jump to navigation

I Think I’ll Stick With “Plan C” But Thanks Anyway, Vaginal-Intercourse Extolling Heteronormative Asswipes December 27, 2009

Posted by FCM in entertainment, health, PIV, politics, pop culture, porn, rape, WTF?.
Tags: , , , , , , ,

this is a commercial for the new “Plan B” emergency contraceptive, which was approved in 2006 to be sold over the counter to women ages 18 and up (and just became legal in 2009 for 17-year olds) without a doctors’ prescription.

the first thing i thought upon seeing this commercial for the first time was “where are all the guys?” these women are waking up alone the next morning, having experienced a “contraceptive failure” the night before. understandably, they are mortified. horrified. freaked. been there, done that. whats *not* immediately understandable is why they are *alone* and confronting the possibility of an unwanted pregnancy alone, their male partners nowhere in sight. the guys just got up and…what? went to work? went out for breakfast? went out with the doodbros? went home the night before? WHAT? where are they?

this is the very narrative of misogyny and heteronormativity. guys: ejaculate into a womans vagina, and leave. women: stay at home and deal with the aftermath of vaginal intercourse, alone. check, and check.

heres another commercial that didnt air here, but is available on youtube. i found it extremely triggery, but its worth watching in order to rip it to shreds afterwards:

listening to this advertisement made me sick to my stomach. first of all, the soundtrack of fake heterosexual sex sounds too much like porn for me to ever want to listen to it, ever again. do we really need to hear the sounds of a woman pretending to enjoy being penetrated by a man, ever? i mean really.  and the sound of the guy just makes the bile rise, again, its a porn-thing.

what both of these commercials do, of course, is illustrate how mandatory vaginal intercourse is problematic for women, but not for men.  only you really have to be paying attention to get that message:

the guy: it broke.  the woman: oh, man.

any woman paying attention might recognize the dissonance between what this woman said and what she was probably thinking, if shes anything like any woman anywhere: 


sound familiar ladies?  but its presented as actually being *liberating* for women to have *options* when traditional contraceptives fail. sure, ok. it *is* liberating, assuming of course that you accept the premise: regular vaginal intercourse is required for heterosexual women in sexual relationships with men. as in, “i am going to be penetrated vaginally by a man anyway, probably thousands of times in my lifetime, and all the responsibility for pregnancy prevention and everything child-related is on me and not men, which is unproblematic, so ‘whew’ this really takes a load off my mind.” i dont accept the premise, so this whole fucking thing just makes me sick.

what *neither* of these commercials do (of course) is address the situation where “plan b” has been the most controversial, and indeed where it may be of most help to women who need it: not in cases of mandatory-but-consensual (dont get me started on the issue of consent) vaginal intercourse gone wrong, but in cases of rape, including marital rape.  in point of fact, whether a rape victim was to be allowed access to plan b in the hospital at all as part of her medical treatment was the subject of great debate in the american congress as early as 2007 and the debate was still raging THIS FUCKING YEAR:

State Rep. Deborah Heinrich, D-Madison, (pictured) recounted her horrific tale of sexual assault Tuesday to help illustrate the need for all hospitals in the state to administer Plan B to rape victims. She said 20-years ago as she collected her clumps of hair off the floor she would not have had the stamina or capacity to go out and get the emergency contraception herself because “my body and soul were broken.”

She said the most horrifying thought pushed through the fog, “What if I’m pregnant?” She said rape victims should not have to stop and wonder which hospital will offer them appropriate care.

there are also many other times that women come into contact with semen when they would rather have nothing to do with it:  sex workers and porn actors are routinely exposed to the stuff, even though its a biohazard and an OSHA violation to expose employees to body fluids on the job.  as ex-porn actor/prostitute shelley lubben reports in excruciating detail, multiple pregnancies are the norm for women in the business (again, with women taking all the risks, and men having all the orgasms in the heteronormative sexual paradigm).  but despite all these, um, unhappy scenarios, lets make it seem like its just pretty college girls who will be using plan b, m-kay?  alrighty then.

and it apparently took an activist judge to make plan b available over the counter to 17-year olds too, and the catholics are still decrying that, even though it doesnt help younger (and more vulnerable) girls at all.

so, by all means, big pharma, write and produce a gleefully misogynist, heteronormative commercial to hawk your product.  a product thats absolutely needed, yes, but that many girls and women wouldnt even need if it werent for rape; and which none of us would *ever* need if it werent for compulsory heterosexuality that includes regular vaginal intercourse, (and placing all things child-related at the feet of women), where women take all the risks, and reap very little of the reward, in heteronormative sexual relationships, as compared to men.


1. polly - December 27, 2009

If your period is more than one week late, it’s too late to be using the ‘morning after’ pill anyway. It’s only effective for up to 72 hours after intercourse max, but effectiveness drops the longer you leave it. It’s routinely offered to females in rape and sexual assault centres in the UK.

This has been available over the counter here for ages, but pharmacists can refuse to sell it if they have objections. What’s the bet you’ll get picketing “right to lifers” in the US?

2. TBL - December 27, 2009

Trying to get the morning after pill in the UK is a nightmare. I have had a lecture from a pharmacist (in the middle of a large sainsbury’s supermarket) about how disgusting and immoral I am. A friend of mine had to go to three different places before anyone would sell her the fucking thing.

That advertisement is really disgusting. Fucking hell. But I LOLed at your version of the inner monologue.

3. Loretta Kemsley - December 27, 2009

Good point on the women waking up alone. In some sense, that is what we all do. We are alone, even when we are with someone who loves us, because only one individual inhabits the body that can become pregnant and suffer the consequences of that pregnancy, good or bad.

Our bodies remain the battleground of patriarchs because they realize the cultural importance of them. As soon as women could even marginally control their reproductivity, they began to opt out of marriage and being under the control of a man. The oppression was rank, far worse than it is today when younger women take their freedom for granted.

And yet, that freedom is constantly at risk. It should never be assumed that a woman’s freedom cannot be curtailed in a moment. This can be done with the neverending assault on reproductive rights, or it can be done with an accidently broken condom. Either way, she loses.

Plan B is necessary. No doubt about it. It would be less necessary if male birth control were available, and women required their lovers to use it. Or if women demanded that their men undergo a vasectomy before they embark on a sexual relationship.

Of course, that is culturally not acceptable because we’re still in the throws of patriarchy, where men are always allowed to be free and women must face the fact their freedom is conditional.

factcheckme - December 27, 2009

It would be less necessary if male birth control were available, and women required their lovers to use it. Or if women demanded that their men undergo a vasectomy before they embark on a sexual relationship.

i advocate NOT having vaginal intercourse too. theres NO REASON this has to be the go-to sexual act, even within a hetero relationship. what do women even get out of it, in most cases? this is a serious question, especially considering the risks. its not fucking worth it, 95% of the time, is my experience. that shoots up to 100% of the times there has been a “mishap.” why are women willing to take ALL THE RISK, in order to have vaginal intercourse, when there are so many other things you could be doing with their male partner? this is not a rhetorical question. WHY?

4. polly - December 27, 2009

That’s pretty shocking TBL. Did you complain?

5. dirt - December 27, 2009

You sleep with the enemy you deserve the hassles.


factcheckme - December 27, 2009

yes TBL, sorry i meant to reply to you: thats horrible. what did you do, if i may ask? there are problems here in the US with pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions for the stuff based on a pro-life “conscientious objector” rationale. obviously this was a HUGE problem for women and girls who lived in rural areas and only had one pharmacy or a wal-mart at which to fill their meds.

and the catholic hospitals fought tooth and nail to not have to give abortion or contraceptive counseling to women who were raped. frankly i am not sure how all of this ended up. it wasnt even approved for over-the-counter sale until (apparently, from the links i found) 2006. and its still not available OTC for girls under 17. in order to regulate that of course, its not really “OTC” at all. its behind the counter and the women have to show proof of age in order to get it. which kind of defeats the purpose for some women who dont have a government issued ID or who are too ashamed to ask.

factcheckme - December 27, 2009

dirt, i hope you are kidding.

factcheckme - December 27, 2009

ok, just in case dirt *isnt* kidding, that brings up an interesting issue. how do peeps feel about “political lesbianism?” polly has mentioned elsewhere that she thinks its dead, and went out in the 70s. but red and UP (i think) believe that lesbianism can be a choice, that orientation itself *is* a choice and its not anything you are born with. so. how would different lesbians feel about having a bunch of disaffected straight women arriving on the scene and wanting to have friendships and perhaps sexual relationships with lesbians, mostly because we are so fucking sick of men we cant stand it? anyone? personally, i think it would be rude to try, and probably impossible to succeed. i would be more comfortable being a non-practicing heterosexual i guess. leaving all the childraising and intimate relationships to the straight men, the nonfeminists, and the lesbians.

6. TBL - December 27, 2009

That’s pretty shocking TBL. Did you complain?

No, I just fucking burned with anger for days and days. I wasn’t in a very good headspace and the incident that led to me needing the morning after pill was a bit of a nightmare in itself. So, no. What I did, when I felt better, was go around a load of different places and bought up a supply of pills, so I could be the unofficial pharmacy for my friends in need. I still keep a stash at home. Er.. that’s prolly illegal.

7. basketcasey - December 28, 2009

As an actual gay lady, political lesbianism is completely disgusting and trivializing. I can’t even think of what else to say and expand on that because it’s so fucking wrong but, no. Do not do that. Ever. Being a non practicing hetero is your business but I’m fucking sick of “feminists” hijacking gay culture because they’re “sick of men.”

Re: these commercials, color me shocked :/.

factcheckme - December 28, 2009

basketcasey, dirt is also an “actual gay lady” and she seems to think the opposite (that hetero women are “sleeping with the enemy” and deserve what we get…which implies we have a choice?) i hope she comes back to further explain her position. and other actual gay ladies think that orientation is a choice. also, as you are a self proclaimed “cis-privileged woman” who is sympathetic to transwomen, i assume that you *dont* have a problem with born-men calling themselves lesbians, if they decide they *still* want to fuck women, even after they have transitioned? why are you ok with men and transwomen hijacking gay culture, but you are “fucking sick of ‘feminists'” doing it? this is a serious question. for that matter, what about a non-operative, lesbian, male-sexed, male-gendered, male-identified transwoman? ie. a total fucking man, in every way, who says he “feels” like a woman, and wants to fuck women? are you ok with that? just as long as hetero FAB “political lesbians” stay out of your way?

factcheckme - December 28, 2009

oh look, i derailed my own post by making it about transwomen! well…basketcasey has a history here. and i want to know how she can reconcile her contempt for hetero “fake FAB lesbians hijacking lesbianism”, with her complete acceptance of transwomen, and most assuredly “non-operative lesbian transwomen” as well.

8. ashleyspencer - December 28, 2009

Like TBL and a few others, I am technincally a het, but I don’t have anything to do with men sexually, and haven’t for years.
I wouldn’t call myself a lesbian, because I don’t believe it’s my business to appropriate the experience of actual lesbians.
I think what dirt said was a bit cold, but I have to admit, she is right. I did not assume dirt meant that hetero women should try to become lesbians. I assumed she meant don’t fuck or otherwise cavort with men. I could be wrong, though.
Thank you for having such interesting and thoughtful topics BTW.

9. ashleyspencer - December 28, 2009

I want to add that I do understand that many women in this world don’t have a choice and are forced into sex and relationships with men. Of course, when I say dirt is right, I am talking about those of us who have a choice.

10. Lindsay - December 28, 2009

Hello, FCM, and thank you for pointing this out.

I’m a bisexual, childfree woman who’s been in a straight relationship for four years now without ever having had intercourse.

(Not ruling it out, but my partner and I are both dead set on not having children; we both intend to get sterilized. Also, I have vaginismus, which makes any penetration difficult).

Anyway, I think Plan B is essential, and needs to be available over the counter, but I also agree with you that entirely too much cultural importance is placed on intercourse. You can have quite a varied and interesting sex life — even with male partners — without ever doing that particular act.

(There are two major cultural reforms I’d like to see, as a childfree woman who’s worried about overpopulation: first, a deemphasis on motherhood as the Most Important Thing a Woman Can Do With Her Otherwise Worthless Life, and second, a deemphasis on intercourse as the be-all and end-all of sex. I think both of those memes tend to push a lot of women into motherhood who might not otherwise have chosen it).

11. thebewilderness - December 28, 2009

I suppose we need a word for those of us who have sex with ourselves instead of other people, since ‘political lesbian’ is off limits. We wouldn’t need one if some peeps weren’t hell bent on identifying themselves and everyone else by who they have sex with.
Back in the day “political lesbians” didn’t necessarily have sex with women. They simply called themselves that to get the men to STFU and stop badgering and groping them. And for political solidarity reasons too.
And just in case anyone cares, I don’t really give a shit what you young sprouts are, or are not, sick and tired or hearing. You claim to base a ‘culture’ on who fucks who fer crying out loud and then fret that someone might appropriate a designation that you think you have ownership of even though it’s been around since before you were born. Welcome to the patriarchy! You’ll fit right in.

The commercials are an outrage. The stinking Catholic Hospitals in the US still don’t give it to rape victims and they will let you die rather than abort a dead fetus.
Not only that but they have grown in the US from a small percentage of hospitals to nearly a third of total hospitals by gobbling up the competition. In some areas they are the only one in the area.
Drug stores simply choose not to stock it or claim to be out of stock if you don’t look like someone who deserves their assistance.

Planned Parenthood is still alive and well here in the Peoples Republic of the Puget Sound, but it is an uphill battle simply to maintain the status quo what with the fun feminists the anti feminists the faux feminists the wanna be feminists and the entire bloody patriarchy fighting over how to position the bloody boot on our neck.

12. rainsinger - December 28, 2009

..how do peeps feel about “political lesbianism?” polly has mentioned elsewhere that she thinks its dead, and went out in the 70s. but red and UP (i think) believe that lesbianism can be a choice, that orientation itself *is* a choice and its not anything you are born with

you can count me in that crowd of choicers too, but I appreciate for some its easier to make the choice than for others. I’ve also known lesbians in denial who have fought it all the way too, rejecting their true desires in order to appear straight.

13. polly - December 28, 2009

This calls for a song FCM

14. polly - December 28, 2009

I broke the link but damn wordpress has still automtically embedded. Anyway if you’ve got a pop up blocker you need to turn it off and click on the “watch on you tube” link.

15. polly - December 28, 2009

We’ve already had that argument anyway basketcasey. As a lesbian (the type who is sexually attracted to females) with a vagina I’m fairly fed up of people with penises telling me I should be sexually attracted to people with penises actually.



16. polly - December 28, 2009

But can I point out that lesbians can get raped too.

17. polly - December 28, 2009

I certainly think a lot of folks are bisexual and can choose one or the other. But I’d never tell a woman she has to be a lesbian to be a feminist. My comment on political lesbianism being dead is an observation from what I see around me. The last ‘political lesbian’ I knew is now married to a man.

18. Miska - December 28, 2009

Anyway, I think Plan B is essential, and needs to be available over the counter, but I also agree with you that entirely too much cultural importance is placed on intercourse. You can have quite a varied and interesting sex life — even with male partners — without ever doing that particular act.

It’s so tedious how PIV sex is understood to be Real Sex, and everything is lumped under foreplay. As always, women lose out the most with this. I recently had an argument over in the non-feminist internet about men who have intercourse, but then avoid paying child support once it results in a pregnancy and birth. My argument being that if a dude has intercourse then he has accepted the risk that he might end up with a child. If he really, really doesn’t want a child then he shouldn’t have intercourse. Of course the answer I got was something along the lines of “Nooo, men can’t be expected to not have sex, they have NEEDS”.

I’m like … needs? They don’t NEED to ejaculate into a vagina. There are plenty of other ways men’s precious needs can be taken care of that don’t involve a pregnancy risk. Oh, but that’s right – if it doesn’t involve a penis in a vagina, it aint real sex, of course.

Oh, and my one and only experience with the morning-after pill – I was 14, and my best friend, my sheepish boyfriend and I caught the bus to the clinic. I told them I needed to acquire the pill, they told me I needed to make an appointment, and the earliest one they could give me was in a week’s time. It’s like, “But I need to take it within 72 hours!”, they’re like “Tough shit”. It was an early lesson in how even if women have legal reproductive rights, it’s no guarantee that we won’t get shafted by the system, regardless.

19. Undercover Punk - December 28, 2009


I hate men AND I love women! Is it possible to feel both?? OHMYGOD, yes it issssss!!!!

I’m a POLITICAL *and* a SEXUAL lesbian! Bwhahahaha! And yes, if you are a privileged person (ie, access to the internet and the information necessary to have this conversation–yeah, I’m talking to you!), then you too have a CHOICE about how you live your life, WHO you give your precious attention to, and how you get off. Believe it.

Now FCM, I love it when you write posts that so clearly support my LESBIAN AGENDA! See, I don’t even need to blog, you do it for me & I just jump in later and shout my mantra: SEPARATISM IS THE WAY FORWARD!! 🙂 Whoo-hooo!

Seriously, this is a great post. Whenever I have the misfortune of seeing one of those horrible Plan B commercials, I always ask the same f-ing thing: WHERE ARE THE MEN?? If yo’ man can’t even stand at the pharmacy counter with you, then he can use his hand. Or something, whatever, I don’t care what he does–just GET AWAY. END OF STORY. Stop having sex with men. PLEASE. It’s soooo not worth it.

(also, loved the internal freak-out monologue! very funny. oh, except not really.)

20. TBL - December 28, 2009

I like to call myself a non-practising heterosexual. But quite frankly, all I mean by that is that the thought of having sex with a man completely revolts me. Whereas, the thought of sex with a woman is very attractive. But in reality, I don’t do it with anyone. If there is a word for this sort of fucked-up-ness, please share.

And yes, political lesbianism is surely a questionable practice, but male lesbianism – that’s a big NO THANKS all round, isn’t it?

21. Undercover Punk - December 28, 2009

TBL, I don’t think of that as fucked-up-ed-ness–unless there are other underlying issues such as homophobia or debilitating insecurity or something. Otherwise, that’s just being smart! Because being with someone who is sub par –of any sex– is much, much worse than being mono/uni/self-sexual (aka single). 😉

factcheckme - December 28, 2009

well, dirt hasnt come back to clarify whether or not she was kidding when she said that het women are getting what they deserve. so, i will clarify my feelings on the issue. basically, i can completely sympathize with wanting to take a hard stance and condemn women who are participating in the patriarchy in ways that seem counterproductive, and harmful to women as a sexual class. i have taken a hard line on that in the past myself, mostly out of frustration and anger. so i understand that perspective. BUT. i think that blaming het women for their own oppression, and blaming them for being raped and impregnated multiple times against their will, by the men in thier life, is really missing the point.

the point has been made here that there are many women in many parts of the world (and in rural and poor-urban areas of western countries too) that literally do not have a choice as to the type and degree in which they will “participate” in patriarchy, including having sexual relationships with men. i wont even say “heterosexual” relationships because in many parts of the world, theres NO SUCH FUCKING THING when it comes to women: whether they are sexually attracted to men or not is completely irrelevant because they will be married off and impregnated, regardless of what the women want.

but frankly, this lack of options (and lack of perceived options) is rampant among all women. thats the nature of being oppressed, on any axis, and seems magnified substantially for women, who have limited-to-no options even over with whom they have sex. i think its particularly shortsighted, cruel, and indeed anti-feminist to blame women who “just dont get it” and who might make “choices” that we wouldnt make, based on their religion for example. we enlightened feminists like to think that all women are free to opt out of religion, but what about jewish women? what about fundamentalist christians? religion is a fucking disease IMO, and its a brainwashing that is absolutely thorough. women are indoctrinated to “choose” a submissive, heteronormative sexual role from the day they are born. are we really going to blame these women for their own rapes? for their own unwanted pregnancies?

thats as bad as the sex-pozzies thinking that women in sex work and porn are there only for the sex-pozzie audience’s pleasure, and not caring a whit that many women in the sex industry are actually deeply religious, and are walking around like zombies because they think they are going to hell for what they are doing. in other words, the fun-fems and sex-pozzies only care about women who share their views. i care about all women, and all womens oppression under patriarchy. i blame men for raping and impregnating women agains their wills. period.

22. Undercover Punk - December 28, 2009

FCM, you’re right about the numbers. It is inarguable that, for *most women* in the world, there is NO SUCH FUCKING THING as choosing who one spends their time with or who she has sex with. However, I think there’s a very important distinction between *most women* and the women in the Plan B commercial who appear to be both affluent and to have immediate access to highly restricted “birth control” methods– in short, these these appear to be very privileged women (maybe even with health insurance?). In terms of emotional coercion, they may be brainwashed by compulsory, essentialist heterosexuality; they may even believe that nothing less than a penis could truly satisfy their sexual cravings. All the same, CONTEXT plays a crucial role in female agency. I don’t think that questioning the choices and/or the responsibility for their situation is quite the same as blaming-the-victim.

23. Undercover Punk - December 28, 2009

Oh shit, I wasn’t done with that comment and now I’m going to get in trouble. Sorry.

factcheckme - December 28, 2009

UP, dirt specifically said that het women deserve what they get. and this article was about rape and unwanted pregnancy, and how the commercials do *not* in fact paint an accurate picture of who is going to be needing, and using, emergency contraceptives. i had hoped that dirt would come back and clarify whether thats what she meant, and she still might. but i thought a response to that idea was absolutely required.

24. Undercover Punk - December 28, 2009

Absolutely. Deserving is not a word I would EVER use. “Relative” or comparative agency and any corresponding responsibility it may bring privileged women is entirely different than being DESERVING of men’s dehumanizing treatment– which women certainly are not. Ever.

factcheckme - December 29, 2009

sorry UP, but i am still not buying it. i do not accept that “agency” and “responsibility” have any place in a discussion of rape, unless you are talking about MENS agency, and MENS responsibility. and there is so little difference between heterosexual “sex” and rape in a rape culture where men define what constitutes “consent” even as they learn from the day they are born that they are sexually entitled to womens bodies, that i dont think you can even properly adress female agency or responsibility in the context of “consensual” sex either. much of the time women do what they need to do, to survive. and that includes having regular vaginal sex with men, up to and including being raped by them in many cases. and i am NOT willing to discuss womens survival in a mans world that literally uses women as objects, in terms of women’s “agency.” that goes for relatively “privileged” women too. how is that *not* blaming the victim?

just being there isnt evidence of a womans “agency” and its also not the proximate cause of sexual violence men heap upon us. our being there might be one of many causes in fact, as in “well if she wasnt there, it wouldnt have happened!” if it had been tuesday instead of wednesday, if she had slept in that day instead of going to the market etc. but its not the proximate cause. the proximate cause of mens sexual violence is men deciding to be sexually violent, and then being sexually violent. and that has to include, i think, men demanding (or even assuming, with or without considering) that it will be WOMEN who will take all the risk when they are in sexual relationships, with men.

25. Undercover Punk - December 29, 2009

I’m not disagreeing with you. I haven’t referred to agency or responsibility in the context of rape. I understand that your concern here is rape and I’m not disagreeing with you about MEN’S responsibility for that. I’m sorry for derailing the post by discussing contexualism– it is relevant to (political) lesbianism only, not rape.

26. ashleyspencer - December 29, 2009

There has been talk now for years about using mifepristone for EC, and even for regular contraception. No doubt, this has been and continues to be hindered by the anti-choice government policies in the US, including the current “liberal” crop of pols.
I wonder if any readers from outside the US are living in places where mifepristone is used for EC or for contraception? I thought it was looking promising for a while. Has a longer window of effectiveness, and fewer side effects.
Lindsay, I relate to your situation. I’m glad some people are able to pull it off. I had a similar relationship with a dood. One of the many final straws in my just becoming totally fed up with sex w/ doods was when I started to be exposed to porn. Before seeing porn, I had not realized how much men hate and despise the women who they are sexual with. Men just basically consider women to be their toilets.

27. Orlando C - December 29, 2009

Hi, FCM. I know I’m spammed and all, but since I keep a little online journal of the comments that various people won’t let me post, I’m going to indulge myself here.


28. berryblade - December 29, 2009

What would be really liberating for womyn would be if men didn’t expect to stick their dicks in you for their own benefit and then call it “sex”.
What would be really liberating for womyn would be a quick and easy contraceptive for men (other than a vasectomy) which eliminated the possibility of rogue chromosome bearers reaching an ova.

But you know, that might involve a threat to “masculinity” or something, and womyn’s bodies are SO much easier to experiment on, because they’re like, not full humans and shit.

” a product thats absolutely needed, yes, but that many girls and women wouldnt even need if it werent for rape; and which none of us would *ever* need if it werent for compulsory heterosexuality that includes regular vaginal intercourse, (and placing all things child-related at the feet of women), where women take all the risks, and reap very little of the reward, in heteronormative sexual relationships, as compared to men.”

“i advocate NOT having vaginal intercourse too. theres NO REASON this has to be the go-to sexual act, even within a hetero relationship. what do women even get out of it, in most cases? this is a serious question, especially considering the risks. its not fucking worth it, 95% of the time, is my experience. that shoots up to 100% of the times there has been a “mishap.” why are women willing to take ALL THE RISK, in order to have vaginal intercourse, when there are so many other things you could be doing with their male partner? this is not a rhetorical question. WHY?”


I’m just way too post traumatic to even think about sex of any kind with anyone. Guess who’s fault that is? Mens! There was a time in my life when I’d say I was bisexual, but that’s more because unfortunately my family is quite homophobic… Deep down, I’ve kind of always known I was a lesbian. Sorry for the off topic 🙂

29. TBL - December 29, 2009

Women are always being told we get what we deserve, innit?

Straight women who ‘choose’ to sleep with men (I’m using the scary quotes because choice and agency are all pretty much debateable) are not actually ‘choosing’ to be on the receiving end of male sexual violence and abuse. Maybe they don’t see men as the enemy. It’s quite possible that they love, and yearn to be loved by, the men who abuse and mistreat them.

30. polly - December 29, 2009

Nearly 40 years ago there was a very famous ad in the UK. The ‘pregnant man’ (Nothing to do with Thomas Beattie). It featured a pregnant man (doh!) with the slogan ‘Would you be more careful if it was you that got pregnant?’.


Fast forward 40 years and NHS choices feature a video saying that contraception is entirely a woman’s responsibility. Men are not mentioned.

Personally I don’t think that’s progress.

factcheckme - December 29, 2009

Hi, FCM. I know I’m spammed and all, but since I keep a little online journal of the comments that various people won’t let me post, I’m going to indulge myself here.

oh by all means orlando, indulge yourself. you sick little fucking turd. i am posting your reply here to show my readers: you KNOW you arent welcome here, and you keep coming back. you think MY BLOG is your own personal journal, and you dont care what i think about that. welcome to rape culture, submissive male. you are displaying exactly the aggressive entitlement and disregard for womens wishes being discussed here.

31. Georgina - December 29, 2009

Orlando C – what a fucking cock.

32. thebewilderness - December 30, 2009

Shorter Orlando:

All all all Your Attention

are belong to us!

33. SheilaG - December 30, 2009

Personal journals? You’ve got to be kidding.
Oh the things blog creators have to deal with sigh…

34. polly - December 30, 2009

Orlando C – who he?

Back to the topic,there’s quite a good piece here on conscientious objections to dispensing the morning after pill.


factcheckme - December 30, 2009

thanks for getting us back OT polly. i agree that there is no defensible reason to allow pharmacists to deny women any medication for which they have a doctors prescription, or which is available OTC. if the pharms dont like it, they can find another fucking job.

35. redmegaera - January 3, 2010

Just a quick note to say that I am an “actual lesbian” too. I have desired intimate sexual and emotional relationships with women since I was a child and I first came out to parents and friends when I was twelve years-old. As a teenager I had a sexual relationship with a male paedophile unrelated to me and unknown to my family. I feel that heterosexuality is coercively imposed upon women (hence the term “compulsory heterosexuality”) but that women can and do choose to be lesbians. I also think some people’s sexuality is more malleable than others.

I have constructed my own lesbian identity (as opposed to my lesbian desires- which are much more mysterious)largely through lesbian/feminist politics. Because of this I understand lesbianism in political terms. I would, however, reserve the term “political lesbian” to describe those heterosexual feminists who (1) choose to abstain from heterosexual relationships and (2) are female separatists. I understand and support both lesbian women’s critique of this term (see, for example, Janice Raymond’s critique of Adrienne Rich’s “lesbian continuum” in A Passion for Friends) AND heterosexual women adopting this practice. In other words, while I am ready to conceede that the terms “political lesbian” and “lesbian continuum” appropriate and/or obscure the very specific experience of lesbians under heteropatriarchy, I am unwilling to give up the idea that straight women should construct gynocentric identities and communities for themselves…

factcheckme - January 3, 2010

red, thanks for that.

