rape culture/victim culture

quote:

---

Wow. Holmes, despite your apparent status as resident sex-expert, I have to say you are quite off on this one. Anal sex is NOT about learning to endure pain, it is about learning to relax and enjoy pleasurable sensations. Feeling pleasure, not enduring pain.

---

There's a saying about anal sex:Women who try anal sex do it twice;the first time to see what it's like, and the second time to find out if it was really that bad.LOL!

Hmmmmmm, let me correct that mistatement. What I was trying to reject was commentary I have heard that it is some basic human capability that is essentially intrinsically pleasurable. That is a myth.Yes, once one has learned to handle anal sex, learned to endure the basic pain, there is pleasure to be gained. This is essentially making the argument I was trying to make. That said, there are limits and for some "big" doesn't get very big. Then again I've seen things done (not to me) that would make some people's heads spin. Mine certainly gave a few doubletakes.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Hahaha...Or were you being serious?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

No, I was curious. But let me rephrase the question in a way that doesn't put words in your mouth.Does the person on the receiving end of anal sex ever stop feeling pain while they do it? Which to me is a different matter than "getting used to the pain."

quote:

---

Originally posted by holmes:
No, this is also inaccurate. The vagina expands an contracts to fit the penis. Yes, a girl that does not want to have sex, or is stressed in some way may not relax and indeed clamp down causing pain to both people. But if willing, there is generally no problem with having penetration.

​

The exception to this is the breaking of the hymen which is not contingent on muscle relaxation.

​

---

#1.
the hymen is a myth. most women do not have one by the time they have sex or the first time. often it is broken prior by some blunt force trauma (like horseback riding or a fall) and even more often it is not a fully covering membrane and even receeds during growth.#2.
the vaginal walls expand and contract to sexual excitement, not to fit a penis. while this may seem like a minor distinction, possessing one myself, i assure you it is not. further, most vaginas (a statement from unplanned polls of people i have spoken to on the matter) need to go through an experience period (usually approaching six months of regular activity) before they can experience pain-free sex. that is all.

Its hard to say what stop feeling the pain really means. Is the pain not there, or just that they are used to it and it does not phase them.I had a friend that was a semi-pro "geek" that broke bricks on his head. The guy was obviously in a bit of pain and disorientation afterward, yet said he really didn't feel it anymore.So it is hard for me to say, but let me put it this way...The anal region allows pleasure from the outside skin nerves as well as the inside prostate region, as well as the "relief" of not having something inside that was previously there.Anal sex provides pleasure in all of those ways.However, for a while and for some always, there will be pain as the muscles are stretched beyond their normal dimensions (depends on size of course and so why fingers aren't really a problem), tearing of the skin which is what happens frequently (and why anal sex is the most dangerous for STDs (the skin is not adapted for it), and the feeling of "fullness" by placing something in there.Anyone that says "fullness" is a great feeling has learned to enjoy a naturally uncomfortable sensation. Normally it is on the pull out that one gets pleasure from the relieved feeling.Can someone get to a point that there is simply no noticeable pain? I would imagine so or no one would be doing it at all. And like I said, I've seen some people wanting and enjoying stimulation that I considered physically impossible. Of course they seem to be in pain, so is it anal SM? I dunno.Without question, pain or not, people can and do enjoy it, which is a whole other ball of wax. If it is enjoyable, why not do it?But for those that don't, or can't, its a little silly to hear people talk about how naturally comfortable and pleasurable it is. Finger and tongue, yeah, larger things... no, not "naturally" enjoyable.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Obviously you've missed my refutation of the inerrancy of the Bible using hymens. I am well aware, and well-spoken on the hymen's elusive nature.But that does not make them a myth. How they break, or when they should be there might be, but hymens do exist, and for some it's breaking can be painful. I was only mentioning that the discomfort from penetration due to a hymen's existence would not be contingent on muscle contraction/relaxation... not that all women will have one by the time of first intercourse, that it will even break during intercourse, or that it would be painful when broken. I do find it a minor distinction, especially when my caveat included a description of a girl not going through sexual excitement. Once excited, what's the difference between it conforming to the size of the penis, or just expanding and contracting such that it fits the penis? That is not what my "unplannned polls" revealed. I know some that did take a while, but others did not. Six months seems pretty extensive, even among those that did take a while.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

