Sex-Positive Feminism

[Wherenextcolumbus]

Damn! It would be nice to be able to read them. Your decisions sometimes suck eggs, I'm beginning to learn. I might have enjoyed seeing where you've been in life.

During a period of estrangement, my second wife burnt all the poems I had written to her in the bathtub. I hadn't kept a copy, so they were lost. All lost. But I got back at her later on by writing a poem in which I wittily referred to her burnings and then suggested she deduct the value of the heat my poems had generated to warm the house -- deduct it from the price she was charging me for access to the warmth of her heart.

She hated that poem, by the way.

I'm really messy and my mum used to have to force me to clean my room, it was probably during a movement of cleaning frustration that I throw stuff I shouldn't have away. I also used to save poems on the computer and when that got broken down at one point I think I lost poems on there. I also use to write a series of children's books for 5 year olds when I was 11 12? maybe, about a family of clowns, I lost them on the computer as well.

I think I would of seen the funny side to that poem

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

He realized he himself had no respect for women, or that the guy he got fired had not respect?

That he himself had no respect for women.

That's touching.

Yeah his brother also told me that he was massive douche before he met me, that was very touching for me.
He was a massive douche while he was with me as well, but he changed, which is lucky for me, I think that is a rare thing.

 

[Sunstone]

I think that is a rare thing.

I too think it must be rare. Exceptionally rare. I've heard stories about such things, but not really many stories. What is it about you that changed him?

I don't think I've ever had much of an influence on anyone. At least not a douche to nice guy sort of influence.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

I too think it must be rare. Exceptionally rare. I've heard stories about such things, but not really many stories. What is it about you that changed him?

I don't think I've ever had much of an influence on anyone. At least not a douche to nice guy sort of influence.

I was the best person ever apparently, he was 18 I was 16, I doubt very much I was the best person ever, maybe he just needed to get out more...

But I have been told that I have an instant likability factor by ex boss at work, she said everyone I've met at work always says that they like me, I don't know why to be honest maybe they too need to get out more

 

[Sunstone]

I was the best person ever apparently, he was 18 I was 16, I doubt very much I was the best person ever, maybe he just needed to get out more...

But I have been told that I have an instant likability factor by ex boss at work, she said everyone I've met at work always says that they like me, I don't know why to be honest maybe they too need to get out more

That kind of surprises me because I seem to recall you're once describing yourself in negative terms that did not indicate to me you were very popular and well liked by people in general. But I must have read too much into those remarks. I do that sometimes.

Off line, I have as many friends as suites my mood. Some periods in my life, I've dropped all but two or four friendships outside my family. At other times, I've kept up with dozens of people, although not very well for the most part. That's just too much work!

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

That kind of surprises me because I seem to recall you're once describing yourself in negative terms that did not indicate to me you were very popular and well liked by people in general. But I must have read too much into those remarks. I do that sometimes.

Off line, I have as many friends as suites my mood. Some periods in my life, I've dropped all but two or four friendships outside my family. At other times, I've kept up with dozens of people, although not very well for the most part. That's just too much work!

Are you sure it wasn't me who didn't like them
I am very picky, and I find it hard to make close friends because I enjoy alone time and others seem to like clubs which I don't want to go to and I can't stay out that late because of where I live it's usually too far and I don't think they would want to go to a museum with me.
So I would not say I was popular but I don't put myself out there to be popular. But I have been told I am instantly likeable. I suspect that if some of guys knew my views they would not like me anymore lol!!
If that makes sense.

 

[Penumbra]

Could you please expand bit more on what make it instinctual? Obviously it is need for reproduction, but from my experience it was not instinctual for me, I had to be taught it.

When I was 5 I thought the genitals rubbed together which must be pleasurable and thought people had sex for pleasure only not for reproduction. I had no idea that the penis went inside, I was shocked when I found that out, I had no instinct for it at all.

Were you taught it before or after reproductive age? When I was a kid, I didn't know how intercourse worked either, but then again, as a kid, I wasn't even really attracted to boys yet. Being attracted to boys, as an instinct, was something that took time to develop. I learned how intercourse worked before I reached reproductive age, and when I heard it, I was like .

One piece of evidence is that it's universal where virtually any other form of sexual expression is not. Another piece of evidence is that animals figure out how to do it despite never seeing it. If you take male and female baby bunnies and put them together, like as pets or something, then when they're old enough, they'll have babies. Nature doesn't leave something so important to learned knowledge, having to see it to understand it.

Another example is observing the mounting instinct in animals. Researchers have done this in various ways, often in order to try to understand human homosexuality. For example, in a scientific paper in 1979, they took male deer, and castrated them within the first week of life. The result was that the deer grew into what looked like female deer, because they didn't develop the secondary sex characteristics of a male, and without testosterone they don't give off the same scents as a regular male. Other deer interacted with them as though they were female deer. In mating season, as the non-castrated male deer fought for dominance over groups of female deer, these castrated male deer remained grouped with the females, and were accepted as such. The dominant male deer wouldn't let other males in with the females, but these castrated male deer were females as far as the dominant males were concerned or as far as they could tell. And then, these castrated male deer would mount up on the female deer like regular males. Despite being castrated and growing up their whole life essentially as female deer, they started going through the motions of humping female deer when the time came.

 

[Penumbra]

When I first read that, it provoked yet another instance of my being annoyed by Dworkin's use of language. "Surrender", I thought, "Male lexicon? Male? Really?"

You see, so far as I'm concerned, "surrender" in a sexual sense has nothing necessarily to do with inferiority, subjugation, or submission. In fact, I would distinguish it from, say, "submission" in that to me, submission implies a lack of consent, while surrender is consensual.

Moreover, surrender is a positive thing. Not only because it's consensual, which might imply it's done to enhance or increase one's pleasure, but also because it implies, to me at least, that a person is giving up any sexual baggage they might have which would prevent them from enjoying sex.

They are surrendering themselves in the psychological meaning of self, along with any other way in which they are surrendering themselves. And to surrender your psychological self necessities that you give up your baggage, that it diminishes in importance to you.

Thinking of it that way, I was inclined to criticize Dworkin for being dense about all the possible ways in which surrender would benefit a woman. But then, I realized she might mean something else by "called surrender in the male lexicon".

She might mean that some men (specifically male authors) are using that word in the context of sex being punitive, etc.

"Well, damn me!", I thought, "It seems I'm really having a very hard time picking up on her possible meanings. A very hard time, indeed!"

From google: sur·ren·der
/səˈrendər/
Verb
Cease resistance to an enemy or opponent and submit to their authority

The words surrender and submission don't mean particularly different things to me. I will say, though, that in an intimate context I don't view them as necessarily negative words. I believe they can be descriptors of positive experience as well. In most contexts I'd view them as negative.

 

[Penumbra]

I think it's highly likely that good guys have always done this, though-out history, and even during ages in which the predominant ideology was that women either didn't enjoy sex or even were repulsed by sex.

If that's the case, I think it's because good guys actually talk with the women they're with.

 

[DallasApple]

What does Dworkin mean by "violent".

I don't understand what she means by violent either.

 

[DallasApple]

The dream of unlimited access to intercourse is vastly over-rated, methinks.

I agree.

My first wife always gave consent. Probably not because she'd been told it was her duty, but because of her personality, which tended towards compliance with others in so many ways. She always gave consent, but this resulted in the "chocolate factory phenomenon" where you have so much of a desired thing that you no longer desire it.

This is one of the reasons I refuse to "give" duty sex.I don't follow the "rule" to NEVER deny your spouse sex unless you are violently ill or its otherwise physically not possible.

It is my humble opinion that many(not all) will become somewhat densitized physically and bored mentally with the "easiness" of sex on tap.I think there should always be a little bit of a chase .Immediate gratification ...never delayed ...loses its appeal.

I have never really gotten those to be honest that can even enjoy sex with someone who really doesn't want to but complies..who believe its no different than going to work whether you feel like it or not..and view it as a "task" as in maintenance (in marriage) same as cleaning the toilet bowl or any other chore that "needs to be done".Like not keeping track of your car maintenance gradually your car becomes a heap of junk.

Then next they talk about making sure its "enthusiastic"."Muster up a little passion" while you have obligatory sex.Don't let him think you are just wanting it over with ..that's a turn off and it will just take that much longer.Plus that hurt their feelings.

As if after years of knowing each other its not going to be fairly obvious "fake" verses real .Eager verses coaxed.

Not only that as mentioned a 'nice guy" is going to ask.A close couple is going to actually have discussions about sex .Outside of bed and inside.I mean if you really care about anything but your own self gratification.

 

[DallasApple]

The words surrender and submission don't mean particularly different things to me.

For me I call good sex "mutually submissive" .Back and forth.Sure sometimes one might be more of the "aggressor" .But I don't like to view intercourse as me "surrendering" rather I like to see it as me "welcoming'.Being "receptive" to intercourse.The vagina itself changes in preparation to receive .The opening of the vagina narrows (to grip) and up higher it widens..Not to mention she produces an natural lubricant.Making a hospitable environment to "welcome" the penis and maximize pleasure for both.



If it ever felt like an "invasion "..well that would have been due to being coerced.And yes I have felt that way so I get it.

It would be the difference to me of if I invited you over and I had prepared a really nice meal for us to enjoy with a good bottle of wine...rather than if you pounded on the door and I reluctantly let you in and I had nothing to feed you .Well maybe a bag of stale Cheetos and tap water no ice that you had to fix for your self.

 

[DallasApple]

Cease resistance to an enemy or opponent and submit to their authority

But is a penis an enemy or opponent of the vagina???How can a body part in this case a penis have "authority" over anything let alone the body part of another person?

And wouldn't that be making a whole person about a body part?

Talk about it having a "mind of its own".

 

[DallasApple]

I wish I could remember the guys name but an article I read along these same lines.He used the nature of intercourse which is of course how we all are even here .(exception of course through a med procedure) as the basic evidence men are to dominate over women..and women are to "submit' to the male in the whole relationship.

He conquers she surrenders so then who is the ruler over the land ?

Much of the rebuttal (in disgust of course) was along the lines of she surrounds and captures.

I mean because really if you want to narrow it down to the act of intercourse(body parts) both are happening and in the end she lets go and he pulls out.Right?

 

[DallasApple]

O.K I found it .This Christian blogger (Jared Wilson) had written a critique on 50 Shades of Grey.On a mainstream Christian web site that promotes "complementarian" (patriarchal) marriage.His view was the book was a perversion of God "ordained" sex because we have rebelled against man=authority women= submit to man.In the post he quoted another Christian author Douglas Wilson (don't think they are related) from his book "Fidelity:What It Means To Be A One Woman Man"...The original blog by Jared Wilson has since been taken down.

This link is to another Christian author Rachel Held Evans. In it she is expressing her outrage at the original blog and the quoted Douglas Wilson and their views on Biblical sexuality and patriarchy.But also the suggestion that sexual violence is as the result of lack of women's submission .Ironically what ya'll were discussing about Dworkin sounds more like these Wilson idiots than any kind of "sex positive" feminist.The "intercourse" part anyway.

I like Rachel Held Evans comments on this particular topic.And she backs her views up Biblically.She promotes mutuality(egalitarian marriage) and is against a patriarchal society.

I don't know for sure what her other views are but this one I like.If you care to read it I feel this way about it too.

The Gospel Coalition, sex, and subordination

 

[Sunstone]

If that's the case, I think it's because good guys actually talk with the women they're with.

Emphasis on "with", rather than "to".

I think a lot of well meaning people feel uncomfortable discussing sex even with their intimate partners. I just wonder what proportion of people it is? We think we're so liberated today, and in some respects there's probably a lot of truth to that, but I think I now and then run across indications that not all of us are so liberated as to feel comfortable discussing sex even with our partners.

 

[Penumbra]

Emphasis on "with", rather than "to".

I think a lot of well meaning people feel uncomfortable discussing sex even with their intimate partners. I just wonder what proportion of people it is? We think we're so liberated today, and in some respects there's probably a lot of truth to that, but I think I now and then run across indications that not all of us are so liberated as to feel comfortable discussing sex even with our partners.

Funnily enough, I originally wrote "talk to" because to me that implies an actual conversation, but before posting it I tweaked it to "talk with", because I'm sure plenty of historical men "talked to" their wives but rarely "talked with" their wives.

 

[Sunstone]

Funnily enough, I originally wrote "talk to" because to me that implies an actual conversation, but before posting it I tweaked it to "talk with", because I'm sure plenty of historical men "talked to" their wives but rarely "talked with" their wives.

This is neither here nor there, but your remarks put me in mind of how many people throughout the ages must have lived without much emotional and psychological intimacy at home. To me, that would be the loneliest kind of existence -- more likely to produce feelings of loneliness than actually living alone. And I blame patriarchy for a good portion of that. Conversely, I see feminism as having a positive influence on such things.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

This is neither here nor there, but your remarks put me in mind of how many people throughout the ages must have lived without much emotional and psychological intimacy at home. To me, that would be the loneliest kind of existence -- more likely to produce feelings of loneliness than actually living alone. And I blame patriarchy for a good portion of that. Conversely, I see feminism as having a positive influence on such things.

I agree. I see feminism as opening a lot of doors for respected participatory conversation between men and women, as well as between men and other men. I don't know how many men opened up about how much they relish being there for their babies at home, fixing dinner for the family, or supporting their wives' careers....before Second Wave feminism that is.

Nowadays, it's becoming more typical to see dads with their kids at the mall or the grocery store with no woman in sight. They're attentive and encouraging, and it's a wonderful sight to see. Not only do the kids seem happy, but they're happy.

 

[Sunstone]

Nowadays, it's becoming more typical to see dads with their kids at the mall or the grocery store with no woman in sight. They're attentive and encouraging, and it's a wonderful sight to see. Not only do the kids seem happy, but they're happy.

I have a close friend who is above average smart, but not likely to rebel against the culture. He's also an extraordinarily busy man. So, I sometimes think that, if he were raised in, say, the 1930s, he would be likely to adopt the cultural views of his time and see his fatherhood role in very narrow terms. As, pretty much, the bread winner, and not much else. Feminism has been a boon to him, in all likelihood.