Patriarchy and female sexuality, Part 1

It was a gorgeous, sunny Saturday, so naturally I was deep in the reference section of the library reading the DSM-IV-TR,* as you do, and I happened to come across the section on vaginismus. (*The newest one is the DSM-5, but it wasn’t available while I was there.)

“Vaginismus is an involuntary spasm of the musculature of the outer third layer of the vagina, which makes penile penetration difficult or impossible. The diagnosis is not made if an organic cause is known. Although a woman with vaginismus may wish to have intercourse, her symptom prevents the penis from entering her body. It is as though her vagina says, “No!” In lifelong vaginismus, the anticipation of pain at the first intercourse causes muscle spasm. Pain reinforces the fear and on occasion, the partner’s response gives her good reason to dread a second opportunity to have intercourse. Early episodic vaginismus may be common among women, but most of the cases that are brought to medical attention are chronic. Lifelong vaginismus is relatively rare. The clinician needs to focus attention on what may have made the idea of intercourse so overwhelming to her: parental intrusiveness, sexual trauma, childhood genital injury, illnesses whose therapy involved orifice penetration, and surgery.” DSM-IV-TR, p 1074, 2004.

Emphasis mine.

This is absolutely shocking. I can’t believe they acknowledge that vaginismus is the vagina saying “no,” but they classify this as a disorder! That is a blatant example of rape culture. It doesn’t seem to have occurred to any of the misogynists who create this book that the vagina has a right to say no and that this is completely normal and acceptable behavior, since heterosexual intercourse is not necessary and is unpleasant to some women.

This week I also read a conversation between some lesbian detransitioners about how they didn’t know how to relate to their genitals and their sexuality because their sexual feelings didn’t match what they were taught about female sexuality. (More on this later.) This all makes it clear to me that we aren’t done talking about female sexuality, particularly lesbian sexuality, because people are still going around thinking that women are receptacles for male sperm, and that any women who don’t like being treated this way either have a disorder or aren’t real women. This is ancient fucking misogyny and I am really pissed that this is sticking around.

(It’s too bad we don’t have a feminist sex-positive movement that tells the truth about female sexuality and fights against rape culture, so that women can enjoy sex safely and in ways that work for us. Instead, we have a bunch of fucking idiots going around calling themselves “sex-positive” while promoting pornography, prostitution, and BDSM, all institutions which exist for the benefit of male abusers and to the detriment of women. That shit is abuse-positive, not sex-positive.)

PIV sex is culturally forced on all women–it has reached the status of institution and is expected of every woman whether she wants it or not. I’ve also written before about how lesbians are being taught to interpret their natural sexual desires as evidence of maleness in this post. I’m going to be repeating myself a bit here, but that’s okay. Since saying no to dick is still considered a disorder, and since lesbians still believe they’re men, I figure this is worth repeating. Besides, as a radical man-hating lesbian feminist blogger, writing against PIV is literally my job.

*rolls up sleeves*

Let’s start with vaginismus. This condition is generally caused by fear of intercourse and previous trauma. The involuntary spasm of the muscles is obviously a defensive reaction against something the body fears. Why does this even need to be treated? Why would you try to remove a defensive reaction from a traumatized woman in order to subject her to the same incident that traumatized her before? (Answer: misogyny.) This is so hateful it’s amazing that anyone can suggest it with a straight face. The treatment for vaginismus is, of course, more penetration. If we lived in a woman-friendly culture, the cure for not wanting to have sex would just be not having sex. The DSM-IV-TR mentions “pairing relaxation techniques with progressively larger vaginal dilators (p1075).” That sounds a lot like “Close your eyes and think of England.” Just relax, ladies, and accept the exact same penetration that caused you fear and pain in the first place, until you finally learn to enjoy it, or at least fake enjoying it. Because it doesn’t matter what women want, it just matters that men can continue to dominate us.

The website, which exists in order to sell a book and kit to women in an attempt to cure them of their bodies’ legitimate defensive reactions, has some more shocking information about this “disorder.”

Some non-physical causes of vaginismus, according to

“Fear or anticipation of intercourse pain, fear of not being completely physically healed following pelvic trauma, fear of tissue damage (i.e. “being torn”), fear of getting pregnant, concern that a pelvic medical problem may reoccur, etc.”

These are all legitimate reasons not to have intercourse.

“General anxiety, performance pressures, previous unpleasant sexual experiences, negativity toward sex, guilt, emotional traumas, or other unhealthy sexual emotions.”

Why is negativity toward sex an “unhealthy sexual emotion”?? It is entirely reasonable to feel negatively toward sex, especially when you are female. The risk of pregnancy and infection are always there, plus in this culture, sex for women often means being disrespected and abused by partners who are addicted to porn and full of male entitlement. Why on Earth would women who feel negatively toward sex be encouraged to have more sex? This is rape culture.

“Partner issues : Abuse, emotional detachment, fear of commitment, distrust, anxiety about being vulnerable, losing control, etc.”

If you are having relationship issues such as abuse and distrust, then dump the boyfriend, don’t buy a vaginal dilator!

“Past emotional/sexual abuse, witness of violence or abuse, repressed memories.”

Once again, why should abuse survivors have to repeat the incident that traumatized them?

There are also physical causes, such as medical problems, results of recent childbirth, surgery, vaginal dryness, or insufficient foreplay. All very good reasons not to have intercourse. has a page devoted to treatment. This page sells you their book and kit which takes you through everything you need to know about how to override your body’s reactions and submit to your husband or boyfriend who wants to penetrate you against your will. Their ten-step program makes tiny mentions of relationship issues and prior trauma, but it mostly talks about how a woman can relax her pelvic floor muscles and practice inserting objects into her vagina despite the pain it causes. It uses rapey language such as “how to override involuntary contractions, relaxing the pelvic floor so it responds correctly to sexual penetration.” BARF!

That sentence from the DSM-IV-TR is still haunting me. It is as though her vagina says “No!” The medical establishment has been considering a woman’s “no” to be a problem for decades, and of course, the capitalist patriarchy is going to benefit from the gas-lighting of the medical community in order to sell us products that “cure” our legitimate need to say “no.”

One of the reasons why this particular sentence is haunting me is because I remember a time when I attempted intercourse and my vagina said “No.” (Actually, I think her exact words were, “No way dude, get the fuck out.”) At age 18, when I was in deep denial that I actually preferred women, I had sex with my friend who we’ll call “Joe.” I believed I wanted to, and I was happy while driving to his place, and we did the things I believed I wanted to do, but my body didn’t respond. I barely got wet at all, and I ended up drying out completely when he penetrated me. I dried up enough that we couldn’t continue. We awkwardly stopped trying and neither of us were satisfied. At the time I had no idea what was wrong. Despite years of finding female friends attractive, I believed that my body would respond to heterosexual intercourse. I believed this because of the strong heteronormativity in society—every bit of culture I was exposed to told me that all people were heterosexual, and when I learned about sex from books and sex ed classes I saw the diagram and the explanation of what sex is—“when a man puts his penis in a woman’s vagina.” I was taught to believe that this was the most important and enjoyable sex act humans can partake in, and I was baffled as to why it didn’t work for me. I tried it again multiple times, believing I’d figure out how to make it work someday, but it never did. In university I was sleeping with a guy regularly and using artificial lube because I wasn’t wet enough. I was discussing this with a female friend and she had to sit me down one day and explain to me that it’s not normal for a horny 21-year-old to be dry during sex. She helped me to realize that I actually wasn’t enjoying it because I wasn’t excited by men. I couldn’t escape the denial anymore—I knew it was true.

Look at what the medical establishment suggests for someone like me, whose vagina said “No” to heterosexual intercourse even though in my mind I believed I wanted to. Neither the DSM nor the vaginismus website mentions the possibility that the woman could be homosexual. Nor do they mention that a heterosexual woman might not want intercourse and might prefer other forms of sexual activity. Their suggestion is getting over the fear and pain and doing it anyway. Women have the right to listen to their bodies and go with what feels good and avoid what doesn’t feel good. Instead of being taught a sexuality that suits men, women should be taught to trust their bodies and pay attention to their own reactions.

If I was creating a book for women with vaginismus, it would be very short. In fact, I’ll publish the whole thing right here for you to read:

Purple Sage’s Radical Feminist Cure for Vaginismus:

Step 1: Don’t have heterosexual intercourse.

Step 2: Tell your boyfriend or husband to fuck off.

Step 3: Consider becoming a spinster.

Done! Problem solved, and no dilators needed.

So what did we learn from this study of vaginismus? I didn’t write about this topic to shed light on an involuntary muscular contraction. The point here, of course, is that female sexuality is constructed by patriarchy. The male-run medical establishment creates propaganda in the form of medical textbooks teaching women that our sexuality is to be a passive receptacle. Popular culture, including pornography, also churns out propaganda teaching women the same thing. Religion teaches us that our role in life is to be married heterosexual wives who produce children. Absolutely nothing in our culture teaches us the truth about female sexuality—that we have an active sexual desire of our own that comes from our organ of sexual pleasure, the clitoris, and that the emotions, desires and preferences that live in our brains determine what the clitoris will respond to. The clitoris will not respond to people who aren’t pleasing to her or to situations she doesn’t like.

This concludes part 1, and in part 2 I will finally get back to that conversation I mentioned between detransitioners who thought they were male because they had a normal, active, clit-centered, female sexuality.

54 thoughts on “Patriarchy and female sexuality, Part 1

      • Yeah, but I’m thinking of the first time. I may be getting confused here, but I’m thinking of it happening quite easily to me through apprehension about the act despite wanting it, you know? Not so much as a result of trauma, which is a different matter altogether, as you describe. (Those articles! Bloody hell!)


        • I doubt anyone gets to the point of seeking medical help over a little anxiety over first time consensual intercourse with a loved male partner, if things work out with more practice. But I can easily see a woman thinking she wants to do it when really she doesn’t, because that happened to me a lot in the 1980’s. The frame I was living in was that I was supposed to want it, and if I did it enough it would become more pleasant, when actually it was the other way around. And men will tell women that, they do all the time, and this DSM piece is just more of the same.

          Once I was living in a communal situation where sexual experimentation was encouraged to a point that verged on mandatory, and I finally said yes to some guy, and it hurt. I mentioned this to another woman who had had sex with him, and she got quite angry at me, saying he didn’t hurt her. This, too, framed the pain I experienced as a disorder, as something in me that needed fixing, as opposed to an actual, if not perceived, lack of consent on my part.

          Liked by 3 people

      • That’s one of the worrying thoughts about it – if you previously had hopes or good thoughts or good experiences with PiV, if it was something you didn’t just expect as How Sex Works, but then for whatever reasons you suffer vaginismus, it would just reinforce itself, wouldn’t it? And something you wanted, or had enjoyed, or was important to you, was the opposite … 🙁

        Liked by 1 person

  1. I have often wondered (okay, not really, it’s because patriarchy) why people seem so determined to “cure” women from things like “not wanting to be around men” when this is the very natural response to trauma at the hands of males. After all, the world hasn’t changed. Males are still a danger to women.

    And this vaginismus thing … they even admit that “fear of getting pregnant” is one of the causes. That’s an entirely rational fear!

    This whole shit is like trying to cure someone who lives in Australia from an “irrational fear of sun, spiders and snakes” – if you go out in a t-shirt without sunscreen or hat, in Australia, you’ll be burnt. And the attitude I have to spiders and snakes (“Oooh, that’s cute! I want to go closer so I can see it better!”) might get me killed in a country where there’s actually venomous animals.

    The difference is that there is, as of now, no country where trusting men would be 100% safe.

    “The clitoris will not respond to people who aren’t pleasing to her or to situations she doesn’t like.”
    Actually, there’s some accounts of sexual arousal during rape. So, it does happen.

    Sex should only be had if sexual arousal is present and the mind agrees that having sex is a good idea.


    • Some years ago some guy did an AMA on Reddit about women having orgasms when raped. This was apparently his field of study. IIRC it was about addressing the confusion and additional trauma arising from such an occurrence.

      Also, fwiw, most spiders and some snakes are venomous. Venomous doesn’t mean “has venom that can kill humans,” it just means “has venom.” Australia does have more than its share of arachnids with especially hot venom, this is true. Not sure how they rank with snakes.


    • Nah, it’s they furriners who worry about our wildlife, and it took years of campaigning to get Austalians to put on hats and sunscreen. We have, or had, the highest rate of skin cancer in the world.


      • The guy I used to work with running the American Tarantula Society had it as his life’s ambition to move to Australia, preferably where there were the largest numbers of dangerous-to-unwary-humans arthropods.

        We have at least one really hot rattlesnake species around here. Otherwise it’s fairly tame. In the wilderness, likely the most dangerous animals are wild bees, hornets.


  2. I believed I had vaginismus when I was trying to have intercourse with my ex, but my doctor explained why my self-diagnosis was mistaken. I had another problem, an unusually thick hymen. I was also 100% virgin till age 28, and had failed the two times I’d tried to use tampons at age 14, so this wasn’t an issue I had a reason to be aware of. My ex and I weren’t successful till the eighth occasion we attempted intercourse (though I no longer considered myself a virgin by that point because we’d done so many other sexual things). It really does anger and upset me how I always knew it wasn’t right how he didn’t understand the importance of foreplay and almost never kissed me, yet kept staying in that emotionally abusive, dysfunctional relationship because I was a million percent sure he was my beshert (destined one) and future husband. I felt like I had no choice but to let him penetrate me when I wasn’t nearly sufficiently aroused, and often screamed in pain because it hurt so badly without any lubrication. It was all about his stupid erection, though he never orgasms from any sort of partnersex anyway, and takes at least an hour on his own. I knew better, and yet I put up with all this because I thought we were soulmates.

    A younger online friend of mine (who’s sadly been sucked deeper and deeper into Mormonism, which I now realise is a cult and not a real religion) had vaginismus in her first marriage. She married at all of 19, to someone she’d only known for a few months, and I knew from the jump that marriage wouldn’t last long. She felt depressed and like a failure because she hadn’t gotten pregnant or even had intercourse within the first six months. Perhaps that was a sign her first husband wasn’t the awesome “instant best friend” she believed he was.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. “how to override involuntary contractions, relaxing the pelvic floor so it responds correctly to sexual penetration.”

    “Correctly”, eh? The correct response to a sexual situation is the one that feels good and doesn’t result in harm to anyone involved. “Eat your peas, they’re good for you” is not an appropriate response to someone’s body actively rejecting the sex act they’re attempting to engage in.

    Also, as if this wasn’t all messed up enough already, wouldn’t all this focus on the idea that the vagina should “naturally” be open to all intrusions at all times and that if it isn’t the woman is defective and needs to fix herself create a lot of stress, which is then likely to make the physical “nope!” response even stronger?

    Liked by 4 people

  4. I have deleted a few off-topic comments from this thread. I don’t mind people chatting about whatever on a silly, lighthearted thread, but this one is a serious one and I would like commenters to stay on topic.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Well let’s run this back to zero and start over. If a woman cannot or for any reason does not have intercourse with a male, in the ordinary course of things (barring artificial intervention, that is) she will not get pregnant. With me so far?

    There are circumstances (mostly long ago in the past, or imaginary) when it is vital that she get pregnant asap if at all possible, usually because her group, tribe, family, whatever, is running out of people. We are not in that situation currently (hardly!), and I think we can confidently pass over that. What would be appropriate in that unhappy situation would be for the people involved to determine.

    Back to today. Some, perhaps most, maybe even all, of the reasons listed here for vaginismus represent very good reasons for the woman in question not to get pregnant, at least not right now or not by this particular guy. If she has been or still is injured physically or emotionally, whether from rape, abdominal surgery, or whatever, it seems to me that her body is saying that pregnancy is not a great idea, at least not at this time under these circumstances. If she is profoundly turned off by men in general for whatever reason, or by this man in particular, same deal, right?

    To me it makes more sense to listen to what your body is saying and respect that, than to charge on through, probably doing further damage in the process. There may be good reasons to work through this (she’s in love with the guy, wants to have his baby) and it may be possible to do that (like, if she’s healing from injury or a surgery we could wait maybe?). But just figuring out how to wire around what your body is telling you strikes me as a very bad idea.

    This is sex we’re talking about, right? Pretty hard to do sex without your body. It’s not just a head trip.

    Liked by 3 people

  6. This reads like a standard STRAIGHTBIAN response to sex with men and the standard STRAIGHTBIAN reaction when she doesnt like or want sex with men, default to dyke. This post including your STRAIGHTBIAN references as proofs are HIGHLY misleading and equally insulting to REAL dykes! Lesbians arent lesbians because we dont want to fuck men or be fucked by men, we’re lesbians because our BRAINS are lesbian-ie we’re BORN dykes!

    This warped pedestrian “feminist” diatribe has been used for decades to fuck up and fuck over REAL lesbians, including STRAIGHTBIANS heterosexualizing lesbians into thinking they’re men-leading later to further self hatred or worse lesbian transition.

    I’m 1 dyke, and I’ve seen this scenario 1000s of times in the last dozen years perpetuated by STRAIGHTBIANS insisting they’re lesbians while using heterosexual privileges to dominate/intimidate and transition lesbians of all ages.

    STRAIGHTBIAN pussy problems should be worked out with a therapist/intimate- NOT lesbians!

    Also, the man hating shit? PURE STRAIGHTBIAN! Real dykes dont hate men, and most of us have males as our closest friends/allies. We dont fuck men, hence we dont have to deal with their shit, nor do we require male approval.



    • I’m not honestly sure who you’re shouting “STRAIGHTBIAN” at here, but if it’s me, you can rest assured that I really am attracted to women. I was already attracted to other girls at 9 years old and I have been in a happy relationship with another woman for the last 9 years. If you’d like to label me as bisexual, you are welcome to—I don’t care that much about labels anyway—but I am certainly not straight.

      You’re making some claims here that are not substantiated. Lesbians are a variety of different people who realize their love for women in different stages of their lives. You can never generalize about “real dykes don’t……” because that would imply that all of us are the same, and we aren’t.

      Liked by 3 people

      • I think Dirt is, for some reason, really angry at some straight women who try to be political lesbians because they don’t want to deal with male entitlement in their private lives, and has somehow concluded from this that men (who are, by way of shitty behaviour, responsible for heterosexual women trying to be lesbian in the first place) are her allies.

        A rather weird attitude. Apart from the fact that patriarchy has harmed lesbians in the past, continues to harm lesbians in the present, and will, I fear, harm lesbians in the future … if there was a large number of men with whom women could have an equal relationship wherein they are respected and loved as equals, then the idea of political lesbianism would never even have come up.

        Liked by 4 people

      • You know, it’s funny that as I was reading PurpleSageFem’s post here I was thinking to myself: Oh dear, don’t let The Dirt see this because they’d be screaming bloody murder about ‘straightbianism’ all over the place if they saw some of the language being used. Well, come to read the comments section….

        Trying to have a sane conversation with The Dirt is impossible if you find that you disagree with what they are saying. You will be visciously attacked with ad hominems, projected upon, and completely ignored any time you bring up relevant points. You will be told you’re not a lesbian or even told that you’re a mansplainer. I found this to be particularly striking upon reading a cheap and tawdry laundry list of things that supposedly make a ‘straighbian’ and that straightbians are out for the complete destruction of ‘real lesbians’ on her site. The list The Dirt compiled was exactly the same nasty rubbish you see on any reddit MRA’s ranty list. The comments section was a terrible mess of hostility and a strange twisted reality for The Dirt and their supporters.

        The tactics The Dirt uses come across, to me, exactly the same as the mantra shouted at women by the transcult community where instead of shouting women down with ‘Trans women are women! You’re oppressing us!’ they will attack anybody who doesn’t fit their agenda, whatever that agenda is. There was a relevant video put up where women were honouring the victims of the recent Orlando shooting and instead of allowing that to happen a bunch of transcultists disrupted the moment merely to show how incredibly narcissistic they were and how truly uninterested in fighting oppression they actually were.

        Thank you to Magdalen Berns for this video:

        It is a divide and conquer strategy and instead of coming together over some valid concerns women have over their bodies The Dirt comes barging in about ‘straightbians’, exactly the same rubbish as one can see happening in that video I linked above. You don’t have to agree, The Dirt, but you are coming off as a half-cocked MRA.

        One of the things that The Dirt did allow me to do was to realise that not all MRA’s are men and that the dyke community has its own problems in terms of internalising patriarchy and the nasty oppresion that comes along with it:

        I thank you for that push, The Dirt, because you gave me the freedom to reject your definitions of what is and isn’t a lesbian and in how lesbians ought to be. Just like how men with gender dysphoria disorder personally showed me they are not interested in women, can never be women, and will never be interested in allowing me to have my boundaries and needs addressed. I am not your kind of lesbian and I am not a woman to be pushed around by men. Nobody was hating on men here, the valid complaints of poisonous patriarchy within the realms of women’s sexuality and our sexuality being pathologised were the issues. The more you project angrily upon others, the more you trangress upon valid conversations, the more you’re going to prove a disingenuous rage for a people you no longer, or even possibly never, spoke for.

        This is The Dirt’s attack list in case any are interested in getting a handle and the comments section fleshes out what I’ve brought up:


      • One other thing I forgot to add:

        The Dirt, the subject to hand which is the pathologising of women’s sexuality includes yourself. The fact you are a lesbian means that by the standards of the patriarchal medical community that you, yourself, are included in the pathologisation of women’s sexuality. Unless you’re a man with medical conditions, which the medical community exclusively addresses, then you are shit out of luck for conditions that affect women and leave you at the mercy of insane cultural values. The majority of medical tests are only done on men’s bodies even when testing medications used on women.

        Your cognitive dissonance and disconnect are real and are harming you whether you want to address that or not.

        Attacking women who are bringing to light the problems that come with cultural insanity is also hurting you and you are merely doing the free work of anybody interested in keeping everyone divided and conquered. Bringing up issues that are completely unrelated to the material just makes you look like a regular mainstream nutter.


      • There is some shit you don’t have to deal with if you are not fucking men, but in exchange you have to deal with them complaining that you don’t fuck them, trying to get you to fuck them, et cetera.
        (More precisely, they want you to let them fuck you. Which is part of the problem)

        Liked by 2 people

        • In my experience, the sorts of things you get to deal with when not fucking men include a lot of unsolicited advice about whom you should be fucking instead, and them encouraging their friends to try to get you to fuck them. In addition, sex is most certainly not required for a relationship to rise to the bar of abusive.

          Not being interested in fucking men saves a certain amount of hassle, if you can get them to believe it. But it doesn’t make them any less inclined towards generally parasitical behavior.

          I’ve known decent men at times, but I don’t give them the benefit of the doubt anymore.

          Liked by 4 people

    • I suppose it doesn’t matter to you that a reader who is not an insider to whatever quarrel you are referencing cannot for the life of her figure out what you are shouting about.

      Liked by 3 people

    • “STRAIGHTBIANS insisting they’re lesbians while using heterosexual privileges to dominate/intimidate and transition lesbians of all ages. ”

      Are you accusing Purplesage and other women here of collusion in this?

      If not, why are you making (shouting) these comments in this particular venue?

      Another thing: If you were freely and openly able to live and love as a proud dyke from day one of your sexuality, you’re lucky. Did it ever occur to you that not all girls and women in this world have that freedom?

      Liked by 5 people

  7. Brilliant and much appreciated post. I mean, wtf are we teaching women about their bodies and and female sexuality? And by “we” I mean patriarchy. Just ONE MORE example of how women are viewed as if our primary purpose is as a sperm receptacle. And they say compulsory heterosexuality doesn’t exist???

    Liked by 3 people

  8. Dear PurpleSageFem,

    Please note: When I say ‘we’ I mean all biological women. I use ‘we’ because whether we are lesbian, bi, or hetero we’re all in this ship together on the raging ocean of patriarchy. I don’t use current modern terms because I don’t understand them so please bear with this dinosaur.

    Thank you very much for reading the DSM so that others don’t have to. It’s a bit overwhelming to say the least.

    I didn’t find out what a clitoris, my clitoris, actually looked like until my mid-40’s. I had no clue that my clitoris wasn’t the tip of the labia, I wasn’t aware that part of it looked similar to a penis, there was no knowledge that it was the only organ known in the animal kingdom to be purely for pleasure, and when I looked more into it the knowledge that it was a whole amazing structure was more than a little difficult to discover. Google searches are woefully lacking when one does a search for a clitoris, especially the image search, but they got dudebros covered ad infinitum.

    I’m not surprised but I’m still enraged to find that our sexuality is pathologised, up unto 2016, for the delight of men. Your discovery, experiences, and thoughts have filled out for me some of my own experiences and have given me more of a footing in understanding what shaped my sexuality. I hope that this will be true for other women because the insane and profound abuses of patriarchy, since birth, are a dictator’s wet dream. No? In Russia they make up mental medical conditions that are used to specifically ‘diagnose’ political prisoners. Rather than just show the power structure for what it is it’s more acceptable to clothe the abuse of individuals in some sort of pseudo socially acceptable fashion.

    So now the pathologising of women’s sexuality where, because we’re not accepting dick enough, we’re unwell. This is taken further when the transcult constantly belts out how women are “transphobes” when they say they’re not interested in fucking men who have a fetish for presenting with dicks and breasts. Always with the dicks thing.

    Mens’ dicks are so much more important than our experiences of rape and dehumanisation to the point that they make sure they get into every nook and cranny of our heads to make us feel woefully inadequate for not fucking them enough. My experiences in rape and other forms of sexual abuse came at the hands of strangers and familiar men.

    Why can’t I just decide I’m not interested in willingly taking in somebody’s fuck stick after having those damn things unwillingly shoved into my body, getting me pregnant, giving me STD’s/STI’s? There’s something wrong with me for that bollocks? Rape kits sit idly by in warehouses for decades, there aren’t any real rape counselling services out there. Somehow it’s my responsibility to try to get on in life and function as a cog in a giant machine. A machine that chews us up and spits us out into various destroyed lumps of meat along the path of a system designed to make sure men are on top and get their cocks seen to? Nah, no thanks, mate.

    How about my single mum having to prostitute herself so that I could be okay growing up even though we never had enough food around the house? Never enough clothes to wear when winter came? How about me having to turn to prostitution myself for the same reasons? How about my step-father trying to pimp me off? How about that poor woman I saw at the end of some rap video who had a beer bottle shoved up her vagina for the camera?

    So a whole external system of dictatorship, that becomes heavily internalised, is now going to pathologise women who don’t fuck men enough. I hope any women in the APA who read this get a grip on reality and work to change this sort of rubbish. Everything listed in the DSM for why women aren’t fucking dick is attributable to something real and doesn’t need a dick for those issues to be sorted out, if they’re even issues at all!

    Thank you so very much, again, PurpleSageFem for helping this craggy dinosaur put more of the 2 & 2 together. I hope I contribute to the collective rage and action that is happening at a time when patriarchy’s erasure of biological women as human beings is in full swing. It was a woman who showed me what a clitoris was, a woman who showed me what a clitoris was for, it was women who educated me in a myriad of ways to stand up for myself, it was a woman who took away all the pain and shame I suffered from all the rape and sexual abuses. And you showed me just how insane society is by pathologising what is mine and mine alone, what is ours as biological women.

    Thanks, men, for nothing!

    I’d like to end my long ranty post with a link to an interesting article that parallels what PurpleSageFem has brought up. I am in no way trying to drive traffic away from PurpleSageFem, or detract, I merely thought that this thought piece slotted perfectly in with PurpleSageFem’s series on women’s sexuality:

    (They should have entitled the article: Damned if We Do, Damned if We Don’t!)

    All the best of all of us. We deserve that!

    Liked by 4 people

  9. Yeah, that’s kind of strange what Dirt said, I’ve been attracted to women since I was 9 (the time I found out about sex), never been with a man before, have close platonic male friends and a good relationship with male family members (my twin brother), but there’s still a lot of things about males I dislike, and yes, the idea of being in a relationship with one is abhorrent to me. An example of a 100% lesbian who has dislikes of men independent of my lifelong sexual orientation.

    And no, OP does not sound like a “pretend lesbian.” Not all lesbians are lucky enough to embrace or become aware of their sexuality as early as lesbians like me did, and I would not have a problem with being in a relationship with a lesbian like that.

    Liked by 2 people

  10. Pingback: The Gay Unknown, Part 3: Sexuali-tea | This Soft Space

  11. Pingback: The modern version of “women just need a good fuck.” | The Prime Directive

  12. I agree that probably some of this issue is around men… but even so, I think there could be a lot of reasons why women will still want to ‘overcome’ this, even if it means listening to their bodies less. Kind of like there is KY at the store, people whether it is always best or not, ultimately want control over their own bodies.
    If for instance a woman is now in a safe* relationship with someone she loves, and wants the other person to not feel rejected, and yes it is putting the man above a woman’s needs. But I think there are just different relationships with different emphasis’s and that to me is okay.
    As far as not being attracted to a man period, well likely I would imagine that over time a woman will realize this enough anyway, that the man wasn’t doing it for her, that I think it would be okay.
    But as I said, I think you also make legitimate points.


  13. “Neither the DSM nor the vaginismus website mentions the possibility that the woman could be homosexual.”
    That’s such a disgraceful omission, thanks for bringing it to light. I’d like to add that asexuality isn’t mentioned either. She could even be a hetero or biromantic asexual – attracted to men romantically but not sexually, or other orientation.

    I do agree with this piece and think your angle is exactly right (there’s far too much ‘just try to get over it’ stuff written already), but trauma reactions are kind of tricky, though. I have trauma, panic disorder, the way my body reacts to stuff is genuinely screwy and may have zilch to do with how I’m feeling mentally. I can be feeling completely fine, cheerful even, and get hit with ‘ah, danger, everybody panic!’ out of the blue, I don’t like to encourage the mind/body dichotomy but it truly feels as though the panic has nothing much to with me. So I’m willing to buy that a woman who was attracted to males sexually and had maybe enjoyed sex with them in the past might view vaginismus as something she wanted to overcome/learn to manage.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s