Feminism is the anti-Viagra?

by Loretta Kemsley
Who's the real rat? (artist: J Sharp)

Who's the real rat?

“Why do so many American women have difficulties in bed?” asks Ogi Ogas, co-author of A Billion Wicked Thoughts, and author of the article Why Feminism Is the Anti-Viagra: The neural circuitry of dominance and submission.

Ummm…the answer is obvious: Women have difficulty enjoying “sex” because it is solely defined from a male pleasure and male orgasm point of view.

Ogas goes on to argue:

Twice as many women as men report trouble getting turned on….Though several factors specific to the design of the female brain contribute to this problem, there is one important psychological factor that may be unique to modern democracies. This factor is one of the unmentionables of sexual science, but since our book is filled with unmentionables, we’ll whisper it here:

Gender equality inhibits arousal.

Oh, so that’s it: women who like being able to vote, enjoy earning the same amount of money as their lovers, rejoice in freedom from domestic violence and take pleasure in controlling their own assets — those women are “the problem.” They took a perfectly good social system where women suffered no sexual “problems” and ruined it, not just for men but for women too. Because, until feminists came along, women just loved being raped by their husbands, being pregnant against their will and forced to remain virgins for their entire lives if they chose not to marry. To make any other choice was to ruin their societal “value.”

This “sexual problem” could easily be solved: change the definition of sex from “penis in vagina event that ends when he orgasms” to “event focused on her pleasure that excludes painful trauma.”

Ogas not only provides a perfect example of why women need to stop allowing men to define and control their sexuality, he does it by using popular male fantasies. Of course, he calls his fantasies “science,” which men have been doing for centuries His first “scientific“ method is to use the sexy covers of romance books and the gist of fairy tales. From this, he concludes :

The majority of women have submission fantasies…The fact of the matter is that most heterosexual women are wired to find sexual submission arousing–and so are most female mammals.

To prove his “scientific” thesis, he then compares women to rats:

Consider Rattus norvegicus, the Norwegian rat. The female performs stereotyped physical actions associated with sexual interest. First is pacing: running and stopping, inducing a male to chase her. This culminates in lordosis: assuming a submissive stationary posture with arched back and raised hips….In male rats, another part of the hypothalamus controls stereotyped dominance activity, such as mounting a female and performing intromission.

I hate to belabor the obvious, but female rats “assume a…stationary posture with arched back and raised hips” — now, hold on for this wildly “unscientific” observation — not because they get off on “submission” but because that’s the only way they can open their vagina to receive the penis. Climbing on top of the male wouldn’t work because his penis is on the bottom. Laying on their backs wouldn’t work since they don’t have pillows to slant their hips upward. They don’t have hands to spread their labia. So arching their backs and raising their hips it is.

As to their “pacing, running and stopping,” a female animal in estrus does not change her behavior when males are absent vs. when males are present, so how can her behavior only have one intent: to induce him to screw her? Does anyone really believe the male rat wouldn’t be attracted if she just stood still?

Who’s to say pacing isn’t her way of masturbating? Some women report orgasms from rubbing their legs together. Others report orgasms while walking or bike riding.

As a lifelong equestrian, I’ve watched mares in estrus pace, squat and squirt when no other horse is present. I’ve watched them rub their vulva on fences and trees — aka masturbation. These same mares will kick and injure a stallion who tries to mount them without permission. Both mares and lady rats choose when to mate and who to mate. That isn’t submission. That’s dominance.

Of course, the male of the species wants to believe he is a necessary item in her sexual life, so they discount or ignore the possibility of female masturbation. It isn’t something that involves them, and it isn’t something they want to think about.

Just as Ogas misclassifies a lady rat’s actions as submissive even though it’s clear she’s making the calls, he mistakenly attributes dominance to the male rat. How does he know? Well, the male rat is on top. So the “dominance” he sees is based on the physical location of the rat’s penis. There is no other option for him to insert his penis into her vagina.

Equating the physical location of a body part to dominance is not rational. It is the injection of bias and cultural assumption, in this case centuries of patriarchal nonsense. Ogas is not the first and certainly won’t be the last to promote the idea of male privilege under the guise of “scientific” thought. Thomas Aquinas, using “natural law,” concluded women were defective men.

Thomas Aquinas was the foremost medieval proponent of “natural” theology, influenced, of course, by Catholic tenets:

“As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence; such as that of a south wind, which is moist…” (Summa Theologica, article 1 of question 92 of the first part)

How wrong can a “scientific” misogynist be? Every fetus begins as female. Some of them develop male genitals weeks later if the DNA is XY. Biologists have shown the XY combination is riddled with defects because the Y develops ever more imperfections as time and generations march on.

Freud decided clitoral orgasm is “immature, masculine and inferior,” and the only “mature, feminine” orgasm is created by penile penetration of the vagina. How convenient for men. How wrong for women. The vagina has no nerves to stimulate orgasm while the clitoris has 8,000 — twice as many as the penis. The famous g-spot relies upon the long nerve roots of the clitoris for its orgasmic effect.

How many women suffered under the label of “sexual dysfunction” because of these two “scientific” men? How many more will suffer from men who insist on using “psuedo-science” to define women’s sexuality in terms that suit male pleasure and privilege?

Ogas’ absurd conclusion that women can’t orgasm because they refuse to accept their “unconscious need” to be “submissive” is supposedly based on his defective observations of a lady rat’s physical limitations. But the clue to his real motivation is contained within the title of his article:

“Why Feminism Is the Anti-Viagra.”

Viagra’s only purpose is to create erections in impotent men. If feminism is an anti-erection threat, then it is not women suffering because they are denied “submission.” It is men who are reacting negatively to empowered women, those “unnatural” erection killers.

How clever to disguise male impotence and ineptitude behind the claim of female sexual dysfunction, but a more productive use of “science” would be to instruct men how to improve their amateurish sexual skills that deny women their right to orgasm. Just like lady rats and mares, a heterosexual woman will welcome the sexual advances of the male who pleases her.

45 Comments to “Feminism is the anti-Viagra?”

  1. Thank you, Loretta! The part about the rats was priceless, I laughed my head off. The overall message, though, that there are men who actually think that women enjoy submission and that this is natural, those men are just sick and twisted. Yuck. That part just gives me the creeps.

  2. I recently read an article about a new drug out to help women in bed, the female Viagra, so to speak. The ethos of the men peddling it is that women are prudes, the spark dies etc and they therefore need to be helped to have sex with their husbands/spouses.
    A female journalist (sorry forgotten her name) was sent to investigate the industry in what ended up being an expose on the ridiculousness of the thinking behind the drug.
    Women were to be asked questions about their sexual inner life in order to determine whether they were in need of this new drug or not. I laughed out loud when I saw that one of the questions was: “Does thinking of having sex with your partner still turn you on?”
    IF the answer was NO, then she was a prime customer for female viagra.
    But as the journalist noted, the question should be: Does thinking about Johnny Depp turn you on?; or does thinking about the cute man in the office turn you on.or even, does your partner leave you to do all the chores…because a man who wants a skivvy is a complete turn off.
    None of these crucial questions were asked.

    So she inadvertantly revealed that the entire purposed of female viagra was to keep women *monogamous* and concentrated on the man they were with, long after any sexual desire had gone, meaning women who are unhappy with their men must be chemically coerced into “enjoying” sex with them!

  3. all this “science” is making me queasy. as is the thought of “receiving penises” either for pleasure or reproduction. just, ew! its kind of funny to me actually, because i havent thought about the act itself in awhile, although i have been criticising what it *is* for at least a year. this kind of takes me back to the beginning of my awareness of PIV as being a problem, where i was recalling how terrible men are at it, and they dont even seem to like it in the first place…they are just adamant that it be done. many women report this experience. this was kind of a red flag to me that there was more to it than most people were letting on. we all know that men despise the female body…and men dont even like orgasms that much, if they did they would be doing all kinds of “other stuff” that causes orgasms too, but they arent. like…letting women stick things up the mens butts, and having 100 orgasms that way…and then NOT having PIV. not gonna happen. why not? its almost like…PIV is not about sex, and its actually about something else…and theres something about PIV thats unique. hmm! i wonder what that could be?

    of course, men getting erections from female submission (and womens increasing social status corresponding to womens increasingly refusing to do it) is illustrative too. “fuckability mandates” are all about female vulnerability, this is clear. spending money we dont have on crippling shoes we cant even walk in, and could never run in, literally induces boners in men. they know how little we make (they are the ones paying us) and they know how much this shit costs, because they are the ones designing, marketing and selling it to us. they know we cant afford it, and they know we are broke, and that we are broken. and they like it. its so sick, it really is.

  4. Women have trouble getting turned on by men because men are a joke in the bedroom. Which is why men are so into porn. Pictures can’t laugh at them.

  5. Furthermore are the men who give women pleasure, setting it up initially as an equal coupling, only then, as the relationships develops, to use sex as a weapon, i.e. if I don’t get my way, you won’t get your pleasure.

    Economic independence in women is the only way to stop this insulting behaviour from men who view feminism as boner killers. I don’t care, quite frankly, their little baby cries have no influence over me. Women have to stop responding to this and ignore them.

  6. LOL, step one would be to stop comparing women to rats! I mean really, they don’t think much of us, do they? All these so called scientists tend to have these huge biases against women and then they search the animal kingdom, the bottom of the animal kingdom, until they can find a creature that sort of, kind of, validates what they already believe to be true about human women. You could just as easily study some other species and conclude that male humans really enjoy being devoured and having their dead corpse provide nutrition for the next generation.

    I just read another silly study that concluded women like arrogant men, men who are cold, confident, because evolution has hard wired us to be attracted to good providers. Au contraire!! Half the women in this country are currently entranced with Captain Jack Sparrow, an effeminate, foppish pirate, who walks like a girl. Not a feminist character by any means, but it’s his imitation of femininity and his humility that makes him so charming.

  7. Feminism is the anti-Viagra? …. Gender equality inhibits arousal.

    Really? How about Male Supremacy is the anti-Viagra. (no question mark) and Gender inequality assassinates arousal.

    Here’s a hint. What women to be aroused by you? STOP BEING YOU!

  8. That should say Want women…..

  9. Oh no not phallocentricism again! Viagra was created solely to ensure men retain erections on demand because ‘sex’ (aka male-centric definitions of sex) does not exist unless and if the penis is erect and is thrusting into a female body’s orifice.

    Makes a nonsense of the claim that penetrative/aka reproductive sex is the sin que of heterosexuality, given women have for centuries been subjected to phallocentric propaganda that their bodies and sexual expressions are always ‘wrong’ and must be altered because the male-centric view of ‘sex’ is the only right way to engage in real sex. If ‘sex’ is natural why then do men get their knickers in such a twist because they believe women are not ‘giving them what is natural.’ Why have innumerable instruction books been written by male authors proclaiming that women must ‘sexually submit to men’ because it is natural. Answer is because the male construction of ‘sex’ is not natural and that is why women have to be constantly told they are at fault and they are the ones who need to accommodate men and their supposedly ‘natural sexual needs.’ The truth is men believe their definition of ‘sex’ is the only right one and whenever women refuse to engage in penetrative sex that is supposedly denying the man his male natural right! Forget about what women themselves want sexually because women only exist as men’s sexual service stations. Then there is the fact that majority of women do not gain sexual pleasure from penis thrusting into female body because this act is a reproductive one only. Certainly men gain sexual pleasure from thrusting their penises into the female body and so that is why penetrative heterosex is supposedly the ‘only real sex act’ and now of course the mandatory penis in female anus is also ‘real sex.’ Never mind fact women’s sexual organ is the clitoris which is outside the female body – no it is male penetration of female body which signifies ‘real sex.’ No wonder so many women consider men to be ‘useless in bed’ because men are 100% focused on getting themselves off and proving to themselves their erect penises prove they are ‘real men.’

    Another fact men do not want to accept is that for men to gain sexual pleasure does not depend on a man having his penis erect – but because the erect penis is supposedly proof that the man is a ‘real man’ a limp penis means the man is supposedly impotent! Men can and do experience sexual pleasure with a limp penis but because the erect penis is the symbol of male sexual power over women that is why the term impotence was created.

    Women supposedly do not have an autonomous sexuality – rather women’s sexuality solely exists to service men and their penises. So what has happened is reproduction has become conflated with ‘male sexual expression’ and we can ignore fact it is women who are the ones forced to take the pill and/or have their bodies invaded by other birth control objects in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies. No satisfying the puny penis is far more important than ensuring women are not put at constant risk of unwanted pregnancies; STDS and even cervical cancer because man and his mighty sperm must enter a woman’s body in order for the claim to be made ‘yes we had sex!’

    Until such time as women can say ‘no to penetrative sex’ then sex will continue to be defined from the male perspective and men will continue to claim ‘but women innately need to be sexually dominated and controlled by men because women don’t know what they like sexually whereas we men are the experts! Long live phallocentricism is what Ogi Ogas is proclaiming and his claims aren’t new – he is following in the footsteps of Havelock Ellis and Freud as well as innumerable men before them!

  10. Re PIV as “reproductive sex.” It’s not even necessary for that as just a little sperm deposited on the surface of the vulva can result in pregnancy.

  11. well, technically you dont even need a penis, or even a man. i have never been against PIV for reproduction, and i dont think its disgusting: i think its dangerous, and i know its the foundation upon which womens submission and mens dominance over us, functions. i cant really stand talking about it in terms of “spreading labia” or receiving penises though, because its all wrapped up in pornorgraphic imagery for me now, and it makes me quite ill to think about in those terms. thinking about female horses masturbating helps LOL but i do think that PIV for reproduction will survive the revolution. PIV for pleasure, wont.

  12. pornorgraphic imagery for me now, and it makes me quite ill to think about in those terms. thinking about female horses masturbating helps LOL

    Now there’s an image to replace the disgusting pornographic ones!!!!! It sure gave me a good laugh. I’m not sure why people need images to be aroused, even if they are alone. It means living in a fantasy world instead of the present moment. The images I think are about going somewhere else. The porn culture encourages this. Certainly survivors of sexual abuse are plagued with images. But is that natural? I don’t know, but wonder about it.

  13. Katie, those images aren’t used for arousal, at least not by me. Loretta mentioned female horses rubbing their vulvas on fences etc in the article, and it helped me deal with the other images, and the disgusting pornsickness of the scientists too.

  14. Wow, FCM, I didn’t think you used them to be aroused, not at all! For me, the idea helped erase the other images, too. I found it hilarious, too.

    The second things, about arousal from images of any kind was just generic wondering aloud about images in general. I’m not great at getting my message across sometimes. Still learning how to respond to blogs. Sorry!

  15. Ha! Ok sorry katie, I misunderstood.

  16. Katie, I think the question about imagery is central to understanding market-defined sexuality. First of all, aesthetic standards of beauty are undeniably constructed. Secondly, they feed information to the brain– the brain is the primary sex organ, obviously. Thirdly, and most importantly, to the extent that porn is imagery and defines or informs our fantasies: it is a UNILATERAL kind of arousal. As in, the other persons pleasure is irrelevant to your pleasure when it is being fed in one direction alone. We see this in porn, strippers, and even prostitution. I find it extremely disturbing and very important to talk about.

  17. Katie, our brains think in images and emotions. It is words that are unnatural, per our brain, which explains why we can’t adequately use words to describe our distress, elation and other strong emotions. They are beyond what words can express.

    Those with trauma do have recurring images that distress them, unless they are able to adequately deal with the trauma via counseling or other means. Most of us have heard about Vietnam Vets who have recurring episodes of seeing and hearing what went on in Nam. Sexual assalt victims do too, although it is not as openly discussed.

    I find porn and violence in mainstream media disturbing. Can’t watch it. Porn because it is so dehumanizing to her needs, which happened in my marriage. Violence because I can literally feel every blow, bringing back awful images of my own. Our bodies remember. It is normal for us to want to avoid cruelty and to have triggers that bring back old haunts.

    BTW, glad you liked the part about the rats. I added some after you posted because it felt incomplete. Men misinterpreting what they observe in nature is just one more example of them not understanding the world they live in. The misinterpretation comes from phallic self-worship and thinking everyone/everything must feel the same. It never occurs to them that animals, especially female animals, masturbate because they can’t imagine a female of any species not wanting their phallus. (hence bestiality)

  18. Just wanted to express my appreciation for the combined wisdom and knowledge of the women posting here. You’re amazing.

  19. it is amazing isnt it? 🙂

    and once again, i would like to call attention to your reporting style loretta, because you are clearly a seasoned journalist and your writing “reads” like the “real news” but the subject matter and pro-female perspective are exactly what the “real news” always leaves out. the fact that you can and do write about subject matter that affects women, from a pro-female perspective, using traditional journalistic style shows that it can be done, and also shows that the journalists who ARENT doing what you are doing, are choosing not to. i think that in itself is worth noting, because it can be unlcear that this is the case. the “real news” is anti-female and this is deliberate. its not the news, its misogynist or pro-male spin on the news, always. thats all we see, when we read or watch traditional reporting, and we cannot forget that, ever.

  20. Yes, amazing women! It is such an awakening to read everyone’s posts and discussions!

    UP, yes, the unilateral element is disturbing. I also wonder about using images to “get off on” even if they are not porn, since then it becomes unilateral. For example, imagining someone “exciting” from a party or work. The person in the “image” is not hurt by it since they don’t even know it exists. The same thing about fantasies, even ones with non-violent, non-degrading content. It is hard to imagine why it is not enough to be oneself with another real person right there in front of you. The unwillingness to do this seems degrading in itself. Accusations of being a prude or unfun person if you don’t want to engage these ways of “playing.” It’s possible to play in real time—it’s an interaction, not a fetishistic script.

    Loretta, I do agree that we think in images and feelings quite often. I also think that at least for some, when we first discover self-stimulation there are no images involved. Just sensations that feel good. I have wondered, then, if all the use of images/fantasy is somehow linked to sex/trauma in a misogynist culture.

    Certainly, I’ve had so-called sex with men who did not seem able to stay present and stay aroused at the same time. One or the other, it seems. Unless I’m just unlucky and some kind of an outlier, my guess is that most men behave in these ways. And all for PIV. Well, no more menz for me! To endanger yourself for so little. What a hoax! If feminism is the anti-viagra for this kind of sex, that’s a good thing :D. Keep ’em flaccid, I say!!!!!!!!

  21. FCM, about Loretta’s reporting style–I agree heartily. Thank you, Loretta! An antidote for the poison of malestream journalism.

  22. Mainstream media deliberately will not address women’s issues. Instead, they focus on portraying women as they want them to be. That’s why every article about women has something to do with her making herself more appealing to men, more sexually accessible, becoming a “better” mother, being a “better” wife, and keeping herself healthy so she can continue to take care of everyone else.

    The mainstream media will never challenge these assumptions because their male audience would abandon them. Of course, they claim they cover them because that’s what women want. I believe we’ve proven that isn’t true. I never cover any of those from a male POV on my NV column and women have responded in kind. They’ve thanked me profusely for giving them a platform for what really concerns them. I’m sure others here can say the same.

    You’re right. We can never forget that all “news” is done not only from a male POV but using a male style of reporting. They deliberately leave out the emotions unless the entire story is a tear jerker (ie the family grief over the death of a soldier). However, in that example, they exclude the rational part about how the soldier wouldn’t be dead if not for the male preference for endless wars.

    We also have to be alert to the clues to the hidden agenda of men. For instance, in the question Ogas used to frame his argument (first sentence of this post), he didn’t include women from around the world in his question. He only included American women. This is an obvious attempt to make American women feel as if they are “different” than women in other nations because of American feminism. What it really does is reveal his ignorance about both feminism (which is international and in every nation) and about the conditions imposed upon women in every nation. American women are no different than any other woman living under the selfish paradigms of patriarchy. Only an American male could argue American women are “different” and the only women who don’t respond to male sexual dysfunction with enthusiasm. Men from other nations and women from every nation, including America, know better.

    The best answer to his question — “Why do so many American women have difficulties in bed?” — is because they keep having sex with American men who haven’t got a clue.

  23. PIV for reproduction may survive the revolution, but I’m just pointing out that it’s not necessary even for that. So, if you want to reproduce but you don’t really want PIV, it is possible. Just depositing sperm on the surface of the vulva also results in a more favorable sex ratio for females, as the sperm must travel the entire length of the vagina and more X sperm than Y sperm survive that journey. As it is, more male than female babies are born.
    Not sure what you mean by not even needing a penis or a man. Artificial insemination requires a penis and a man, even though you have no face to face contact with him, but AI results in an unusually high proportion of male births.

  24. @ Femme forever

    “Male Supremacy is the anti-Viagra”

    The truth is so obvious isn’t it? Women feel like crap because they’re oppressed, therefore they don’t feel much like having sex. Want women to enjoy sex? Stop oppression’ em’. Simple as that, only post rev it wouldn’t look much like ‘sex’ looks like today.

  25. THe question should be: what are men doing wrong that they are causing difficulties for women in bed?

  26. I’ve been enjoying playing my favorite songs. Guess what? Not a single one of them celebrates women as submissive or men as dominant. All of them celebrate love and caring. Wow, who would have thought that’s what women want?

    While listening, I was thinking about this subject.

    What I want first is safety. I don’t want a “dominant” male thinking I’m his prey. That’s the biggest turnoff that could ever happen. I don’t want him around me even in non-sexual situations.

    The second thing I want is to be recognized as a real person with intrinsic value. I’m not a body to use to get his rocks off. If he doesn’t care about me, the person, then he has no business in my life let alone my bed.

    I want him to be clean from disease and responsible enough to keep himself that way. I’m too old to worry about pregnancy, but at one time that was of primary importance, so I appreciated men with vasectomies and/or who took birth control serious and were willing to do their part.

    And I want to be satisfied. If he doesn’t have those skills, he need not apply.

    None of those are related to being dominated. But of course, they all put responsibility on the male, so they aren’t going to be the subject of any “scientific study” anytime soon.

  27. You know I love my blockquotes, so I just want to repeat these beautiful words from Loretta:

    Men misinterpreting what they observe in nature is just one more example of them not understanding the world they live in. The misinterpretation comes from phallic self-worship and thinking everyone/everything must feel the same.

    They even think they can BECOME women. It’s absolutely incredible.

    For instance, in the question Ogas used to frame his argument (first sentence of this post), he didn’t include women from around the world in his question. He only included American women. This is an obvious attempt to make American women feel as if they are “different” than women in other nations because of American feminism.

    So true. Feminism is consistently discredited by trying to hide and deny the realities of females’ life experiences AS the *class of persons with female reproductive systems.* They point to class, to culture, to anything that will distract us from the ways in which SEX is relevant to shared experiences with other women.

  28. Somebody needs to tell the armchair scientist that Viagra isn’t natural. It was created for the sole purpose of abnormally extending the expiration date of fucked-out old men who labor under the delusion that younger women are sexually attracted to them.

    As for the whole “rat” thing, I think it’s interesting how men cherrypick animal/rodent/insect behavior when it serves their agenda. I cannot count how many times I’ve brought up the subject of peacocks, as evidence that male appearance is far more crucial to the mating game than female appearance, only to be shot down with “Yeah, but we’re not peacocks, you stupid bitch”. We’re not peacocks/peahens, but we are rats? LOL So much for the logical male mind.

    Oh, and women not enjoying sex? Well, that could be because they are constantly being coerced (and by coerced I mean bullied) into having sex with men they aren’t attracted to. Reject the wrong man, and you run the risk of provoking the wraith of the next Ted Bundy. Give the loser a pity-fuck, and he’ll get mad because you didn’t have an orgasm .

    Yep, women can’t win. Men will screw us over and ridicule us, no matter what move we make.

  29. Ofcourse women can win!

    Until men listen and “get it” – ALL females just need to tell them to:

    “Stick it in a donut.”

    (If everyone did that-they’d get it VERY fast……..)

  30. if only it were going to be that easy, elmo. 😦

  31. “People who have nothing have nothing to lose-and are therefore dangerous to others.”

  32. Hi, Elmo,

    Good to see you here.

    I wish women would stand up for their rights more, especially young women. Unfortunately, it takes a while to undo the propaganda they are immersed in from birth. By then, so much damage is done to their lives.

    I’ve never figured out how to get the knowledge to them before the tragedies occur.

  33. Until men listen and “get it” – ALL females just need to tell them to:

    “Stick it in a donut.”

    Oh yes, that must be the solution. No woman has ever said that… right before being RAPED.

    People who have nothing have nothing to lose…

    Except for their lives.

  34. all women have everything to lose, whatever that might be, including their lives. its a stone-cold fact.

  35. I think Elmo was endorsing the “No PIV” concept. Are we going with that or not? I thought we were.

  36. That’s a good question loretta, because piv-critique comes with a couple of caveats. The big one is that most women across time and place, have not had and do not currently have the option to say “no” or even no thank you, to piv. The other is that rape would still happen, even if all women said no, and often it would be known rapists and partners, just like it is today. This is why we need damage control, along with piv critique like birth control etc. Harm reduction isn’t radical, but it is necessary.

  37. That’s true — and it’s also a reason why “so many women have trouble in bed.”

    It isn’t consent when you know saying no will result in rape. Yet how many women in “consenual” relationships fear being raped if they say no?

    It wasn’t so long ago when a husband raping his wife was considered his right under the law. How many still believe it is his right, even though it is now a crime? That belief extends into other relationships too. As long as that belief persists, each women with each of those men is in danger of being raped by someone who claims to love them.

    This attitude extends even into non-relationships, like the frat men who think they have the right to drug women they do not know or barely know so they can “have sex” with them. Of course, it is rape, but even that is shaky ground today given the GOP intent on changing the rape laws to exclude everything except “forcible rape,” which will get interpreted as “she does not have proof she fought hard, so she wasn’t raped,” and we’ll be right back to the Biblical standard of stoning the rape victim.

  38. The thing is, I shouldn’t have to tell any man anything about what to do with his dick and neither should any female on the planet. I don’t send out engraved notifications that I don’t want to be beaten nearly to death, hung upside down over the railing of a bridge until I pass out from lack of oxygen, or dragged behind a truck until my facial features are erased. People just kinda get that, ya know? Seems like a pretty simple concept when you stop being confused by the obfuscation that PIV sex is natural, normal, and desirable for women.

  39. I’ve only had time to read the commnets, so forgive me if I’m missing some important points. Even the question, ‘Why do women have problem with sex’ is sexist! (and heterosexist). It should ask ‘why are men bad lovers for women?, or ‘why do men turn off hetero women?’ ‘why aren’t they giving their female partners great orgasms all the time?’.

    Women are taught since childhood that hetero sex means intercourse. You grow up learning about this and reading and telling jokes about it w/ your friends. By the time a girl or woman is ready to have her first experience ( a straight girl or woman) if she has the privelage of having it be her choice, she’s usually brainwashed. That’s what patriarchy does. If intercourse were the natural way that women orgasm and if it were the core of our sexuality, it wouldn’t hurt, you wouldn’t have to get used to it, all women would have great pleasure from it, it wouldn’t be a ‘learned’ activity.

    A free society would teach that sexuality is two people (in this case) assisting each other to orgasm. Period. It would not be centered on a man’s dick. It would teach men how to caress women and do wonderful oral sex on women and would be centered instead around her clitoris.

    It still shocks straight women when I tell them that years ago I stopped doing penetrative sex. Now my sex life is one step closer to being mine. Intercourse should be a choice – period.

  40. Julia, thinking it over, in my mother’s and grandmother’s time a lot of women stopped having penetrative sex, or any sex, once they were middle aged, but ofter quite a bit earlier. Women over 30 were not supposed to bear children, since they were too old and this would cause birth defects, yada yada, and many did not. So a bunch probably weren’t having sex. It was well-known and commented on by the women when they were together. I never got the feeling, as a child, that women enjoyed sex with men. So, this guy saying that feminism is to blame is just BS. It was not until the pill and “sexual freedom” that women were supposed to be wild for it. Feminists or non-feminists, I don’t think most women have liked penetrative sex, or any kind of sex with men, really. Before the “sexual revolution” younger women were supposed to (usually pretended to) have happy, story-book marriages, but it did not center so much around liking sex. More the “happy homemaker” bit. After the pill and all somehow women were supposed to be wild for sex with their husband. I think it’s just the social role people pretended about. the new. improved. storybook. A fiction, in other words.

  41. Seems to me we all heard from the “Experts” at trial in 1994 what happens to women who are RAPED enough – in the form of one Lorena Bobbitt.

    Have we forgotten so soon?

  42. I love when science doods compare women to rats to make a fucking point. I love how they claimed women were becoming aroused prior to the women’s movement – what a joke! And now, well, clearly all we need is to go back to when husbands could “correct” women by clocking them in the face, that will bring the zest back into the bedroom! All we need is some oppressive power dynamics and all systems are go, go GO!

  43. Just want to say that this is a brilliant post, especially the comments! It makes me glad to know there are other women out there who agree with me, since most of the women I know in face-life think I’m too radical. When I think about how to give women more power, I think about us collectively – if somehow we could organize and stop doing men’s free labor we’d have more rights in our daily lives including in terms of sex. What will happen to rape when women have more power? I only think
    it will change when the stakes for rapists are very very high. LIke expulsion from society or castration. As long as men are the judges/police/lawyers/law makers etc I can’t imagine this changing. They all want to protect each other.

%d bloggers like this: