Jump to content

PIV (Penis In Vagina) Centrism


lily1988

Recommended Posts

I would also argue that when people say "sex" they typically mean penetration... this is one of the reasons why lesbian sex is considered "not sex" but gay boy penetrative sex is. Because it's the penetration that matters, and all combos of people can penetrate each other.

*shrug* Well I really don't see it that way. Handjobs definitely are a form of sex, IMO, despite being non-penetrative. In contrast, pegging isn't sex (no genitals of either participant are involved), despite it being a form of penetration... I really see it more as a form of fetish/kink.

(If someone here doesn't know what pegging is... please think twice if you really even want to know before you google it. I won't pay for any brain bleach you want to apply afterwards!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you, but sadly those persons are often called feminists by people even though they're actually sexist.

Yeah, that's way I usually step in and correct them. I came for a town where "feminist" was a bad word (with it's intended meaning), and it took me a long time to be comfortable "coming out" as a feminist (you don't know how many times I got told that "guys won't like that" and my future husband wouldn't "let" me believe that way and "you're so pretty, why haven't you found a man to take care of you so you can quit working? Have a couple kids and settle down, you're already twenty you should find a man now before all the good ones are gone" or even just the trandional "you should be in a kitchen") so when people try and say feminism is a bad thing, I always feel the urge to point out that equal rights for human beings is never a bad thing. I want to help spread the word that feminism and misandrism aren't the same thing and shouldn't be labeled as such. It's like when people try and say bisexuals are promiscuous or that asexuals just haven't found the right person yet. It's false information that I don't want spread.....sorry, ranted on my soap box there for a minute. Hehe, guess it's obvious this is a personal subject for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guess my definition of sex is broader because I see both handjobs and pegging as forms of sex. But I also prescribe to the way of thinking that the line between foreplay and sex is set by each individual couple.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To shift the 'centrism'...PEV=Penis Engulfed by Vagina. :ph34r: "the Mediator"

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tarfeather

*shrug* Well I really don't see it that way. Handjobs definitely are a form of sex, IMO, despite being non-penetrative.

Guess my definition of sex is broader because I see both handjobs and pegging as forms of sex.

Meh. Not entirely on the handjobs part IMO. Having touched the outer parts of the reproductive organs of a woman with my hands once doesn't make me feel any less of a virgin, really. ^^

And that's a dumb reason. As dumb as this entire discussion. It doesn't matter what "gay sex" is, and this entire discussion could've been avoided if the person who brought up the phrase would instead have said "sex with his homosexual partner who presumably doesn't have a vagina". Oh well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh, I disagree.

With the last part (well duh, I know you don't share my penis repulsion... which is good for you [/sincerity mode] :cake: ), or with everything?

I just don't feel like getting into it all... but basically I think calling it gay sex has nothing to do with the activity... two heterosexuals can have oral sex, or anal sex, etc, and they do. I don't understand why Molly and Jim are having sex, but Molly and Sara are having "gay sex", when they're doing the exact same thing. You're labeling the actors, not the action.

Reminds me of a scorchingly annoyed passage in Moab is My Washpot, when Stephen Fry points out that there's practically nothing a gay couple can do that straight couples can't, and so moralising about gay people having sex based on what they're doing is bloody stupid

Link to post
Share on other sites

(also saying PIV sex is "straight" and other forms of sex are "gay" totally disregards trans individuals in both het and gay relationships.)

Absolutey not. One of the problems for, say, a gay transman pre-op is that if he involves his genitals - a vagina - in sexual contact with a man, it will be straight sex, not gay sex, even though they are a gay couple. Until he gets surgery, the only gay sex he could have would be with a woman, never with a man (unless it's a transman, in which case gay sex between these two men means Lesbian sex).

Anatomy is the deciding factor here, not orientations or genders. Which oviously is a massive fountain for body and sexual dysphoria in case of trans* folk.

Some feel that way, others do not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also argue that when people say "sex" they typically mean penetration... this is one of the reasons why lesbian sex is considered "not sex" but gay boy penetrative sex is. Because it's the penetration that matters, and all combos of people can penetrate each other.

*shrug* Well I really don't see it that way. Handjobs definitely are a form of sex, IMO, despite being non-penetrative. In contrast, pegging isn't sex (no genitals of either participant are involved), despite it being a form of penetration... I really see it more as a form of fetish/kink.

(If someone here doesn't know what pegging is... please think twice if you really even want to know before you google it. I won't pay for any brain bleach you want to apply afterwards!)

Interesting... I do not consider handjobs sex but I most definitely consider pegging sex.

We'll just spoiler this for TMI:

Not shockingly, I have been fucked by dildos, etc, and I can say that whether or not the object in question is or is not a penis doesn't alter, in any way, the feeling of having had sex.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reminds me of a scorchingly annoyed passage in Moab is My Washpot, when Stephen Fry points out that there's practically nothing a gay couple can do that straight couples can't, and so moralising about gay people having sex based on what they're doing is bloody stupid

Playing with each other's penises, or each other's vaginas/vulvas? Sounds like the passage is more stupid than anything, because it's blatantly easy to see how it's factually wrong.

I agree that moral judgements are out of place, though. Gay sex is factually different than straight sex, on an empirical, anatomical level - that's as objective an observation as you can make (epistemological philosphy aside :p). Morality, in contrast, is utterly subjective and arbitrary, and factually irrelevant.

Some feel that way, others do not.

I doubt I'll ever be truly able to relate to people who don't agree to what I said. It makes no logical sense to me not to see it like I do.

@Skulls... Well, I guess finding a specific point where we have to ag-to-dis is successful communication too, innit? ;) :cake:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guess my definition of sex is broader because I see both handjobs and pegging as forms of sex.

Meh. Not entirely on the handjobs part IMO. Having touched the outer parts of the reproductive organs of a woman with my hands once doesn't make me feel any less of a virgin, really. ^^

I can see that. I think for each couple it's different. Personally, I think more "being touched" as sex and "touching" as sexual behavior that is more of a gray area.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reminds me of a scorchingly annoyed passage in Moab is My Washpot, when Stephen Fry points out that there's practically nothing a gay couple can do that straight couples can't, and so moralising about gay people having sex based on what they're doing is bloody stupid

Playing with each other's penises, or each other's vaginas/vulvas? Sounds like the passage is more stupid than anything, because it's blatantly easy to see how it's factually wrong.

I agree that moral judgements are out of place, though. Gay sex is factually different than straight sex, on an empirical, anatomical level - that's as objective an observation as you can make (epistemological philosphy aside :P). Morality, in contrast, is utterly subjective and arbitrary, and factually irrelevant.

Some feel that way, others do not.

I doubt I'll ever be truly able to relate to people who don't agree to what I said. It makes no logical sense to me not to see it like I do.

@Skulls... Well, I guess finding a specific point where we have to ag-to-dis is successful communication too, innit? ;) :cake:

I'd have to dig out my copy to quote from it, but his point was that if you're going to moralise about gay people having anal sex, you'd better be prepared to moralise about straight people having anal sex. As I understood it, he was annoyed at the implication that - his example, not mine - straight people having anal sex was entirely fine but gay people doing it = socially dangerous.

I'm not really convinced by this idea that sex between two people of the same biological gender (Bit of a mouthful, that) is all that different to the those of the opposite. So far everything I've ever heard about it seems to point it being pretty much the same - Skull said it better with "labelling the actors, not the action". Which is why I just call it "sex", if I ever need to

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, the whole "gay sex" thing can be just as much of an assumption as straight sex being PIV.. Have read that a lot of gay men don't necessarily like or do anal.. which I think would be our equivalent assumption in the case of gay sex of the male variety... The lowest common denominator seems to be the assumption that sex = penetration in some form.. Not necessarily true.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd have to dig out my copy to quote from it, but his point was that if you're going to moralise about gay people having anal sex, you'd better be prepared to moralise about straight people having anal sex. As I understood it, he was annoyed at the implication that - his example, not mine - straight people having anal sex was entirely fine but gay people doing it = socially dangerous.

Put like that, I actually agree. Doesn't change that straight sex and gay sex are anatomically different.

TMI spoiler.

Note that anal doesn't equal "gay sex" in my book (that would only be true if the, uhm, recipient is male and has his penis stimulated at the same time, in which case, yes, 100% absolutely gay, and 100% absolutely not straight... and still no moral aspect to it. IMO, anal is only sex at all if it involves a penis... so, if anything, anal is "male sex" (even when the recipient is a woman).

The lowest common denominator seems to be the assumption that sex = penetration in some form.. Not necessarily true.

Indeed, not true. As I already said, that denominator doesn't work for me - not all penetration is sex, neither is all sex penetrative.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...