My similar meaningless annecdotal evidence suggests to me that the key factor is nothing to do with an "experience period" and everything to do with a) being relaxed about sex, b) actually wanting to have sex with their partner and c) having their partner have some skill at warming them up first. Nearly all the girls I know who describe their first sexual experiences as painful, didn't really want to have sex with their partner - those who don't; did.

i know the hymen exists. but it's perserverence is generally false. further, it can generally be stretched by foreplay type activities (when it has perservered) and then never break. it may seem a foolish argument, but the blood from the breaking of the hymen (or the lack thereof) has killed many women of whom proof of their virginity was required.the difference is that the penis itself does not cause the vagina to expand comfortably (because it will inherently cause it to expand) whereas sexual excitement will. my argument is that there is no real difference between the 'training' time of the anus and the vagina. the vagina will tear if forced as well.those i spoke to took around six months. as did i. i'm not responsible for any other information. as i said, it was an informal, accidental poll.

i was, rather, referring to momentary pains during sex and not an all-around painful experience. those are generally not related to arousal but rather to say, slipping and going in too far whereas a few months later that doesn't matter. and yes i realize it is anecdotal and worthless. everything about humanity is anecdotal.

I'm not sure why you handed me the hymen info, that is what I said. Indeed... ... plays significantly in my arguments against the inerrancy of the Bible. I have yet to have one literalist stick around after I pull that one out. Right. Absolutely agree. I am still not seeing an issue with anything I said. Yes, there is, if a girl is sexually excited and someone doesn't just go ramming a huge member inside. Vaginas naturally lubricate in anticipation (when excited), even virgin ones. Asses do not. The insides are also more malleable, and asses are not.I agree that if the sex is someone simply jamming something into a receiver who is neither interested nor willing, then the "training time" will be about the same. All I can ask is how freqent was the sex, and how willing or excited was the girl during this period? This does not match what I have heard at all, even from the one's who said it really hurt and it took a while.I am not saying you did not get this info, just that the info I have does not match it at all.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

i've sat out of this argument for a little while because frankly it both bores and offends me at the same time. and i've been busy. good question. i've heard suggestions of both. but it doesn't especially matter. since the two do not reproduce sexually with anything. no, it suggests two different genders. in fact, that suggestion was first made by me, when i listed some of the obvious female characteristics. there were also comments about looking obviously female, until "excited" when it produces a long tube to shove down someone's throat. according to some comic books, this tube even hardens like a penis.but that doesn't mean that has a male role any more than a female role. it's sexual role is completely asexual. any gender ascribed to it is simply interpretative, and reading viewer bias into it. no, you haven't. my claim was not that you can't apply gender characteristics to it. it certain has some from both genders. my assertion was that assign it a specific gender role is invalid. do you not understand how this is biased?if you want to read sexuality into sci-fi movies, try the sequel to alien on for size. here, the queen is certainly the agressor, and one could argue even sexually, since the drones (who are now seen as male, i might add) are inferior sexually the female queen. they are forced to do her bidding, impregnating and violating hosts.and when all of the male marines are dead or mortally wounded. it's ripley who defeats her. it's a clash of two female titans. to say that either is somehow male because she is strong and sexually agressive is completely silly -- BOTH are fighting on behalf of their "children" a very maternal and feminine characteristic.i think part of the ideas in at least the first two movies were to mess with typical gender roles, and throw them out of whack.but generalize males and sexual agressor and females as helpless victims is exactly the kind of gender-ism that feminists should be fighting against. so calling you female because i think you're being irrational and nonsensical -- that's ok? just so we're on the same page here. no, saying ONLY men "love 'em and leave 'em" and then ascribing that as male characteristic to something purposefully genderless is a generalization, and demeaning. it's implying that women are victims of male use.saying "all men are pigs" is just an exclamation and making no specific claim. no, i'm arguing something totally separate. that assigning gender roles is based on stereotype and generalization. you're the one insulting both genders here, buddy. you're calling women helpless victims and men rapists. try actually thinking a little about post-modern feminist thought for a second. look for the double standards, the biases, and the stereotypes they say they're breaking down. examine in it honestly with a critical eye for unsupported assertions and hindsight fallacies. just do it, and then tell me who's got more in common with the creationist.

ironically, i was one of 5 guys in my last women's studies class. i say ironically, because the class total was 16.that's about 31%, as compared my college's 25% total male population that year. yes, we had three girls for every one guy. and no, that actually wasn't as cool as it sounds.however. we spent a long time discussing bias, and why it's bad, and then proceeded to read the opposite into everything. no problems were ever looked in terms of solutions, but often problems were created, or found in areas they did not exist.and we talked about things like how certain female wasps are actually male. and how science and the scientific method is invalid, because it was founded by a chauvenist pig, who thought of exploring the natural world as taming the feminine nature.

no, he's not. and i'm very well familiar that that's how they see the subject. they're also wrong, and guilty of stereotyping and bias. as he's never seen the movie, "saw" is kind of a funny term. and i'm arguing that that social filter is at fault for this view askew. i'm "problematizing" it, if you will. well, no. not outside of that filter. it's very much a part of the society now, and so an objective outside opinion is impossible, even from people like me who disagree.however, i will admit that there is a scene towards the end where the alien is particularly masculine, and ripley is particularly feminine, and two have a very, very odd sexual chemistry. but i don't think that makes the alien masculine on the whole.and i especially think the overriding position of the film is the opposite, consider ripley very sexually blows it the fuck out into space. doesn't that assert the feminine in a dominant role? contrary to the assumptions crash is using? well, some did apparently gather this from just the first movie. for instance, the essay in the book i had wsa just on the first movie. asserting a blatantly female queen into that position of dominance would have destroyed their point, and so they left it out. even though it was written years after both.there's also a funny family anecdote about my mother seeing alien when she was pregnant with me...however, i do not agree that it is equateable to impregnation or emasculation. although it is certainly easy to read those assumptions in, that's just what they are. assumptions.(if we're going to continue down the line, btw, in no. 3 ripley takes on decidedly male characteristics when she herself is "impregnated") his issue is not with penetration, but implantation. the aformentioned essay had a lot of issues with penetration, though. something about the alien's tongue being phallic weapon. (see also, sil's tongue in species) while here, the penetrative acts are deadly. i would consider that a bit above offensive. but i don't think the movie is condemn males, or commenting on gender roles in that way. it may be asserting some sort of female dominance, but only to suprise the audience. originally a man (capt dallas) was supposed to be the survivor. so i really don't think they cared about gender roles the way we do. or they were attempting to say that in the future, it actually won't matter.but anyhow. i'm not totally sure what to make of it, because i don't read gender biases into things. but if i were... well here's a question of comparison.if we're reading the alien as male, what's the predator? remember him? but the two of the them together in a movie or a comic book or game, who's clearly asserting the dominance? who has that masculine features now?lance henriksen had something interesting to say on the avp commentary (the one with "flying vaginas"). he said that they predators were very reminiscent of hunter/gatherers. civilized, with technology, but still primitive. and the aliens were very reptilian, like animals. so the predators are like concious mind, and aliens like the subconcious -- we have both of these parts within us. and the battle between these two processes has been going for thousands of years, and that's why a story like this is so interesting.so i'm more inclined to see alien(s) as a story civilization vs nature. and according the feminists biases, should we read them in, that makes the aliens female, and us male, no matter who wins. compared to the very masculine predators, this view holds up.

Well, if you want to jump back in, it would be nice if you could familiarize yourself with the recent posts I've made. Your post reiterates arguments that I have already addressed. I think I've literally come out and said that this is biased. So what? That's what we're talking about; the assertion was made by you that no such biases could be applied to the alien. Holmes and I have successfully applied several biases. Gosh, and how do you suppose they did that? By creating an alien antagonist that evokes the worst of both male and female sexual roles. That's ok. We're on the same page. If you see those qualities as feminine, and I think most people would, that's ok. I have no problem with that.But like I said I'm not the one with a huge chip on my shoulder about "generalizations" and "calling all men rapists" and judging the associations society makes with biological sex, which are always both good and bad. I'm just here to describe those associations, Arach. Not judge or advocate them. You need to get caught up to my post 132. Actually, I know you're caught up to it, because you replied to it. So why, again, do I see you refuting a position that you know I'm not taking?