Brad Pitt To Secure Permanent Access to Angelina Jolie’s Vagina?

by FCM

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?

12 Responses to “Brad Pitt To Secure Permanent Access to Angelina Jolie’s Vagina?”

  1. When I saw the diagrams, along with thinking about getting a marriaged annuled for non-PIV, I thought of Sylvia Plath’s novel The Bell Jar where she “loses her virginity” and she hemmorages severely, etc. It seemed to me that this was about the sacrifice of women to PIV. Some women are expecting some kind of enlightenment through PIV and it turns out to be a life-threatening experience. That novel is brilliant relative to themes of PIV.

  2. hi katie

    as for “expectations” (and sacrifice) i can report that i expected that PIV would be many things that it wasnt: tremendously gratifying, explosively orgasmic, way better than non-PIV etc etc. and it never was. i first had PIV at 19, so i had plenty of non-PIV experiences before that with which to compare PIV and PIV never stood up, not when i was 19 or ever. and i always feared pregnancy and disease (and rape) but these things were never taken seriously by any sexual partner i ever had (HA! big surprise right?) so there is very much a conditioning and a grooming that must take place, for women to start seeing PIV like men see it: as sex. ie, it feels good, or at the VERY LEAST its more pleasurable than it is dangerous. but for women thats not true is it?

    shockingly, there was a morsel of useful info on the vaginismus website regarding this conditioning and grooming! seriously, i was shocked to to see this:

    Sex is an activity involving many complex conditioned responses. Bodies do not start out as skilled reactors to sexual stimulus. Successful intercourse is learned through experience and interaction. The nervous system and musculature discover and remember what feels good, works, and what isn’t comfortable. Normally, the transition to intercourse becomes more pleasurable after the first few experiences. The mind and body allow entry and learn to anticipate intercourse positively. Healthy messages result and they generate arousal in anticipation of intercourse. In a woman with primary vaginismus, the mind and body never get the chance to be trained through positive intercourse experiences. The process of learning how to have successful intercourse is cut short when the vaginal muscles spasm as a protective device against pain. With the absence of any direct conscious control on the woman’s part, nerves controlling the vaginal muscles react to the anticipation of intercourse as a call to tightly constrict, brace, protect, and guard against the onset of potential penetration pain.

    of course, their solution is to sell women on PIV (instead of challenging the assumption that PIV is sex) and to sell women vaginal dilation kits (like fucking transwomen dilating their fake fuckholes for intercourse with men).

    i could do a whole post just taking down

  3. Interesting article. I thought they were already married. I guess I’m out of the loop.

    I’ve never been able to understand “annulment.” You can actually have intercourse and yet still the marriage is viewed as not having been “consummated.” People even can get annulments after having had children. It all varies from country to country of course, and has legal and religious interpretations, in some places one and the same. Naturally it’s almost always male defined. I’ve never been able to understand any of it.

    I know in my state it’s still legal to rape your wife, you just can’t use a weapon. First degree rape is illegal, other kinds of rape still carry a marriage exemption here.

    Oh goodness you really could do a whole post on vaginisus! I just read: “This is a highly frustrating condition, as a lot of people, including doctors, may comment on her motives.” Her motives?? You mean she might be conspiring in some sort of elaborate plot to deny a male his rightful entitlement??! It doesn’t even occur to anybody that this might be a physical response she can’t control, but even if she was “motivated” to have this condition to avoid intercourse, that should be her right.

  4. What can I say? Excellent post FCM. And ouch! Those pictures make me squirm.

    “sex is an activity involving many complex CONDITIONED responses”. The truth will out eh? Speaking as someone who was ” successfully” conditioned to enjoy PIV, to find cunnilingus weird and distressing and to enjoy giving BJ’s, I can only just barely dream my way out of this mess. The law need not be applied, even arbitrarily. Social conditioning and then sexual conditioning, is enough for PIV enforcement to feel inescapable.

    PIV and marriage – goes together like a horse and carriage?

  5. Has anyone read Bryce Courtenay’s book ‘Fishing for Stars’? The main female character is trained as a Geisha to please men in every way except PIV which she is conditioned by her ‘master’ to believe is sacred (ie it’s commodified as precious goods or a rare delicacy to make it’s ultimate taking more pleasurable for the man) She is so fiercely protective of her virginity that she murders a man who tries to take it from her. But then her lover spends the rest of the novel tryig to cure her of her subsequent and lifelong vaginismus because he wants to “finally possess her” by perforating her hymen. She’s able to please him because of all her Geisha training – phew! – but it’s the forbidden fruit he wants. Nevermind that he claims to love her and she is a victim of sex slavery. Anyway, in the end she is so sad that she can’t physically let him fuck her that she ‘gives him the reatest gift of all’ and grants him permission to fuck another woman!!!!! NEED I SAY MORE?!!!

  6. I thought they were married too. Guess you’re not the only one out of the loop, Yttik, even tho I think the two of them are probably the most gorgeous things to come down the pike. They are like looking at a beautiful sunset. They bedazzle me with their beauty. But as Forrest Gump would say, handsome is, is as handsome does. Beauty only goes so far. But they seem to be ok people, tho I don’t know much about them. I confess I don’t follow the stars or the gossip or think they walk on water.

    I vaguely recall Angelina Jolie saying she was bi-sexual in her younger years. So I guess she could’ve swung either way. But Brad Pitt own Angelina Jolie? LOL. I sooo don’t think so. From what I’ve seen of them, it looks to be the other way around. I think Angelina Jolie runs the show in that relationship. Pitt follows her around like a little puppy dog. I think if she told him to get down in the middle of the road and bark on all fours, he would! But I really don’t think it’s like that. They seem to be more egalitarian, respectful of each other, and compatible – at least in public. And really seem to genuinely enjoy being in each other’s company. Who knows what goes on behind closed doors? But I’ve never heard any of their ex’s or even the media say either one was an asshole or abusive with power.

  7. Well you bring up an interesting point lucky, because this post was about the system and the institutions of law and marriage, not about individual couples really or whether individual men would abuse their power within marriage…BUT. the fact of the matter is that if no man ever complained about an unconsummated or sexless marriage, the law wouldn’t know or be invoked one way or the other, and the marriage wouldn’t be affected at all! Someone has to USE these laws in order for them to have a legal effect on the marriage. (The coercive effect is still there regardless though). And brad pitt may be the greatest dood on the planet and not care about piv one way or the other (but the unintended pregnancy kinda gives this one away a bit doesn’t it?)

    However it doesn’t change the fact that these laws do apply, and that they are there for him to invoke, or not. Male institutional and interpersonal power. And it doesn’t change the fact that if angelina wanted out of the marriage and tried to invoke these laws on her own behalf, its not set up to give HER institutional power or interpersonal power, or to benefit her at all, because she’s female. For example, if she said he wasn’t fucking her enough, he could invoke the “good reason” exception…say he eventually becomes impotent. That’s probably good enough for him to get HIS way, no? But if she had terrible pain on intercourse for example, but could still be penetrated, and refused…good enough reason??? Maybe not.

  8. In Sexual POlics, where Kate Millet basically invents the concept of a patriarchy, she argues that the individual personalities of the married couple are irrelevant when it comes to analyzing the power structure of male dominance. A woman might be a nagging “fish wife” that “hen pecks” her husband, but perhaps she does so because she has reason to be frustrated. And perhaps the reason men behave so calmly is because they know they can always evoke the power of their class (male) to put a wife in her place, should they need to.

    THe classic law that men have always used is threaten to fight for custody of the children, NOT because they actually WANT the children (they palm them off onto their mothers, or new wife/girlfriend if they succeed in the court battle) but because they want to use it as a THREAT to keep their wives in her place. THere are lots of not-so-subtle threats written into marriage laws in order to keep women married to men.
    The existence of these laws make sense once you realize that most divorces are initiated by women. Marriage supports men and destroys women. Women cotton on to this fairly quickly and therefore economic and legal precautions have been put in place by the patriarchy to stop them fleeing marriages in droves.

  9. However it doesn’t change the fact that these laws do apply

    That’s true, exceptions are always there and held up as the ‘norm’, as standard Tokenism. The laws are still strongly weighted for male advantage, in intent – but also in enforcement, or lack of enforcement. Men have the right to choose, or not, whether they invoke the laws. The laws support him, whichever way he chooses. I certainly dont think nice-guys should get cookies for being nice-guys either.

    Holding up a high-profile ‘egalitarian’ marriage, is the same as holding up Jenna Jameson the porn star in the media. People are meant to look up and think, if she can do that – I can too, as in I can make working in porn – *work* for me too. Holding Brad and Angelina up as an ‘egalitarian’ marriage does the same thing for the media advertising, propaganda machine – women are manipulated into thinking I can make marriage *work* for me too.

    Well, reality doesn’t quite work that way for a majority of women, and laws in their chilling way have a way of reinforcing the reality of male choices (good, bad and ugly), not that of the fantasies played out for the media by Tokens and Exceptional Exceptions.

    Besides I dont think either of them can act for shit –
    but thats just *me* – no accounting for some people’s tastes 🙂

  10. “I don’t think nice-guys should get cookies for being nice-guys either” YES thanks Rain; that individual men get so sulky when anyone talks about men collectively is astonishing; they always want cookies for being non-rapists. As I’ve said in previous comments I’m not even remotely interested in the exceptions. They’re red herrings that serve as distractions from the reality that the world is unsafe for women and this is unacceptable.

  11. I wonder why they chose to get married at this point? I mean they already have financial stability, they already have children, a relationship. People advocating same sex marriage have a list of all these financial and legal reasons why they want the right to marry, but those don’t really apply to this couple. There’s nothing left but these misogynistic whispers, like he wants to make an honest woman out of her, or they need to show the world she’s worthy. When you take away the legal and financial motivations, all that’s left are these social pressures that imply there’s something wrong with her if he doesn’t marry her. Her “lose morals” can be redeemed if she just gets married. Her reputation will now be protected, he’ll be staking a claim on her so we don’t have this rogue woman running around outside the bonds of marriage, mucking up the social order.

    Maybe I’m just too cynical and all they want is to have a ceremony to declare their love for each other in front of all their friends, establish themselves as a committed couple. It’s just that when you take away all the legal and financial motivations and the misogynistic social pressures, there isn’t much left, is there? The desire to have a big party and a celebration of their love is valid, but you could do that without making it a state sanctioned marriage.


%d bloggers like this: