Sorry! Sam Pawlett's definition of sex is sexist. It is not simply sexist
because of the "penetration" thing (since intercourse is necessary).
so why is it sexist then?
first, sexual activity is constructed in his language as an activity
"initiated" by men, so women are presented as powerless and relegated to
the level of sexual insignifigance.
second, the sole purpose of sexual activity is reduced to getting women
pregnant and injecting male sperm into women's bodies. as i said before,
there is no reason to assume biological motherhood. We are not living
hunting gathering societies where reproduction was somewhat necessary for
small bands to maintain their species.Time has changed; sexual roles have
changed. We are not living in stone ages. I reject to see the sole purpose
of sex as reproduction. Many women prefer not to have children, and I
don't see the reason why they should!!!
Mine
>> Sam Pawlett wrote: > >> >Well, it is necessary that the male penetrate
the female or the species >> >will fail to reproduce itself. > >
...except for the occasional turkey-baster.
>Why not say "it is necessary for the female to engulf the male sperm . .
."?
>How do you determine whether A penetrates B or B engulfs A?
Carrol
