What women (don't) want.

[russycarps]

I've no idea what the original purpose of the article was. I just know what it meant to me personally. (which is why I used the word personally when I posted it).

The title of it appealed to me, given the focus on patriarchy and the service of the penis, that we've had in the debate so far.

And it's apt, given what day it is today.

Yes I can understand as a female your reasoning.

I'm still confused about what tony, as a man, took from it. Seems he thought it was some kind of a sex education article.

[russycarps]

I find it very odd that you assume everybody has similar experiences to yourself

I wonder how many women who are single and having casual sex encounter a man who doesnt know what or where the clitoris is?

My guess is, very few. Not bothering to stimulate it does not mean you dont know what it is.

It's a different world from when you were out on the prowl.

[eFestivals]

oh wise one...

My guess is that now, as much, if not more than ever, because of the way a lot of boys are getting their sex education (easily accessible porn) these type of articles are very useful. Boys thinking that girls get off on guys ejaculating over their face or on their tits for example

I see your own wisdom shining thru.

There's more horses for courses than your own imagination can get it's head around, that much is clear.

[feral chile]

I see your own wisdom shining thru.

There's more horses for courses than your own imagination can get it's head around, that much is clear.

Well I must admit Yog is quite an education, with some of the things he posts.

[feral chile]

I used to work as a directory enquiries operator, only about 12 years ago, and you used to get young boys ringing in asking for help with sex. I used to think they were being cheeky at first, but no, there are advice lines for the inexperienced.

This is the number we used to give them:

http://www.brook.org.uk/your-life/category/relationships-and-sex

[eFestivals]

Often, the response is "why?"

a question like that about a sex act can be as much about inexperience as it might anything else.

Just because someone might need to ask why, it doesn't make that thing deviant.

[eFestivals]

But that type of act is mostly driven by porn.

many more might be doing it because of porn, yep - but did porn make it up? I doubt it.

Men doing what they want to a subserviant woman. What does the girl get out of it? What does the man get out of it?

What does a woman get out of making a man cum, wherever that man cums? It's not quite as clear cut as you're thinking it.

Yes, there's a subservience to something like that, but it's not necessarily only about the man's enjoyment (tho I wouldn't like to speculate how that gets to be).

[jump]

But that type of act is mostly driven by porn. Men doing what they want to a subserviant woman. What does the girl get out of it? What does the man get out of it?

They could want to pull out before they cum and cuming on the girl is more appealing than in a tissue.

[russycarps]

But that type of act is mostly driven by porn. Men doing what they want to a subserviant woman. What does the girl get out of it? What does the man get out of it?

People derive pleasure from giving pleasure. Why do girls give men blow jobs? What's in it for them?

(if you dont know what a blow job is hopefully there'll be a news article about it sometime)

[eFestivals]

even women don't understand what other women might like to do when getting jiggy, I'd say.

So i'm certainly not going to try and define it, or say "no woman would do that for her own pleasure".

[feral chile]

even women don't understand what other women might like to do when getting jiggy, I'd say.

So i'm certainly not going to try and define it, or say "no woman would do that for her own pleasure".

Like pose for Page 3?

[eFestivals]

which I haven't said

there was certainly a suggestion of it, but never mind.

[eFestivals]

Like pose for Page 3?

at no point did I say whether women should or shouldn't do it, I merely said if they do it's not free of male-driven sexism.

[feral chile]

at no point did I say whether women should or shouldn't do it, I merely said if they do it's not free of male-driven sexism.

It might not be free of female-driven feminism, either

[LondonTom]

Just do a google on mistaking the urethra for the vagina. Or clitoris.

Depends on the lighting conditions

Foe anyone struggling to understand why the vagina is such a strong symbol of female autonomy:

http://www.un.org/en/events/femalegenitalmutilationday/

Today is International Day of Zero Tolerance for Female Genital Mutilation.

I've often wondered why we are not at the same time campaigning against removing the foreskin of males(For non medical reasons obviously).

I do realise that FGR is far worse as its normally done when girls are about 11/12 and in a fairly crude manner...but surely the principal is the same?

[bunique]

I've often wondered why we are not at the same time campaigning against removing the foreskin of males(For non medical reasons obviously).

I do realise that FGR is far worse as its normally done when girls are about 11/12 and in a fairly crude manner...but surely the principal is the same?

I agree and often wonder the same - although I think some recent research suggests circumcision inhibits the contraction of HIV? But it seems a similarly barbaric process to me when not carried out for medical reasons.

One of the most disturbing things I have ever seen was a clip from a documentary about FGM of a girl being held down by female family members whilst she is subjected to the practice. She is utterly violated (by having her privates manhandled by a stranger), lied to (they tell her they'll anaesthetise but they don't) and in agonising pain - she screams "she's cutting me" over and over whilst a family member turns to the camera and smiles. I couldn't shake the image - still can't. The authority I work in has had a number of recent cases where parents are suspected of planning to have FGM carried out on their daughters - often only toddlers - and the law/courts seem to be very hazy on what their powers are to prevent, nor what the authority's right is to remove the child. The Home and Foreign Office provide very limited support. It's either becoming more prevalent or organisations are better at identifying those at risk. It's abhorrent, either way.

Edited February 6, 2015 by bunique

[feral chile]

I agree and often wonder the same - although I think some recent research suggests circumcision inhibits the contraction of HIV? But it seems a similarly barbaric process to me when not carried out for medical reasons.

One of the most disturbing things I have ever seen was a clip from a documentary about FGM of a girl being held down by female family members whilst she is subjected to the practice. She is utterly violated (by having her privates manhandled by a stranger), lied to (they tell her they'll anaesthetise but they don't) and in agonising pain - she screams "she's cutting me" over and over whilst a family member turns to the camera and smiles. I couldn't shake the image - still can't. The authority I work in has had a number of recent cases where parents are suspected of planning to have FGM carried out on their daughters - often only toddlers - and the law/courts seem to be very hazy on what their powers are to prevent, nor what the authority's right is to remove the child. The Home and Foreign Office provide very limited support. It's either becoming more prevalent or organisations are better at identifying those at risk. It's abhorrent, either way.

It is. I struggle with moral relativism with things like this. And there's no ambiguity with this one - it's definitely a case of 'what men want', and women are complicit.

[feral chile]

I agree with what'e been said about circumcision too, but then I don't think it's right to christen children either. I believe people should have the right to choose, not their parents, in something so fundamental.

Edited February 6, 2015 by feral chile

[bunique]

You can ignore a baptism certificate much more easily than a missing body part. I think they're fairly far apart on the spectrum.

[feral chile]

You can ignore a baptism certificate much more easily than a missing body part. I think they're fairly far apart on the spectrum.

I'm not sure how much circumcision affects men, female circumcision is unforgivable.

as far as baptism's concerned, I take your point - if you grow up an atheist, you're not really likely to care.

it's more the thought of promising your child to God without them having a say in it - I don't understand it, not being religious. Why can't it wait until the child's old enough to decide?

But yes, mutilating children is off the scale.

Edited February 6, 2015 by feral chile

[bunique]

There's probably more scientific articles out there, but some stuff on circumcision and sex here

http://www.menshealth.com/sex-women/circumcision-pros-and-cons

Edit: read to the end and maybe not very insightful

Edited February 6, 2015 by bunique

[feral chile]

There's probably more scientific articles out there, but some stuff on circumcision and sex here

http://www.menshealth.com/sex-women/circumcision-pros-and-cons

Edit: read to the end and maybe not very insightful

It's truly horrendous that people are having choices like this made for them.

You're quite right, baptism is nothing like this

[bunique]

it's more the thought of promising your child to God without them having a say in it - I don't understand it, not being religious. Why can't it wait until the child's old enough to decide?

Because you have to apply to schools when they're 4 and most kids haven't made their minds up by then [/cynic]

(I say that as someone who did baptise our first and has applied to a catholic school knowing the fact she is baptised pretty much guarantees her a place - the school is at the end of our road but distance/catchment rules don't apply to catholic schools. My husband and I are both baptised catholic, but it's still totally hypocritical of us!)

[midnight]

It is. I struggle with moral relativism with things like this. And there's no ambiguity with this one - it's definitely a case of 'what men want', and women are complicit.

I don't have any moral realtivism problems with FGM. Apart from the obvious problems with sex, it makes childbirth very risky for these women and their children. It is also a good example of women being conditioned by (dare I say it again) patriarchy, because as you say, women in these communities are often complicit, they think hat this is something that "needs to be done" to make their daughters acceptable. Only female infanticide is worse (and women can be complicit in that as well).

I got some funding approved last year, for a voluntary organisation that works with the communities that practise FGM and try to stop it - all the volunteers doing the work are members of the community themselves, and I can't think of any other way forward (apart from legislation, which is in place in the UK, but isn't enforced).

All my funding proposals have to be approved by local politicians, so I went to meet them, all worked up with the evidence and ready to give them "the talk"- but it was surprisingly easy to get it passed, as there had been quite a bit of press coverage around at the time, so they were at least semi-aware of the problem's existence. I know they try to keep an eye on the girls who might be at risk at my son's school, how successful they are I can't say.

Edited February 7, 2015 by midnight

[feral chile]

I don't have any moral realtivism problems with FGM. Apart from the obvious problems with sex, it makes childbirth very risky for these women and their children. It is also a good example of women being conditioned by (dare I say it again) patriarchy, because as you say, women in these communities are often complicit, they think hat this is something that "needs to be done" to make their daughters acceptable. Only female infanticide is worse (and women can be complicit in that as well).

I got some funding approved last year, for a voluntary organisation that works with the communities that practise FGM and try to stop it - all the volunteers doing the work are members of the community themselves, and I can't think of any other way forward (apart from legislation, which is in place in the UK, but isn't enforced).

All my funding proposals have to be approved by local politicians, so I went to meet them, all worked up with the evidence and ready to give them "the talk"- but it was surprisingly easy to get it passed, as there had been quite a bit of press coverage around at the time, so they were at least semi-aware of the problem's existence. I know they try to keep an eye on the girls who might be at risk at my son's school, how successful they are I can't say.

That's brilliant, midnight.

(I didn't mean I think moral relativism should ever apply to this, I meant it's situations like this that make me struggle with the universality of moral relativism).

Edited February 7, 2015 by feral chile