Why is there no counter-argument from the pro-PIV side?

There have been a number of entries written against PIV sex, including two of mine (here and here). Here are some others:

femonade’s series on intercourse
femonade’s radfem101 on PIV
PIV is always rape, ok? by radical wind
The problem with consent to intercourse by when women were warriors

These entries have been quoted and mocked on other web sites, including the self-professed reactionary site The Right Stuff and the white supremacist site takimag. They were also mocked on various forums (atheist foundation of australia, 4plebs, forum.bodybuilding.com). This is not by far all the exposure that the anti-PIV entries have gotten (as you can expect, reddit got into it as well), but the rest is pretty much more of the same.

I am not writing this entry to argue with the imbeciles who wrote these entries. Rather, my point is that I can’t argue back to these imbeciles because they haven’t presented anything of substance in response. When I say “anything,” I don’t mean that they just haven’t present an argument or empirical evidence, I literally mean anything.

I’ve said in a previous entry on PIV that all pro-PIV arguments basically reduce themselves to “me feel good when stick pee-pee in pussy, me big dick, me make baby, baby good” and “me feel good when pee-pee is in pussy, me ‘modern woman’.” But only one of the links I’ve found (the one from 4plebs) even gets that far, and no one has tried to get any farther than that level of discourse.

That’s pretty damn astounding, and conspicuous. Most of the time right-wing assholes love to argue as vehemently as they possibly can. No matter what the topic, you can always find right-wingers debate it endlessly and badly. PIV is an issue of central importance, so it should at least stimulate angry rebuttals. But we don’t see that.

When people don’t argue, it is generally because they consider the opposing position absurd and irrational beyond discussion. Few people debate the Flat Earth Society or David Icke, because those belief systems just seem too silly to even think about, let alone discuss with seriousness. In most debates, people think their opponents are stupid, but not absurd. They at least take their opponents’ positions seriously enough to discuss them in some way.

So my initial conclusion is that the anti-PIV position is not being discussed because our opponents think it is absurd.

Is the anti-PIV position absurd? How can that be, when everyone is aware of the health risks of PIV sex? A position is usually absurd when the social consensus goes against it, but to my knowledge there is no consensus to the effect that PIV sex is not risky, especially for women: rather the opposite, as the dangers of unwanted pregnancies and STDs are quite openly discussed in our societies as negative things that should be alleviated. So where’s the absurdity?

Does the absurdity lie in the rejection of PIV itself, as opposed to a liberal “just be careful” argument? But reactionaries constantly advocate banning things they consider to be morally wrong, so they obviously don’t consider such an attitude absurd.

Some have suggested to me that the anti-PIV position is considered absurd because of male entitlement to PIV. But men strenuously argue that there’s no such thing as male entitlement, therefore they do not seem to consider the male entitlement position itself to be absurd.

It can’t be that we’re putting into question people’s behavior in the bedroom, since there’s plenty of discussion going on about homosexuality, BDSM, spousal rape, and so on.

It’s possible that there are discussions going on about PIV somewhere, apart from the entries and the responses to them, and I am not aware of it. But if such discussion is going on, then why has no one brought it up as a response to our position?

So we come back to the paucity of arguments issue. The fact of the matter is that the people who push the pro-PIV line can’t really look rational or logical, because they have nothing to argue that is not purely hedonistic. I think they’re not saying anything because they simply don’t have anything to say. Instead of analyzing what the anti-PIV entries say, they either outright lie about what’s being said (as in The Right Stuff response) or turn it into a misogynistic, deliberately grossly offensive comedy bit (as in the takimag response).

I think male entitlement, ironically, has a lot to do with this lack of response. Female critics of PIV are assumed to be lonely virgins who rail against people who enjoy sex, and male critics of PIV are called “losers” and “betas” (as in the forum.bodybuilding.com discussion thread). In this way, all criticism of PIV can be easily reduced to personal unattractiveness, and the issue doesn’t even need to be thought about in any way.

I don’t really need to say this, but the attractiveness or social status of a person does not dictate the validity of their criticism. This is just a desperate form of evasion.

This bring to my mind another interesting question: why would anyone decide to label themselves as a defender of PIV, especially since it involves saying such laughable things? I can’t possibly see that any man would gain status from it, especially if I am right and the anti-PIV position is considered absurd. Perhaps it is simply a way for men to show that they agree with other men about how absurd it is, that they’re not some kind of penis-hating whackjob, but that doesn’t seem like much of a cohesive statement. Why do they even bother?

I do understand why right-wing nuts and genderists do it, because they are both committed to male entitlement and therefore must at least make a show of defending it. If they become aware of it, the existence of anti-PIV criticism must rankle them. They wish radical feminists would shut the hell up, get off the Internet, get raped, or just die. We know this because they tell radical feminists as much, every single day. And the equation between radical feminism and being anti-PIV is a longstanding one… otherwise they wouldn’t have made up the “fact” that “all radfem think sex is rape”; and to them, PIV is the epitome of sex, it’s what it all leads to, so being against sex means being against PIV.

It must be frustrating to realize that some people are attacking what they most cherish, and yet having absolutely nothing to argue in return. Take pity on the poor dudebros. All they want is to stick their penises in someone’s vagina, and here we are, blaming them for their completely natural urges that have nothing at all to do with the social context (especially pornography). Such cruelty cannot advance the feminist cause and will inevitably turn all men against it. So you see, they are right after all! Critics of PIV are just a bunch of losers who can’t get laid and who wouldn’t get touched by the opposite sex with a ten foot pole!

Yea, that last paragraph was completely sarcastic.

Incidentally, there was one entry I found that actually tried to engage the PIV issue (although with copious misogynistic slurs). I will discuss it in a later entry.

33 thoughts on “Why is there no counter-argument from the pro-PIV side?

  1. Miep November 21, 2014 at 20:55

    I am not pro-PIV. As a woman who has been celibate almost all of her life, at 57 I am not interested in trying to sell PIV.

    It’s more about respecting other women’s choices. I know women, including women I am fond of, who are involved in sexual relationships with male friends who surely seem like decent enough guys, and I have a pretty high bar for that.

    I don’t like seeing these women told they are being raped by their lovers. It’s insulting. When a woman says “I am really happy now with my male lover,” and I see no signs of abuse or hierarchical dependency, I have better things to do than try to read such into their relationship.

    It is true that many women involved with men in a penetrative sexual manner are being abused. It’s also true that not all of them are admitting they are being abused because doing so would require considering impossible choices. But there is some kind of logical fallacy involved in insisting that thus ALL women who engage in PIV with male friends are being abused. It’s divisive and pushes away any men who do get it (and some do) from any serious women’s liberation movement.

    • Francois Tremblay November 22, 2014 at 01:47

      For the record, I don’t think I’ve stated in either of my two entries in question that I believe *all* PIV is abusive. I don’t see that as the intent here. My intent is to analyze PIV as a sexual practice and to look at the context of women’s support of PIV, not to blame any women for doing it.

      • Miep November 22, 2014 at 01:59

        Ah sorry, you are correct. I never saw you as doing that but some do, and it drives me totally up a wall. It’s hard being in this life, and the last thing any of us need is to have rocks thrown at us for having the temerity to actually find some non- abusive pleasure in this vale of tears.

        • Francois Tremblay November 22, 2014 at 02:02

          I don’t think that even universal criticism of PIV is meant to be a criticism of individual women, but I can understand why it would look that way.

          • Miep November 22, 2014 at 02:11

            Yeah. It would be good generally to have a community of people who have more or less known each other for years, generations. It would make more sense, long as we have life.

        • Francois Tremblay November 22, 2014 at 02:16

          Not sure I’m following you there.

  2. pronoiaagape November 22, 2014 at 15:40

    Is it a problem that pro-PIV arguments are hedonistic? If hedonistic arguments are inadmissible, then celibacy is a pretty good choice to make women safe too. My argument is purely hedonistic: I enjoy PIV sex far more than anything else (masturbation, cunnilingus, anything). If the G-spot is a myth, I’m living the myth. (But, actually, the visible clitoris is just the tip of the iceberg; the rest is inside, though different women have different anatomy)

    A female-supremacist (if that can be a thing) way to enjoy PIV is to act like men have acted for ages. If your partner is safe when it comes to STDs, all that’s left is have him satisfy you, and then, when you orgasm, have him masturbate so you don’t get pregnant.

    • Francois Tremblay November 22, 2014 at 15:43

      That’s great that YOU like it (although you’d have to examine WHY you like it), but that’s not what I’m arguing about. I’m arguing about PIV as a sexual practice. The fact is that only a quarter of women can even orgasm from penetration alone. Yes, there are women who do enjoy it, and I’m not arguing against that.

      • pronoiaagape November 22, 2014 at 15:55

        I don’t get it. I always orgasm from penetration and no other way of achieving orgasm can even remotely compare to the intensity of penetrative orgasm (how deeply DO I have to examine WHY I like it? It feels good! Otherwise I’d forgo sex).

        Women who don’t enjoy it certainly should take that up with their partners. And men have to take much more responsibility for sex and its consequences on women, that’s for sure.

        • Francois Tremblay November 22, 2014 at 15:59

          It’s not about you.

          • pronoiaagape November 22, 2014 at 16:08

            It’s not? Who’s it about? Should I just ignore the issue because it’s not about me? I’ve ignored this type of conversation for a long time, but then a question was asked – “Why is there no counter-argument?” I am a woman, I have given birth repeatedly, I know what all this entails. How is it not about me? Because I enjoy PIV? Where do those statistics about so few women orgasming from PIV come from, anyway?

        • Francois Tremblay November 22, 2014 at 16:15

          As I tried to explain to you, radfem criticism is not about criticizing women or criticizing specific actions or preferences, it’s about looking at the big picture of why these actions and preferences exist, what belief systems or institutions in society are influencing people and bringing about various undesirable states of society. See this entry: https://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2012/12/05/taking-socio-political-critique-as-a-personal-attack/

          • pronoiaagape November 23, 2014 at 00:57

            You were speaking for all women and saying PIV is inherently abusive for the entire female sex – like pornography or prostitution. You asked for counter-arguments. When a woman says she insists on PIV because that’s the kind of sex she prefers by far (with the implication that she’s not the only one, but without pretending to speak for ALL women), her contribution to the discussion is irrelevant. That way, no counter-argument CAN ever be made. What I am saying is: I believe more women would greatly enjoy safe PIV sex if men were less selfish – and they should be forced to be. By all means, refuse PIV sex if the man you’re with has not made it unbelievably great for you – and safe.

            The first time I had PIV sex I didn’t orgasm. I was with two selfish clueless men before my husband. It took being fully in control of the process to find what pleased me – and my husband educating himself on female anatomy. My feminism is about demanding from men to treat me fully like a human being – not eschewing them and their penises completely.

            I actually believed myself to be closest to the radfem position (I think pornography and prostitution are inherently harmful; I think contraception and abortion are not fun choices to be made by a woman, but consequences of male selfishness that a woman has to endure; I am a gender atheist and don’t believe in an innate “gender identity”; I believe gender is constructed to oppress women; but now I guess maybe I’m just not a real, good-enough feminist. I’m colluding with the patriarchy for disagreeing with a tenet of faith)

            If a woman doesn’t like PIV, by no means should she engage in it. I just don’t buy it that it’s inherently oppressive – I think that’s what selfish men have made it. I believe women should take back PIV and enjoy the deep satisfaction it provides – refuse to engage unless it’s completely according to their tastes. Or not, whatever they want. Bottom line: women should be in control of sex because sex has consequences for them. It isn’t PIV that’s inherently oppressive, it’s an idea of sex based on male pleasure. PIV can be practiced so the woman orgasms and the man doesn’t (that’s what we usually do). In that way, it is none of the things that you use to argue against it.

            In this vein, you can claim ANYTHING at all is structurally oppressive and allow no possibility of a counter-argument because “it’s not about you”. You could say that living alone off the grid and growing your own veggies is the only way not to engage in structurally oppressive situations and collude with the patriarchy and no one would be able to provide a counter-argument.

            • Francois Tremblay November 23, 2014 at 01:44

              “You were speaking for all women and saying PIV is inherently abusive for the entire female sex – like pornography or prostitution.”

              Whoa! Could you point out for me where I “speak for all women”? I don’t speak for any woman. I speak for myself. This is a grave accusation: you need to back this up with evidence or shut up.

              “When a woman says she insists on PIV because that’s the kind of sex she prefers by far (with the implication that she’s not the only one, but without pretending to speak for ALL women), her contribution to the discussion is irrelevant.”

              Because personal experience does not, and cannot, trump systemic facts. Are you seriously going to disagree with this?

              “That way, no counter-argument CAN ever be made”

              Plenty of counter-arguments can be made. On this very blog I’ve had feminists comment and present counter-arguments to things I’ve written. So what in the hell are you going on about??

              “In this vein, you can claim ANYTHING at all is structurally oppressive and allow no possibility of a counter-argument because “it’s not about you”.”

              I don’t understand what bizarre train of thought could possibly lead you to this position. Are you seriously arguing that systemic criticism is so hard that you just can’t do it? Otherwise, why can’t you do it as well as I can, and make a counter-argument on that basis?

              And no, I do not argue that “anything” is oppressive. That’s a laughable conceit. Do you seriously think you’d have NO possible argument to make if I said that, say, chocolate chip cookies are oppressive to POC because POC are made of sugar, you have no counter-argument whatsoever?

              This has to be the stupidest comment I’ve seen today, and I am including the anti-feminist moron below.

          • pronoiaagape November 23, 2014 at 03:30

            It warms the cockles of my heart to be stupider than the anti-feminist moron.

            My counter-argument was simple, if not explicitly stated in a single line: PIV sex is not inherently oppressive, the male-entitled version of it is (the male-entitled version of pretty much everything tends to be oppressive).

            Orgasming by way of an STD-free penis which will then ejaculate elsewhere if you want it to (or ejaculate inside if you want a baby) is not unsafe or oppressive.

            • Francois Tremblay November 23, 2014 at 03:35

              The male-entitled version of PIV. And the non-male-entitled version of PIV is what exactly? A STD-free male penis ejaculating somewhere else?

          • pronoiaagape November 23, 2014 at 03:33

            You speak for all women when you say something is inherently oppressive to women as a rule. Then you disable dissent by saying that the opinions and experiences of individual women who are not being oppressed by PIV (demanding PIV from their partners and controlling the entire sex act) don’t matter – and you compare women who disagree with specific tenets with willing victims of pornography or prostitution. Or Sarah Palin.

            In this way, you have constructed a system where you can’t be questioned. You could well say that chocolate chip cookies are oppressive because the chocolate part
            is smaller. If a POC says she doesn’t feel oppressed by the chocolate chip cookie, you just say “it’s not about you”.

            But now I see you’re an anti-natalist man, not a radfem woman, so I’ll stop arguing with you. I’m a woman who enjoys all the stuff my body does, including pregnancy, so I see we’re never going to get anywhere with this.

        • Francois Tremblay November 23, 2014 at 03:37

          Let me be clear: you are an idiot. I’ve argued with feminists before, and no one has any problems formulating counter-arguments to anyone. Where you got this bizarre idea is beyond me.

          Also, being an antinatalist and being a feminist are harmonious positions, but I can see why you would dislike this because you refuse to acknowledge that PIV is at the center of female oppression. Boohoo!

          • unabashedcalabash October 13, 2015 at 18:29

            This woman strikes me as the female version of men who defend PIV because it “feels good.” That is, her argument is devoid of context and highly defensive, as well as not a real argument at all.

            I, too, like PIV (though I don’t orgasm from it, not in the true sense of the word; nevertheless, PIV feels intensely connecting as well as pleasurable, and PIV along with clitoral stimulation is much better than either alone). However it’s obvious that privileging PIV as “sex”–that is what we do; it IS sex, and everything else is just “sexual play”–is essentially a male-centric value, as so many women not only don’t get off on it (especially the selfish, often woefully curtailed way men do it) but it’s also dangerous to women, much more than it is to men.

            If the pronoiaagape did not live in this society despite her love of PIV she might love other sex acts just as much and do them all the time without engaging in PIV and feel just as satisfied (PIV is definitely the “end point” to any heterosexual activity in most people’s eyes, unless of course it’s anal sex, increasingly popular, unenjoyable for most women and usually even more abusive than your average male-serving PIV session).

            Also, you are completely right that PIV and access to it is the central tenet of women’s oppression and also needs to be examined within that framework (how pleasurable it is for women is irrelevant to that discussion). PIV is usually seen as compulsory in heterosexual relationships/hook-ups of any kind, as well.

            Of course it’s natural in the sense that it’s an evolutionary drive (as it leads to children). But “natural” does not necessarily mean “good” (just as having children is certainly not necessarily good, at all, even though it’s natural) and other forms of sex are just as natural (just look at bonobos, who are constantly doing oral/mutual masturbation without feeling the need for penetration).

            So yes, the privileging of PIV over all other forms of sex is not the ONLY thing that’s natural and not the only way to be, and certainly has to do with male-centric, male-serving sexuality, and male domination of women. Obviously. Which has nothing to do with how much you or I or anyone else may like it.

            I must admit I’m jealous of women who can have an orgasm from PIV, though, as so often it’s where sexual activity ends up (and trying to prevent this can lead straight to rape, which leads to victim-blaming if you were fooling around with the rapist in any other form or fashion), but also as it is so bonding, and it would be nice to be able to enjoy it more (to enjoy it as much as she seems to, even if I do kind of like it too); whenever I hear about women like her I always kind of think it has to be a myth (that any women can come from penetrative sex). It’s odd, the positioning of female organs (doesn’t seem like female sexual pleasure is paramount from an evolutionary perspective, not to human reproduction; then why the separate clitoris? To make women more receptive to PIV? Why not just have the whole vagina be made of clitoral material so all women would orgasm from PIV and therefore want it all the time? It’s odd, to say the least. Also it calls into question the idea that desire for PIV in most women is “natural”). It would be nice to think, as she posits, that it’s simply bad male technique until you meet that magical Nigel, but unfortunately I don’t think so. Oh well. I guess that just frees me to focus on other stuff. (But again, that means being assertive and careful in choice of partners, to avoid coercion into yet another round of bad PIV, often out of fear of the consequences of saying no).

            • Francois Tremblay October 13, 2015 at 18:59

              I don’t think we’re evolutionarily made for procreation. As you pointed out yourself, our genital makeup seems particularly badly made for that (the clitoris being the center of female arousal, as well as women libido going up after 40 and prostate stimulation for men). Not that it matters anyway: evolution is a blind, natural process which does not, and cannot, impose moral orders on any organism, only, at best, biological necessities (of which procreation and sex are not).

              I also doubt that any woman gets orgasms simply from PIV. Surveys say there is a significant percentage of them, but I’ve never actually seen any woman say she does. Then again, I suppose my personal incredulity is not a very good argument. It’s just that the area of sex is so aberrated that one should cast doubt on any survey (esp since we know that cheating surveys always return wonky due to gender roles).

  3. pronoiaagape November 22, 2014 at 15:50

    I am the one who demands PIV from my husband, while he can be a bit anxious about possible pregnancy (he’s the SAHD, so I get it). Much of the time I am on top, doing what feels good to me – except when I want him to do all the work. So, am I raping him? He seems to like it, anyway.

  4. mbraaheidner November 22, 2014 at 16:51

    I also wrote this about PIV at my blog, Dear Patriarchy–DIE! http://shehasthepower.wordpress.com/2012/06/24/patriarchy-the-original-rape/

  5. Bill November 22, 2014 at 18:19

    Keep writing more crazy articles like this. The more people that read this will understand feminism is pure insanity…

    • Francois Tremblay November 23, 2014 at 01:35

      What is crazy in what I wrote? Do you have any specific point to make with this, or are you just here to insult me? I have given you people plenty of chances to put forward an actual argument, but you’ve failed miserably.

      • Bill November 23, 2014 at 05:42

        I would rather argue with a schizophrenic homeless person who is mumbling to themselves and covered in their own piss. You are fucking insane!!! Why would I argue with someone like you??? What the hell happened to you to have beliefs like this? Is this blog some kind of joke?

        • Francois Tremblay November 23, 2014 at 14:49

          Yes yes, I understand that you are outraged beyond belief. So are you going to tell me WHY you’re this outraged yet? Or are you just a troll with nothing of substance to say?

  6. wwomenwwarriors November 23, 2014 at 15:36

    Men don’t bother to argue with us is because they know what we are saying is true. They know what PIV is about and what they are doing. They have to label us insane witches and make a big fuss about how much males disapprove of this critique (i.e. you’ll be mocked and ostracized, and if you go public with your real identity, you’ll be harassed, threatened, attacked, and denied vital resources to life). The point is that they know it’s true, so they obscure this by making the cost of seeing the truth so high that living a lie is safer. Living in a male dominated culture means women are negotiating very real terms of survival for themselves and their children. It’s better to appease the masters. If the masters STRONGLY disapprove of something or certain women, the safest move then is to stay far far away from those women and their views to avoid becoming another target of male rage.

    Stay in line. Let men fuck you and no one gets hurt.

    They make the anti-PIV argument for us with their actions.

    • Francois Tremblay November 23, 2014 at 15:41

      Hey wwomenwwarriors, I’m so glad your blog came back! The new entries are great too. Thank you for being back.

      You may be right, in fact you are probably right, but I am trying to give them the benefit of the doubt. Fool’s errand, I know. :)

  7. […] stated in a previous entry that there was almost no response to the PIV criticism issued by radfem, with one exception I […]

  8. Tom Jones March 30, 2015 at 16:22

    Francois, are you telling us that your mother was raped by your father? That you and all children on this earth are products of rape? How many years did he continue raping her? Did he show her any love at all or was he just a brute?

    You people are so insane it is unreal. You have my sympathy.

    • Francois Tremblay March 30, 2015 at 16:26

      Dudebro, your reading abilities are pretty low, huh? Because I wrote:
      “otherwise they wouldn’t have made up the “fact” that “all radfem think sex is rape”; ”

      Your stupidity is so insane it is unreal. You have my sympathy, you condescending, illiterate twat.

  9. Taylor November 2, 2016 at 08:13

    Simple: why would one argue for PIV if they are still getting it?
    If the Anti- PIV supporters could convince all or most women to stop PIV then PRO-PIV supporters would have reason to debate their opinions, but until it becomes personal, no reason to say anything!
    Give an example, there are a lot of people that think alcohol is wrong… some even offer legit reasons why we shouldn’t drink… but as along as I can get it… don’t need to argue the point, it’s mute… however if you live in a dry county you will see both sides of the argument.. As of right now, there is no concern most women will stop PIV, so I don’t expect many to debate with you!!
    However personally as a guy, I hate PIV and my wife could take it or leave it, so I’m ok if you convince all women to give it up!
    Good luck with that!!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: