Radical Feminism

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
setzer777
Good questions sometimes get stupid answers
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:24 am UTC

Radical Feminism

Postby setzer777 » Fri Aug 03, 2012 4:15 am UTC

Recently I've been reading a pretty decent amount of a specific kind of online radical feminism (the type exemplified by sites like radicalhub.com). Even though as a guy, their only call to action to me would be something like "just stay away from women" (or in more extreme cases: "go kill yourself"), I've developed a morbid curiosity. Maybe "masochism" would be the more appropriate word, because sometimes it does leave me feeling in a very guilty and self-questioning mood (especially PIV critical articles). A couple of example articles and excerpts:

It’s the Trauma-Bonding Talking:

article wrote:you see, any man who demands PIV or engages in it for that matter is making himself dangerous to women, by definition. and when a woman trusts a man to keep her safe…if that man demands or engages in PIV with her, he is exploiting that trust.

“stockholm syndrome” might seem a bit extreme to apply to most het relationships that arent traditionally abusive…but theres something going on here. at least, for those of us who arent essentialist, and who just dont believe this shit about women when it comes to sex ”feeling” so deeply, and stuff, and things.

because the sad, sick truth of it is that every single man with whom we have ever had intercourse is just some tool who laid pipe, at our expense. thats all. if it hurts to think about it that way…well it hurts, whether or not you choose to think about it. thats kind of my point, actually. PIV hurts and is harmful to women, but not to men. how can you tell? we form emotional bonds with men we have fucked, that are inappropriate, and not reciprocal. work backwards, if you have to, if you cant see that PIV hurts, and is dangerous to women. look at the most common “female response” to PIV (emotional attachment), and tell me it doesnt look a hell of a lot like another commonly-recognized bonding-response to having experienced extreme terror, and the fear of death.


http://factcheckme.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/the-language-of-consent/
article wrote:the thing is, that the specifically-female harms of rape are identical to the specifically-female harms of PIV, undertaken when the woman does not want to become pregnant. and even assuming that an individual man does not consciously wish to terrorize, colonize, mutilate and/or annihilate his partner by fucking her, he is, in fact, placing her in harms way. to incur the same female-specific harm as the female-specific harm that occurs, deliberately, with rape. unwanted pregnancy.

does intention matter? and are these men really as innocent as they, uh, feign? well, as mary daly observed with men who surgically mutilated women by lobotomizing them, once these men realized that the end-result of a surgical lobotomy was to make women “good housekeepers” and to destroy their creativity and personality, and they did it to even more women after that…its perfectly clear that at some point, that result was exactly what they wanted to achieve. they kept doing it, intentionally, in order to get the result they (obviously) wanted. which was to destroy women (and in the case of surgical lobotomies, to replace them with meat-bots. and are we to believe that these womens husbands stopped fucking them after their lobotomies were completed? sure mkay). clearly, if you continue to do something, once you know the result, the result *is* your intention. see? its intentional.

so…when the female-specific harms and cruel intentions behind PIV (all PIV, including rape) are so painfully obvious…what in the everloving fuck are the fun-fems going on about, when they continue happily framing the “sexual” issue as an issue of “consent,” enthusiastic or otherwise? seriously? what is this about?


Am I misguided for taking this seriously enough to feel guilty? Or is there something to it?
Meaux_Pas wrote:We're here to go above and beyond.

Too infinity
of being an arsehole

Torchship
Posts: 355
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 1:17 pm UTC

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby Torchship » Fri Aug 03, 2012 4:53 am UTC

Very, very deep down these kind of radical feminists do have a legitimate point (a lot of sex is exploitative in one way or another, there are unequal risks in sex, etc), but it is buried under so much misandrist and occasionally heterophobic nonsense (PiV is rape, porn is rape, heterosexual relationships are a form of Stockholm Syndrome, men are inherently exploitative whether they know it or not, etc) that it is useless to take them seriously. They are no better than the vast numbers of misogynist and homophobic men who make up the bulk of the masculinist movement, though they use the exact opposite rhetoric. It's rather sad actually, as there are a lot of radical feminists (and masculinists) who do not use bigoted language which obscures the legitimate point underneath, but go unheard because their insane compatriots are so much more interesting to talk about.

