Is penetration sacred?
Tue, 2007-10-02 10:33
#1
Is penetration sacred?
Tue, 2007-10-02 10:33
#2
[img]http://quebec.indymedia.org/files/14566.jpg[/img]
[b]COLLECTIF MASCULIN CONTRE LE SEXISME[/b]
![http://quebec.indymedia.org/files/14566.jpg[/img]](http://quebec.indymedia.org/files/14566.jpg[/img]){kind=link}
I designed and distributed the above logo/sticker ("Penetration kills - AIDS - Montreal Men Against Sexism") four years ago to try and provocatively raise the issue of what appears to me like a symbolic investment/obsession with penetrating the body of others (by sex or intra-veinous injection) and its devastating effects in AIDS and other infectious disease transmission, unwanted pregnancies, rape, unsatisfactory sex, etc.
There are protections of course - condoms, fresh needles or bleach - but little research seems to address what appears to be the generalized refusal of people (mostly men) to use them.
Could this be because of the symbolic value of penetration as some kind of transgression of the Other's line of self/resistance (the skin), or the demand that s/he bypass self-protection as a sign of personal commitment to the relationship, of giving oneself over to the subject?
Anyway, this logo hit a nerve with indymedia audiences and local activists. It was denounced as being 'anti-sex' (as if sex = penetration, or as if all sex was Necessarily Good), as aligned with Bushian politics (as if anything but penetration = abstinence), etc. Very defensive...
It isn't either, IMO, and I still think the issue deserves closer attention, given the awesome statistics and life stories about the growing incidence of STDs, unwanted pregnancies, rape, unsatisfactory sex, masculinity as power over, etc.
Room for thought and action - and for reductive putdowns, unfortunately, so please try to resist that impulse, folks.
Thanks.
[url=http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/]Centers for Disease Control Fact Sheets[/url]
[ 02 October 2007: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Tue, 2007-10-02 11:23
#3
Maysie
First, I'm not sure the relevance for such an image in the feminist forum. I mean, [b]must[/b] we insist on being phallocentric, always? I mean, I enjoy being bi, I love my male partner, but seeing that all drippy? Ick. At least shrink it down a bit. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
Second, Dan Savage wrote a great piece about penetration and expectations years ago. Straight men had written to ask him why aren't straight women as open to casual sex as gay men seem to be? Forgoing the stereotypes about straight women and gay men, Dan answered that it's primarily because of sexism and sexual violence against women, risk of pregnancy, etc. More than that, however, is that with 2 gay men, both of whom have likely been penetrated in some way in past sexual experiences, they will be more likely to understand that penetration must be negotiated, not assumed. Ways to have sex, many of which don't involve any penetration at all, are more likely to happen with casual gay sex.
Dan suggested that straight sex would be more like gay sex if straight men (and our sexist world) didn't presume penetration when a man and woman have sex. I thought that was a brilliant answer.
That said, I agree with the concern about associating death with sex/penetration, as that does have a taint of being anti-sex. I'm also concerned about conflating risk of contracting HIV/AIDS through unprotected sex with the risk through sharing needles.
Also, penetration is not always about male dominance. Heard of pegging? [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
Tue, 2007-10-02 13:01
#4
quote:
... but seeing that all drippy? Ick.
Yeah a bit like a drooling dog.... [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
Tue, 2007-10-02 13:36
#5
Bigcitygal wrote: "I'm also concerned about conflating risk of contracting HIV/AIDS through unprotected sex with the risk through sharing needles."
To what extent do you feel that these risks are different?
[img]confused.gif" border="0[/img]
P.S.: I also wish I could shrink the logo but it's on a website and I can't do that. If a moderator can do so, however, I concur.
[ 02 October 2007: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Tue, 2007-10-02 13:40
#6
quote:
At least shrink it down a bit.
Try posting a picture of Ernest Borgnine beside it, it always works for me.
Tue, 2007-10-02 13:42
#7
quote:
Also, penetration is not always about male dominance. Heard of pegging?
Does that hurt?
Tue, 2007-10-02 13:49
#8
Bigcitygal also wrote: "I agree with the concern about associating death with sex/penetration, as that does have a taint of being anti-sex."
It should be possible to address this issue - the fact that a possible obsession with unprotected penetration DOES translate into unnecessary deaths - rather than whatever taint could be associated with a challenge to this, when it impinges on sexual habits? It would be a shame if any sexual behaviour or ideology was to remain untouchable for fear of one being attacked as "anti-sex".
Then again, must one necessarily always be "pro-sex" (whatever that means), or is that a knee-jerk reflex in the face of Conservative attacks on sexual reproductive rights? If it is true some categories of people are systematically, structurally hurt through sex, can we not take that into account, rather than taking the fundamentalist position that all things sexual (e.g. penetration) are necessarily Good - and if theyre not, well hey, they're just not sex? It seems to me that such an idealist position is no gift to the folks oppressed through sex.
[ 02 October 2007: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Tue, 2007-10-02 14:02
#9
![http://www.stickergiant.com/Merchant2/imgs/450/ecp020_450.jpeg[/img]](https://www.stickergiant.com/Merchant2/imgs/450/ecp020_450.jpeg[/img]){kind=link}
Tue, 2007-10-02 14:05
#10
Ummm... [img]eek.gif" border="0[/img]
Tue, 2007-10-02 14:13
#11
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]Bigcitygal also wrote: "I agree with the concern about associating death with sex/penetration, as that does have a taint of being anti-sex."Can we discuss the issue being put forward - the fact that a possible obsession with unprotected penetration DOES translate into unnecessary deaths - rather than whatever taint could be associated with a challenge to this state of affairs? [/b]
You know, you could always have the conversation with your reflection in the mirror if the female feminists on babble aren't discussing the issues you raise to your expectations or satisfaction.
Tue, 2007-10-02 14:13
#12
quote:
Can we discuss the issue being put forward - the fact that a possible obsession with unprotected penetration DOES translate into unnecessary deaths - rather than whatever taint could be associated with a challenge to this state of affairs?
Maybe that's the problem with the logo, Martin. It's certainly evocative, but I think it tends to take attention away from the subject.
It's right to question why society, or segments of society are turning away from condom use, or not turning to it, when the dangers are still out there. And, it's quite right to point out that women seem to be, as usual, suffering the most.
quote:
Also, penetration is not always about male dominance. Heard of pegging?
Well, I think if the necessary equipment wasn't so damn expensive, I think a lot more people would have heard of pegging, particularly in the heterosexual demographic.
Treat that as a consumer complaint if you will. On the other hand, if the ensuing thought horrifies you, then don't. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
Tue, 2007-10-02 14:14
#13
Martin, our society may be obsessed with intercourse, intercourse may be the least imaginative form of sex, and many women may have terrible sex lives because of it, but to imply that penatrative sex automatically leads to death is rediculous.
Tue, 2007-10-02 14:19
#14
cueball,
True art. Devilishly delightful.
That first image? Shrunken or as is, crude, anti-male and deliberately offensive, in my opinion. Some may view it and see more than one drip.
Tue, 2007-10-02 14:21
#15
Cueball
I thought Martin's attempt at rendering himself a dick was quite good actually.
Tue, 2007-10-02 14:25
#16
Given the gender ratio in this thread, I'd hazard a guess that penetration seems to be a male fascination. Here we are, hoist on our own petard.
Hmm. Yet another penetration reference.
If this were a cocktail party, I'd be the one slowly slinking away to have a smoke outside right about now.
Tue, 2007-10-02 14:27
#17
Cueball
"If thine eye offends thee, pluck it out," is all I can say.
Tue, 2007-10-02 14:33
#18
I'm kinky, but not that kinky. Read about a guy who did that, though. One tough m/f, he was.
Tue, 2007-10-02 14:34
#19
Cueball
Body modification is all the rage these days.
Tue, 2007-10-02 14:42
#20
CMOT went: "to imply that penatrative sex automatically leads to death is rediculous."
Which is why I said no such thing and focused with my explanation on the attitudes which did make it - and unbleached syringe sharing - life-threatening.
Why is it that we can agree that "Speed kills", for instance, and say so in public service announcements, although it is clear that it doesn't always do so?
[ 02 October 2007: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Tue, 2007-10-02 14:42
#21
removed for lack of timeliness. And irreverence. And because I stole if from a comedian.
[ 02 October 2007: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]
Tue, 2007-10-02 14:50
#22
Cueball
Speaking of untimely, and comedians, I found this the other day...
For some reason I am inspired to post it here, however.
[ 02 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Tue, 2007-10-02 15:16
#23
quote:
First, I'm not sure the relevance for such an image in the feminist forum. I mean, must we insist on being phallocentric, always?
This is, or at least has the potential to be, an interesting thread. It also has the potential to go rather thither. Anyway, the subject can probably best be most fully explored in Body and Soul, especially given how it looks like it's going.
Moving to Body and Soul...