Feminism: Allegations of Sexual Violations

[Kalbear]

One way was in a study where they asked people about actions and not framing it as sexual assault. So it wasn't "did you rape anyone" but "did you have sex with someone when they were blacked out" or "did you ever threaten anyone to have sex". I'll link it later. It's fascinating.

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

I want to as a question. I am by no means sexist. I have a beautiful intelligent wife, whom is a great mother. My daughter is my world and would never ever want her to be held back or looked upon different because she is female.

That being said I was just introduce to a feminist theory known as PIV. I gather that its premise that all PIV is rape......what? How would the human race survive? Making love bring man and woman closer together. I also find this theory to be insulting to myself and also to women. I mean my wife enjoys sex with me, I know this because she initiates 2-3 times a week. It also states that men use the penis aa a way to enslave women, by getting them pregnant. Well, I'm happy with two children and feel that enough, but my wife wants more. So how does that xonstirue rape? And I know and from many threads in this board, I know plenty of women that want to have consensual sex with men. The might not want to become pregnant, therefore they use contraceptives.

What i am asking, is this a theory of the very extreme views of a minority of feminists, or a wildly held belief? This boggles my mind, and not to offend, but how can any reasonable human even consider this to be fact? Please, please enlighten me. Its truly the most offensive thing I've ever read. Saying I'm a rapist because I have consensual sex with my wife? Or is this some extreme stance that holds no water for most feminists?

P.S. I'm not trolling, I want honest answers and if you agree with PIV I have to say you'll never convince its true.

[TrackerNeil]

One way was in a study where they asked people about actions and not framing it as sexual assault. So it wasn't "did you rape anyone" but "did you have sex with someone when they were blacked out" or "did you ever threaten anyone to have sex". I'll link it later. It's fascinating.

I would like to read that, yes.

I want to as a question. I am by no means sexist. I have a beautiful intelligent wife, whom is a great mother. My daughter is my world and would never ever want her to be held back or looked upon different because she is female.

That being said I was just introduce to a feminist theory known as PIV. I gather that its premise that all PIV is rape......what? How would the human race survive? Making love bring man and woman closer together. I also find this theory to be insulting to myself and also to women. I mean my wife enjoys sex with me, I know this because she initiates 2-3 times a week. It also states that men use the penis aa a way to enslave women, by getting them pregnant. Well, I'm happy with two children and feel that enough, but my wife wants more. So how does that xonstirue rape? And I know and from many threads in this board, I know plenty of women that want to have consensual sex with men. The might not want to become pregnant, therefore they use contraceptives.

What i am asking, is this a theory of the very extreme views of a minority of feminists, or a wildly held belief? This boggles my mind, and not to offend, but how can any reasonable human even consider this to be fact? Please, please enlighten me. Its truly the most offensive thing I've ever read. Saying I'm a rapist because I have consensual sex with my wife? Or is this some extreme stance that holds no water for most feminists?

P.S. I'm not trolling, I want honest answers and if you agree with PIV I have to say you'll never convince its true.

I suspect that the belief that PIV=rape is probably nothing more than a fringe position amongst feminists, so I don't feel the need to spend a great deal of time debating it. However, if you're saying no one will ever convince you, why ask?

[MinDonner]

Someone was trolling with that opinion in Lit a week or so ago. Quite successfully, it appears. <_<

[deleted01]

Sigh. Reminds me of an article I read about women not identifying as feminists because feminism isn't being sold right. Kaley Cuoco from The Big Bang Theory was the main example.

Edit: Remembered her name.

[emberling]

That is not just a fringe position - it is a fringe position that is decades outdated and filtered through several layers of straw man reframings. I believe the original fringe position was something to the tune of 'Can we really consider womens' consent to heteronormative/PIV sex true consent given the centuries' buildup of social mores that pressure or even coerce women into viewing this as their purpose or duty?' A question to provoke thought, not a condemnation of men or women who engage in PIV sex and not an exhortation for all PIV sex to stop or become illegal.

I am extrapolating here but I believe the context of this position involved a world where the sexual revolution hadn't yet settled in to merge with mainstream society and it was still fairly mainstream to believe that sex and childbearing was a wife's duty for her husband's pleasure, with her pleasure not considered or even frowned upon.

In my experience the term PIV is most often used in discussions of rape laws that define rape narrowly (i.e. laws that say anything that is not PIV is not rape) and the most common feminist position is that these laws should be broadened to encompass any sexual acts.

[TrackerNeil]

Sigh. Reminds me of an article I read about women not identifying as feminists because feminism isn't being sold right. Kaley Cuoco from The Big Bang Theory was the main example.