In other words, while I am ready to conceede that the terms “political lesbian” and “lesbian continuum” appropriate and/or obscure the very specific experience of lesbians under heteropatriarchy, I am unwilling to give up the idea that straight women should construct gynocentric identities and communities for themselves…

i am very willing and interested in discussing political lesbianism here, and this is exactly what i think of in my own mind, when i think about it. i think seperatism is an excellent idea. for example, and its just one example, as sheila has mentioned here, women spend SO MUCH MONEY on clothing, makeup, etc just getting ready for their day within a male oriented heteronormative space, not to mention spending their precious time, that we are really doing ourselves a disservice in the end, in so many ways. we have less discretionary income as it is than men do, and more things to spend it on, and NO, its not “voluntary” in case anyone asks. its absolutely mandatory that women spend thier money in this way. it keeps mens dicks hard while they are alive, and women living in abject poverty after the men are dead (see the discussion on the golden-girls thread regarding the issues older women face after their kids are gone and thier husbands are dead). the closest i ever got to NOT having to spend my money in this way was when i was a hippie chick living in the mountains, rock climbing every day etc. but it was FAR from a gynocentric way of life. those hippie doods only think about their dicks too. its a fucking epidemic that all women have to deal with, if we are going to have to deal with men.

36. SheilaG - January 3, 2010

I’ve always thought the term “political lesbian” was pretty weird. Why not have a term called a straight separatist, for example. I don’t like the word lesbian used in any other way than as its intended term, women who love women both sexually as well as politically. I think it is fashionable to simply take away lesbian sexuality entirely, another form of erasure, which to me is a typical heteronormative tactic. Any lesbian who has dealt with straight women in groups, knows how they can’t even ask lesbians questions about their lives, and want to “pretend” you are not a lesbian at all. So I get sick of this behavior, although I have noted that with all the lesbian and gay marriage activism (a mixed bag that I address at Redmegaera’s), straight people, for the first time in my life, are actually doing some appropriate things that they NEVER did before. (At least to me). So I will give credit where it is due.

A political lesbian… should we also have a term called political straight woman? Sounds kind of silly both ways. How about a politically conscious lesbian as opposed to an assimilated unconscious lesbian? Ah languaging here 🙂

37. SheilaG - January 3, 2010

If you look carefully at all the lesbian feminist writers, you will note a rather large difference between the lifetime never married to men lesbians, and lesbians who were once married to men. Thus, you have differences between Janice Raymond and Adrienne Rich, for example. Naturally, I admire the radical lesbians who never had anything to do with men, and I think this power is in their writing.

38. Level Best - January 5, 2010

While we’re “languaging,” maybe the phrase “female separatist” could embrace both straight separatists (from males)and asexual ones. The term “lesbian separatist” could still stand on its own with the understanding that it connotes a birth-female who loves women sexually and stands separate from birth males.

39. SheilaG - January 14, 2010

Works for me Level Best 🙂

40. Saint_Sithney - February 2, 2010

But this hardline rejection of vaginal intercourse leaves those of us who can and do enjoy it out in the cold. Why is it rape if I am a heterosexual with a male partner, who is perfectly capable of orgasm from vaginal intercourse – and as a matter of fact, prefer it to all other forms of intercourse? Is it really necessary to deny my own sexuality to make women who do not enjoy vaginal intercourse feel better? There are also women out there who enjoy and prefer anal sex, which repulses me, but it’s none of my business.

I’m also with a male partner who waited almost two years before I decided I was ready for vaginal intercourse with him. He never mentioned it once in all that time, beyond telling me that he respected my decisions concerning my own body.

I’m thinking this is where modern feminism tends to lose younger women: we don’t actually care what anyone else is doing in bed, so long as it’s consensual. My enjoying vaginal intercourse is not somehow better because it’s with a strap-on attached to a woman I am not actually interested in rather than with a penis attached to a respectful man who does everything he is capable of on the contraceptive front (including paying for birth control pills).

factcheckme - February 2, 2010

But this hardline rejection of vaginal intercourse leaves those of us who can and do enjoy it out in the cold.

this is going to come across harshly. but learn how to read; make sure you understand whats being said; and think critically about both what you have read and what you intend to say, before you post here again. thanks.

factcheckme - February 2, 2010

thinking more about saint_sithneys comment, its actually making me really mad. there are so many unexamined assumptions there that its as if even someone claiming to be “open” to reading this material isnt really even reading it, before they jump to completely typical, idiotic conclusions, and respond just to hear themselves talk.

i enjoy vaginal intercourse too. i am one of the single-digit percentage of women who consistently orgasm that way. AND WHO FUCKING GIVES A SHIT. this doesnt change anything, although the poster assumed i said what i said because i “didnt enjoy it” and that i was a fucking lesbian, to boot (or was the reference to strap-on lesbian sex just completely gratuitous? this makes me wonder too, whether the poster was really a fucking man. gratuitous reference to lesbian sex? CHECK. saying its not as good as “the real thing?” CHECK.)

whether i get off on vaginal intercourse with men is not the fucking point. the point is that vaginal intercourse is RISKY for women, where its not risky for men. where there is shared risk (as in STDs) the risk is HIGHER for women. so why are women doing it? this is not a rhetorical question. why is it the go-to sex act? this is also not rhetorical. if enough people were doing it, if it were completely glamorized in the media, if men would FUCKING DO IT TO YOU ANYWAY, if you didnt learn to like it and say “YES, PLEASE!” what other activities (including but not limtted to sex acts) would you find enjoyable, and “empowerfulizing?” this is not a rhetorical question. we would be better off shoving pinecones up our asses, in almost every instance.

i am not going to let some “empowerfulized!” twenty-something fun-fem come in here and attempt to take our eyes off the ball. feminism isnt leaving you out, honey. you are just too young and too brainwashed to see sex-pozzy rhetoric for what it is, and to recognize who it benefits, and who does NOT benefit from it, in the same ways, or at all. the fun-fems are the ones bowing down and sweeping up the lowest common denominator: “young” sex-pozzies who dont fucking know any better, but who dont want to be “left out” of the feminism club. but feminism shouldnt change to suit you. you should get a fucking clue, and learn to read, and think about the issues that affect you. thats what feminism is about, not letting everyone into the “club” who claims a right to be there.

41. SheilaG - February 2, 2010

This whole idea of a feminist club seems a bit odd.
And believe it or not, I’m not interested in heterosexual sexual activity. I do know that women put themselves at risk constantly having sex with men in the traditional way.

Needless to say, my original point is that there is a political and spiritual and conceptual difference in how women write about feminism based on whether or not they had sex with men. Believe it or not, this changes the politics. It’s why I like Mary Daly, Janice Raymond better than Adrienne Rich, for example. It’s why I derive my inner power from lesbian women who never were a part of heteropatriarchy on an intimate level, and even saying this is still controversial on the internet believe it or not.

The thing is, feminism does have principles, we are concerned with what is best for women, and uncritical la de da about vaginal intercourse with men is having a huge impact on women worldwide. Sex acts are a health issue for women, and feminism addresses this nicely. I’m sure my straight sisters have to deal with this in ways I can’t imagine, so I’ll leave it up to them in this area.

What happens to women when they have sex with men really is quite serious. It is not a personal “well I’m the exception la de da” it is more than that.

Feminists are right on target in addressing all issues that affect women, all sex acts that put women at risk, and it is the duty of feminist to present honest alternatives to young women, so that they don’t just go alone with the male sexual agenda without question or context.

factcheckme - February 2, 2010

well said sheila, as usual. thanks.

42. pmsrhino - February 4, 2010

Just to pop in with my two cents, when vaginal orgasms are mentioned why does it always seem to only go with PiV (am I getting the acronym right? lol) sex? I get my vaginal orgasms often and my boyfriend and I have PiV sex very infrequently. We manage to get all our jollies off without increasing the risk of pregnancy or anything else. Saint_Sithney was talking about vaginal intercourse being her favorite but why does vaginal intercourse have to involve a dude’s penis? Why not a dildo, or a vibrator, or fingers? It’s amazing how such an obvious point could be missed by some people. The problem is that PiV sex is so emphasized by our culture, media, and even the feminist movement that other safer types of sexual activity aren’t often discussed, even though PiV sex can be the most dangerous for women. I mean, seriously, I’ve read quite a few blogs talk like hand jobs are a stupid idea. “Why would people give handjobs?! Are we that old school?!” And I was like “When did handjobs become old school? And why are we pretty much trash talking people who do that?” Why would a safe thing like handjobs be looked down upon? Not only are women often not taught anything outside of PiV sex but then fun-fems are looking down upon other safer sex acts? And then even our commercials are reinforcing the “essential” nature of PiV sex, even when it’s clear the women do not want to risk getting pregnant. There’s no escape.

43. SheilaG - February 5, 2010

PiV… it must be about male indoctrination tactics.
Since men are determined to control everyone’s sexual expression it seems, including women’s.

factcheckme - February 6, 2010

pmsrhino, you make a great point about vibrators and fingers etc. although i am not sure what to even call that except “foreplay” because thats the only fucking word for anything OTHER THAN piv intercourse. how would porn be different, for example, if there was no piv but dildos and fingers instead? the spectre of rape would instantly lessen (but not disappear), because its more believable that a woman would take *that* risk willingly for money than it is believable that female porn actors are willing participants in sexwork transactions intended to produce a male (but not female) orgasm, and very often leave the women pregnant and infected with STDs. the coercive factors also lessen (but dont disappear) where the male actors (or the pornographers themselves via the casting couch) are not considering their own pleasure. if they did get pleasure from it, it would be a completely different scenario from the piv-centric male-pleasing porn we have now.

its something i have been thinking about. but ugh, i hate talking or thinking about porn in any context anymore. sometimes i cant help it though. theres so much there that needs to be examined, and the threat of rape, pregnancy and STDs is a constant throughout the straight porn industry (for women, of course, but not for men) as well as prostitution.

you are absolutely right that the vagina can be a source of pleasure for women. and that there is absolutely no reason that it has to be penetrated, ever, by a penis to get that result. but something tells me this isnt going to catch on. three guesses why (but you will only need one).

Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: