"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.

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,"

Clicked on the link - not sure I wanted to know this. Oo

This is batshit crazy! Somewhat reminding me of the nazi's ideas about breeding their ideal blonde, blue-eyed German. Nothing at ALL to do with Christianity whatsoever, though.

Why do people join this sect? It is just exploitation - where is the reward for women, and for those men who don't get to be sperm donors?

Why do people join this sect? I don't think they do, so much as those already in it want to follow the old religious ways of their forebears (i.e. the 'true' LDS with polygamy). I presume we have the classic ways of keeping control (home schooling, restrict access to outside sources of information, have your church being a significant percentage of the community, threats for those who leave). The polygamy issue was always going to seem difficult but for successful males and their sons, it meant lots of wives (I think leaders got to reallocate wives as well?), and then more wives as prizes for their cronies.

Women are of course, not free to chose in this, but compared to more traditional views (from father to husband, and he gives you away (but not for free?)), what is really different here is that the male patriarchs have taken over more power from the father/husband.

This current variant, I think this nutter and child-rapist has finally broken the system, in that he has now removed effectively the one thing that might have kept men in his church crime syndicate..........access to your own wives and the right to raise what you knew were your own children. By requiring men to give other men sole access to 'their' women, that is gone, and it is hard to see why anyone will stay -- apart from real and continuing actual belief in wherever they think these new-fangled ideas come from, or a masochistic insistence on seeing it all as a humongous test of faith.

Polygamy was never going to be a really successful strategy, because given the birth ratio, you were always going to have a surplus of sons who would have to be ejected from the population at some point. Loads of males with no prospect of a wife (hence the chance to pass on their genes) is always going to cause problems in evolutionary terms if nothing else. Whether this is because of polygamy, or problems like in china.

What about those types of sect, and other forms of extremely hierarchical patriarchies (or even just societies) being related to something like dark triad reproductive strategies. The dark triad being combined narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy personality traits.

That would account for, as Garlick says, more men getting that "normal life" is oppressive for women than you might initially expect. It's oppressive for them too.

But a certain proportion of men (without that personality triad) see it as a strategy that succeeds, so they copy it. And the dark triad strategies do contain elements that pass benefits on to people who co-operate, and manipulation of others (to be sympathisers as well as victims)is a key dark triad skill too, so it spreads.

What about those types of sect, and other forms of extremely hierarchical patriarchies (or even just societies) being related to something like dark triad reproductive strategies. The dark triad being combined narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy personality traits.

Interesting. You mean, hierarchical patriarchies are lead by psychopaths and enable men with psychopathic traits (and those who copy them) to reproduce at a higher rate, therefore reinforcing the hierarchy?

Fascinating theory.

What about those types of sect, and other forms of extremely hierarchical patriarchies (or even just societies) being related to something like dark triad reproductive strategies. The dark triad being combined narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy personality traits.

Interesting. You mean, hierarchical patriarchies are lead by psychopaths and enable men with psychopathic traits (and those who copy them) to reproduce at a higher rate, therefore reinforcing the hierarchy?

Fascinating theory.

SomeDkye, I agree. If it's true, that edict to break up the one thing that made some of these sects work - large families with in most cases no incest and close bonds between parents and child- could be its undoing. Also you need lots of different new genes not one donor if you want healthy humans which is why keep it all in the family Pakistan first cousin marriage, the old aristocratic marriage between relations etc is a bad plan.

On these just about always male led cults the New Zealand one Gloriavale youtube films are interesting - again women are controlled by men although in that case one wife only and fidelity.

I haven't found a group yet where women prevail.

I certanily agree that in all groups some people male or female get to lead, have the best lives, money, power etc and that actually struggles for equality can often be about class not just gender.

Vestal something like that yes.

Explains a lot of things like primogeniture, droit de seigneur a lot better than just "it's to ensure that a man only raises/passes on to his own kids". It all about transfer of power and benefits, creating allies, creating norms that enable manipulation, and also to bypass competing strategies like "just being a decent, reliable person/parent and treating your partner well". (And it also makes both "being a good guy" and "pretending to be a good guy" more defined alternative strategies, especially in males who don't have the resources to compete head to head with the patriarchy).

To be honest, I don't like oppression, full stop. Bit of an obvious statement on the face of it but...

It's always struck me that oppression of any kind is all the same thing. Whether the moniker is racism, sexism, religious hatred, gender bias, snobbery, ableism...it all comes from the same root. And that root could be personality traits, which in certain circumstances confer some "advantages". You see different expressions of it in different areas, and considerations of intersectionality/privilege is used as a divide and conquer mechanism.

Something like a desire to dominate and put others down/succeed through force and whatever other means available, combined with lack of empathy, willingness and ability to manipulate.

A high risk and high reward strategy, where you have a good chance of pushing a lot of the costs onto others.

But I'll stop rambling before I get all rainbow coalition.

So the old "first son inherits, second son gets a commission in the army, third son goes to the church"- well that's financial power, military power and social power covered isn't it?

Bring your sons up into the patriarchy then cover the power bases to perpetuate those attitudes.

Wow, Pit, that is FASCINATING! It fits a whole, massive and worrying bunch of things together ... including the hidden & more repulsive sides of patriarchy as we know & understand it.

I've got a migraine at the moment, which is probably just as well. I'd be off and running with this if I could concentrate!

This discussion reminds me of one of my favourite fantasy novels: Sheri S Tepper's The Gate to Women's Country.

This is the synopsis on Goodreads...

"Tepper's finest novel to date is set in a post-holocaust feminist dystopia that offers only two political alternatives: a repressive polygamist sect that is slowly self-destructing through inbreeding and the matriarchal dictatorship called Women's Country. Here, in a desperate effort to prevent another world war, the women have segregated most men into closed military garrisons and have taken on themselves every other function of government, industry, agriculture, science and learning.

The resulting manifold responsibilities are seen through the life of Stavia, from a dreaming 10-year-old to maturity as doctor, mother and member of the Marthatown Women's Council. As in Tepper's Awakeners series books, the rigid social systems are tempered by the voices of individual experience and, here, by an imaginative reworking of The Trojan Woman that runs through the text. A rewarding and challenging novel that is to be valued for its provocative ideas."

Has anyone else read this?

Wow, Pit, that is FASCINATING! It fits a whole, massive and worrying bunch of things together ... including the hidden & more repulsive sides of patriarchy as we know & understand it.

I find such theories fascinating, as they provide insight into how patriarchy works and how it could be destroyed.

@Gurl: No, but it is on my "to read" list. Did you find the matriarchal dictatorship realistic? As I see it, women have not as much reason to oppress men as the other way round, therefore feminist dystopias suffer from a believability problem.

Have you read "A Brother's Price"? A great read, it mirrors patriarchal oppression ... complete with brothels were men are kept as sperm donors/ breeding stallions. Which is unrealistic, as replacing the sex with the turkey baster method would be much more efficient, and they have the technology to do that, whereas they cannot cure STDs.

Thanks Garlick sorry to hear you've got a headache.

Well, Machiavellian does really mean "traits and skills Machiavelli recommended adopting in order to succeed in being a Prince" and get himself out of prison I've always read it as a bit of a veiled warning to people about the nature of power and the habits of their rulers.

And once patriarchy is established, it doesn't even have to be about other men consciously copying the dark triad skills because it is successful...it's indoctrinated/socialised into boys and myths that make it easier for women to be manipulated are socialised into girls...and so it cascades down that way as well as personality traits perhaps being inherited genetically too.

And also factor in super-y lineages- like the theory that one in 200 contemporary men are direct descendents of Genghis Khan (1 in 200 men are direct descendants of one man, and the best guess is that person is Genghis Khan).

And also factor in super-y lineages- like the theory that one in 200 contemporary men are direct descendents of Genghis Khan (1 in 200 men are direct descendants of one man, and the best guess is that person is Genghis Khan).

How many women are descendants of Genghis Khan, then? Or did they only look at the Y-chromosome?

Vestal They can trace the y-chromosome for paternal lineage or mitrochrondial dna for maternal lineage. Because a father can pass his x-chromosomes to his daughters, but not his sons and a mother can pass her x-chromosome to both sons and daughters, a direct line back to a man from a woman cannot be established just by looking at the x-chromosome, althoguh they can trace things like population migrations those analysis of diversity in of x-chromosomes in populations explanation here

So a man can trace both his paternal and maternal lineage as he has a y-chromosome and mitrochrondial dna, a woman can only directly trace her maternal lineage...but paternal lineage can be indirectly traced for a woman by looking at her father's, brother's, paternal uncle, or paternal grandfather's dna y chromosome.

So, on that basis, I would have thought a similar number.

And if all those people (men and women) are related, and we respond better to people to whom we are genetically related (whether we sense this by appearance, or smell or whatever), that's just another way for patriarchy to self re-inforce.

And if all those people (men and women) are related, and we respond better to people to whom we are genetically related (whether we sense this by appearance, or smell or whatever), that's just another way for patriarchy to self re-inforce.

We might all secretly be ruled by Genghis Khan's offspring?

Creepy.

I would have expected we would want exciting sex and impregnation by people to whom we aren't genetically related rather than vice versa - the exciting and different.

Not quite...just that there will be people, who, across the course of history, as the result of pretty dark personality traits (psychopathy, narcissism, Machiavellianism) manage to get themselves into positions where they not only reproduce in disproportionate number, but they manage to set and maintain power structures that are directly related to those traits.

So some aspects of society are disproportionately shaped by those traits, traits that if we encountered in a friend/colleague we'd be worried about (and similar to the current idea that high placed executives are more like to show traits of pyschopathy/sociopathy). So things like inheritance, property rights, how sexuality, property rights and power relate to one another (e.g. Genghis Khan would marry the daughters of kings who submitted to him, so sexuality, inheritance, property and power are all combined there, and that becomes a norm of transmission).

So Genghis Khan might be one source, Manchu dynasty might be another, a Roman emperor might be another...but not to say that there aren't plenty of people with unbroken lines of loving relationships in their lineage...

I'm not saying that they necessarily interbreed Deogratias, just that they feel affinity for one another, so form a strong and self-perpetuating society.

And not all sex, especially historically, is based on both parties wanting to have sex with one another.

(But also look at historical things like in-breeding amongst the Egyptian pharoahs, or all european royal families being inter-related- sex, conquest, power, succession, provenance and blood lines).

but not to say that there aren't plenty of people with unbroken lines of loving relationships in their lineage...

I would like to live in a society where that is the case for everyone. :)

But probably such societies would inevitably be invaded by the psychopaths from other countries.

Do you think we could re-shape society to disadvantage people with dark personality traits in terms of reproduction, etc?

(I, personally, am of the opinion that fully legal abortion is one of the things necessary for that, as it would remove one reproductive advantage of rapists. However, there are certainly many other things that could be done.)

I would like to see that society too Vestal

That's true. Your average UK medieval peasant might form a love match if she were lucky but most better off girls were married off by their fathers for financial and succession reasons - marriage was the financial and societal contract not necessarily leading to much marital sex other than to have a few heirs and spares and those (women as well as men to some extent) who are successful tend to have more children. It is one reason blonde hair is flourishing apparently despite genetically brown prevailing, because blonde women are so much more preferred by men (which was a very surprising trend when I read about it).

Some women through their progress and cultures move away from living with men and then just taking PIV sex when they choose. You see that at the bottom end where there are no jobs for young men but a good few for women so women tend to prefer a life of benefits and work than having to subsidise some hapless local youth who will never get a job and perhaps at the upper end too - would I have divorced if I was not the higher earner or at least financially able to bring up a large family without a man?

The biggest increase in households in the UK is households with one person them although they tend to be either widows or else men alone whose wives chose to divorce them (most divorce in the UK initated by men) as the divorced women usually have their children with them so I suppose if you take single person households plus divorced women with children who don't have a partner and the elderly who have no spouse that is a huge group of people who may well not be getting/not be subjected to PIV sex.

In the uk monarchs and nobles used to marry cousins and uncles etc to reinforce "noble blood" - plus villagers often intermarried as travelling long distances to meet others was harder.

Yes, and led to the haemophilia of the Russian royal son and others. Too much in breeding.

The other example I was thinking of last night was the ultra orthodox Jewish practice of controlling sexual intercourse which controls both the husband and wife. No sex until she has stopped menstruating and has had the ritual mikveh bath in public baths for that purpose. It means when you have sex you really want it because it's been denied to you both until then and also you have it when you're most likely to conceive. This might well be against women's interests unless they want 14 children but is also controls when men have PiV sex too.

I suppose the other "control" is the most common in the UK - women not wanting sex because they are tired and have babies up all night so have no PiV sex for what starts as a few months and morphs into just about never as the couple get out of the habit. That tends to be female control and of course her right.

Do you think we could re-shape society to disadvantage people with dark personality traits in terms of reproduction, etc?

In The Gate to Women's Country they use behavioural analysis so segregate those genetically inclined to violence, lie to them about their breeding (when women do go with them they use contraception) and then arrange for the rest to be deceived and slaughtered.

In The Gate to Women's Country they use behavioural analysis so segregate those genetically inclined to violence, lie to them about their breeding (when women do go with them they use contraception) and then arrange for the rest to be deceived and slaughtered.

So the women have sex with them for the sole purpose of deceiving them into thinking they have fathered children?

Sound like something nice and creepy to read around Christmas.

Though I was more looking for a society model that works self-reinforcing, like the real patriarchies, just, you know, more beneficial.
The one in that books seems to require constant intervention by the authorities.