Is Sex Just Penis In Vagina?

In case you didn't notice, the "incoherent rant" was about how men think they have the right to define women's sexuality without regard to what women think and define sex without regard to how women experience sex.

About how men think? Written by women! How would they know what it is like to be a man?

Men are not women. Yet, that does not mean men do not try to understand women or put women into perspective from their understanding of the world or sex for that matter.

Women do the same with men. They use their perspective of the world or sex (a woman's perspective) and try to put men into that perspective without regard to how men feel or experience.

How could either sex fully understand what it is to be the opposite sex or know how the opposite sex feels or experiences? Women are not men and men are not women. Women can not understand the pressures placed on men by society and men can not understand the pressures placed on women. Neither can understand the hormones driving that sex.

Neither men or women will ever fully understand the opposite sex, because they are not that sex.

So your saying you have a problem with the definition of "sex"?

Sexual intercourse, also known as copulation or coitus, commonly refers to the act in which the male reproductive organ enters the female reproductive tract.^[1][2] The two entities may be of opposite sexes or not, or they may be hermaphroditic, as is the case with snails. In recent years, penetration of non-sexual organs (oral intercourse, anal intercourse) or by non-sexual organs (fingering, fisting) are also sometimes included in this definition.^[2] Traditionally, intercourse has been viewed as the natural endpoint of all sexual contact between a man and a woman.^[2]

Why shouldn't sex be defined from a woman's point of view, with her orgasm ending it, without or without penetration?

If it "was" then the argument would be made as why shouldn't it be defined from a males point of view? I don't see it as a matter of one view point or another. Sex is sex AKA the definition above. It isn't defined by a domination of one sex or another. Why do some people like to split hairs and make something into some type of feminist oppression type of thing? :-/

the whole problem with this “its just sex” rant is that its a @!$%#ing fail, right from the start.

If all 19 radical feminists want to publicly or privately parade their "warm, wet, aroused vulva with a non-phallic-looking vibrator stimulating it to orgasm!!!!1!!1″and call that sex - they are welcome in my book.

But given the fact the author admits that no-one in the right mind of both genders agrees with her (except for the aforementioned 19 radical feminists, which I assume includes our esteemed seeder of the rant) perhaps she should be less concerned with the genitals, and more concerned with the head, and I don't mean the penis. Standing on a millions of years of animal evolution, all more or less based on penetration, and screaming some 20 year old pseudo-progressive cultural BS about how wrong it is, definitely deserves a CT scan.

Anyway as we all learned some time ago the very definition of "what is sex" hinges on a far more interesting question of "what is 'is'?".

So you would agree that bestiality is sex?

Bestiality is sex with animals of the species other than your own, and I did not bring up procreation human or animal - you did, so asking me "why" is somewhat misdirected.

Sex doesn't have to end in procreation

No argument there.

for at least four thousand years.

Very impressive, especially given the fact that Homo Sapience Sapience is up and at it for about forty thousand years, not to mention our humanoid ancestors who have been doing it for about a million years, but what is your point?

If humans limited their sexual activities to when they wanted to procreate, then they'd have sex at most a dozen times in their life.

Why did you bring up the subject of procreation, and where you are you going with it? You made a point, attributed it to me, and started arguing something very eloquently, what I am missing - what this has to do with anything? Especially with this stuff in the seed?

We all know that isn't true, so the definition of sex should have nothing to do with procreation.

Maybe, maybe not, given the fact that sex does result in procreation purposefully or otherwise, once again - what is your point?

Definition of sex, whatever the definition of sex would should have nothing to do with vaginal penetration either, because coitus vulgaris is only one - albeit the post traditional form of sexual intercourse, and does not even begin to cover the spectrum.

Having said - please simplify for me what it is we are looking for in this discussion? New definition of sex? Than we are going to involve WJC, he is the foremost expert on what is and is not sex these days. As for the rant you seeded - it was so full or rage, frustrations and expletives that I missed the question of what the author really wants, aside from a non-phallic shaped electric-powered masturbatory appliance.

I must say that in my book (where pretty much anything goes, at least once) sex requires at least two parties, so in my book self-gratification, or assisted self-gratification, no matter the degree of sophistication of the assisting equipment, does not constitute sex. Sex-robots however are starting to blur even that line.

You brought up procreation when you brought up animal evolution:

I merely pointed out that throughout the evolution even animals have sex based on penetration. I said nothing about sex for the purposes of procreation - this your own conclusion.

How else did they evolve, and why did their evolution involve penetration if not for procreation?

According to the liberal scientists animals have gays - therefore they have sex for the purposes other than procreation. According to real scientists some species of animals (dolphins specifically) have recreational sex, as well as sex with species other that their own - there are known cases of people being raped by dolphins. So I ask once more - what sex has to do with evolution? How they evolved is one question (quite an irrelevant one in this discussion), how they had sex while evolving - that part appears to be pertinent. What is important is not that they evolved, but that pretty much had the same concept of sex for millions of years regardless of the stage of evolution.

So if a woman doesn't want to be penetrated by an actual penis, her only option is to use a sex toy?

Are you asking me for advice, are you attempting to voir dire the degree of my expertise, or is this one of those rhetorical questions that does not require my answer? In general the woman's options are limited by her own modesty and her lover's imagination.

So you do understand what we're talking about -- and agree with us that sex is more than PVP.

Actually no - I do not, otherwise why would I keep asking about it? However I am guessing I made a good guess as to the intended topic of the conversation. As for my agreement with "us" - I do not know who "us" is, and what is defined as "sex" by "us", because clearly "more than PVP", while true, cannot be viewed as a sufficient definition. So far I have not seen anything that could be construed as a definition of "sex", so it is difficult to express my agreement or disagreement with it.

So let's move to my questions, which no one has attempted to answer yet.

Let us. I always endeavour not to disappoint my women (yes I know a horrible sexist thing to say).

In a recent Kinsey survey, 95% said penile-vaginal intercourse was having sex, 11% said it wasn't sex if there is no ejaculation. What should a woman call it if she's been penetrated but he doesn't ejaculate?

Let me see if I got this straight (no pun intended) - you Loretta Kemsley, asking me, a man, a person with the penis, a question about what a woman should do? I am not sure if I should be scared or honored. I think I'll do both.

As for your question - in my opinion if a woman had sex willingly, enjoyed the process, reached an orgasm, and he did not ejaculate, she should call it a good clean fun. Otherwise it was either a waste of time, or a if she did not participate willingly - possibly a criminal offence. What do you think she should call it?

Why shouldn't sex be defined from a woman's POV, with her orgasm being the end, with or without penetration?

Why shouldn't sex be defined as a mutually satisfying experience? Why should there be an injustice in any direction?

Men routinely request oral sex and are satisfied with it ending when they orgasm, whether or not the woman orgasms.

Indeed men routinely do request that. How often that request is granted - is a separate and very sad question. However having said that, and assuming a mutually consenting relationship, the woman who chooses to grant the request knows the rules of the game, and normally has two options - to decline, and to accept - if she chooses to accept, she knows that she may not have orgasm in that instance. It may cum later that night, or next time, but generally speaking once the orgasm is reached both men and women require a break to recharge the batteries, so in accepting such a request a woman makes a free choice to forgo this one orgasm in this one instance. If the man is not reciprocating in some (not necessarily symmetrical) form - than I assume the woman would eventually stop granting the requests, or finds herself a better man that she clearly deserves.

What if women did the same without the man experiencing orgasm?

You mean request a cunnilingus and then ask for an hour's break or for an ice-cream? In my experience they do. Mine get it, and I cannot be held responsible for the actions of others.

Would men accept that?

Some will, some won't, I do not have the percentages. Same with the fellatio. The acceptance rate on those things, especially in the long-term monogamous (almost said monotonous) relationships is abysmally small.

If not, then why do men think it is okay the other way around?

I do not know why they think, what I suspect is when they (actually us, men) have an erection we do not think - not enough blood to supply the brain with oxygen, so yours is a trick question.

We aim to please, sometimes we miss, that makes a mess, forgive us, please.

Interesting stuff / debate. I guess before I answer anymore... my question for you Loretta is.. if you had the power yourself to redefine for whatever reason the definition of "sex" to make it in your POV a more neutral definition that shows equality between genders (which I don't see how it dosen't).. what would your definition be that you and your fellow feminists could live with?

I think I have come up with a better definition of sex (not to be confused with the definition of intercourse that SR offered above). How about:

Sex is a period of time spent in an emotionally charged interaction between at least two human beings, manifested as targeted excitment of erogenous zones heightening the sexual arousal of the parties leading to and potentially climaxing in one or more orgasms.

It may need a little work, but I think it defines the pastime pretty accurately. Boy, this one feels good, I think I need a break and a cigarette.

I'd love to know that answer. It isn't that I don't love PVP, but that our shared culture should reflect the realities of women as well as men. Yet historically it hasn't.

As long the orgasms are there - the definiton is not as important.

If you look at Christianity's view of sex, it's never for pleasure, always for procreation -- and birth control isn't allowed. If women were to take that seriously, who would guys be having sex with for most of their lives? Most women prefer 0-2 children, which means guys wouldn't be getting much PVP over a lifetime.

I hate Christian view of sex, and I blame the Jews for it. Having said that - you can't have it both ways. Christianity also has strong views on how many children to have, so you can't accept one and not the other. If women get to choose how many kids, they also get to choose how much recreational sex vs. procreational sex. But generally speaking as far as sex-culture is concerned I am more of a Roman fan, you know - the one that predates the Catholic Church.

That's actually a pretty important question in this age of overpopulation.

Different issue for a different part of the world. Third world should not be treated the same way as the developed world is treated until they reach similar level of culture and civilization.

One of the women who commented on the orginal article is a lesbian. She said she's often been told that lesbians don't have sex because there is no penis involved. I doubt many lesbians would agree with that, and yet that is a commonly held belief.

Anyone who ever watched girl-on-girl video knows that lesbians don't really need anything, but each other and a camera. Joking aside - there are lot of idiots of all genders why listen to them? The way I figured if she needed a penis - she wouldn't be a lesbian.

I guess what I'm really after is to change that attitude -- that the penis is the only accurate representation of "what is sex" and the only source of pleasure, especially for women. It may be true for men (you'd know that better than I), but it isn't even close for women. Anything that arouses the clitoris can bring pleasure and climax to women. That includes shower spray, fast running water, rubbing the thighs together, riding a bicycle, fingers, tongues, and a host of other sources.

I am not really sure this attitude is prevalent, and therefore not convinced in needs changing. I mean I have been mostly sleeping with educated women, and there certainly are some misconceptions related to sex even among the members of medical profession, but an orgasm is an orgasm is an orgasm and it does not require PVP. On a more personal note - there was a reason I mentioned all erogenous zones, and not just clitoris, women can orgasm from having almost any erogenous zone or some combination of it properly handled. Lips, ear lobes, nipples, love handles, bottoms of the buttocks - anything can be used to get the job done. Basically he is a question for you - does spanking counts as sex, if she cums from it?

What is traditionally called "foreplay" is the main event for most women. That's why we insist on it if men want PVP. We shouldn't allow the cavalier dismissal of clitoral arousal and orgasm just because men are impatient to get to their own climax.

I think what you mean is that you want better men, because if they do not understand the importance of the foreplay, there will be no relationship, and arguably no sex, just casual @!$%#ing. FYI IMO there is no such thing as a foreplay, mostly because it never ends, everything in the waking hours from the "good morning" to "where is my remote?" must be a part of a foreplay.

And yet women have been told for centuries they either don't have the right to orgasm and/or that wanting a clitoral orgasm is "immature" (Freud's description) and only a vaginal orgasm is "mature." This despite the fact that fewer women can achieve vaginal orgasm because their clitoral nerves are not situated properly.

Like I said - personal sexuality is a complex subject, and the world (not just US) is seriously screwed-up by Abrahamistic religions, so women need to be re-assured that every orgasm is a good orgasm, and a multiple orgasm is even better. Also sexuality needs to be made part of women's studies, it may sound sexist to you, but I think teaching girls on how to use their sexual powers like they did in schools for geteras and geishas would be a very good thing. I mean today women control 51% of national wealth and 100% of national pussy, all they need to do is learn how to use it to their advantage.

So I'm open to suggestions.

The only suggestions I can give you - is love thyself. That should be the message. BTW as far as Christianity goes did you know that boy's masturbation is considered healthy, and even necessary part of puberty, while girl masturbation is considered a shameful affliction - I believe changing this particular attitude is a good place to start.

Now I too have a question - what exactly is the importance that the author of the blog palces on the fact that the masturbation device has a non-phallic shape? I mean what is wrong with a good old-fashioned dildo if it works?

Thanks for the advice, but I don't need it on a personal level. When I said I was open to suggestions, I meant on how to define sex from a woman's POV or an egalitarian POV.

Well I gave you a version. Hopefully you can use it, if not - no biggy, I will continue my educational campaign from this end.

It's isn't the sex toy itself. It is the assumption that women can only find sexual satisfaction from a penis or a replica thereof. Which is wrong.

The assumption is wrong, the toy could be right. I had little luck making sense of the blog, so I am very thankful for your insights and explanations.

1. There is no subject more important than sex.

2. No matter what "more important things going on in this country" someone always gets screwed in the end. Which brings us back to the subject of sex.

3. One of the important things that used go on in this country, is an ability of people to have a discussion without being rude. However if people insist on calling our little discussion an "idiotic debate" we can always recommend that they "Uck Off!" or alternatively "Go gratify themselves!", which once brings us back to the subject of sex.

Loretta, my apologies for the language, I just don't suffer fools lightly, especially when they are rude.