uh, i mean are angelina jolie and brad pitt *finally* getting married? if so, what are the implications of this for her? historically, women dont fare well under this arrangement afterall, especially when it ends. women are often left unsupported and destitute, with too many kids to take care of and not enough time and resources to do anything well, including taking care of their own needs.
of course, being that she is extremely wealthy and has the lifetime earning potential of a thousand western mortals, angelina jolie is somewhat insulated from some of the harms of marriage traditionally suffered by women, as a sexual class around the world. but there is one that even she cannot escape, isnt there?
and thats the fact that marriage is a legal status, not just a social or religious one. and no woman is above the law, not even angelina jolie. thats right! and since marriage is a legal status, there are laws that come into play when it begins, and once married to a man, there are legal consequences to women who do not continuously and regularly submit to PIV with their husbands. so lets congratulate the happy couple i mean let the coercive PIV begin.
obviously there are religious and social expectations at play here when discussing “consummated” versus unconsummated marriages. romantic 2-person couplings, heterosexual or not, might decline in sexual frequency and intensity over time, and some may never have been that sexually-driven in the first place, but the notion of a “sexless marriage” or long-term relationship that was never sexual at all is unfathomable to most people, isnt it? and in the case of het couples, PIV is specifically indicated. luckily i suppose, angelina and brad will never be suspected of an alternative relationship thats not based in sexual relations, seeing as how they had at least one unintended pregnancy from engaging in PIV-centric sex and have had another pregnancy (wanted, unwanted or otherwise) after that.
but its not just religious and social expectations (or even desire) that keep women having PIV with their husbands. terrifyingly, the law appears to require this too. regarding “consummating” marriage, if there is some “defect” that prevents a married heterosexual couple from having PIV, the marriage can be annulled. what constitutes a “defect” is presumably up to…men, and their legal system (afterall, they made up the whole thing, to benefit themselves) which makes one wonder, what would they consider a defect? what would they consider “having PIV” even? lemme guess: full acceptance of the length of the shaft of the penis, for enough duration that the man can ejaculate? yes, that sounds about right! (we wont even pretend that the legal definition of heterosexual “sex” means something other than PIV. of course it means PIV! heterosexual sex and PIV are interchangeable always! except in radfem discourse.)
(vaginismus, or painful or impossible intercourse due to involuntary vaginal muscle spasm.)
in the case of vaginismus, which of these illustrations to the left (if either of them) would constitute a “defect” so that the woman could have the marriage annulled if she wanted to, or if the man wanted to change his mind and leave her for not fucking him? the pain-lines indicate pain…in the first frame, which looks painful for both parties (the bent penis made me LOL) we have no penetration at all. defect? im thinking yes?
in the second frame, we have full or mostly-full penetration (or “envelopment” whatever) that causes pain for one or both parties…defect? hmmm. if the woman was in excruciating pain but the man wasnt, this would probably count as PIV, wouldnt it? especially if she tolerated it for long enough for him to ejaculate? fine, no problem, marriage saved!
in the case of brangelina, they dont have obvious issues here (although the in-obviousness of female pain and non-sex from the female perspective in the second frame is chilling isnt it?) so lets move on to the issue of not fucking your husband enough. yes thats right, you dont just have to do it once (although thats the first requirement) you might have to keep doing it! in states that enumerate “grounds” for divorce as opposed to no-fault divorce, abandonment by not fucking enough is enough to get you fired i mean enough to get your husband out of his obligations as your husband, and to remove the protections of marriage from you. women living in one of these states who are sick of being pronged and calling it “sex,” perhaps better have that second glass of wine afterall?
from the article:
Abandonment and desertion are closely related to no-fault grounds that allow divorce after a husband and wife have lived apart from one another for a certain period of time. In a no-fault divorce, neither spouse is blamed for the failure of the marriage. No-fault divorces are allowed in every state and the District of Columbia.
Specific acts that are considered to be abandonment or desertion vary under state laws. In addition to physical separation for a specific time period, some states consider failure to provide financial support for a spouse or refusal to engage in sexual intercourse without a good reason to be abandonment or desertion.
okay, so whats a “good reason”? and dont forget: men made all of this up, to benefit themselves! so…is painful intercourse a good enough reason? fear of unwanted pregnancy or inability or unwillingness to use birth control by either party? emerging radical feminist consciousness whereby PIV is seen to be oppressive and uniquely interpersonally and structurally harmful to females? not likely. that last one even made me laugh, with extra cynicism!!!11!1 i mean really. can you imagine?
no matter how much money a woman has, or success, or anything, and no matter how much she loves her husband (or doesnt) or wants to have PIV with him (or doesnt) all women are at the mercy of men and the male legal system at all times, including what the law says about marriage and what it requires as far as PIV and PIV-centric sexuality. the bizarreness (and misogyny) of this is not mitigated by the fact that it depends somewhat on where you live: these laws vary by state, giving men more or less access to womens vaginas as a matter of right, and more or less coercion of women to fuck when they dont want to fuck. which means its completely arbitrary, and that marriage has nothing to do with PIV or PIV-centric sexuality inherently: it has exactly as much to do with it as men and their legal system say it does, at any moment in time. which is terrifying. because this means they can change the rules. they have complete control over access to female bodies, not us. and not even angelina jolie can escape.
congratulations on your engagement? i guess?
Radfem Hub 