"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.

Yes, that wiki is what I'd remembered. It works out pretty evenly and boys tends to have more problems - more likely to be colour blind, autistic, more at the extremes so it ends up around 50/50.

Lots of women and not many men - in bits of China where that is so some men share a wife. I don't think we have often had that in history However if you take my grandfather and his 10 siblings (he was born 1880) only 2 of those siblings had children because his 3 sisters (who worked in the 1920s) found a shortage of men (as a whole generation was wiped out in WWI) and 3 of the boys went to the US and virtually starved after the crash and never married, sleeping rough etc and no chance of getting a wife and another male died young. So when there was a man shortage after WWI I suppose that co-related to women getting more jobs (my father disgracefully as a local councillor was reported in the press as arguing in the 1920s crash that male doctors should be given jobs and not female ones locally as the men had families to feed - I still have the press cuttings, no wonder my feminist mother didn't like him). Perhaps women do make more progress when there is a man shortage.

The impact of the pill on London drinking water... but that doesn't make men women so I don't think I can use that in my thinking here.

The impact of the pill on London drinking water... but that doesn't make men women so I don't think I can use that in my thinking here.

No, but it could be used as a reason why PiV practised as it is today, is unsustainable.

Perhaps women do make more progress when there is a man shortage.

It is known for certain that whenever there are more men (and people in general) we get our rights taken away. I think it happened even in the Middle Ages that men legislated women out of their jobs when there was a shortage of jobs.

People should really know better than to believe this "men have families to feed" nonsense - it is women who have families to feed. With so many single mothers, it logically follows that there are many men who do not, in fact, feed a family.

If you were to have a modern society with more women than men, where women did NOT compete for men, both the women and men would want to be promiscuous - if only somewhat. Pair-bonding would cause rivalries; the expectation of raising families as a couple would have to go. (It's not that reliable anyway.)

Women would have to have access to adequate resources. In the interest of a healthy, well-fed society they'd need to be able to make plenty of money. It might be likely they'd band together, to ensure continuity of care and of income (this is thought to be why 25% of humans are sub-fertile, btw.)

This edges towards a scenario where the men can float around, feckless and free, getting laid now and again with no fear of consequences. So the imaginary society must have expectations of men - that they make themselves useful or face ostracism, with no sex or familial relationships.

Problem being that this could already happen! But it doesn't. Women still plug away in unsatisfactory relationships for the sake of the children 'having a father', everyone mostly accepts that men have a right to more of the resources; rapists rape and women hope.

I have no idea whether this is sort of hard-wired in our species or is the outcome of 5,000 years' conditioning.

The ratio of boy babies to girl babies is 103:100 at birth but by the time they reach age 20 it is about the same 100:100.

That said, a consultant obstetrician once told me that routine blood testing of babies born to women in stable couple partnerships shows that 1:10 babies are not the baby of the father (i.e the blood type of the baby is impossible given the blood type of mother and stated father).

Now that doesn't mean 1/10 of all women are having an extra marital affair but 1:10 women who have a baby are. Women cheat for a very good biological reason. Her eggs are precious and babies are hard to look after and she is not going to have many babies so she wants a man who is going to hang around after the birth but at the same time she wants a mate who is healthy and virile so she covers her options by mating with both - to create a bit of intersperm competition. Even though men and women are equal in numbers the woman can still create a bit of healthy competition.

She rewards the faithful man by giving him a long term monogamous relationship as long as he looks after the kids and puts out the bins but plays away with the virile but unfaithful bad boys.

That's why the patriarchy often isolates women - to stop them playing away and cuckolding the husband.

FW, there's a long running thread about DNA testing elsewhere at present. Estimates of prevalence vary but I certainly wouldn't take 10% as gospel.

I am also surprised as in the UK at least, I don't think men are routinely required to give their blood type during ante natal care; I'm not even sure babies are tested for blood type at birth.

Indeed. In societies where women tend not to earn the 10x their husband which I did, women often marry dull providers and have sex and babies with exciting men on the side as it were.

The BBC program about the Ascent of women showed how women's rights and position was slowly chipped away and away in culture after culture. I bet ISIS/Daesh don't like the recent discovery of fairly powerful Nefertiti's tomb in Egypt.

That's why the patriarchy often isolates women - to stop them playing away and cuckolding the husband.

Rather unsuccessfully so, if your numbers are correct.

Maybe they should try to be decent and honorable men instead, so that a woman would feel bad about cheating them.
I, for one, would cheat on a rapist I was forced to marry on principle, so that he doesn't get to spread his rapist genes.

However, in the "test babies to expose cheating women" thread, some people mentioned that this kind of test is chronically unreliable, and a man's sperm might have different genes than his mouth, where the sample is usually taken. Which is why I am rather sceptical about those numbers.

"Perhaps women do make more progress when there is a man shortage.

It is known for certain that whenever there are more men (and people in general) we get our rights taken away."

Yes this happened after WW1 when many men were killed. Women comparatively gained in terms of emancipation and the ability to have a job - albeit at half the wages of a man in the same job. There just were not enough men even when men returned home after the war.

My mother remembers as a child often meeting older middle aged women who simply would never marry and instead had formed partnerships and small home based businesses with other women.

I'm only up to the end of page 9 so far. Such an interesting thread. And similar to experience when I started to see inequality everywhere, this thread has been an epiphany. It has thrown my entire sexual history into sharp relief. In a rather disturbing way.

I'm only up to the end of page 9 so far. Such an interesting thread. And similar to experience when I started to see inequality everywhere, this thread has been an epiphany. It has thrown my entire sexual history into sharp relief. In a rather disturbing way.

I hope the disturbing epiphany helps you to make better experiences in the future!

To garlick at 2:15
If there were more women to men wouldn't it be better if men became stay at home fathers to all their kids, so the unemployed one being supported by many working women?
Now to carry on reading and hoping this hasn't already been talked down as a silly plan.

People who were young after WW1 talk about lots of aunties living with their friend

Passive, not a silly plan, I just couldn't see men in general going along with that plan.

There were some caricatures where a being a househusband was depicted as a fate worse than death, at the time when the suffragettes fought for voting rights. (How the men at the time justified doing something to women that they themselves thought of as so utterly horrible, I have no idea.)

Oh that is easy, the little woman who can't think properly were perfectly suited to that role, they had "evolved" perfectly for it, or god had "designed" them, whichever camp you were in.

Victorian era - Woman's moral virtue and ability to cope with the constant flux of menstruation and the challenges of reproduction made her better suited to the domestic sphere - and unsuited to the challenges of public life.
The women who went out into public life were seen as manly.
The ones who had mental health problems were hysterics (all traceable to the womb although Freud linked hysteria to sexual abuse as a child, he later changed tack)
Those lacking moral virtue were seen as fallen.

Bear in mind this is just over a century ago; about 1.5 average lifespans, and it is not hard to see why equality is precarious and still to be fought for.

(Again jumping in not having followed whole thread, but not just little woman who doesn't know her mind -though yes, that- but also the elevation of motherhood to woman's primary duty and role)

That said, and I think this is important, feminists have also long fought for recognition that women do need protection around maternity - whether that be the ability to control fertility or the right for maternity provision and the right not to be financially desperate because they have children.
I think in such a sexualised culture as ours, given gender hierarchy, the latter has translated to - hormonal contraception being the default, despite risks, thus no reason not to be sexually available; abortion being a defended right (rightly, but again, no reason not to be sexually available) and the financial risks, if you don't wish to use hormonal contraception or it fails, or you don't wish to have an abortion, still being largely born by women.

I don't see this as a sexual utopia at all, for what it is worth. I see this as another gendered set of constrained choices. Not disagreeing with the provision of contraception and abortion, but the premise that the consequences of unplanned pregnancy are still borne by women whilst the expectation of PIV as the norm has risen.

(Hope this is not too way off topic)

Men being supported by working women - consider impact of de-industrialisation in the 1970s and 80s and rise of service sector - more women did become bread winners.

Lower pay, part-time contracts, alcohol and drug problems etc.

Lower pay and part time contracts for women; alcohol and drug problems among men, not to mention mental health issues.

I don't see this as a sexual utopia at all, for what it is worth. I see this as another gendered set of constrained choices. Not disagreeing with the provision of contraception and abortion, but the premise that the consequences of unplanned pregnancy are still borne by women whilst the expectation of PIV as the norm has risen.

Indeed.

I suggested the thought experiment of what would happen if PiV WAS treated as rape on page 15 or 14 or somewhere. What do you think?

It'd by no means be an utopia, but it would solve some problems we have today and replace them all by the single problem of women who enjoy PiV not getting it.

We might be able to find some examples where PIV sex was banned although I am struggling to think of many. Apparently the FLDS group in the US have now banned marital intercourse (although have set up a new system to ensure women can have babies if they choose from named men). Also there are those hundred thousand Indian men who have their penis cut off so they can sing at weddings or whatever. I suppose some upper class UK marriages traditionally the couple would hvae sex for a short while for babies and then stop (actually see many current mumsnet marriages for that.......) but seek their sexual satisfaction with other partners (so I suppose that is not no PiV it's just no marital sex).

A lot of people get no PiV sex at all - first of all all those men who cannot attract a woman or choose not to have them and dislike them (I remember seeing their Reddit postings but forget the special name they have for their choice) (or are gay). Then all those women who choose to have no sex at all even if married. Apparently more people are asexual than gay even in the UK.

Anyway all very interesting.

Apparently more people are asexual than gay even in the UK.

Makes sense. After all, to identify as asexual, it is enough to never have met someone you were attracted to, whereas to identify as gay, you have to at least once have been attracted to a person of the same sex.

I don't think there are any written accounts of a society where PiV, but no other forms of sex, were banned - it just doesn't happen in patriarchy.

What's the FLDS? One of those religious sects, I assume?

Rather than that, I'd prefer to see biological difference recognised & accommodated without prejudice. Under patriarchy, women's reproductive equipment and its outcomes are treated as weaknesses (it's interesting how current language uses 'weak' and 'vulnerable' differently.)

They are only weaknesses if the default state of a human is male. When we fully accept both sexes as equally worthy & valuable, with all their different, various and changing qualities, there'll be no need for feminism.

Like most feminists, I don't really want to see a female dominated society. Because patriarchal thinking runs so deep in everyone, it's sometimes necessary to imagine it before examining our assumptions about men and women.

Some examples: I don't believe women are inherently more peaceful than men. I don't believe women should need special protection as a class. I don't believe men as a class are inherently driven to rape. I don't believe we're a pair-bonding species (we're probably a bit of both) and I don't believe PIV is inherently aggressive.

They are only weaknesses if the default state of a human is male.

True. Instead of saying that women are vulnerable because we can get pregnant, one could say that men have the unfortunate trait of causing pregnancy in others.

I don't believe women are inherently more peaceful than men.

Not as individuals - but I do think that there'd be less war if women had bodily autonomy. The whole attack on the Americas was caused by famines in Europe, caused by people not having their own land to farm, and by the fact that religious minorities didn't have land to settle on and mind their own business.
If the three-child family had been the norm back then, I don't think people would even have bothered with trying to find new land to settle. They'd have gone to the Americas, exchanged some trading goods and went back.

VV - The FLDS are Mormon fundamentalists. In layman terms, the husband is required to sit in the room while the chosen seed bearer, or a couple of them, rape his wife or wives,"
edition.cnn.com/2015/09/30/us/polygamist-flds-warren-jeffs-update/

Ha! I like your take on the invasion of the Americas!