[quote]pat wrote:
Sex alone means nothing, because that could be anal, animal, oral, etc. Anything that stimulates a sexual organ, so you have to be specific.
Most people assume term ‘sex’ means a man and a woman, his penis in her vagina. In the bloggers world, that’s just one way, a lesser way and it’s technically always rape.[/quote]
I don’t think most people in the US assume that “sex” means a man and a woman. However, I haven’t seen anyone say “we had PIV” instead of “we had sex,” unless the point of the story revolved around the specific sexual act. Yes, the term PIV is often used ideologically to reinforce the idea that sex comprises a wide variety of activities that do not involve putting a penis inside a vagina. But then, some of us might think it’s a bit disingenuous to say “I didn’t have sex with that woman” when you did put your johnson in one of her orifices.
[quote]pat wrote:
Sex alone means nothing, because that could be anal, animal, oral, etc. Anything that stimulates a sexual organ, so you have to be specific.
Most people assume term ‘sex’ means a man and a woman, his penis in her vagina. In the bloggers world, that’s just one way, a lesser way and it’s technically always rape.[/quote]
I don’t think most people in the US assume that “sex” means a man and a woman. However, I haven’t seen anyone say “we had PIV” instead of “we had sex,” unless the point of the story revolved around the specific sexual act. Yes, the term PIV is often used ideologically to reinforce the idea that sex comprises a wide variety of activities that do not involve putting a penis inside a vagina. But then, some of us might think it’s a bit disingenuous to say “I didn’t have sex with that woman” when you did put your johnson in one of her orifices.[/quote]
I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I just had an opportunity to read the second linked post. I worked briefly with a woman who talked this way - all the men gone and the world better for it. She was a lesbian AND had been peripherally involved in a grisly rape/murder years earlier. Needless to say, it didn’t take long for her to fire me (“not helpful”) and also needless to say, I was relieved.
So there are people who feel as this woman does; I’ve met a grand total of one. I’m sure I’ve encountered men who are inclined similarly toward women, but they would obviously be less apt to admit their feelings to me. Or perhaps the male equivalent posts on Orion’s angry men’s boards, about women crashing the whole world down and then becoming utterly subjugated again.
It’s very sad to think that there are women who assume because of some sort of early sexual trauma that sex is a painful, ripping experience for all women. Perhaps like the NAWALT guys, they believe that when women like me report that my bed is a place of melty good feelings in every regard, I’m somehow duped into complacency.[/quote]
I think a lot of people here are assuming she was traumatized earlier in life, but the fact is that nobody knows if that’s true at all. There’s no evidence she was traumatized sexually or otherwise. She may have had a totally normal placid up bringing and just hates men.[/quote]
[quote]nighthawkz wrote:
The more I read Orion’s posts, the more I think he’s just the opposite world version of a RadFem.[/quote]
Well, reading comprehensions is a dying art anyway so you are least not at a significant competitive disadvantage.
However, if I ever start deliberately misrepresenting statistics, make up facts, doxx, ban and censor people who disagree with me and cry “misandry!” if I get caught then you would have a point.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I just had an opportunity to read the second linked post. I worked briefly with a woman who talked this way - all the men gone and the world better for it. She was a lesbian AND had been peripherally involved in a grisly rape/murder years earlier. Needless to say, it didn’t take long for her to fire me (“not helpful”) and also needless to say, I was relieved.
So there are people who feel as this woman does; I’ve met a grand total of one. I’m sure I’ve encountered men who are inclined similarly toward women, but they would obviously be less apt to admit their feelings to me. Or perhaps the male equivalent posts on Orion’s angry men’s boards, about women crashing the whole world down and then becoming utterly subjugated again.
It’s very sad to think that there are women who assume because of some sort of early sexual trauma that sex is a painful, ripping experience for all women. Perhaps like the NAWALT guys, they believe that when women like me report that my bed is a place of melty good feelings in every regard, I’m somehow duped into complacency.[/quote]
I think a lot of people here are assuming she was traumatized earlier in life, but the fact is that nobody knows if that’s true at all. There’s no evidence she was traumatized sexually or otherwise. She may have had a totally normal placid up bringing and just hates men.[/quote]
Perhaps, but odds are strongly against it.[/quote]
Well according to her any interaction with the male gender is a violent, despicable act of misogyny. I think she’s just lowering the bar so she can say she was abused by a man. Simply being near her is an inherent act of violence.
