My friend showed me this article.
If you practice penetrative sex, are you usually the penetrator? If so, would you be okay with being penetrated?
If not, then maybe that means that you think of penetration as degrading, when you are on the receiving end. Which means that you should stop penetrating the people you are fucking.
What my friend (who identifies as female and mostly has penetrative vaginal sex with men) said about it:
“but, despite how they say that more and more guys are trying it, i still feel that the vast majority of guys i have fucked / will fuck wud not at ALL be okay with this. and that bothers me. it bothers me that they’d do something to me that they wouldn’t want done to them. like sex is when a guy does something to a girl that he considers so degrading that he would never ever EVER let the girl do it to him. because then he’d be a worthless woman (like how he sees me), or a worthless gay man.”
Thoughts?
Gender Agenda 
Sounds more like you have a problem with heterosexual sex than that the men have a problem with taking a strap-on.
It definitely sounds like your friend has some unresolved issues – regarding deciding to “switch” genders I assume.
im not sure what you mean. id like to hear more about your point of view.
who has a problem with heterosexual sex? me, as the author? if so, what kind of problem do you think i have with heterosexual sex? my post actually WAS about the problem i have with heterosexual penetrative sex, using the example of men having a problem “with taking a strap-on” to illuminate the underlying issues.
and what are the “unresolved issues” that my friend may have? what is a hypothesis you may have about these issues? do you view receiving penetration as a gendered act, meaning that it is a womanly act? does my friend’s inability to penetrate her partner sound to you like she is trying to erase the boundaries between what the two dominant genders should and shouldnt be allowed to do?
orkinson,
I’d would say that you, the author, sound in this post as if you have an issue with heterosexual sex. Two points – reinforced by your response – cause this:
1 – You were the one ascribing a power dynamic to it
2 – Your separation of penetrative sex as a subset of heterosexual sex.
This leads me to question – only question – your proclivities and attitudes. You sound – at least in this post and thread – like one of the more “anti-penis” Feminists that might be better off and happier as a lesbian. No harm, no foul in that; I don’t care how others enjoy themselves.
As for your friend – you say “she” identifies as female. I assume “she” is transgendered. Her comment that you quoted makes it sounds like “she’s” got a bit of guy left in “her.” 😉
As for penetrative sex being “gendered” – sort of, but then we’d have to descend into vaginal vs. anal sex and the difference between the two.
why do you think you’re allowed to question orkinson’s “proclivities and attitudes”? who gave you a license to suggest a sexual course of action and change of identity to her? why was your first move to challenge her sexuality and her friend’s gender identity instead of engaging with the actual issue she brought up, i.e., how men construct penetration with regard to gender? news at 11: “vaginal vs. anal sex and the difference between the two,” and penetrative sex being gendered, was the SUBJECT of this post. and p.s., suggesting that a woman is really more of a lesbian equals trying to shut her out of “real womanhood,” when one believes, as you’ve made clear that you do, that real women love, love, love, to be penetrated by real men. defining what makes a woman is how men exercise power over women.
1 – it’s feminist theory 101 that all male-female interactions include a power dynamic. this is a feminist blog. orkinson is exploring a male-female interaction that is universally recognized by reasonable people to include a power dynamic. do some research. topics: our culture’s vocabulary for talking about sexual assault, rapists’ vocabulary for describing their acts of penetrative vaginal rape, heterosexual BDSM relationships.
2 – penetrative vaginal sex actually *is* only one act that could fall under the heading of heterosexual sex. oral sex, mutual masturbation, and anal sex where the two partners are male and female are all classified as heterosexual sex.
3 – why the fuck would you assume that orkinson’s friend is transgender? why the fuck would you ever put someone’s gender pronoun in quotes? oh wait, i know – to delegitimize their gender identity! you clearly don’t believe that trans women are actually women and deserve to be respectfully referred to, AS WOMEN. guess what? that’s a basic rule of engagement. it’s basic good manners, too. “you” are implying that orkinson’s friend can’t be a “real woman” because she has some doubts and insecurities about whether her male partners respect her and whether they feel that penetrating her is an act of disrespect. why is it that, in “your” eyes, only men, or women who are really men, can feel an inkling of disrespect at being penetrated? oh, i know, it must be BECAUSE PENETRATION IS GENDERED, and straight men are culturally viewed as the only reasonable penetrators, because the penetrator is the one with power. any “real” straight woman would just accept vaginal penetration as her due. any trans woman who’s had bottom surgery and proceeds to have vaginal sex with straight men must have some male anxiety about being “gay.”
feminism 101, lesson 2: a person can possess whatever body they were born with and identify however they want. so, the same way someone born with breasts and a vagina can identify as a man, someone born with breasts and a vagina can identify as a woman – and anything else they fucking want. saying that someone identifies as female does not mean that they weren’t born with a female body or that they question their female identity. it simply acknowledges that a person’s gender identity is separate from, but related to, their body, a concept that “you” seem unable to grasp.
i hope “you” enjoyed “your” meal, troll. go back to “your” ridiculous “socially liberal” bridge before i blow the whole damn house down.
YES. what snacktivism said, exactly.
question to you jonolan: in what capacity are you interested in the topics brought forth in my post and comments? what made you click on our site? what about it interests you? it seems unlikely for a person with your politics to visit our blog, even if it is to say so many offensive things all at once.
don’t feed the trooooooooolllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
jk, ork. if “jonolan” wants dessert and you’re in a pastry chef kinda mood, i look forward to seeing what you’ll serve.
orkinson,
What brought me here was pseudo-random chance as enacted by WordPress’ Tag Surfer feature – though it was odd since I no tags setup that match your blog.
What interested me was your ascribing of both a power dynamic to heterosexual sex and avowing that there was an inherent degradation in being penetrated. I’m well aware that Feminists have been chanting that mantra for decades, but I hadn’t heard it said quite so bluntly and offensively in a long while.
Since I’m polygamous and live with two strong-willed, bisexual women, one of them who is into BDSM as a Domme or Top, such topics perk my interest, since I’ve seen real power transactions in a sexual context quite often.
Since you asked for thoughts…
As for my politics – I’m unsure what you mean by that. Perhaps you could explain.
as far as i can tell, you do not appear to have radical feminist/womanist politics. that is what i meant by that. and that is why i was surprised by your visiting our blog.
what is offensive about ascribing a power dynamic to heterosexual sex?
furthermore, what is NOT offensive about you blithely assuming that my friend identifies as transgendered and making fun of her for still having “a bit of a guy left in her”?
True. I’m quite dead-set against the radical fringe of the feminist movement, seeing them as detrimental to both society and the human species.
Actually, it wasn’t just the ascribing of a power dynamic / power transfer to heterosexual sex; it was that in combination with the idea that such was degrading to women.
As for your friend, you were seemingly careful to describe your friend as someone “who identifies as female.” In normal colloquial English that implies that the person is transgendered (MTF). Apparently it was, in fact, part of some idea of artificially altering language. My apologies for the mistake in language / jargon.
That all being said, are you diametrically opposed to the idea of a dissenting (Male) opinion on the subject being expressed here? If nothing else, it would give you an example of how you and your chosen method of communication are perceived by reasonably normal – as in within the normative value range for current American society – men.
If you wish, I’ll leave. Otherwise I’ll respond to some of snacktivism’s comments in a separate response.
ask snacktivism if she wants you to respond, not me.
no im not opposed to a dissenting “Male” opinion on the subject. i do think your opinion is offensive. and that you havent really offered any evidence for why my questioning of the way penetrative hetero sex can be, and often is, degrading, is offensive to you.
it seems that youre just saying stuff and not backing it up.
Actually, I’ve realized that there is little or point in responding to snacktivism. She would no more listen to me than I would to her.
“it seems that you’re just saying stuff and not backing it up.”
As are you, as we both must. These are beliefs and opinions that have no basis in empirical fact.
Face it, if you find penetrative hetero sex to be degrading, than for you it is so. Does that mean that it actually IS degrading? No. It only means that you feel that way.
The same in reverse holds true my position.
jonolan, i think you disabled replies on your most recent comment, so i’ll respond here. i don’t apologize for anything i said to you previously. you made me very angry and violated the safe space we have created on this blog. but if you’d like to engage, try it out. i think it goes without saying that i’d appreciate at least a minimal effort to engage with respect, and think about what respect means in this context, on this blog. i can’t promise not to take you to task, and actually – fair warning – i expect to.
our beliefs and opinions aren’t based on weights, measurements or reports. they’re based on observations and emotions that are as undeniable to us, those who have experienced them, as the sky being blue.
patriarchy has assigned “feeling” as women’s specialty. a lot of women have absorbed this message. i believe this is probably more important than the biology of the brain. since you’re vested in empirical fact, though, some current science shows that people with female brain chemistry have a tendency to interpret situations and problems from an emotional or personal standpoint.
when you say that beliefs and opinions are basically not as valid to argue about as facts, you say that over half the population’s communication style and experience of life are inadmissible to the discourse. that privileges a way of thinking that is either structurally forbidden to women or not in our biology. either way, for women and men to be on equal footing, people have to see emotions and feelings as just as rational and worth talking about as a factual analysis. i would ask you to consider this.
___________________________
it seems you think these issues are unresolvable, but they’re not. nobody is trying to enact a law banning penetrative sex. the feminists i know believe in personal freedom and autonomy. i personally don’t even believe in law. all we ask is that people use their autonomy respectfully and not harmfully or coercively, resulting in the denial of autonomy to other people. we believe, for one, that men in power have used their autonomy to structurally deny autonomy to women. we are trying to ask if, at the root of heterosexual men’s attitude towards penetrative vaginal sex with women, there isn’t a tiny bit of intent or desire to harm by placing women below them on the power scale. then, we are wondering what we should do about it in our personal sexual interactions with heterosexual men.
orkinson in particular believes that if an individual performing this act at all conceptualizes it as putting their partner below them on the power scale, that individual should stop, because that feeling probably trickles into the rest of their behavior with their partner. that makes their relationship unequal. i don’t know how she feels about being able to change one’s underlying views, and when it would be appropriate – pardon the pun – to re-enter the practice of penetrative sex.
my personal belief is that this dynamic is probably inescapable between any two sexual partners raised as male and female, and not limited to penetration. i believe that loving partners can probably work together to examine that dynamic and eliminate it from their relationship, and hopefully use that process to learn how to resist privilege-based power plays in the rest of their lives. but they have to be willing to admit that the dynamic is there in order to work on it. (the first step is admitting that you have a problem.)
a lot of women, and men too, say they’ve felt this dynamic. that’s good enough proof for me that it exists and is worth talking about. there is a hypothesis that men find something about the act of penetration inherently empowering because to them, it degrades the person being penetrated. if that hypothesis has even a shred of truth in it, i believe that’s a huge problem.
snacktivism,
I didn’t – and couldn’t – disable replies on my comment. I think we just reached the limit of the blog’s threading capabilities.
If this was meant to be a “safe space.” that should have been made clear in the comment posting area – or my comments should have never been allowed. Believe it or not, if it hadn’t seemed to be a public forum, I would not have intruded even with the original requests for thoughts.
As for you apologizing or not, so? I wouldn’t expect you to ever apologize to me for speaking your mind, just I rarely apologize for speaking mine. The “requirement” for doing so is where I find there to be a power exchange.” 😉
We are, however, going to continue to have communication issues, assuming I continue in this discussion. Your desire for a “safe space” seems wrapped in a great deal of artificial language that, while useful for your needs or desires, is alien to me, as can be seen by the confusion over Alene’s gender.
However, I never said that “beliefs and opinions are basically not as valid to argue about as facts.” I said that, as such, there is little use in “backing up” what is said. We could exchange anecdotal evidence or scientific – and/or pseudo-scientific – studies, but I’ve found that quickly devolves into each side claiming the other is just spewing “feminist talking points” or “patriarchal talking points.”
——————————————
“We are trying to ask if, at the root of heterosexual men’s attitude towards penetrative vaginal sex with women, there isn’t a tiny bit of intent or desire to harm by placing women below them on the power scale.”
That’s not, in fact, what was asked in the original post. What was asked was whether a man who will not be anally penetrated believed that penetrative sex was demeaning. That’s a different question and one that implies – as born out by later comments – that penetrative sex is inherently demeaning to receiver.
I find that concept just about as offensive as you found my commentary, snackitvism. I utterly reject the feminists concepts that seek to subjugate me into the role of the oppressor – especially when it comes to sex, since women hold the majority of power, if there is such, in that arena. The simple laws of supply and demand cause that to be.
Also – and this ties into some of your other comments – there is a great deal of difference between vaginal and anal sex, especially in the normative male mind.
Now…That does cause me to consider the possibility – perhaps probability – that men seeking anal sex with their female partners are doing exactly what orkinson was saying or questioning.
Finally – I think you’ll find that most women who want to penetrate their boyfriends’ or husbands’ asses are doing it for the sake of a power transfer. That is going to be noticed by their partners and likely rejected, irrespective of those men’s views to gender equality.
Men may not be adverse to equality (I know; you disagree), but we rarely willingly move into an actively subordinate role.
the about page mentions the words “feminist space,” which i realize are very ambiguous. i think it does bear addressing among GA’s authors that we have no clear comment policy. some of us like to engage with non-feminists, see their point of view, and bring them over to the “dark side.” some of us find it counterproductive, impossible and irritating.
perhaps this is news, but all language is artificial, and just like history, commonly accepted language is written by those in power. language is a big component of a lot of people’s anti-oppression work. the words we use encourage us to think certain ways about the concepts they represent. many words in common use actually teach us to think about the concepts they represent as subpar or degraded. i’m not sure exactly what seemed alien to you. it is common practice in mass media to use people’s preferred pronouns, and accept the preferred gender of transgender people. putting alene’s gender pronoun in quotes was highly offensive.
i don’t think there’s “little use” in backing up what’s said. i think the impasse you describe is probably a partial result of the attitude *i* described, which views anecdotal evidence as unequal to factual evidence. to me this is really easy and blatantly logical. there is a deeply entrenched power dynamic in het relationships because men are socialized to accept power over women, and women are socialized to give their power to men. if i were to try and list all the proof we have of this dynamic, i’d be here for years. the socialization process is not limited to teaching blatant sexism. that would be impossible. it governs the way we approach every interaction. it controls our psyches. the vast majority of people in our culture subconsciously see heterosexual sex as necessarily being a power exchange. therefore, for all intents and purposes, heterosexual sex in our culture can be reasonably defined as a power exchange.
________________________
that’s not a different question. it’s simply a lens on the same concept.
if, to heterosexual men, penetration = subconscious intent to harm or degrade,
do heterosexual men reject being penetrated because they do not want to be degraded?
does this not make it problematic for them to continue penetrating their female partners?
the question is not anything inherent to the act. the question is the widely accepted subconscious cultural and psychosocial significance of the act. penetration does not occur in a vacuum! if it did, nobody would have a problem with it! the whole question is about how our attitudes shape our realities.
subjugated into the role of the oppressor? um…
do you realize that that doesn’t make any sense?
i’m not even going to respond to that paragraph.
so if women who want to penetrate a guy’s ass *are* doing it for the sake of a power transfer, why is that exactly? where’d they get the idea that there’s any power transfer involved in the act of penetration? you said it yourself: the one being penetrated is in an actively subordinate role. game, set, match.
All language is indeed a construct but, if one chooses to speak in some form of jargon, as opposed to normal parlance, there are going to be communication issues.
—-
I make no apologies for “quoting” a trans’ gender. Biology – or the Gods – assign gender before birth.
—-
No; you believe that there is a deeply entrenched power dynamic in relationships and you believe that it is an oppressor-oppressed relationship.
I believe differently, especially when it comes to sex.
Neither one of us – or both of us – could back that up with studies, anecdotes, and such – but each could continue to refute each other because there’s no objective factual basis for either position.
You don’t get it. I don’t discount anecdotal evidence; I just find it ridiculous to attempt to argue or defend it.
—-
Yes, subjugated into the role of the oppressor. It makes perfect sense. Every group who feels – or plays upon the the idea – that they’re being oppressed needs an oppressor. When actual and overt oppression is absent, they force others into that role – normally by changing and expanding the definition of what is oppressive behavior.
—
What you keep ignoring is that there’s a huge difference between normal vaginal sex and anal sex. So, no. It’s not game, sex, and match.
And…If she is doing it for the sake of a power transfer, then it’s likely that she believes that it is degrading. That immediately casts a shadow on the couple’s entire sex life.
“I make no apologies for ‘quoting’ a trans’ gender. Biology – or the Gods – assign gender before birth.”
What a convenient argument. Of course, it’s not YOU who disapproves of transgendered people. Its a higher power, for whom you are a mere vessel.
Biology OR the Gods? Well why don’t we break this down. Biology doesn’t “assign” anything more than a person’s original genitalia. Evolution is not a conscious, moralistic being who wrote Biblical decrees on what we may or may not make of our plumbing. Or on what pronouns we ascribe to ourselves. Or on what clothing we wear. Biology doesn’t care! People care. YOU care. Don’t project your squeamishness onto an amoral process.
And of course when the nature claim is debunked, there’s always the Gods. Tell me, how exactly did you get to know the minds of the Gods? When did they brief you personally on the irreversible laws of gender? And during your conference, did they happen say anything about the proper way to eat a tomato? Cause I ate one like an apple the other day and I’m afraid I might be guilty of insolence.
Until I get the memo from one of these celestial dudes, I have to assume your claim is unjustifiable, and is born of the worst kind of arrogance.
“Biology – or the Gods – assign gender before birth.”
jonolan, you are so far behind you think you’re first. Please educate yourself:
http://www.isna.org/faq/what_is_intersex
Gender, even at birth, is not just black and white, “male” or “female”. Even if you don’t believe that gender is an alterable social construct, you cannot deny this “biological” evidence. Millions of people are born with genitalia that is not clearly “male” or “female”. Gender is a spectrum, not a binary.
You ignorant fool.
Ork, I think jonolan might have been confused by how you used “identifies as female” and “men” in the same sentence in your original post. Perhaps saying “identifies as female” then saying “cis-gendered men” or “male-identified people” would have been more consistent with what I’ve perceived as a new effort on your part (at least on Gender Agenda) to stop using the terms “women” and “men” because they don’t quite cover the spectrum of gender identities. Jonolan, I think you are unfamiliar with this shift in terminology.
Nevertheless, jonolan, I think you are using your rather limited ideas of certain gender and sexual identities (trans persons and lesbians) to de-legitimize this discussion. Just because a person is questioning norms of heterosexuality it does not mean that they no longer want to be heterosexually-identified. In fact, most of the lesbian-identified people I know don’t even get as far as thinking about the implications of heterosexual sex… they just focus on their own sexuality. I believe paying attention to these misogynist norms in heterosexual sex and thinking about how they can be reconstructed to give more pleasure and satisfaction to both parties demonstrates a much greater commitment and faith in heterosexuality than someone who thinks it’s a lost cause.
I think this is a really interesting take on penetrative sex. Thanks ork! It’s a really good point, that a lot of guys wouldn’t want to be penetrated because they don’t want to be “the woman” in a sexual relationship. Or because they don’t want to be seen as gay.
I think most guys don’t like receiving penetration because the idea doesn’t turn them on (that could definitely be connected to the other, sexist/homophobic reasons). I have no interest in penetrating my partner, maybe because I perceive penetration as a dominant act and I’m submissive. But that’s shitty for women who aren’t submissive, to always have to take what is perceived to be a submissive role.
Another thought:
I understand how penetration could be perceived as inherently dominant, since the person penetrating is the person “forcing” themselves into the other person.
However, I’ve had penetrative sex, during which I felt like I was being very dominant, even though I was the one being penetrated. It was clear that my partner realized it too because he was so surprised by me taking that role when I usually don’t. And it was awesome, by the way.
So your post is making me consider opposing ideas. First, that maybe penetrative sex is inherently dominant and forceful. Second, that maybe penetrative sex is only perceived as dominant because males are usually the ones penetrating.
Finally:
I think, in general, people focus too much on penetrative sex as the endgame for all sexual activity, considering that, generally speaking, its not the most mutually beneficial kind of sex.
That said, being a fan of receiving penetration, I would be disappointed (and kind of insulted) if my partner decided to boycott penetrative sex for MY sake. And if he did it for himself I would probably tell him I respect his choice and find another partner.
Oh I didn’t read the article you posted before responding. Sorry if I missed something integral to your point by not reading it. I’m going to read it right now. heartz.
Ork, I have many thoughts about this that are SO relevant to an essay I read for Domestic Violence class by John Stoltenberg called “How Men Have (a) Sex”. It’s basically my favorite essay EVER right now. I think I will send it to you and hope that maybe you can read it before our Skype date tomorrow? Either way, I will definitely be raving about it here once it’s more settled in my brain.
thanks for your thoughts everyone! and irene it was good to talk to you about that essay.
@lucie: “That said, being a fan of receiving penetration, I would be disappointed (and kind of insulted) if my partner decided to boycott penetrative sex for MY sake. And if he did it for himself I would probably tell him I respect his choice and find another partner.”
two things:
one: what counts as your partner ending the practice of penetrative sex with you, as doing it for you, and not for him?
second: why would you only “probably” tell him you respect his choice?
If he said something to the effect of “I don’t want to have penetrative sex because I think it’s bad for you, and you’re only victimizing yourself by engaging in it,” I think that would be him doing it for me. I would also think it very patronizing. Whereas, if he said something like “Penetrative sex is too aggressive for me” that would be him doing it for himself.
I would definitely respect his choice. I didn’t mean to be ambiguous about that part. And depending on what our relationship was like I might try to work it out with him, but I would “probably” find another partner. Sorry if I was unclear before.
thanks lucie! so i take it you wouldnt wanna try out other ways of having sex that are non penetrative before ending your relationship with them? sorry if i sound aggressive, i dont mean to.
I guess if I was like “in love” I would. But recently I’m just into having casual sex with friends (nice middle ground between monogamy and random hook ups) so there wouldn’t really be any reason to work it out if the sex wasn’t good. Though obviously we would still be friends.
“there wouldn’t really be any reason to work it out if the sex wasn’t good.”
i guess what i was trying to say is that good sex doesnt have to be penetrative sex.
the idea that the only good sex is penetrative sex is threatening to me. if im involved with a person and happy to have sex with him but i dont want it to be penetrative sex, then id be pissed if they severed their sexual ties with me because they just had to have their penetrative sex so badly.
irene sent me this essay about non-coital sex, if you want to read it i can email it to you.
I don’t think penetrative sex is by any means the universal standard for good sex. It just happens to be a mark of good sex for me personally. Also, for a lot of people their sexual relationships are connected to a romantic relationship, which would make them more personally invested in working it out. That just doesn’t happen to be my situation.
I hope you only have relationships with people who are in tune with you sexually. Maybe the person I broke sexual ties with would be mad about it too, but their anger shouldn’t keep me from breaking it off because they’re not entitled to a sexual relationship with me. No one’s entitled to a sexual relationship with anyone.
Sure, I’d very much like to read it!
sure ill email you it!
i agree that no one is entitled to a sexual relationship with anyone. i wasnt trying to say otherwise. i think that there is room for meaningful sexual experimentation even in non-romantic sexual relationships, but its your life so for now i will stop hinting at what you should or shouldnt do with your sexual partners.
“i think that there is room for meaningful sexual experimentation even in non-romantic sexual relationships”
Agree!:-)
i remember reading that in at least one culture in the middle east, only the guy on the receiving end of dude-dude anal sex is seen as gay. heterosexist violence and repression will proceed to target only that guy. i think this was in a new york times magazine article about saudi arabia’s gay and lesbian culture a few years ago. does anyone else remember it, or know more than i do? i think this is interesting to note and a super stark example of power and acceptability residing with the penetrator. i do know a little about saudi arabia and a miniscule crumb about gender in islam and cultures where it plays a huge part, but i don’t know nearly enough to credibly link it to american mores on penetration without stumbling all over my first-world feminist feet.
should i even have brought this up?
I think that attitude towards gay sex is pretty pervasive here too. The guy penetrating is the man in the relationship, or the woman taking the strap-on is the woman.
I always hear guys joking, saying “it’s not gay if he’s sucking your dick” or “it’s not gay if you’re on top,” and of course, the always charming “a hole is a hole is a hole.”
Hey.
This is Orkinson’s friend.
For the record, I was born a girl and I have continued to be a girl until now. I have girl private parts and I dress like a girl. I’m not transexual.
Orkinson thought it might be bad for me to point out that I’m not transexual, because she didn’t want to imply that, if I were transexual, it would be okay to belittle the way I feel about sex. I agree that it is not good to belittle the way transexual people feel about sex.
But I’m pointing out that I’m not transexual to prove the point that: even a regular old boring always-was-a-girl type of girl can have a problem with men wanting to do something to her (penetration) that men generally consider degrading.
BTW, Snacktivism, you rock.
And BTW, Hi Lucie.
I just want to say that I DON’T think penetration is objectively dominating or degrading. I’m a lesbian, I love it, and so does my girlfriend.
BUT I DO think that we shouldn’t allow someone to perform a sexual act on us (or perform one on them) that they wouldn’t allow on themselves (or wouldn’t do for us) BECAUSE they think it’s degrading. The subjective interpretation of the act between the participants is the more important issue, in my opinion. There are many lesbians who love their strap-ons and who enjoy penetrating their partners, but who don’t want to be penetrated because it makes them feel too vulnerable. So, it’s not just a heterosexual problem; but the ROOT does seem to be grounded in heterosexual-ism and gendered imbalances of power.
My thoughts – actually distilled better after Undercover Punk’s comment – are thus:
Heterosexual penetrative sex is not objectively degrading to anyone and that holds true irrespective of whether the partner who normally penetrates is wiling to be penetrated – especially if it’s a man. It all depends on motivation.
Part of the issue arises that men compete against other men. Anal sex – the penetrative sex that men can receive – is seen as gay and hence a male-to-male thing with all the inherent competition and power exchange such dominance games bring to the table.
One thing though – If there’s a power exchange in the sexual relationship, it’s going to be there irrespective of the methods of intercourse. If there’s not a power exchange in the sexual relationship, it’s not going to be there irrespective of the methods of intercourse.
orkinson & snacktivism,
No need to post this; it’s just a note for you authors / moderators of this blog.
😆 Tell your commenters that “the big, bad man” has left the building; maybe they’ll get back to the topic at hand if they feel less need to incessantly attack me about secondary issues.
Most likely I won’t return – unless specifically asked to via email (you have mine as part of the comments) – because, believe or not, I do respect your concept of “safe space” and my presence here is doing far more harm to discourse than any good differently oriented opinion might be doing.
snacktivism, we virulently disagree in the issues brought up here – and likely almost every other issue – but you’re talented arguer. It’s been interesting.
Fair Winds and Following Seas, “people-I-identify-as-ladies” 😉
Oh thank you sir, for relenting. I don’t think us girls could have had this conversation much longer before breaking down into tears.
Go screw, person-I-identify-as-obnoxious.
Seriously!!!!!! I was going to complain about the nauseating male arrogance in jonolan’s most recent comment, but this isn’t my space and I TRY not to be a trouble-maker. So thank you for saying what I was thinking.
Or the guy might just not like being penetrated, i.e. it doesn’t do anything for him.
We shouldn’t confuse personal taste with regarding something as bad or degrading. His entire reason might be, “well it just isn’t very fun for me”
I would find that perfectly acceptable.
genderbitch, I think the point that was initially made in this post was that women, who are consistently pressured into penetrative sex as the ultimate consummation of their attraction to men, do not find it “fun” either. At least probably for the first few times and maybe forever.
Great, jonolan doesn’t find it “fun”, we are questioning why it isn’t “fun” for men. And why our society doesn’t accept that answer from women. You can see that in how jonolan, because orkinson and her friend had problems with penetration, assumed that they were lesbian and trans. In our society, it is expected that straight girls like penetration. If you don’t, you’re not a real straight girl. Do you NOT think it’s fucked up that orkinson can’t even question penetration without causing a stir? Let alone suggest that “it doesn’t do anything” for her.
Oh, I definitely think it’s fucked up that it’s expected for straight girls to like penetration. I guess I got a bit lost on context there. My apologies.
feminism = sexual deviation ?