, traditions of murdering girl babies exist to perpetuate male competition for mates?

We should be a lot more like bonobos!

I wonder whether, subliminally, traditions of murdering girl babies exist to perpetuate male competition for mates?

I think they are more straightforward about keeping women from outnumbering males, in order to keep women oppressed. Perpetuating male competition for mates is a side-effect of this.

That's one of the reasons why I am so worried about the female infanticide in China and India.

I don't really want to be like a bonobo, sex with strangers is not for me, but I could get behind their sex ratio.

Actually, they don't do PIV any more than chimps or humans. They do vast amounts of snogging, petting and frotting.

It might make long queues more interesting ...

Garlick, I don't meant PiV when I write "sex" ... frotting and petting with strangers is also not for me.

But we could introduce the 3:2 sex ratio and make laws about consent, so that no one has to participate in the sexual activity.

That'd be okay for me.

I thought consistently there had always tended to be about 103 boys per 100 girls because boys die in battle more. (obviously totalyl skewed in some parts of India where in one hospital they found 250 girls for every 700 boys due to abortion of girls or IVF only of males).

I mentioned reasons men and women like PiV sex first - that it incentivises us to have babies. I don't think that's particularly controversial. That doesn't mean people have to have it or want it or only be straight but it is certainly the case that most people are heterosexual and most like PiV sex. I don't think women are being conned or conditioned into liking it although if you go to any group of women with children under 5 you will always find discussion after discussion of no desire for sex and husbands wanting a lot more whcih might explain why I've not yet found a religion which gives me 3 or 4 husbands and stops men doing that and plenty the other way round.

Okay, provocative thought-experiment ahead, get ready to clutch your pearls:

What about we use modern medicine to change human birth ratio to more females?

Wouldn't that enable us to make human society more equal?

I thought consistently there had always tended to be about 103 boys per 100 girls because boys die in battle more.

How does evolution know that men kill each other in battle? Is it not more likely that, because there is (maybe by mere coincidence) a surplus of males, they feel driven to kill each other to reduce competition?

I am not sure that would work.
If you look at groups where men have several wives and you need a lot of women (and they deal with it by casting out teenage and adult men so reserve the women for a few of the men only) they tend to exploit women more not less. However I suppose if the women could be in charge it might be fine.

I suspect we'd get further with what we're doing now - moving to more equal societies across the globe with gender equality at home and at work.

If you look at groups where men have several wives and you need a lot of women (and they deal with it by casting out teenage and adult men so reserve the women for a few of the men only) they tend to exploit women more not less.

I assume you are talking about mormon sects in the US? I wouldn't consider those an example of society at large. They only manage to exist in that way because the society around them is different.

In societies where few men have several wives and many young men have none, those young men are still there and still aggressively compete, and may play an important role in upholding the patriarchy.

In the world at large, the surplus men from Islamist terror groups certainly serve a purpose in reinforcing patriarchy.

If you think of a small model of such a world ... I don't think an isolated village with, say, ten men, who have three wives each, would be able to uphold patriarchy for long if they killed two thirds of all male babies.
Aggressive teenage males can be used for a variety of purposes, be it intimidating the women into marrying one rather than be raped by many, or by having one of the surplus males executed every year to produce a climate of fear and hopelessness.

Just skimmed through that, slugs - they're saying that all life expectancy has risen dramatically, but the differential between men & women has reversed? Due to lower rates of perinatal mortality in women, presumably.

I imagine the slightly higher ratio of female births to male is to compensate for women's deaths in childbirth, though somewhat inadequately. Or it could be our bonobo heritage hangin' on in there

@slugs: Average or absolute? I think nuns always lived pretty long. Probably also to do with them not having to compete with males for food, while a woman living with a man would go hungry to feed her husband and kids.

I think historically boy babies die before reaching adulthood at a slightly higher rate. Not sure about now.

Sorry, I got that back to front. Wikipedia says human ratio at birth is thought to be 107/100 m/f.

In most populations, adult males tend to have higher death rates than adult females of the same age (even after allowing for causes specific to females such as death in childbirth), both due to natural causes such as heart attacks and strokes, which account for by far the majority of deaths and also to violent causes, such as homicide and warfare (for example, in the USA as of 2006, an adult non-elderly male is 3 to 6 times more likely to become a victim of a homicide and 2.5 to 3.5 times more likely to die in an accident than a female of the same age). - Wikipedia.

Yes, it is more boys. But I am not entirely sure this is the natural ratio, as some countries also have something closer to 103/100. Maybe there are abortions of girl fetuses in Europe, too.

**

But that will alienate people from feminism!!!111

Oh dear