"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.

The vagina’s primary function isn’t to be penetrated by a penis but to eject a baby for birth.

With the exception of modern day medical intervention, how does/did one conceive said baby in the first place??

"However I stand by my statement that am not trying to be goady"

Right.

used to write what were called "cock-shy" minutes

Fantastic! A new word for devil's advocate and straw man, all rolled into one short, somewhat offensive phrase. I love it!

I'm not sure about full of nuts...I would say:

Welcome to the internet: contains nuts.

how does/did one conceive said baby in the first place??

Well, Crabbit, it is Christmas ...

In other news we can now get a mouse almost a 5th of the way through gestation in a tank (rather than inside another mouse). So give it another....50?....years and we won't need vaginas for either conception OR birth.

I feel very sad for the poster and hate to think what experiences she has had

The Author needs to join MN immediately, so we can tell her to LTB that is fucking her so badly!!! Sex should not be the way she describes!!!

It seems strange, if the only real purpose of a vagina is the birthing of a baby, that pre-eclampsia occurs in far lower rates in women who have had unprotected intercourse (and therefore semen exposure) with their baby's father for at least six months before conceptionwith regular sex seeming to make more of a difference than sporadic sex. Seems like repeated intercourse is actually the healthiest course for women who would prefer to have an uncomplicated pregnancyI think this woman lacks fundamental knowledge about reproductive biology and I feel bad for her.

Some human sexual behaviours do indicate a lot of dark times in our evolution, past and current.

I'm sorry she finds PIV sex traumatising and violating, but it doesn't have to be that way...

And I call myself a feminist, too.

I don't understand how conception is supposed to work without a penis going into a vagina?! Artificial Insemination?

So a radical feminist doesn't think I know my own mind when it comes to whether I want penetrative sex? Alrighty then!

Duh, I feel very sad for the poster sorry, not the poster, the person who wrote the article.

Yes, Junosmum, I thought that, too. We are, apparently, simply brainwashed into having sex. We only 'think' we might enjoy it, but we don't really know our own little female minds...

There was I thinking we just had a regular marriage that resulted in pregnancy in the normal way.

She doesn't address either of the points raised in the comments about 1) what if a woman decides she wants to have a child, and 2) how come most other mammals reproduce in this way

I've read all the comments now. Kind of wish I hadn't. It looks like a bunch of important & valid points being suborned to a single idea which ignores biology. I'm completely done with valid points being used to prop up biologically irrational arguments.

It makes me feel sad, though ... every hetero female’s “first time” is painful. Bloody hell, that's awful. My first time was actually rape but it didn't hurt physically. I was pissed off, not injured. Of course some even more unfortunate women & girls are injured; I'm just highlighting the non-inevitability of PIV pain. Which invalidates all the other arguments, even though the other arguments are actually important & real.

but we don't really know our own little female minds...

I hadn't even noticed that! You're so right! Grr!

I don't think you're trying to be goady partial but your question 'is this a commonly held viewpoint among feminists' is entirely disingenuous as you know the answer. It would have been far more honest for you to say 'I read this and I'm pretty sure it's a bit loony but what do you think?'

There is a radical feminist viewpoint that says that women's consent to sex is problematic (and therefore has undertones of rape).

Here's the theory:
In practically all cultures sex implicitly equals PIV, despite the fact that there is a whole host of other sexual activity possible.
PIV almost always guarantees an orgasm for men and carries much less risk for them than it does for women.
Many women don't orgasm from PIV alone
PIV is far more dangerous for women than it is for men in terms of health risks, particularly pregnancy
As recently as 1991, PIV sex was seen as something that women owed men once they were married - it was seen as an integral part of marriage to the extent that a man could rape his wife with impunity.

There are many other forms of sexual activity that are more beneficial for women besides PIV, both in terms of pleasure and safety. It would make perfect sense for women to entirely refuse PIV in favour of other things that they enjoy more and suffer less risk from. But in our society PIV is presented as the norm - it's what you do. Therefore women are not given a true choice between options that are presented as equally valid. Their consent to PIV is based on a societal expectation rather than on their own preferences or their own safety.

The argument is not saying that all men are rapist or that all PIV is rape. What it is saying is that consent in a situation where there aren't really any other options is problematic.

X post with Buffy

She explains in the comments that pregnancy can occur when semen is placed on the vulva, and she can do this herself, by asking a man for some semen.(!) She also says that she deletes any comment which says that her point of view trivialises 'real' rape, and that sex is enjoyable. It worries me that someone who is supposedly supporting women's equality, can despise and censor other women. She doesn't appear to be promoting love and happiness!

And oh please can nobody say "And that's why I'm not a feminist". Because I might cry........

Thanks calindana - that's interesting. The writer if the article goes way beyond that.

Garlick- it's a wonderful expression, isn't' it. Spoilt a bit by the actual derivation- but we don't have to bother with that.