Women Aren't "Non-Men"

[AeonPax]

`
`
The piece was written from a male perspective, for a male audience. By deliberately referring to women, without mentioning the name, as merely "non-prostate people" screams misogynism.

[Common]

I was also looking more essentially for the opinions of people like @Green Arrow, @Dr. Who, @Chloe, @Adelaide, @AeonPax, @Common Sense, @Safety, @Bo-4, and @Bethere and such more than the strictly conservative/right-leaning roster of responders we've managed to generate so far, it's worth adding.

If thats the case make your threads TPF and state no conservative comments welcome.

[IMPress Polly]

Common wrote:
If thats the case make your threads TPF and see no conservative comments welcome.

Conservative commentaries are always welcome. You're just not always the center of my universe.

Now trolling, on the other hand, is not welcome (especially on tPF threads). Have you seen me complaining about trolling on this thread though? No? That's because I don't really see any as yet. We're still fundamentally on-topic. All is well! Relax.

[Adelaide]

I do not think about it often, and I do not really have strong feelings about it, but it does sometimes make me wonder when I think about being female or a woman. But I think of other languages that I know and it isn't there, really. Even the gender of nouns is much different in the other languages I know than it is for English speakers. German is a nightmare of trying to figure out what is what. But again, it's not really something I think about much or strongly. It is what it is. I prefer female over woman, for some reason.

As for the article: Some women may enjoy anal sex, so it is not just about men. Some women enjoy vaginal sex. Some women can only orgasm with direct clitoral stimulation. Everyone is different. While the physical matters, so does the mind. The removal of the clitoris from the image may be a bit of a miss because I would imagine that for most women anal sex would only be enjoyable with stimulation to both.

But then, it also did not mention breasts (male or female) or other areas that provide sexual stimulation. I used to read Cosmo as a teenager and I know that there are a bunch of weird areas that people find stimulating to varying degrees.

As a side note... I might be a little bit pissed off if my (hypothetical) kid came home with a Teen Vogue describing anal sex, and in such a poor manner. I get the fact that teenagers are going to probably have sex and experiment but I don't know any female in my circle of friends who would have even thought about anal sex until they were in an adult, committed relationship. I mean, there's poop involved. You usually want intimacy in those kinds of moments.

I understand that it is particularly important for the LGBTQ community and that explaining it and providing advice for safety and pleasure would be helpful, but I still think I would prefer my kid to ask me about it before reading about it in Teen Vogue. Again, I know that some teenagers think anal sex isn't real sex so they think they can't get pregnant or whatever - but that's what sex education is for.

I don't know - I am not sure how I feel about that article and that it is in Teen Vogue. Maybe I would feel differently if it had been presented differently.

[IMPress Polly]

Adelaide wrote:
I do not think about it often, and I do not really have strong feelings about it, but it does sometimes make me wonder when I think about being female or a woman. But I think of other languages that I know and it isn't there, really. Even the gender of nouns is much different in the other languages I know than it is for English speakers. German is a nightmare of trying to figure out what is what. But again, it's not really something I think about much or strongly. It is what it is. I prefer female over woman, for some reason.

I know. And I agree. But let's face it, you get made fun of if you use "womyn" (that's the older English version of the word, which didn't reference men) and stuff like that.

As for the article: Some women may enjoy anal sex, so it is not just about men. Some women enjoy vaginal sex. Some women can only orgasm with direct clitoral stimulation. Everyone is different.

...I feel that that this relativist analysis seeks deliberately to avoid a basic truth: 86% of women cannot reach orgasm without clitoral stimulation. Equating the overwhelming rule to what may be true for a small minority seems a bit dishonest and misleading to me. We're not all THAT different.

As a side note... I might be a little bit pissed off if my (hypothetical) kid came home with a Teen Vogue describing anal sex, and in such a poor manner. I get the fact that teenagers are going to probably have sex and experiment but I don't know any female in my circle of friends who would have even thought about anal sex until they were in an adult, committed relationship. I mean, there's poop involved. You usually want intimacy in those kinds of moments.

I (largely) agree. You can't help but notice that most of the potential negative consequences go quietly unmentioned. Like the fact that you might not have proper bowel movements for weeks afterward.

This is why these things need to be discussed in the form of proper sex education. That is made difficult by the fact that many states insist upon "abstinence-only" sex ed (guess how many teens take that nonsense seriously) or no sex ed at all.

[resister]

...I feel that that this relativist analysis seeks deliberately to avoid a basic truth: 86% of women cannot reach orgasm without clitoral stimulation. Equating the overwhelming rule to what may be true for a small minority seems a bit dishonest and misleading to me. We're not all THAT different.



I (largely) agree. You can't help but notice that most of the potential negative consequences go quietly unmentioned. Like the fact that you might not have proper bowel movements for weeks afterward.

This is why these things need to be discussed in the form of proper sex education. That is made difficult by the fact that many states insist upon "abstinence-only" sex ed (guess how many teens take that nonsense seriously) or no sex ed at all.

Or anal fissures or a prolapsed anus.

[Common]

Conservative commentaries are always welcome. You're just not always the center of my universe.

Now trolling, on the other hand, is not welcome (especially on tPF threads). Have you seen me complaining about trolling on this thread though? No? That's because I don't really see any as yet. We're still fundamentally on-topic. All is well! Relax.

Ive never trolled any thread you have ever posted

[Dr. Who]

After getting over the initial shock that Teen Vogue is actually promoting anal sex to teens, which is totally inappropriate, in my view, it is not surprising that they are reducing people to body part owners, like they were simply discussing the relative functionality of an Apple Phone vs an Android and guess who the Android is in this analogy?

Is it ultimately misogynistic? The article goes to great lengths to extol how natural it is - ancient Greek men and all, however, I see no mention of this tradition among ancient Greek women among whom I doubt that it was the least bit popular, hence the big sales pitch.

People can get their jollies in all manner of ways since arousal takes place in the brain first. The also article fails to point out that anal sex is not without its dangers. That body part was not designed for sex, thus it damages very easily and eventually, though excessive abuse, loses its ability to close completely. I don't think that I need to describe the problems associated with non-closure. So, yes in promoting anal sex as a 'natural' alternative to young women, it is most definitely misogynistic, because it is the" vagina owner" who will be left with the physical consequences in a heterosexual relationship where she already has the appropriate purpose built equipment for the task at hand. Moreover, if sex is becoming that boring among teens, they are either having too much sex or watching too much porn.

[Adelaide]

...I feel that that this relativist analysis seeks deliberately to avoid a basic truth: 86% of women cannot reach orgasm without clitoral stimulation. Equating the overwhelming rule to what may be true for a small minority seems a bit dishonest and misleading to me. We're not all THAT different.

Are you taking into consideration the elusive G-spot? It seems as though most of my closest friends claim to have a G-spot and therefore vaginal sex will get their rocks off, or whatever, without any additional help. I am a little cynical about it, thinking that if it existed there would be many more women who would get the same satisfaction from vaginal sex without other stimulation. Technically, our plumbing should be similar if not identical in structure (unless there is some kind of anomaly at birth since the testes don't always descend the way they are supposed to). There are vibrators meant for the G-spot that I have heard work pretty well, which still seems odd to me since it's hit or miss as to whether a female thinks she actually has a G-spot to begin with.

I still stand behind my point, though. There are some women who would enjoy it enough to want to do it and to perhaps have orgasms. I'm not saying it's going to be a large group, but they exist. And some women may just want to try it, which is why I get why someone would write the article (even though it was poorly done, and in Teen Vogue).

[Chris]

Do you support Trump? Yes? Then your claims to all of the above are discredited until proven otherwise in my eyes. I don't want to stray too far off-topic, but frankly where is your defense of my privacy rights when it comes to the Dream Host case or that of voters vis-a-vis the president's "investigative" commission to determine exactly who voted against him? Where are your criticisms of the so-called war on drugs now? Where is your defense of "religious liberty" vis-a-vis the Muslim ban? Or your libertarian defense of the rights of immigrants? Haven't seen you say much about American imperialism lately either. (e.g. What's your stance on this stand-off with North Korea? Don't know!)

To sum all that up, it really seems to me like you've just abandoned all your so-called libertarian principles in order to embrace the monster in the White House and the alt-right's crackpot "deep state" theory about how any public official, protester, or news outlet or personality that expresses disapproval of Trump on anything is secretly working for Obama.

Hell, even your avatar is a symbolic icon of the old slave system!

Must you redefine people into something they are not in order to criticise them? Eth no more embraces Trump or the alt-right than you do. Admittedly is lend your position great emotional appeal.