Apostate recently wrote this:
Ever since I found out about it, I have found penetrative sex inherently violent and I think its power dynamic is skewed in the male’s (or top’s) favor (he is the aggressor, she the recipient – some level of passivity is built into her role – sex can be performed on her, like surgery). When I read Andrea Dworkin’s analysis of sex, I found myself in agreement – philosophically and emotionally.
As a heterosexual woman, I’ve thought about these things as well. I have, however, always arrived at the following point: no matter how we frame the subject, the bottom (ha ha) line is, many women will enjoy being penetrated, if they are lucky enough to have a good lover, that is.
Problem is, some dudes are raised to believe that because they have a penis (hence the title of this post, btw), because they penetrate, they are “naturally” ordained to violate and abuse. They believe that they are entitled to penetrate a woman no matter what, because “nature,” you see, have shaped them in this way. There are plenty of families and socities in which this paradigm thrives.
Funny thing about nature, though, is that it can go both ways. Male genitalia pokes out, and it is more vulnerable. Nature shaped them in this way. Therefore, it is only “natural” for women to be entitled to kick dudes (especially the unattractive ones, the ones with genes one wouldn’t want to see passed on to poor, unfortunate offspring) in the balls. Right?
Having said that, I agree with the notion that penetrative sex is violent.
Violent like a star going supernova, as opposed to, say, a gangland shoot-out.
And here is an educational picture:
What? You thought I was going to get all Paris Hilton on you?
Natalia A. 