Today in compulsory PIV

Well, this article is just the perfect train wreck full of opportunities for patriarchy-blaming.

As a side note, can I still use the phrase patriarchy-blaming? This is a phrase I learned from my radical feminist sensei (“femsei”?) Twisty Faster, who used to blog at I Blame the Patriarchy back in the day, and who taught me the joyful art of radical feminist blogging. For any of you newbies who weren’t a part of the radical feminist blogosphere five to ten years ago, patriarchy-blaming basically means radical feminist theorizing.

Without further ado, here’s our article:

From the New York Post : Woman Born Without Vagina Raising Money So She Can Have Sex

“The family of a woman born without a vagina has launched a crowdfunding campaign for surgery that would allow her to experience intimacy and live a more normal life.

Her boyfriend of four months, Robbie Limmer, says he doesn’t care about the lack of sex in their relationship.

Moats needs $15,000 for the surgery and the crowdfunding page set up by her sister, Amanda, has already raised $5,720 in two months.

“He doesn’t really focus on the sexual side of our relationship because we can’t do anything since I don’t have a vaginal opening,” she said. “But I am looking forward to having a sexual relationship. I’m not sure if I want to wait until marriage, but I think having that option there is a lot more comforting.

“I’m a bit nervous to have sex for the first time after surgery because I’m not sure if something is going to go wrong down there or if it’s going to hurt,” she said.

Moats says her vagina looks exactly how it should — except that instead of a vaginal opening, there’s a little dimpled skin where the hole should be.

In the video that accompanies the article, she says

“It makes me feel less of a woman because I can’t do what women are supposed to do. They’re supposed to be able to carry children and create a family and have an intimate relationship and I can’t provide that.”

She also says in the video

“It’s very hurtful, the fact that I have to pay $15,000 for the surgery right out of college when I already owe a bunch of student loans. It’s very hard on our family, and hard on me.”

Her mom says:

“They [Insurance companies] won’t cover something like this which is so necessary for a relationship.”

Kaylee Moats has Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome, which means that although she is a genetic female with most of the typical female anatomy, she is missing a uterus, cervix, and vagina.

While we’re on the subject of atypical sex characteristics—yes, they do happen. On rare occasions, some people are born with atypical sex organs. There is no need to deny this but there is also no need to reinterpret this fact in nonsensical ways. Just because a genetic female can be born without a uterus in rare cases, doesn’t mean that fully intact males with typical male bodies can just declare themselves to be “women” because they feel like it. That doesn’t make any goddamned sense.

Anyway, moving right along…

She believes she literally cannot have an intimate relationship without a vagina. The phrase “surgery that would allow her to experience intimacy” is shocking. Since when do you have to have a specific bodily configuration in order to experience intimacy? First of all, intimacy is about more than just sex. She is already capable of having a close personal relationship with another person, of sharing inside jokes, secrets, and private moments together, of knowing another person and allowing herself to be known on a deep level. Secondly, sex is about more than just her partner putting his penis in her vagina. She is already capable of a wide range of fulfilling sexual activity, even without a vagina. This idea that she needs surgery in order to experience intimacy is insane.

The way she defines sex is exactly how patriarchy defines it. She says, “We can’t do anything since I don’t have a vaginal opening.” For fucking serious? You can’t do ANYTHING? You can’t kiss, cuddle, fondle each other, touch either other, or have oral sex? Really? You can’t do any of that? Bullshit. She can already do almost everything there is to do. There’s only one option that’s off the table.

It’s normal, by the way, for one option to be off the table. Lots of people have limits on what they like to do or what they are capable of doing in bed, and that’s not a problem: you do what you like and what you are capable of, considering your limitations, and you enjoy those possibilities. There is no need to try and force yourself to do something that is beyond your interest or ability. What you can already do is fine.

In a patriarchy, where everything is defined in terms of men, and when women are simply objects owned by men, sex is defined as “when a man puts his penis in a thing.” I have a whole blog post on this subject if you’re interested, but basically, sex is defined as something a man does to an object, and the object can be absolutely anything, but men particularly like if their object is a woman because they like the power they have over women, and objectifying women through the sex act gives them the thrill of power and conquest along with their orgasm. Of course, this also comes with the delightful side effect of reminding women of their subordinate status, which men find important too.

When this woman says she “can’t do anything” sexually unless she gets a surgically created hole made where her vagina would normally be, it’s obvious how she is defining sex. She’s not defining it from her own perspective. She’s not defining sex as when she gets things that make her feel good and when she reaches orgasm. Nope, she’s defining sex as when her male partner puts his penis in a thing—that thing being her.

In a study available on Pub Med, it’s reported that women with Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome have normal sexual function, engage in masturbation as frequently as other women, and experience arousal and orgasm as frequently as other women. The only difference is that women with MRKHS experience orgasm only through petting and oral sex, not by penetration.

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. It’s okay to just have manual and oral sex. This is not a problem and it doesn’t need to be fixed. Penetration is not necessary to have a fulfilling sex life. Now, just because I say this, doesn’t mean I’m anti-penetration. Some women really like it, which is totally fine. There is a good reason why women would like vaginal penetration, and that’s because our organ of pleasure, the clitoris, wraps around the vagina. However, if a woman born without this setup gets a surgically created hole, it’s not going to come with this option. She’s not going to get the pleasure that comes with a naturally-occurring vagina, she’s just going to get a pocket for her boyfriend to put his penis in. Getting this surgery does absolutely nothing for her pleasure.

Consider this woman’s options. She can keep her body intact and enjoy the normal sexual function of her external genitals. Or she can have surgery to create a hole for her boyfriend to put his penis in. Any surgery comes with a risk of pain or numbness in the surrounding tissue. Surgery on the genitals can cause you to lose your sexual function. She already has sexual function, but she’s raising $15,000 so that she can have a surgery that will risk taking away the sexual function that she already has.

Moats is male-identified, in the feminist sense of that term. I do not mean “identifies as a male” in terms of transgenderism. I mean that she sees things from a male perspective instead of from her own perspective.

I see things from a woman’s perspective, so I am horrified that she thinks there is anything wrong with her healthy body (she is atypical, but she is not ill!) and that she considers her boyfriend’s ability to fuck her to be more important than her sexual pleasure.

Her boyfriend generously says that he loves her as a person despite her not having a vagina and uterus, which, to be honest, is the bare minimum I would expect from any decent human being, but that still doesn’t stop him from funding her surgery with part of his paycheck.

If my partner didn’t have a vagina, and came to me saying she wanted to spend large amounts of our hard-earned money to get a surgical wound for me to stick things in, I would absolutely not contribute to that. I would tell her that I love her body the way she was born, and that I want her to skip the surgery so she can fully enjoy the body she has. I would tell her that I have no interest in putting things inside a surgical wound, and I would prefer to pleasure her and bring her to orgasm in exactly the ways that she’s already capable.

I think that men are completely capable of feeling the same way. They don’t feel this way, but they can. If they unlearn the ideology of male dominance, they can realize that a fulfilling sexual relationship is not when one person uses the other person as an object, it’s when two people who love each other both enjoy each other’s bodies as is and give each other pleasure in ways that work for them.

Because of the political climate we’re in, I have to add a disclaimer here. Just because it’s normal to be accepting of people with intersex conditions and atypical bodies, doesn’t mean that anyone should be bullied, guilt-tripped, or tricked into having a sexual relationship with a person who doesn’t fit their sexual orientation. Both lesbians and straight men can reasonably be expected to be attracted to women who are genetically female and missing a uterus, but that doesn’t mean we are interested in fully intact males.

Sadly, Moats fully buys into her own oppression. She thinks that she is less of a woman because she cannot provide a vagina for a man to fuck, nor can she provide children for him. This reveals her attitude that a woman’s purpose is to provide a man with a vagina to fuck and to provide a womb to create children. By this definition of womanhood, lesbians and spinsters (and even the average infertile straight woman!) is not a woman.

This is what “defining women by their biology” actually looks like. It means acting as though women are nothing other than vaginas and uteruses for men to use for sex and reproduction. We couldn’t have any other purpose, like, to have careers, to influence people, to fulfill our own dreams, or to do good things in the world. All those activities are for actual people, you know—men.

In the opening of the New York Post article, it says that her surgery would allow her to live a normal life. Does that mean her life is not normal now? A woman’s normal life under patriarchy is being a sex toy and baby incubator for a man. The feminist movement is working to change that. After we overthrow patriarchy, women will define ourselves on our own terms, look at the world through our own eyes, put our needs first in our decision-making, and do what we want to do in life, regardless of what men may think about it.

In case anyone is going to come along with the usual argument against anything feminists say, “Why can’t she do whatever she wants with her Free Choice and Agency and why are you judging her decisions and policing what women do with their bodies that’s not feminism!” let me just answer that right up front.

I am not saying that she should not be allowed to have the surgery. I’m saying that patriarchy creates the conditions in which women decide that being a fuck-hole is more important than being a person, and I’m saying that being a fuck-hole doesn’t benefit us, even though it might occasionally come with superficial, short-term benefits such as attention and praise. What is actually fulfilling, in the long term, is full personhood. Feminist activism should not seek to control women’s choices, it should seek to change the conditions that limit women’s role in society and give us the ability to make more fulfilling choices.

The choice that Moats deserves to be able to make is the choice to value her intact body and sexual function and view herself as a sexual agent in her own right, not as a receptacle for someone else’s use. It’s male supremacist ideology that convinces her not to make that choice. This harmful ideology has got to go.

25 thoughts on “Today in compulsory PIV

  1. So it sounds like she’s got a functioning clitoris and she’s been convinced that she should have a hole cut through it so she can be penetrated. Gosh, what could possibly go wrong?

    Liked by 6 people

  2. I heard about her on a Twitter comment. She has to pay for her surgery because it’s considered ‘cosmetic’ under her insurance, yet trannies’ surgery and meds are covered.

    Also, I don’t know what she expects, but I think she’s gonna be really disappointed. Maybe not at the very beginning, but soon enough. I think she’s been coerced by movies and books, that it’s all fireworks and bands playing, just like a lot of other screwed-up people…

    Liked by 11 people

  3. She said:
    “It makes me feel less of a woman because I can’t do what women are supposed to do. They’re supposed to be able to carry children and create a family and have an intimate relationship and I can’t provide that.”

    This is heartbreaking.

    I’m married, and I no longer have PIV. And my husband doesn’t have a problem with that. Which is good, because I wouldn’t care if he did.

    We still have sex, though. But I guess that most straight women wouldn’t understand how that works or what it involves.

    I can’t even remember when I decided to stop PIV. I know that it was at least a year ago. And I don’t miss it.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Y’know, life is too short doing something you don’t like doing.

      I stopped giving oral to my bf because he never gave, but still expected it.
      To make some kind of point, in front of his friends at the bar, he “joked” about how he wasn’t getting head anymore.

      I broke up with him 15 minutes later, and I can’t help but feel that I won.

      Really, he wasn’t doing anything that I couldn’t do much, much better on my own. *sigh* When did this generation of men get so mediocre? Whatever, life is too short.

      Liked by 7 people

  4. Love what you wrote. It’s about true agency, not the bs agency women supposedly exercise under patriarchy. Reminds me of the very first blog post of yours that I read about healthy sexuality. I wish I could remember what it was called but it was awhile ago. Anyway, keep writing.

    Liked by 5 people

  5. The first story i saw said “born without genitals”. I pictured a Barbie. This is very different. Both of them need to read some books about sex research i guess, they could have a sex life. Maybe laci green vould reach out or something? I watched a documentary about women who never had an orgasm trying out a weird spinal stimulation device to make a button press orgasm. It became obvious that several of the women were ignorant of basic facts of female sexuality, like that its unlikely to cause orgasm to have piv only. The device didn’t work well, btw. A few people got effortless orgasms, but i bet it was weird.

    Like

  6. Phallocentricism rules!!! Men as usual claiming ‘it isn’t real sex unless their dicks are being thrust into vaginas!’ News flash PIV is a reproductive sexual act but don’t tell the boys. Men for centuries have been claiming their male sexual definition of ‘real heterosex’ is the definitive one because women only exist to have mens’ dicks thrusting into their bodies!’

    Men work very very hard at maintaining their phallocentric male supremacist notions of what supposedly constitutes ‘real sex ‘ which is why sadly this woman has internalised men’s lies that she is somehow incomplete because she has Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome.

    ‘Choice for women is only “choice” when women do what men want/demand.’ Irrespective of fact this woman’s male partner claims he isn’t concerned about not being able to engage in PIV, yet he is providing partial funding for her proposed surgery. Remember when women ‘choose not to do what men want’ then suddenly women’s decisions becomes not a ‘choice’ but a violation of what men demand from women!

    Liked by 3 people

  7. Posted in https://www.reddit.com/r/GenderCriticalGuys/comments/6vywnz/today_in_compulsory_piv/ with following comment.
    “Pissed off that I can’t imagine anyone but a radfem lesbian saying this. Why would we (men) want out partners to have invasive partners that will leave them with a fuck pocket, that will take life long care? So they can have sex that does little for them but cause them pain and anxiety?

    Purples right to be be pissed off, because I realise I am in a tiny minority”

    I kind of want to see how “Gender Critical Guys” react. Sort the sheep from the goats.

    Liked by 1 person

      • One doesn’t have to be a lesbian to see how wrong this is. Seriously, one doesn’t even have to be a radfem. Any person not completely brainwashed by patriarchy would see that creating an artificial wound so that a man can stick his penis in it is a very bad idea. I mean, we are not talking about her getting a real vagina here. We are talking about a wound that will close itself if it isn’t penetrated regularly.

        Liked by 2 people

  8. Even more disturbing, I am pretty sure that MKRH females have clitorises. So she is most likely capable of orgasm, ie experiencing the ultimate in purely physical sexual pleasure herself already.

    But in this hell world, what matters is that a female be used as a penetrative receptacle so A MAN can have an orgasm, fill her with sperm, and obtain his Mini Me son(s), and daughters to serve as future male masturbation machines and babymakers. And the sad thing is, most women–as she is–are brainwashed into not only into accepting this fate, but also seeing themselves and other females as no more than sexbots/emotional laborers for men and children/pleasing eye candy/wet nurse/maid. To not fulfill this role, either because it disgusts you or because you don’t possess the requisite part to please hubby’s peen , means you are considered worthless by most of society.

    Note: she even admits to be afraid/apprehensive towards what she KNOWS is the main reason she’s getting a hole installed. She’s obviously talked to other het women who have told her that being pounded by peen is.not just unorgasmic, but also often painful. Yet the cognitive dissonance of women who know this and still spout the b s. that their husbands tell them about how its the most “intimate” thing they can do together. No, more like what gets him off easiest based on the dominating nature of what he’s doing. Ever notice how women’s screams in porn are merely the sound of physical pain? Males get off to this, know it, and het women have to tell themselves lies about “intimacy” in order to not realize that they’ve been sold a lie since girlhood–that first baby doll, that first time they were told they were pretty instead of smart or strong or talented.

    My pipe dream is sex ed that tells girls THE TRUTH about the dangers of PIV and the pleasure gap of that act between males and females. Tell them about cervical cancer, UTIs, the true discomfort of it for some girls, that pregnancy is not a walk in the park and can cause permanent disability and death. Tell them about the clit and make masturbation as acceptable for them as it is for boys. Throw back the curtain of male tactics that will be used to get them to submit to PIV/PIA/PIM. Get them to be ANGRY at boys trying to use them as sexual validation stations. Educate them about male cruelty so there won’t be any more girls killing themselves over boys distributing nude pictures or calling them fat. And punish the shit out of male cruelty when it first surfaces in kindergarten, say.

    I can dream. In summation, I believe that the root of female misery is the societal-encouraged divine right of the penis. Everything else flows from that.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Ack, ignore my first paragraph. Your post made it very clear that she has a functional clitoris. And now she’s going to swap her sexual pleasure to be a man’s f!ck object. I’m sure the sex pozzies would say “it’s her choooiiiice”, but funny how they never comment on how it’s always those who aren’t “penis bearers” who ‘choose’ to do things that enhance penises’ pleasure, often at the expense of their own sexual pleasure (as in this case), dignity, health, self-actualization, or right to be free of physical abuse or pain at the hands of a sexual or “romantic” partner.

      Liked by 3 people

  9. “It makes me feel less of a woman because I can’t do what women are supposed to do. They’re supposed to be able to carry children and create a family and have an intimate relationship and I can’t provide that.”

    This is so depressing.

    Liked by 2 people

  10. This is so sad. I hope she doesn’t manage to collect the money, I admit it. If she does get that surgery, she will not even get the same kind of artificial fuckhole that transwomen get, they will have to cut off parts of her other body parts to construct it as she doesn’t have a penis it could be constructed from.

    It is like something out of a horror movie.

    And she will never be able to have children, anyway. I would understand her wanting to have her own biological children, but that’s not an option for her. She could adopt and have her happy little family without ever having any kind of surgery!

    Feminists have written about how we cannot leave our vaginas at home – this woman can walk the streets without a vagina. And wants to change that. I just cannot understand. It is as if a man born without testicles got surgery to get something that looks like testicles and causes lots of pain if someone kicks it, just to be “normal” or because women prefer men with testicles.
    Why would she make herself more vulnerable, when she gets nothing in exchange for it?

    One can hope the surgeons would be able (and willing) to keep her clitoris intact and put the neovag close enough to it so she can get pleasure from PIV, but really, how likely is that?

    Not to mention the “maintenance” that an artificially created fuckhole needs.

    Liked by 2 people

    • They are using intestinal tissue more now, for men, so I expect that’s what’s involved here.

      I don’t know whether they still use penile tissue in part, in those cases, with men, to try to retain some possibility for sexual arousal.

      In this woman’s case, I still wonder how careful they are planning on being not to damage her clitoris, since they are planning on cutting a hole right through the whole thing. I wonder what the complication rates about *that* are, since this must be an extremely rare surgery. Not like they have docs line up who have performed hundreds of them.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I thought early surgeons used intestinal tissue, but switched to penile and/or scrotal tissue, with supplementary skin grafts, in the 1960s and ’70s.

        Intestinal tissue poses more surgical problems, and more post-surgical risk of an intestinal-vaginal fistula.

        Cultured cheek cells have been proposed too, but that’s some years off.

        Like

  11. Reblogged this on RadFemSpiraling and commented:
    So I want to talk a little more about PIV for several reasons, but mainly because it doesn’t get discussed enough, in my opinion. And I want sex to be defined by women and what we want and need. And then there is the kind of hilarious shitshow that I get when males crycry at me because OHMYGAWD, SHUT UP YOU HARPY, PIV BE OUR GOD GIVEN RIGHT, THO.

    I am still thinking about posting some of their whinefest, because, Jesus, those manbabies be hysterical over radfem critique of PIV. I get the giggles when they get all weepy.

    Anyway, while I am deciding that, please enjoy this post from purplesagefem about a young woman that was born without a vagina and her decision to surgically create one because she is getting married and males must have access to a vagina because they must have a place to put their penis or they spontaneously combust or die at 30 or some other horrible thing that happens because males have to fuck a vagina or else.

    The woman’s story is interesting, purplesage’ s critique is excellent and on point (as usual) and the comments are good, too. I hope you like it as much as I did when it was new.

    Jayne

    Liked by 1 person

  12. I have to say that even though I only get clitoral orgasms, they involve my vagina at the time they happen. As in, that’s contracting and it’s involved in the orgasm. I can’t even fathom being without a vagina because any orgasm would feel completely different.

    But what they’d give her wouldn’t be a vagina. It’d be a hole, and it wouldn’t be responsive the way mine is.

    Also, on a different note, I think that literally all there is to a woman on a biological level is that she’s human, was born with ovaries, and survived puberty. That femaleness denotes only our role in reproduction or what it would be if we reproduced, and nothing else. To me, what patriarchy is doing isn’t so much reducing femaleness to biology–when that is all it is in the first place, a biological state–but saying that reproduction is ALL we’re allowed to do to even be considered sort-of-but-not-really human.

    Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s