Oh gosh...someone at a party I recently attended was talking that bullshit, that if feminism were just more inclusive of men it would gain more traction, blah blah. Just as with politics, I don't think "spin" really affects people's opinions all that much. In my view, those who accept equality between the sexes don't need to be "sold", and those who don't just aren't buying.

[karaddin]

I'm far from in a good state to write it, and I think I need several more years of academic development to have a chance of doing it justice, but my recent essay on informed consent and abortion got me thinking. The entire idea of consent was a wrong turn rights wise, at least in English. Consenting to something carries implications that it is something someone is doing to you and that you are allowing, which isn't at all how a modern feminist view of sex should be (IMO). You don't consent to lying there and letting a man fuck you as a passive object, you choose to engage in sex with that man or woman.

It also really fucks up the legal system and presumption of innocence too, because consent tends to be viewed as a given and it's absence needs to be proven. I feel like the affirmative consent movement is crawling in this direction, but I think it needs to go a lot further. Consent is not a default, and sex is an active act that you choose.

/tangent. I'll return to this when I'm a credible published author.

[ElizabethB.]

That is not just a fringe position - it is a fringe position that is decades outdated and filtered through several layers of straw man reframings. I believe the original fringe position was something to the tune of 'Can we really consider womens' consent to heteronormative/PIV sex true consent given the centuries' buildup of social mores that pressure or even coerce women into viewing this as their purpose or duty?' A question to provoke thought, not a condemnation of men or women who engage in PIV sex and not an exhortation for all PIV sex to stop or become illegal.I am extrapolating here but I believe the context of this position involved a world where the sexual revolution hadn't yet settled in to merge with mainstream society and it was still fairly mainstream to believe that sex and childbearing was a wife's duty for her husband's pleasure, with her pleasure not considered or even frowned upon.In my experience the term PIV is most often used in discussions of rape laws that define rape narrowly (i.e. laws that say anything that is not PIV is not rape) and the most common feminist position is that these laws should be broadened to encompass any sexual acts.

Do I understand correctly, that in some states, only punishable "thing" is a forced proven PIV?

[emberling]

no, I don't know specifics but other sexual assault would be on a lesser charge - sexual assault or forcible sodomy instead of rape, third degree sexual assault instead of first degree, that kind of thing.

[maarsen]

I'm far from in a good state to write it, and I think I need several more years of academic development to have a chance of doing it justice, but my recent essay on informed consent and abortion got me thinking. The entire idea of consent was a wrong turn rights wise, at least in English. Consenting to something carries implications that it is something someone is doing to you and that you are allowing, which isn't at all how a modern feminist view of sex should be (IMO). You don't consent to lying there and letting a man fuck you as a passive object, you choose to engage in sex with that man or woman.

It also really fucks up the legal system and presumption of innocence too, because consent tends to be viewed as a given and it's absence needs to be proven. I feel like the affirmative consent movement is crawling in this direction, but I think it needs to go a lot further. Consent is not a default, and sex is an active act that you choose.

/tangent. I'll return to this when I'm a credible published author.

Don't sell yourself short. You do not need to be published to be credible. I also agree with your stand. If an idea can be summed up in a short cogent paragraph, as you have done, then you have done well.

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

I would like to read that, yes.

I suspect that the belief that PIV=rape is probably nothing more than a fringe position amongst feminists, so I don't feel the need to spend a great deal of time debating it. However, if you're saying no one will ever convince you, why ask?

Because I just wanted to know why anyone would believe such a thing, then try and convince people its true, and use it in arguments. Look not trolling here, when it I seen it, I read the article they posted with it. I like to read anything that might give me a new perspective on anything. And I found it very insulting to males and females.

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

That is not just a fringe position - it is a fringe position that is decades outdated and filtered through several layers of straw man reframings. I believe the original fringe position was something to the tune of 'Can we really consider womens' consent to heteronormative/PIV sex true consent given the centuries' buildup of social mores that pressure or even coerce women into viewing this as their purpose or duty?' A question to provoke thought, not a condemnation of men or women who engage in PIV sex and not an exhortation for all PIV sex to stop or become illegal.

I am extrapolating here but I believe the context of this position involved a world where the sexual revolution hadn't yet settled in to merge with mainstream society and it was still fairly mainstream to believe that sex and childbearing was a wife's duty for her husband's pleasure, with her pleasure not considered or even frowned upon.

In my experience the term PIV is most often used in discussions of rape laws that define rape narrowly (i.e. laws that say anything that is not PIV is not rape) and the most common feminist position is that these laws should be broadened to encompass any sexual acts.

Should have read a little farther down down thread. So it started as more of say...a thought experiment, right? As some have taking it to a different level. Thank you.

Also, the person who was pushing this, was saying that ALL PIV is rape. That's why I asked the question, because that feels as a insult to me. When I have consensual sex with my wife, that's rape? No, I cannot begin to believe that to be true or even a valid argument.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Oh gosh...someone at a party I recently attended was talking that bullshit, that if feminism were just more inclusive of men it would gain more traction, blah blah. Just as with politics, I don't think "spin" really affects people's opinions all that much. In my view, those who accept equality between the sexes don't need to be "sold", and those who don't just aren't buying.

I don't know about 'sold right', but I would say that pretty much anyone I've ever met, man or woman, that wasn't exposed to any post-high school academic environment simply doesn't know what feminism actually is. The strawman of the "cut off their cock-and-balls and kill all the menz" seems to be the prevailing notion of what a feminist is. I don't think that's how feminism is 'marketed', but it is the stereotype that it faces.

Feminism is still a four-letter word to the American public even for those that agree with it. Kind of like how most people like the provisions of the ACA as long is it isn't called Obamacare. It's just a general ignorance of what something actually is.

[TrackerNeil]

I don't know about 'sold right', but I would say that pretty much anyone I've ever met, man or woman, that wasn't exposed to any post-high school academic environment simply doesn't know what feminism actually is. The strawman of the "cut off their cock-and-balls and kill all the menz" seems to be the prevailing notion of what a feminist is. I don't think that's how feminism is 'marketed', but it is the stereotype that it faces.

Feminism is still a four-letter word to the American public even for those that agree with it. Kind of like how most people like the provisions of the ACA as long is it isn't called Obamacare. It's just a general ignorance of what something actually is.

It's one thing to educate; it's another thing to market. I don't think people's opinions are changed by good salesmanship. I think opinions are changed by education and experience.

[Summah]

Feminism (in the US, and I suspect most of the west) has a problem that leads many people to believe it's not for them. The feminism that gets press is often focused on the issues of white, middle/upper class people and really often doesn't seem open or willing to engage the problems POC, poor people, disabled people have that are issues feminism should be addressing. Of course there are WoC feminists, disabled feminists and so on, but they are not the main voices heard in the media and are easily marginalized or forgotten about. And when those people are in the media they're usually not called feminists, but rather black woman author, disability activist etc.

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

It's one thing to educate; it's another thing to market. I don't think people's opinions are changed by good salesmanship. I think opinions are changed by education and experience.

So I'll admit, I'm generally ignorant to what feminism represents. I guess I perceive it to be a bit of man hating. Though reading this thread has enlightened me that that's not the case. Though, could you offer me a definition and goals of feminism. Seriously, not trolling. Just want to be less ignorant of what it is. Thanks!

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Karradin,

I feel like the affirmative consent movement is crawling in this direction, but I think it needs to go a lot further. Consent is not a default, and sex is an active act that you choose.

Doesn't "affirmative consent" lead to the absurd notion that while engaged in consentual sexual activity each party needs to ask, and then affirmatively receive, permission before they can do anything?

It also really fucks up the legal system and presumption of innocence too, because consent tends to be viewed as a given and it's absence needs to be proven.

The difficulty is that the States with legal systems decended from the English tradition is the "presumption of innocence". That's a good thing in my ernest opinion. It doesn't mean that consent is presumed. It means the defendant in a rape case is presumed to be innocent like every other criminal defendant. Are you saying the presumption of innocence should be reversed in rape cases? Because that's where you seem to be heading with that comment.

[TrackerNeil]

So I'll admit, I'm generally ignorant to what feminism represents. I guess I perceive it to be a bit of man hating. Though reading this thread has enlightened me that that's not the case. Though, could you offer me a definition and goals of feminism. Seriously, not trolling. Just want to be less ignorant of what it is. Thanks!

Sure, although I am not sure I feel comfortable defining feminism besides "a view that the sexes are equal." I am comfortable saying that my experience of feminism has definitely not been "man-hating." I'm sure others are better positioned to offer a more comprehensive definition.

[TrackerNeil]

Karradin,

Doesn't "affirmative consent" lead to the absurd notion that while engaged in consentual sexual activity each party needs to ask, and then affirmatively receive, permission before they can do anything?

I'm not sure that's so absurd, but I can understand being a bit uncomfortable with the way some define affirmative consent. I think sexual relationships can get murky, but in my view the problem is that this murkiness has been used as a cloak for those who wish to take assault women. Is there a specific part of, say, California's affirmative consent law that troubles you? It's hard to debate generalities, in this matter.