Of course all her musings serve to do is render the experience of those who have truly suffered rape and abuse as utterly meaningless. It’s a disservice to true victims of crimes. These radical feminists dilute real traumatic experiences to psychotic lunatic fringe, political hate speech.
To equate rape with sex is to equate sex with rape. If all sex is rape, then all rape is just sex and no crime has been committed and no justice can be served.
It’s an ironic twist to her twisted reality. By screaming for justice where there is no injustice, she renders the unjust, just.
[quote]pat wrote:
Sex alone means nothing, because that could be anal, animal, oral, etc. Anything that stimulates a sexual organ, so you have to be specific.
Most people assume term ‘sex’ means a man and a woman, his penis in her vagina. In the bloggers world, that’s just one way, a lesser way and it’s technically always rape.[/quote]
I don’t think most people in the US assume that “sex” means a man and a woman. However, I haven’t seen anyone say “we had PIV” instead of “we had sex,” unless the point of the story revolved around the specific sexual act. Yes, the term PIV is often used ideologically to reinforce the idea that sex comprises a wide variety of activities that do not involve putting a penis inside a vagina. But then, some of us might think it’s a bit disingenuous to say “I didn’t have sex with that woman” when you did put your johnson in one of her orifices.[/quote]
Sex is typically understood as vaginal penetration. The meaning can change with context, but usually if something else is meant a prefix such as ‘anal’ or ‘oral’ is used to clarify.
It would be really painful to talk about it if the word ‘sex’ didn’t really mean anything and type of sexual contact always had to be specified.
“I had sex last night” would turn in to, "I had penis in vagina sex last night’. If somebody tells you that they had sex and you didn’t know what they meant by it; that would suddenly make simple conversations suddenly very hard, for no reason.
[quote]nighthawkz wrote:
The more I read Orion’s posts, the more I think he’s just the opposite world version of a RadFem.[/quote]
Well, reading comprehensions is a dying art anyway so you are least not at a significant competitive disadvantage.
However, if I ever start deliberately misrepresenting statistics, make up facts, doxx, ban and censor people who disagree with me and cry “misandry!” if I get caught then you would have a point. [/quote]
[quote]nighthawkz wrote:
The more I read Orion’s posts, the more I think he’s just the opposite world version of a RadFem.[/quote]
Well, reading comprehensions is a dying art anyway so you are least not at a significant competitive disadvantage.
However, if I ever start deliberately misrepresenting statistics, make up facts, doxx, ban and censor people who disagree with me and cry “misandry!” if I get caught then you would have a point. [/quote]
You can’t ban or censor people. [/quote]
I wondered, when I wrote that if I should include that the last two are a bit iffy, because virtue is so often only a lack of opportunity.
[quote]nighthawkz wrote:
The more I read Orion’s posts, the more I think he’s just the opposite world version of a RadFem.[/quote]
Well, reading comprehensions is a dying art anyway so you are least not at a significant competitive disadvantage.
However, if I ever start deliberately misrepresenting statistics, make up facts, doxx, ban and censor people who disagree with me and cry “misandry!” if I get caught then you would have a point. [/quote]
You can’t ban or censor people. [/quote]
I wondered, when I wrote that if I should include that the last two are a bit iffy, because virtue is so often only a lack of opportunity.[/quote]
[quote]nighthawkz wrote:
The more I read Orion’s posts, the more I think he’s just the opposite world version of a RadFem.[/quote]
Well, reading comprehensions is a dying art anyway so you are least not at a significant competitive disadvantage.
However, if I ever start deliberately misrepresenting statistics, make up facts, doxx, ban and censor people who disagree with me and cry “misandry!” if I get caught then you would have a point. [/quote]
You can’t ban or censor people. [/quote]
I wondered, when I wrote that if I should include that the last two are a bit iffy, because virtue is so often only a lack of opportunity.[/quote]
You can’t make up facts, either. [/quote]
True, so lets try it this way.
What does make me different from feministas is that I do not even seek the power to ban or censor and I also do not anally rape studies until they are are thruthy and facty enough to be used as an ideological weapon.
