"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've heard convos in irl where if a dh doesn't want sex as a long term then it's suggested that if it's important to the woman she should leave. But if a wife doesn't want sex as a long term thing then it's suggested she see a gp, get counselling, ask dh to help around house more, figure out why etc. It's like a man can say he doesn't fancy it so the woman shouldn't push him, but if the woman doesn't fancy it, then it's a problem that needs fixing.

But to quote the mantra 'you can't change other people only your reactions', so you can't make the husband want sex, but you can try and see if you can help yourself.

It's worth looking at the language and expectations around sex. Take for example the horrible notion of virginity, which is used for men but as denoting a right of passage. For women, being a virgin, particularly in the past, was seen as part of her 'value' that she was unsullied and undamaged. What sort of message does that send? That it is expected that you will allow PIV but only when men dictate that you are allowed to and if you choose for it to happen at another time (ie outside of marriage) then you are damaged and ruined and of no value. So PIV sex, particularly first time PIV sex is not there for women to enjoy at all. It's for men to take from the woman (as in 'taking her virginity') as a sort of prize. The woman then 'loses' her virginity and becomes less valuable as she's already been 'used.' Where is her pleasure and her desire in all of that shit?

Also, in practically all religious traditions, a marriage is not considered to be valid until it has been consummated, as in, the man has put his penis into the woman's vagina. It is seen in that instance as a marking of territory, a final claiming of the woman's body as his own. The coy referrals to the 'wedding night' all centre around the idea that the woman is going to be penetrated whether she wants it or not, it's simply a requirement. I can't imagine how terrified so many women must have felt in the past (and still do feel today in certain cultures) knowing as she's walking around in her lovely dress that she would have to have this thing called sex that she knew little or nothing about but that was spoken of quite negatively by her female relatives. How would could that woman consent when she didn't even know what she was consenting to? And of course, once she was married, the law said her husband could then use her body whenever he wanted. Her desire to have sex or not was entirely irrelevant.

"On an individual level,I love my dh and I enjoy piv mostly, certain times of the month it's uncomfortable so we don't do it and do other stuff instead...."

That is what a normal loving relationship looks like.

"..... but if someone didn't want it ever, would they be able to reject it totally and still expect to be in a marriage?"

Some marriages work exactly like that. They 'do other stuff' for example the woman or the man may have an injury or disability that prevents PIV.

Some marriages are sexless and people are content to carry on without any kind of sexual intimacy. Some marriages fail because of it.

None of this adds up to rape though.

" a greater degree of collegial equivocation"

"it is simply an extreme expression of a data paradigm that you all share"

MephistophelesApprentice, not quite as totally incomprehensible as Judith Butler, but you're getting there! :-)

Anyway, as a dear ole rad fem, I always took radical in this usage to be related to going to the root (radix in Latin, "Radix malorum est cupiditas", money is the root of all evil, the thing I can remember from O Level Chaucer and the Pardoners Tale!).

Of course, it is totally old hat suggesting feminists are taking things 'too far' and are 'too extreme', whereas I prefer to think of looking deeper, being more investigative, and then discovering that some people don't like you doing that, or don't like the conclusions you come to.

As cailin says it is the act of penetration which is the cultural and legal act. Adulterty in English law for example still has to be penis in vagina (not in anus) although does not require ejaculation. Not that it really matters as unerasonable behaviuor divorce grounds would include all the other sexual acts that are not covered in the adultery definition.

if someone didn't want it ever, would they be able to reject it totally and still expect to be in a marriage?

vs the religious angle where a man was required to perform PIV, else the marriage could be annulled. Because if he couldn't, no procreation.

Interesting though that despite the long-standing consummation idea attached to marriage (plus the if you can't procreate, you can't be married so go away gay folks nonsense!), that the government did not place a specific non-consummation line in civil partnership legislation.

So suppose someone refusing to have penetrative sex (a woman) was compared to someone refusing to have penetrative sex (a gay man), with someone refusing to give their husband a blow-job. Not refusing to have sex, just refusing to perform certain sexual acts? Which are reasonable choices, although enough disagreement probably means a degree of sexual incompatibility, and which are grounds for divorce? No PIV seems to be in the latter category?

To be frank, in lesbian terms, just normal frankly, some like penetration, some don't, plenty of other fun things to do, you just have to find out what you both like doing. Gay men, seems a bit more fixed, but still different choices available (of course, the long-running theme in 'Cucumber' was one gay mans refusal to do anal sex).

Although probably not meant that way, the "an injury or disability that prevents PIV." line still implies that refusing PIV is not normal, or at least not normal sex.

Reproduction (& PIV is an inescapable part of that for most straight couples), and sex are two different things. Lesbians and gay men are just a good example, not because we are limited by what we can do because we have not got one of each, plug and socket, but because we can only do sex with each other, and not reproduction.

None of this adds up to rape though.

Posters here are trying to look at the whole cultural expectation of PIV in sexual relationships, and examining to what extent it forms such a pressure - on women in particular - that it could be called coercion.

The prevalence and strength of this expectation allows for several arguments that it can be called coercion. Any British adult of your acquaintance who married more than 25 years ago, got married knowing the woman was signing away her right to refuse PIV. That's a lot of 50-year-olds who, whether thinking specifically about it or not, automatically accepted that women's consent is subordinate to men's desire - people who influenced much of our policy, communications, education, and most of our upbringings.

Whether you want to say it "adds up to rape" depends on what you understand by "rape". The definition of the crime of rape has changed often, and is different in different countries. But the discussion around consent to penetrative sex and cultural pressure is just as valid.

Witchwind said one thing that interests me (though I'll never have the full answer!): ... how far our behaviour and thoughts are conditioned by male invasion, and really we should never underestimate the power men and men’s system has on our psyche. Posters here are trying to unpick a very fundamental anchor to this invasion or power.

BTW, a woman doesn't need a man

Yeah, well, trust you to say it much better at the same time, Buffy!

Yup! Money and PIV. You've got quite a set of patriarchal values in that yard of your

yours, wink - not your wink!

Agree it's totally mad - poor woman must have had some dreadful experiences.

[Bertrand is there an official Civil Service title for "cock-shy" minutes - I fear some of them in HMRC may have published by accident, so I'd like to know the correct terminology - for work]

What do we mean by 'wanting penetration by a penis'? Do we mean that a woman agrees to it, enjoys it, loves the sensation and craves it as often as possible, or whatever?

In ladies-loo conversations and forum threads, the consensus usually seems to be that male genitals are ugly, weird or hilarious. The women chortling about it mostly have functioning sexual relationships with men - meaning they welcome said ugly/weird organs into their bodies on a regular basis.

You don't hear so much of "lie back and be nice" or "can't wait to get all that over with" these days. But are most/many women still putting up with it, making the best of it? I don't know. It's not often discussed.

The debate has now it seems got down to agreeing some women want PIV but only because those nasty men have made them think they want PIV.

Why is it so hard to say that some women like PIV because physically and psychologically they enjoy it and more to the point would be unhappy if their male partner refused to do it in the medium/long term.

It absolutely within anyone's right not to want or have PIV but why does feminism want to define women as so feeble minded that they cant want anything for themselves of their own free will. It always has to be because the patriarchy made them want it.

I find the reaction to this point of view rather interesting.

Namely the "She hates sex" reactions - no, she doesn't hate sex, she hates PiV. There's a difference. Unless you choose to define all other sexually pleasurable acts as "petting". In which case lesbian sex doesn't exist in your worldview.

Also, "It's not okay to hate men" ... why not? Why shouldn't we hate men, as a class, for all they have done, and are doing to women on a daily basis?

Why do you think "hating women for no reason whatsoever/to justify oppressing women" and "hating men because of the things many men do, and an even larger number of men watch while doing nothing" is remotely the same, ethically speaking?

@Buffy: Great explanation. :)

FreeWorker you don't seem to be understanding the discussion at all. Who said women didn't like PIV?

Going to mention the experience of a friend as I think it highlights a lot about the status of PIV sex.

Had a very intense friendship with a person who at the time identified as somewhere between a lesbian and a transgender f to m who was attracted to straight women and gay men, 15 years later he has now transitioned fully, is married, has a child (conceived via IVF using one of his eggs and donor sperm and carried to term by his partner).

At the time we were friends, he was very clear about his reasons for wanting to transition from female to male.

He had suffered abuse at the hands of an older male family member from a young age (around 5 or 6). There had been incestuous relationships between himself and other young family members who were also suffering from abuse whilst they were all still very much under age (he referred to that as being relationships that were comforting and helped him endure, then deal with/heal from the abuse to an extent).

The abuse came to light within the family when my friend had a nervous breakdown and suffered severe alcoholism and drug addiction whilst a tween/young teenager. it was hushed up and swept aside. The abuser paid for rehab and in the wider world/therapy and my friend was basically told to shut up and stop complaining, don't rock the boat. The abuser had a lot of power and influence, both within the family and beyond, quite a wealthy and connected man. Family position was that withdrawal of the abuser's "good graces" from my friend's nuclear family would be damaging to them all, so put up and shut up (his mum was the main proponent of this stance).

My friend staggered through their teenage years in and out of a drunken/drugged haze, AA and rehab, was sexually assaulted and raped again a lot of times by various people. Got clean when they moved away to university at the other end of the country (so away from family situation), started having sexual relationships with women, came out as a lesbian.

Later realised his wasn't attracted to lesbians, just bi and straight women and gay men who were interested in being penetrated not penetrating. Started to transition. Freely shared the fact that the only sex he was really interested/got a sexual charge from was very fast forced sex where he would penetrate another person with a penis, and that it did "look a lot like rape". Was prepared to perform other sex acts in order to maintain a relationship, but always as "the giver not the receiver". Ended a relationship with a girlfriend because she wouldn't let him penetrate her anally, even after 6 months of arguments and him helping her to get on the London property ladder.

He was very clear that he wanted to transition because men get a better life, that he didn't want to have to be the receptive partner, that a man/top got the better end of the "deal" in a male/female or male/male relationship, that sex for him was all about power and that it was more sexually exciting to humiliate someone verbally with no "sexual" contact than have sexual contact that wasn't his preferred variety (fast forced penetrative sex with no foreplay that looked non-consensual).

So, for him, transitioning was totally about being able to adopt a more powerful position in life generally, in relationships and in the bedroom. Sexual penetration was totally about being the one in control/having power. That to avoid unwanted penetration was to become a financially and socially powerful male person. That staying female and refusing to be penetrated was not a realistic or socially acceptable option. That giving social and financial protection/help creates an entitlement to penetration that cannot reasonably be denied.

(This is clearly not representative of male/female, female/female, male/male relations, or the motivations of transgender people. It was clearly born in early traumatic experiences, could in some ways be a way of dealing with that trauma.)