User avatar
Jplus
Posts: 1711
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 12:29 pm UTC
Location: Netherlands

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby Jplus » Fri Aug 03, 2012 9:09 am UTC

I'd suggest to ask lots of female non-radical feminists what they think about PIV and then make up your conclusion.

Personally, the quotes made me sad, but rather than feeling guilty, my overall impression is that the authors are generalising their bad experiences with men and PIV (which might, granted, have been really bad) to all men and women, which I think is counterproductive. History is not helping of course, as some men have done terrible things to women while women appear to have relatively clean hands.
"There are only two hard problems in computer science: cache coherence, naming things, and off-by-one errors." (Phil Karlton and Leon Bambrick)

coding and xkcd combined

(Julian/Julian's)

HungryHobo
Posts: 1708
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:01 am UTC

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby HungryHobo » Fri Aug 03, 2012 10:44 am UTC

Jplus wrote:as some men have done terrible things to women while women appear to have relatively clean hands.


Well if you decide that all bad things are the result of men and dismiss any females doing bad things as mere proof that they're under the thumb of some male and thus not culpable.

I've never seen any indicator that women are any less inclined to be nasty, cruel, sadistic or vicious than men at any level they're at or in any context.
girls are not made of suger and spice any more than boys are made of slugs and snails.
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3643
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby EdgarJPublius » Fri Aug 03, 2012 10:53 am UTC

What the fuck is PIV?

I can't seem to find the meaning anywhere. The 'radical feminist' blogs seem to use it without ever defining it, and the normal sources for definitions/acronyms don't seem to have anything that fits. And the context is so confused, I don't know, PIV could be anything from some particular sex-act to a fetish (like BDSM or some-such) or even just some kind of relationship dynamic thing.
The best guess I can come up with is 'unprotected vaginal intercourse' since there's lot's of talk about pregnancy, but it could equally mean heterosexual relationships in which unprotected vaginal intercourse is common.

It sounds a lot like 'dihydrogen monoxide' a scary sounding way to say something that's actually common and harmless used for shock value.

Part of the problem is that both of these 'articles' are just long lists of claims, assertions and statements with no actual proof or support.

Stuff like
“stockholm syndrome” might seem a bit extreme to apply to most het relationships that arent traditionally abusive…but theres something going on here.


Note that the author doesn't actually say that 'most het relationships that aren't traditionally abusive' are in any way related to Stockholm syndrome, they just wanted you to associate the ideas.

or like this
look at the most common “female response” to PIV (emotional attachment), and tell me it doesnt look a hell of a lot like another commonly-recognized bonding-response to having experienced extreme terror, and the fear of death.


I'm no expert, but making the jump from 'emotional attachment' to 'experiencing extreme terror, and the fear of death' seems like a sign of some unresolved emotional or psychological trauma.

so…when the female-specific harms and cruel intentions behind PIV (all PIV, including rape) are so painfully obvious…


So painfully obvious that none of them aside from 'unwanted pregnancy' are actually mentioned.

Earlier, the author talks about how pregnancy is complicated. Ok, that's basically all they say, pregnancies have complications, not what they are or anything, but that they exist, and are apparently the same whether the pregnancy is wanted or unwanted, a position which is ridiculous anyway you try to justify it (not that they do).

I'll also note that the tautological paragraph about lobotomization and 'intent' is structurally unconnected to the rest of the article, it exists apparently for the sole purpose of putting that image in your head when thinking about 'PIV'.

From these two articles I get the impression that the author's main problem with PIV is that it can cause pregnancy, and that pregnancies are complicated and dangerous. This is basically a valid position... If the author lives in Sub-Saharan Africa or the 17th century...
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

Torchship
Posts: 355
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 1:17 pm UTC

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby Torchship » Fri Aug 03, 2012 11:02 am UTC

PIV refers to Penis in Vagina sex; i.e. completely stereotypical heterosexual sex.

User avatar
Jplus
Posts: 1711
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 12:29 pm UTC
Location: Netherlands

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby Jplus » Fri Aug 03, 2012 11:22 am UTC

HungryHobo wrote:
Jplus wrote:as some men have done terrible things to women while women appear to have relatively clean hands.


Well if you decide that all bad things are the result of men and dismiss any females doing bad things as mere proof that they're under the thumb of some male and thus not culpable.

