PIV Sex is unatural...

[quote]pat wrote:
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]

If a lesbian says to you “I had sex last night,” you wouldn’t require a prefix. Nor would you require it of a gay man. In either case they could have engaged in a variety of sex acts that all count as “sex” for them. On the one hand, you’re right that it is fairly common to closely associate the word “sex” with vaginal penetration.

That’s a natural consequence of the fact that heterosexuals are the majority. One could also argue that there is a hierarchy of sex acts, ranging from light petting to vaginal penetration, and that this hierarchy reflects the ordinary progression as well as the natural investments and consequences of each act. Then one would have to consider whether it is fitting to build those kinds of unacknowledged and unchallenged assumptions into an ostensibly simple word.

But it also seems that the word “sex” is a kind of indirect speech anyway, so your conversations shouldn’t be any more difficult than they’ve ever been. If someone says “I had sex last night,” are you really looking to that statement for a clear indication of the specific sex acts performed? Do you really care exactly what your friend did with his penis?

Usually not; we’d say it was “too much information.” Even in the ordinary usage, some people might mean “we had sex” to cover the whole sexual experience from first grope to afterglow. Others might say that it wasn’t properly sex until vaginal penetration. It seems that this discussion is off track by focusing on the ordinary use of the word.

The value of the distinction is that when one has sex, it is often accompanied by a variety of acts. Many women can’t orgasm from penetrative sex alone, for example. When you start having that conversation, you need to be specific: one sex act is more likely to cause orgasm than another. You could say “engage in oral sex instead of sex,” I suppose, but that seems contradictory because the term “sex” seems to be the genus and “oral” seems to be the species. So, all of this to say that when we’re talking about sex specifically and not generically, it only makes sense to make our language more precise.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]nephorm wrote:
I don’t think most people in the US assume that “sex” means a man and a woman. [/quote]

o_O

[/quote]

If someone said to you “those two had sex last night,” and you turned around to see two men or two women, would that shock you as an inappropriate use of the term?

Sex I guess should then mean when a person attempts to have a manually experienced orgasm?

That means, rubbing one out or playing around with the bean, doesn’t necessitate two people even and could just be masturbation?

who gets raped if a girl gives me a blowjob?

[quote]nephorm wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]nephorm wrote:
I don’t think most people in the US assume that “sex” means a man and a woman. [/quote]

o_O

[/quote]

If someone said to you “those two had sex last night,” and you turned around to see two men or two women, would that shock you as an inappropriate use of the term?[/quote]

No it would not shock me; however, depending on how I was told the two had sex I most likely would assume it was with two other people of the opposite sex.

If you lined up 10 people knowing they were sexual active (not with each other) how many of the 10 would you assume have sex with the same gender? Maybe 1 and that’s being generous.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
If you lined up 10 people knowing they were sexual active (not with each other) how many of the 10 would you assume have sex with the same gender?
[/quote]

All of them.

[quote]nephorm wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
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]

If a lesbian says to you “I had sex last night,” you wouldn’t require a prefix. Nor would you require it of a gay man. In either case they could have engaged in a variety of sex acts that all count as “sex” for them. On the one hand, you’re right that it is fairly common to closely associate the word “sex” with vaginal penetration.

That’s a natural consequence of the fact that heterosexuals are the majority. One could also argue that there is a hierarchy of sex acts, ranging from light petting to vaginal penetration, and that this hierarchy reflects the ordinary progression as well as the natural investments and consequences of each act. Then one would have to consider whether it is fitting to build those kinds of unacknowledged and unchallenged assumptions into an ostensibly simple word.

But it also seems that the word “sex” is a kind of indirect speech anyway, so your conversations shouldn’t be any more difficult than they’ve ever been. If someone says “I had sex last night,” are you really looking to that statement for a clear indication of the specific sex acts performed? Do you really care exactly what your friend did with his penis?

Usually not; we’d say it was “too much information.” Even in the ordinary usage, some people might mean “we had sex” to cover the whole sexual experience from first grope to afterglow. Others might say that it wasn’t properly sex until vaginal penetration. It seems that this discussion is off track by focusing on the ordinary use of the word.

The value of the distinction is that when one has sex, it is often accompanied by a variety of acts. Many women can’t orgasm from penetrative sex alone, for example. When you start having that conversation, you need to be specific: one sex act is more likely to cause orgasm than another. You could say “engage in oral sex instead of sex,” I suppose, but that seems contradictory because the term “sex” seems to be the genus and “oral” seems to be the species. So, all of this to say that when we’re talking about sex specifically and not generically, it only makes sense to make our language more precise. [/quote]

I did say specifically The meaning can change with context,. Clearly if you are conversing with a gay couple, you know from context that an opposite sex was not involved. So I already covered this objection referring to context.

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[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]

Maybe, but North Korea can.

I still want to see a picture of this psycho bitch. I could be wrong, but I am betting she’s a troll. That’s based on my experience of every militant feminist I have ever seen a picture of is terminally ugly. I could be wrong, maybe she’s a hotty. My money is on ugly as shit.
Her rants perhaps are based on the fact that not even ugly fat desperate men would want to put their P in her V.
So since she cannot get it, she claims she doesn’t want it.

I’ll give her this, at least she’s honest. Most feminists lie and say they don’t want to ‘kill’ men. She’s got no issues reducing the male population her ‘Utopia’ blog.

I also figured out she’s a witch, as in she practices Wicca. She makes a lot of references to it.

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
If you lined up 10 people knowing they were sexual active (not with each other) how many of the 10 would you assume have sex with the same gender?
[/quote]

All of them.
[/quote]

Lol, touche.

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]Mr. Walkway wrote:
laugh all you want… but women like these are finding success in shaping the political landscape (yes means yes, etc.)

[/quote]

SOME have. [/quote]

Well, only SOME white men held slaves.

Those were enough to “shape the political landscape”.

Oddly enough, is such cases, we are so much less discriminating…

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[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]

I think any woman who believes that all vaginal intercourse rips and tears the vagina, leaving a woman degraded and physically battered, has been the very real victim of rape or abuse. Her twisted reality is based on something, presumably an experience of painful penetration.

[quote]nighthawkz wrote:

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
Welcome to feminism :p[/quote]

No. Welcome to radical feminism, which is to feminism what ISIS is to muslims and what the Westboro Baptist church is to secular Christians. Did you read the comments on that page? Any woman who disagrees with her is allegedly brainwashed by the patriarchy.[/quote]

I disagree.

A common argument by interwebz feminists is that anyone who promotes just treatment for all is technically a feminist. Yet why do so many eschew feminism in favour of “equalism” or “humanism”?

The colloquial connotation that the term “feminism” has taken has come to be associated with an extreme political activism movement, whether it’s technically correct or not. Arguing what is technically correct is arguing semantics.

Many shun me as a misogynist for my views on feminism. Yet being a young, single, highly-educated father has gifted me a unique perspective.

I was forced into fatherhood by a choice that was not my own. Yet I accepted it. I try to be there for my child as much as I can. I know that I will have to pay exorbitant amounts of child support when I finish my education, despite the fact that, if anything, my child’s mother hindered me from succeeding. I accept that as my lot in life, however unfair.

Yet I hear so many educated, entitled white women accuse me of being a “misogynist” for refusing to support feminism. These are often the same women who drill the ideas of “rape culture” and “patriarchy” into my head, while refusing to acknowledge that unjust family law predominates. These are the same women that, for the most part, seem to callously disregard the possibility that some populations, like ethnic minorities (I’m non-white) and the mentally ill to name a very brief few, might have it worse off.

For reasons like these, I can only see feminism as a power struggle. While I sympathize with the equalist/humanist camp ideologically, if it comes down to a power struggle that doesn’t have a true lick of morality in it, I will support the side that benefits me (in this case, MRA) unequivocally. Anyone who would not is an indoctrinated fool IMHO.

My solace lies in the steadily increasing number of men in single-parent families screwed over by unjust family law, which will only increase as feminism expands. Backlash is already forming. Soon it will reach a critical mass.

Sincerely,

A man who got fucked over by our feminist society

Bahahaha… This blog…

Don’t reproduce then. Your influence on this world will not be missed.

[quote]Apoklyps wrote:
I was forced into fatherhood by a choice that was not my own.[/quote]
I’m having a hard time envisioning this.

[quote]kpsnap wrote:

[quote]Apoklyps wrote:
I was forced into fatherhood by a choice that was not my own.[/quote]
I’m having a hard time envisioning this.[/quote]

Lol, no doubt. I can only surmise he is referring to choice the mother of his child made not to terminate the pregnancy. This choice, of course belongs entirely to the woman. The choices leading up to needing to make that choice, however, are obviously shared and have certain, fairly predictable consequences.

I obviously don’t know the back story though, so I’ll refrain from commenting.

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]kpsnap wrote:

[quote]Apoklyps wrote:
I was forced into fatherhood by a choice that was not my own.[/quote]
I’m having a hard time envisioning this.[/quote]

Lol, no doubt. I can only surmise he is referring to choice the mother of his child made not to terminate the pregnancy. This choice, of course belongs entirely to the woman. The choices leading up to needing to make that choice, however, are obviously shared and have certain, fairly predictable consequences.

I obviously don’t know the back story though, so I’ll refrain from commenting.[/quote]

I can imagine a sympathetic situation in which both people discussed the possibility of an unwanted pregnancy and mutually agreed that abortion would be their choice. Upon getting pregnant, she reneged and he was forced to abide by her unilateral decision.

Or, it could be the old “women have choices, men have responsibilities” line. Women can choose whether to have sex, but they are given an additional choice if they become pregnant. A choice the man is bound to, one way or the other.

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]kpsnap wrote:

[quote]Apoklyps wrote:
I was forced into fatherhood by a choice that was not my own.[/quote]
I’m having a hard time envisioning this.[/quote]

Lol, no doubt. I can only surmise he is referring to choice the mother of his child made not to terminate the pregnancy. This choice, of course belongs entirely to the woman. The choices leading up to needing to make that choice, however, are obviously shared and have certain, fairly predictable consequences.

I obviously don’t know the back story though, so I’ll refrain from commenting.[/quote]

There are quite a few choices that can be made unilaterally by a woman who wants to be pregnant in order to get that way. Not the least of which is to mislead, deceive, manipulate, or flat out FORCE the required male participation (i.e. “Oh I see your drunk and passed out with a hard on. I’ll just rape you in your sleep”). Men are every bit as vulnerable to unwanted pregnancy as women are, if not more so. It’s ignorant to assume he made any choices at all, let alone that he made choices without false pretenses from the woman with regard to her birth control, fertility, condom integrity, etc…

Just when do you feel a man has chosen to be a father btw? If that’s just a risk he accepts every time he has intercourse why do you feel that women should not also be responsible for that inherent risk? Anyone pro “choice” who is not also pro “dead beat dad” needs to check their privlidge :stuck_out_tongue:

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]kpsnap wrote:

[quote]Apoklyps wrote:
I was forced into fatherhood by a choice that was not my own.[/quote]
I’m having a hard time envisioning this.[/quote]

Lol, no doubt. I can only surmise he is referring to choice the mother of his child made not to terminate the pregnancy. This choice, of course belongs entirely to the woman. The choices leading up to needing to make that choice, however, are obviously shared and have certain, fairly predictable consequences.

I obviously don’t know the back story though, so I’ll refrain from commenting.[/quote]

There are quite a few choices that can be made unilaterally by a woman who wants to be pregnant in order to get that way. Not the least of which is to mislead, deceive, manipulate, or flat out FORCE the required male participation (i.e. “Oh I see your drunk and passed out with a hard on. I’ll just rape you in your sleep”). Men are every bit as vulnerable to unwanted pregnancy as women are, if not more so. It’s ignorant to assume he made any choices at all, let alone that he made choices without false pretenses from the woman with regard to her birth control, fertility, condom integrity, etc…

Just when do you feel a man has chosen to be a father btw? If that’s just a risk he accepts every time he has intercourse why do you feel that women should not also be responsible for that inherent risk? Anyone pro “choice” who is not also pro “dead beat dad” needs to check their privlidge :stuck_out_tongue: [/quote]

Are you saying there aren’t men who don’t “mislead, deceive, manipulate, and flat out force a woman’s participation?” Personally, I have never heard of a man who got drunk with a hard on and was raped by a woman whose express purpose was to get pregnant.

Your last point about women having more options in terms of choosing motherhood is a valid one. Not sure how to rectify that to be more equitable since I believe women will continue to have the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy but will never be mandated to do so against their will regardless of the father’s position on the issue.

For what it’s worth, I just don’t understand why men don’t wear a condom unless they’re in a committed relationship. It just doesn’t seem worth the risk to act otherwise. As an aside, I have advised both my teenage son and teenage daughter that they alone are responsible for birth control. In other words, don’t rely on someone else but take personal responsibility.