I've never seen any indicator that women are any less inclined to be nasty, cruel, sadistic or vicious than men at any level they're at or in any context.
girls are not made of suger and spice any more than boys are made of slugs and snails.

You do realise that I never made generalisations of the kind you're describing here, right?
"There are only two hard problems in computer science: cache coherence, naming things, and off-by-one errors." (Phil Karlton and Leon Bambrick)

coding and xkcd combined

(Julian/Julian's)

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3643
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby EdgarJPublius » Fri Aug 03, 2012 11:25 am UTC

Torchship wrote:PIV refers to Penis in Vagina sex; i.e. completely stereotypical heterosexual sex.


That is significantly dumber than I expected.

Did... did I just get Poe's Law-ed? I feel like this is an elaborate parody.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

HungryHobo
Posts: 1708
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:01 am UTC

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby HungryHobo » Fri Aug 03, 2012 12:56 pm UTC

Jplus wrote:You do realise that I never made generalisations of the kind you're describing here, right?


It's the impression from the general wave at history, saying women have clean hands.
My point was that those women who get into power don't seem to have any cleaner hands than anyone else.
even on the smaller scale women don't seem any less inclined to torture those bellow them in society with family matriarchs enforcing horrible traditions on young men and women bellow them.
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.

User avatar
firechicago
Posts: 621
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 12:27 pm UTC
Location: One time, I put a snowglobe in the microwave and pushed "Hot Dog"

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby firechicago » Fri Aug 03, 2012 2:02 pm UTC

As others have pointed out, there's a kernel of truth in this, which is that PIV sex carries risks for women that it does not carry for men, and in a society that tells women that their needs, desires and bodily autonomy are not important, it's problematic to rely on women's consent as the magical fairy dust that makes running those risks OK. (This is where Andrea Dworkin was going with the oft-misunderstood "all sex is rape" thing.)

But in this particular case there's an awful lot of stupid bullshit built up around that kernel. If I were to draw up a list of offensive things that occasionally pop up in radical feminist discourse (e.g. trans-phobia, the [usually implicit, but sometimes explicit] view that concern and interest in men's experience is incompatible with feminism, the creation, defense and promotion of a misandrist gender binary as an antidote to society's misogynistic gender binary, etc.) this blogger pretty much ticks every box, and seems proud of it.

There are unapologetic, radical feminist bloggers who are also thoughtful and intelligent, but this is not one of them. Twisty Faster at I Blame the Patriarchy would be an example of someone who I frequently disagree with, sometimes very strongly, but I always respect. This person has shown herself to be worthy of no such respect.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby Роберт » Fri Aug 03, 2012 3:09 pm UTC

I can't take them seriously if they don't believe in PIV. What, if you want kids just do artificial insemination?
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

Puppyclaws
Posts: 391
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:08 pm UTC

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby Puppyclaws » Fri Aug 03, 2012 3:19 pm UTC

firechicago wrote:As others have pointed out, there's a kernel of truth in this, which is that PIV sex carries risks for women that it does not carry for men, and in a society that tells women that their needs, desires and bodily autonomy are not important, it's problematic to rely on women's consent as the magical fairy dust that makes running those risks OK. (This is where Andrea Dworkin was going with the oft-misunderstood "all sex is rape" thing.)


I think you overstate the degree to which society tells women things of that nature (I would say it is minimal...), but then you are sticking up for Andrea Dworkin, so.

There are unapologetic, radical feminist bloggers who are also thoughtful and intelligent, but this is not one of them. Twisty Faster at I Blame the Patriarchy would be an example of someone who I frequently disagree with, sometimes very strongly, but I always respect. This person has shown herself to be worthy of no such respect.


AND Twisty Faster. Wow.

The "kernel of truth" in this is so tiny, the misunderstandings so vast.... I just can't understand how anybody could say that every act of heterosexual PIV sex is essentially "at the woman's expense." Every woman out there having a happy vanilla sex life is an unwitting, exploited victim? Almost every child born is the result of some horrible act with "cruel intentions"?

I don't know that men and women aren't both highly capable and equally likely to create and foster dangerous dependence in their SO's that can come to resemble "Stockholm syndrome" in some way. I see plenty of it in queer relationships; it strikes me that gender has nothing to do with it, and you should only feel guilty if you are an asshole who is trying to control your SO or SO's (assuming poly).

And then there is that huge rant about lobotomies. Have you lobotomized women or supported the lobotomization of women? How can you possibly feel guilty over something (I assume) you vehemently oppose and are sickened by?

User avatar
setzer777
Good questions sometimes get stupid answers
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:24 am UTC

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby setzer777 » Fri Aug 03, 2012 3:36 pm UTC

I'm pretty sure the point of the whole lobotomy metaphor is that the harmful effects of lobotomies began as side-effects but ended up as a primary motivation for performing the procedure.
Meaux_Pas wrote:We're here to go above and beyond.

Too infinity
of being an arsehole

Puppyclaws
Posts: 391
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:08 pm UTC

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby Puppyclaws » Fri Aug 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC

setzer777 wrote:I'm pretty sure the point of the whole lobotomy metaphor is that the harmful effects of lobotomies began as side-effects but ended up as a primary motivation for performing the procedure.


Right. But it is an incredibly unwieldy and inapplicable metaphor that is being used because it is emotionally evocative.

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby DSenette » Fri Aug 03, 2012 3:55 pm UTC

i think the worst part about those quotes is their emphatic statement that women who enjoy a penis inside of their vagina are mistaken and shouldn't enjoy that.

i mean....hell none of it makes sense to me. at all.
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

User avatar
emceng
Posts: 3160
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:38 pm UTC
Location: State of Hockey
Contact:

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby emceng » Fri Aug 03, 2012 4:19 pm UTC

I hate to get into threads/debates like this, because I have trouble properly articulating my feeling. My one thought I want to share is this:

These websites centering on radical feminism remind my of conspiracy theory websites. The author or contributors create an echo chamber that reflects only their views. If you disagree, you're part of the problem by not helping, or have been brainwashed, or are an enemy agent. They confirm their own views by only reading what agrees with them, and ignore any evidence to the contrary.

And the standard caveats - I am not anti-equality, nor anti-feminist. I only read the excerpts provided, and they seem to border on the ridiculous at times.
When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up. - CS Lewis

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby Роберт » Fri Aug 03, 2012 4:52 pm UTC

emceng wrote:I only read the excerpts provided, and they seem to border on the ridiculous at times.

Understatement.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby Azrael » Fri Aug 03, 2012 5:06 pm UTC

firechicago wrote:There are unapologetic, radical feminist bloggers who are also thoughtful and intelligent, but this is not one of them. Twisty Faster at I Blame the Patriarchy would be an example of someone who I frequently disagree with, sometimes very strongly, but I always respect. This person has shown herself to be worthy of no such respect.
Puppyclaws wrote:And then there is that huge rant about lobotomies. Have you lobotomized women or supported the lobotomization of women? How can you possibly feel guilty over something (I assume) you vehemently oppose and are sickened by?

It would seem that in your haste to disagree with firechicago, you have attacked their position by invoking something they've already stated is absurd. That's pretty disingenuous.

Idiot blogger is an idiot, and this is hardly unique to radical feminism. Although it does segue nicely into:

emceng wrote:These websites centering on radical feminism remind my of conspiracy theory websites.
It might just be that I'm reading some interesting (frightening) stuff on FLDS, but my initial reaction was that this "felt" similar to religious fundamentalism. Which, in the case of FLDS, also ties heavily into various conspiracy theorist bits questioning the constitutionality of the government.

In short, yeah.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3643
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby EdgarJPublius » Fri Aug 03, 2012 6:46 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:I can't take them seriously if they don't believe in PIV. What, if you want kids just do artificial insemination?


The author's position seems to be that pregnancy itself is inherently dangerous and oppressive and there is no rational reason to get pregnant.

My understanding from reading around the site a little more is that they're whole position basically revolves around the idea that vaginal intercourse is dangerous and oppressive because it leads to pregnancy1 which is dangerous2 and inherently oppressive3.

Presumably then they support voluntary human extinction since there's not really a viable alternative to that whole 'live birth' thing yet.


1Apparently this is actually the 17th century or perhaps sub-Saharan Africa, where 'birth-control' and prophylaxis aren't 'things'

2yea, modern medicine? Not a 'thing' apparently

3because only women can get pregnant, therefore it it is something men do to women.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

User avatar
setzer777
Good questions sometimes get stupid answers
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:24 am UTC

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby setzer777 » Fri Aug 03, 2012 6:56 pm UTC

My impression is that it's specifically unwanted pregnancy that they are referring to. The idea is that the vast majority of PIV sex that occurs has the primary benefit of male pleasure and the primary risks of female unwanted pregnancy, STDs, and physical discomfort.
Meaux_Pas wrote:We're here to go above and beyond.

Too infinity
of being an arsehole

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby Роберт » Fri Aug 03, 2012 7:12 pm UTC

setzer777 wrote:My impression is that it's specifically unwanted pregnancy that they are referring to. The idea is that the vast majority of PIV sex that occurs has the primary benefit of male pleasure and the primary risks of female unwanted pregnancy, STDs, and physical discomfort.

Well, their rhetoric went beyond saying "PIV is bad when you don't want kids".

And I was under the impression that female pleasure was kind of a big deal for PIV. Seriously. The argument is all manner of screwed - I get the impression that PIV sucked FOR THEM. They shouldn't judge other women who want it.

And anyone DEMANDING anyone else have ANY form of sex with them is clearly in the wrong.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3643
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby EdgarJPublius » Fri Aug 03, 2012 7:23 pm UTC

Well, the author constantly uses the terms 'unwanted' and 'ambivalent' pregnancies to describe the harms of vaginal intercourse. But it's clear that their position is that women aren't empowered in society and culture to not have procreative sex. And that women, if empowered in this way, and not brainwashed by culture into thinking vaginal intercourse is (or can be) positive, would choose never to have vaginal intercourse at all.

Although I don't think the author ever says so in as many words, they are essentially saying that every pregnancy is unwanted or 'ambivalent'. And if a woman chooses willingly to be impregnated it wasn't actually her choice, but she was brainwashed or coerced into it.

Here is an article by the same author that makes this position clear.

in its own reporting on reaching the 7-billion mark, msnbc asked several experts to “identify some major problems — and potential remedies — confronting a world with 7 billion inhabitants.” out of all the experts, not a single one identified PIV or PIV-as-institution as a problem, preferring to skirt around the issue and make it all about womens reproductive organs and controlling what comes out of them, instead of what goes in. of the experts who identified “too many children” as the problem, access to “abortion and contraception” was named as a solution. what would the solution look like, however, if the “problem” were identified as too many unwanted and ambivalent pregnancies, rather than too many pregnancies brought to term? they dont say, but clearly “abortion” becomes a non-answer when one changes the question even slightly. and if the problem were framed as “trying to squeeze female-bodied persons into a male-centric sexual model” anyone with eyes would be forced to see that “contraceptives” would not be the solution, but rather would only reiterate the problem. the people who are asking the questions are doing it wrong, and they are ignoring an obvious solution that would produce real results — namely, putting an end to the PIV-as-sex paradigm. the intellectual dishonesty there is stunning, but not surprising.


where women are allowed to refuse PIV or use contraceptives without being beaten or killed by men, they are refusing it, and they are using it. where the hell does this “human voice” and “spousal communication” rhetoric come from? jesus fucking christ, people. and because i dont believe for an instant that anyone writing an op-ed for the new york times is a complete idiot, the only reasonable conclusion here is that they are spinning politics or outright lying when they use those words, instead of acknowledging whats really going on: that when women have the slightest choice in the matter, and where PIV-as-institution isnt backed up by the reality of male violence and rape, women refuse to have PIV, and they refuse to become impregnated by PIV. they decline to be semen receptacles for men, or mens sexual and reproductive slaves. and the birth rate correspondingly declines.


Emphasis added.

As a bonus, there's some of that 'conspiracy theory' rhetoric in there too.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

ericlucha
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 1:22 pm UTC

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby ericlucha » Fri Aug 03, 2012 7:34 pm UTC

I always thought women enjoyed sex. Hmm, go figure.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3643
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby EdgarJPublius » Fri Aug 03, 2012 8:01 pm UTC

But see, vaginal intercourse isn't actually sex!


http://factcheckme.wordpress.com/2010/0 ... -just-piv/

sticking your dick into a vagina AINT SEX. mm-kay? its not. since when did “sex” come to mean “men sticking their dicks into women?” because thats what it means. thats the intended, and working, meaning of the word. someone fucked up here, people. we need to start over, because ”sex” has nothing to do with being sexual, with arousal, or desire, or with being interesting or creative or anything. and its definitely not about “expressing” anything, except penis-worship, and mens entitlement to put girls and women in harms way, without reproach.

so if someone were to say to me, “its just erotic massage!!!!1!!11!” or “its just mutual masturbation/digital penetration!!!11!!” or “its just authentic female desire” or “its just a warm, wet, aroused vulva with a non-phallic-looking vibrator stimulating it to orgasm!!!!1!!1″ i would say “yay sex, bring it on.” but thats not what anyone means, when they say “its just sex.”

“sex” as its intended to mean, means “penis in vagina” and since that puts girls and women at risk for pregnancy and STDs, the payoff is not worth the risk. even if our clits were located in our vaginas, IT STILL WOULDNT BE WORTH IT. but they arent, and its not. “its just sex” means “its just misogyny and male entitlement.” and if you dont have a problem with that, you have a very serious problem, indeed.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

User avatar
KestrelLowing
Posts: 1124
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 6:57 pm UTC
Location: Michigan

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby KestrelLowing » Fri Aug 03, 2012 8:12 pm UTC

Soooo,


This is hogwash.


If someone thinks the patriarchy is controlling them every time they have sex, I think they need a therapist of some sort. They've seriously had bad experiences somewhere along the line. I don't think this is a normal pattern of thinking.

Sure. Very few people actually want to be pregnant. It sucks (I've been told). Society, however, has traditionally been very, very nice to pregnant women which more or less is at least a perk for all the complications (modern medicine can't fix everything) and general discomfort/disability. Not to mention that the body puts out some freaking awesome hormones because of pregnancy. (Seriously after giving birth, mom's are SO HIGH!)

However, a lot of people want kids and a lot of people want biological kids. Kind of need pregnancy for that.

However, in general, men do have higher sex drives than women. Working on the premise of heterosexual monogamy, this will mean that in the average couple, the man will want more sex than the female. Perhaps this is what they're referring to. However, it's not a horrible thing to work with your SO to figure out how much sex to have. It's a compromise. Partners do that.

Oh, and sex is pretty cool.

User avatar
setzer777
Good questions sometimes get stupid answers
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:24 am UTC

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby setzer777 » Fri Aug 03, 2012 8:23 pm UTC

KestrelLowing wrote:However, in general, men do have higher sex drives than women. Working on the premise of heterosexual monogamy, this will mean that in the average couple, the man will want more sex than the female. Perhaps this is what they're referring to. However, it's not a horrible thing to work with your SO to figure out how much sex to have. It's a compromise. Partners do that.

Oh, and sex is pretty cool.


I think above and beyond sex drive the argument is that when women do want sexual pleasure, most of them will get more of it from oral sex, clitoral stimulation, and digital penetration. PIV adds a huge amount of risk for little-to-no increase in sexual pleasure for the majority of women.

This doesn't entirely fit with my experience (I've even had partners who strongly preferred PIV to all other stimulation), but most surveys do seem to show that PIV isn't the height of sexual pleasure for most women. It is also true that we culturally attach a lot of meaning to PIV (in terms of it being "real" sex, as opposed to just foreplay), which could account for at least some people's desire to engage in it despite the risks.
Meaux_Pas wrote:We're here to go above and beyond.

Too infinity
of being an arsehole

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby Роберт » Fri Aug 03, 2012 8:45 pm UTC

setzer777 wrote:I think above and beyond sex drive the argument is that when women do want sexual pleasure, most of them will get more of it from oral sex, clitoral stimulation, and digital penetration.
Just because that's true for some women doesn't somehow mean that the women who get the best sexual pleasure from PIV and may not even orgasm from other methods are broken. And the "stockholm syndrome" thing? Really? Every women is mentally broken when they form emotional attachments with their spouse through sex? Guys DON'T form emotional attachment through sex?

For a so-called feminist, she's stereotyping gender roles an awful lot. That's one of her problems.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
ahammel
My Little Cabbage
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:46 am UTC
Location: Vancouver BC
Contact:

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby ahammel » Fri Aug 03, 2012 8:49 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:And the "stockholm syndrome" thing? Really? Every women is mentally broken when they form emotional attachments with their spouse through sex? Guys DON'T form emotional attachment through sex?

My first thought was that the 'emotional attachments' thing surely isn't particular to that particular genre of sex. That's when I realized I'd been trolled.
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3643
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby EdgarJPublius » Fri Aug 03, 2012 9:08 pm UTC

setzer777 wrote:
KestrelLowing wrote:However, in general, men do have higher sex drives than women. Working on the premise of heterosexual monogamy, this will mean that in the average couple, the man will want more sex than the female. Perhaps this is what they're referring to. However, it's not a horrible thing to work with your SO to figure out how much sex to have. It's a compromise. Partners do that.

Oh, and sex is pretty cool.


I think above and beyond sex drive the argument is that when women do want sexual pleasure, most of them will get more of it from oral sex, clitoral stimulation, and digital penetration. PIV adds a huge amount of risk for little-to-no increase in sexual pleasure for the majority of women.

This doesn't entirely fit with my experience (I've even had partners who strongly preferred PIV to all other stimulation), but most surveys do seem to show that PIV isn't the height of sexual pleasure for most women. It is also true that we culturally attach a lot of meaning to PIV (in terms of it being "real" sex, as opposed to just foreplay), which could account for at least some people's desire to engage in it despite the risks.



Well, there are certainly other advantages to vaginal intercourse. It is more-or-less mutually pleasurable, and there's a nice 'face-to-face' aspect to it among others. Not that these are universal to all instances of vaginal intercourse of course, nor are they exclusive, but it does seem to me that there's a sort of general 'well-roundedness' to it that is separate from cultural norms, especially in the context of a healthy relationship.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

User avatar
PAstrychef
for all intimate metaphysical encounters
Posts: 2908
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 6:24 pm UTC

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby PAstrychef » Fri Aug 03, 2012 9:51 pm UTC

I find this branch of feminism distasteful and, basically, wrong.
It is an easy framework for any grievance-The Men Did It. There are echoes of "it's Whitey's fault", where all ills are laid at the feet of an outside oppressor. People who engage in this rhetoric say over and over how much they value agency, and how the agency of women has been suppressed or denied, but let a woman want to engage in a sexual practice they find distasteful, and the only reason she could want to do such horrible things is because she was brainwashed by the Patriarchy. They are enthralled by the male gaze, all the while denying the idea of a female gaze that objectifies male bodies.
The construct of heterosexual sex=rape is so simplistic it can't bear scrutiny.
Don’t become a well-rounded person. Well rounded people are smooth and dull. Become a thoroughly spiky person. Grow spikes from every angle. Stick in their throats like a puffer fish.

User avatar
zmic
Posts: 419
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:38 pm UTC

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby zmic » Fri Aug 03, 2012 10:11 pm UTC

KestrelLowing wrote:However, in general, men do have higher sex drives than women. Working on the premise of heterosexual monogamy, this will mean that in the average couple, the man will want more sex than the female. Perhaps this is what they're referring to. However, it's not a horrible thing to work with your SO to figure out how much sex to have. It's a compromise.


How can there be a compromise? If one partner wants less sex than the other, then the lesser amount of sex is the only acceptable outcome. You "compromise" is basically rape.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby Роберт » Fri Aug 03, 2012 10:22 pm UTC

zmic wrote:How can there be a compromise? If one partner wants less sex than the other, then the lesser amount of sex is the only acceptable outcome. You "compromise" is basically rape.

...your definition of rape is screwy. I don't even know how to address this. Sex should only happen when two people at the exact same time would independently decide they want sex with each other?

Let's talk about prostitutes. It seems from your definition, sex with a prostitute is always rape. Am I wrong? Please elaborate.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3643
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby EdgarJPublius » Fri Aug 03, 2012 11:02 pm UTC

However, in general, men do have higher sex drives than women.


generalizations like this are dangerous, is this supported by an evidence? Or is it just your cultural expectation?
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

User avatar
zmic
Posts: 419
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:38 pm UTC

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby zmic » Fri Aug 03, 2012 11:09 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:
zmic wrote:How can there be a compromise? If one partner wants less sex than the other, then the lesser amount of sex is the only acceptable outcome. You "compromise" is basically rape.

...your definition of rape is screwy. I don't even know how to address this. Sex should only happen when two people at the exact same time would independently decide they want sex with each other?


KestrelLowing says that if the woman wants less sex than the man, then there should be some compromise, implying that the woman should consent to have more sex than she actually wants. Because that's what healthy couples do, apparently.

Rape culture, it's not an urban legend.

Let's talk about prostitutes. It seems from your definition, sex with a prostitute is always rape. Am I wrong? Please elaborate.


nah, let's NOT talk about prostitutes.

User avatar
PAstrychef
for all intimate metaphysical encounters
Posts: 2908
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 6:24 pm UTC

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby PAstrychef » Fri Aug 03, 2012 11:28 pm UTC

Oy!
What if the partner with the lower libido is the male partner? Engaging in a loving activity even when not really in the mood is something people do to be good to their partners.
In a committed relationship there can be an assumption of sexual availability. If I want to wake my partner up with a blow job, the fact that he's sleeping next to me and has been for quite some time gives me permission (and experience) to think/know that he's ok with that. Just like he knows that if he wants a quick, fast fuck to help him relax at the end of the night, he can ask and I will say ok, even if I'm rather tired. NEITHER OF THESE IS RAPE. I am not being forced or coerced or threatened by this.
I hope this thread doesn't derail into "how do we define rape" territory. However, this might be just the place for it. How else can a discussion get anywhere?
Don’t become a well-rounded person. Well rounded people are smooth and dull. Become a thoroughly spiky person. Grow spikes from every angle. Stick in their throats like a puffer fish.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Fri Aug 03, 2012 11:29 pm UTC

Is there a way that, in the absence of coercion, that I can consent to something that I don't "actually want"? If nobody is twisting my arm, consenting means that I've looked at my options (at least as closely as I care to) and I've decided to go with the one that I prefer. If I'm not in the mood but I decide to get my girlfriend off because I care how she feels, that's still something I "actually want" to do.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

elasto
Posts: 3517
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby elasto » Fri Aug 03, 2012 11:38 pm UTC

Indeed.

Someone not wanting to have sex is not the same thing as someone wanting to not have sex. Just because a person on a particular occasion would be just as happy - or perhaps even slightly happier - reading a book instead of having sex that's not the same thing as them minding having sex. There is a middle ground between wanting sex and objecting to sex - which is being happy to have sex if and only if the other person wants it.

Does this really need spelling out? Across all aspects of life people do things not because it makes them happy directly but because it makes them happy for the people they love to be happy. So long as it's reciprocal it's all good and healthy.
Last edited by elasto on Fri Aug 03, 2012 11:44 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
zmic
Posts: 419
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:38 pm UTC

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby zmic » Fri Aug 03, 2012 11:39 pm UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:Is there a way that, in the absence of coercion, that I can consent to something that I don't "actually want"? If nobody is twisting my arm, consenting means that I've looked at my options (at least as closely as I care to) and I've decided to go with the one that I prefer. If I'm not in the mood but I decide to get my girlfriend off because I care how she feels, that's still something I "actually want" to do.


It's not something that you want, it's something that you agree to.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Fri Aug 03, 2012 11:48 pm UTC

It's something I agree to on account of what I want (to wit, my girlfriend's happiness). Or are you telling me that I don't really want that?

...Is this my conscience speaking?
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
zmic
Posts: 419
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:38 pm UTC

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby zmic » Fri Aug 03, 2012 11:51 pm UTC

elasto wrote:Indeed.

Someone not wanting to have sex is not the same thing as someone wanting to not have sex. Just because a person on a particular occasion would be just as happy - or perhaps even slightly happier - reading a book instead of having sex that's not the same thing as them minding having sex. There is a middle ground between wanting sex and objecting to sex - which is being happy to have sex if and only if the other person wants it.

Does this really need spelling out? Across all aspects of life people do things not because it makes them happy directly but because it makes them happy for the people they love to be happy.


so you should agree to have your body used in order to make your partner "happy". Sounds like a good and healthy relationship to me :roll:

So long as it's reciprocal it's all good and healthy.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests