What it's actually like to experience a trans-vaginal ultrasound

There are all these ridiculous new movements, and in some cases actual laws, to force women to get a transvaginal ultrasound before an abortion, even when it's not medically required.  Some people have responded to it by saying that if women don't want to see the images, they can close their eyes, and others have said that if women don't want an ultrasound wand in their vagina, they shouldn't have put anything else (PENIS!) in their vagina.  These responses seem to be missing the point that, in situations where it isn't medically required, it basically exists to function as an additional uncomfortable, unpleasant punishment.  Equating the wand to a penis is especially odd, since dicks and hard plastic ultrasound wants don't actually have a lot in common.

But the main idea seems to be that women who have sex shouldn't mind having something else shoved up their vag.  I'm actually surprised I haven't seen it compared to a dildo yet, since they have similar general shapes, but that comparison would fail too, especially since the vast majority of women who use masturbation aids use external vibrators, rather than internal vibrators or dildos (their are actually statistics on this out there if someone wants to go hunt them up, but I'm not exactly in the mood to wade through the kind of search results that query would get).

The main thing is, though, that a transvaginal ultrasound is fundamentally different from sex.  During sex, if a "normally" functioning woman is interested, her vagina actually lengthens, lubes up some, and widens.  Penises are rigid, but also bendy.  Time and angles can be navigated to provide pleasure, or diminish discomfort.  In a transvaginal ultrasound, you're probably not aroused, so the vag is going to stay its typical, unwelcoming size.  The wand is going to be hard plastic with no bend and no give.  And rather than working for comfortable, pleasing angles, the thing gets purposefully moved around and held in positions that, well, can hurt an awful lot and be just plain uncomfortable when they don't hurt.

This isn't speculation.  I had to have a transvaginal ultrasound a couple of years back as part of a diagnostic procedure, because it really can see what's all up in your abdominal cavity business.  And it hurt and was unpleasant, and was basically way awful.  It helped that the technician was super kind and tried to be gentle, but still.  To get some of the pictures she was needed, it involved a lot of super unpleasant maneuvering and felt even more vulnerable than a regular gyno visit.  It wasn't the worse pain I've ever felt, and I wouldn't rank it up as one of the worst parts of my life, but if someone told me that I had to have one when it wasn't even medically necessary, to try and make me reconsider my previously made health decisions, when it wouldn't truly add any new information to my decision-- God, I'd be furious.  It is not a pleasant procedure, and it is not some little inconsequential thing.  It is painful and unpleasant and when it isn't medically necessary it's useless.  I can't see how requiring women to have a transvaginal ultrasound before an abortion is anything other than a punishment, meant to discomfort, shame, humiliate, and possibly hurt women.  She already knows what's in there. That's why she's getting the abortion.  What purpose does showing her a grainy image, indistinguishable from a stock image actually serve?

Sex Advice Columns, and the Altar of the Orgasm

There is no right way to have sex. The only wrong way to have sex is when there is a lack of consent or capacity to consent. And there is no right way to conclude sex, either. No result which must be present. No script which must be followed. No specific actions necessary.

Which is why I get so incredibly upset at the advice some sex columns give. I know I've read similarly dismissive, condescending, or just plain off-topic columns from other writers before, but the latest in the mother/daughter Susie and Aretha Bright series over at Jezebel has set me off afresh. In part because, as some commenters pointed out, they don't really seem to pay attention to the attitude of the writers, or give advice that addresses the actual question.

But mainly, its because their response to a woman who is having anorgasmic sex and who wants to know how to go about telling her partner she's been faking it is that she is mistaken about her own enjoyment of the sex. That's right-- these two women (or one girl and one woman-- I have a hard time considering a dependant 19 year old in college to really be a "Woman" since it implies a certain attitude and responsibility, not just a certain age) think they know more about her experiences of sex than she does herself. Based on one letter. From a woman they've never met.

I'm sorry, but what?

Aretha questions why the letter, and so many others, begin with the author saying she has " great, wonderful, passionate sex!" My guess would be that the author of the letter wants to make sure the columnists know that the sex itself isn't the problem-- she doesn't ask a direct question, but its clear from her letter that her concern is that the lying is undermining the relationship.

Instead, Susie Bright takes another angle, and talks about the woman's lack of orgasms during sex:

"You think you're going to be happy this way for the rest of your life? No. You've been rationalizing and trying to "make do.""

Um, what? Look, its great to consider other possible issues that could be affecting the relationship-- and if they addressed that she might possibly be unhappy not having orgasms during sex, that would be one thing. But they didn't. Susie Bright made a blanket statement that essentially says that, because this woman isn't coming, she cannot stay happy with her sex life.

One of my big pet peeves is people worshipping at the altar of the almighty orgasms. It's up there with people who think straight sex is the only right sex, or that anal is the only right sex, or that oral always has to be tit-for-tat, or that everyone should give polyamory a try or that no one should give polyamory a try. Wait a minute... those all have a common theme. Oh! I get it! I don't like when people talk about sex in absolutes, and say that one certain method/outcome/style of sex is the right way to have sex! And it seems pretty damn clear that Susie Bright is advocating that the right way to have sex, is sex that has an orgasm in it.

There's a problem in that. There's.... actually, a pretty big problem in that. Not all people are capable of orgasm. What was that? Not everyone can come? But surely that just means that the partner is doing it wrong, or they're too tense, or they aren't kinky enough, or the need more sleep, or--

No.

Not everyone can come. Even when people can come, some people can only come from specific types of physical stimulations-- a vibrator, for example. Or some people can only come after a specific amount of time-- a half hour of focused stimulation, maybe. And for some people, even though orgasms are enjoyable, the effort that it takes to get there makes the enjoyment not worth the annoyance. There are plenty of people out there who find sex to be totally enjoyable without orgasm-- female and male, though its more common for a woman not to be able to come than it is a man-- something to do with the way our anatomy is arranged, I'd wager.

I absolutely hate when sex columnists tell their readers, essentially, that something is wrong with them-- and over something they can't really control, or don't want to change. Especially over something that is causing harm to no one, and something they might not have been troubled with before. If you have an enjoyable sex life, you shouldn't be ripped down because its missing some element that someone else finds essential for their sex life. You shouldn't be sending your readers the message that they, or their relationships, are defective-- they've probably gotten that from partners in the past. No matter how open you are, you should remember that this is a touchy area, and come at it with an attitude of openness, compassion, and a desire to really address the questions your reader asks, rather than giving them a lecture on something tangential.

The substance may be different, but the spirit seems the same as moralistic lectures that ask if if she really thinks she's going to be happy continuing to have sinful premarital sex.

If we wouldn't accept one from a sex columnist, why do we accept the other?

(((Some people might respond by asking if I think I could do better, or what I think they should have said, but I'd like to point out that my own abilities as a giver of sexual advice are completely irrelevant-- as someone who has only taken two courses on human sexuality (though I'm super excited about my sex and the law class this fall!), and someone who is only 24, I don't really think I'm qualified to give sex advice to stranger. But these women-- one of whom is 19 I remind you-- are holding themselves out as qualified. And yet, they come up terribly, terribly lacking.)))

[Edit-- the link to the column I'm discussing is here. I intended to link to it originally, but when I was making my edits Jezebel wasn't loading for me, one of my recurring problems. I figured it wasn't a big deal, since I normally have around 10 readers, most of whom I'd discussed the column with earlier in the day. I certainley had not expected to recieve a link from Susie Bright herself! a follow up post will be coming, addressing some of the responses to this post. Aug 9, 2009]

Self Esteem

Self-esteem is a tricky thing. I generally think I have pretty good self-esteem-- I'm reasonably intelligent, reasonably attractive, generally kind, very well read, and curious about the world. I like to think I'm turning into a competent adult-- I keep my apartment relatively clean, make myself healthy meals at least half the time, and actually get up for work even though I set my own hours.

But money... oh, money pulls me down. Not that I don't have a lot-- I'm in law school, no one in law school is anything but poor-- but that what little money I do have, I'm terrible at managing. Looking at my finances today, I discovered that I am once again broke as broke can be. And honestly, there is no reason for me to be this broke. Its purely a case of mismanaging my funds, of not keeping track of my spending, or being irresponsible.

And that? makes me feel like a child. A terrible, worthless, irredeemable child. Consciously, I know that feeling this way is silly, that I will (eventually, at least!) resolve my financial issues, and that once my loan checks come in in-- what? A little over a month? I will be financially clear until at least the end of next school year. But for now? Even if this problem is fixable with time and, in the grand scheme of things, not very significant-- it is sending me into myself in questioning and doubt and sadness. I'm angry at myself, annoyed at myself, and almost worst of all not even that surprised at myself.

This kind of proof of irresponsibility is damaging, at least short term, to my self esteem. Because despite all the traits I listed up above, and while my self esteem is surely influenced by my looks and accomplishments and intelligence, whatever they all may be-- its most largely based on whether or not I feel I am a competent person. Whether I am able to handle the everyday tasks that everyone has to face. And when I mess up on things that are so everyday, so basic, so necessary-- well, that's a much larger blow to myself esteem than a series of unflattering photos or a bad score on a test could ever be.

Shame on you

Shame does not work as a way to reduce kids having sex. I don't care if it's religion, parents, or society, shame doesn't work. The only time shame does work on people, is when its someone you're trying to impress-- a boss, or peers. And those motivations aren't present at the age we worry about kids having sex.

Even more important-- shaming kids into not having sex is terrible in itself. The way sex is portrayed in society and media is this strange whirling mess of exposition and shame, all mixed together. We tell kids not to have sex, and at the same time, the main things society throws at them for entertainment are tv shows and movies full of teenage sexy times. It's ridiculous, and its shocking that anyone comes out of adolescence with a healthy attitude towards sex and sexuality.

I do think that kids should be taught that sex is something to be respected, and that it is something not to be done too terribly lightly-- but not because of moral reasons. Teach kids to wait to have sex, but tell them accurate information on STDs, pregnancy, and the hormones that crop up after sex. Teach kids about self-respect. Teach kids to respect sex-- for the closeness it can bring in a relationship, for the power dynamics it can create and the ways it can effect pre-existing power dynamics, for the consequences it can have.

But do not teach kids that sex is inherently wrong or shameful.

It isn't.

I come from a Christian background, and consider myself to be Christian-- shocking, I know, to some of my friends who associate Christianity with fundamentalists. But even within a religious setting, sex does not have to be shameful. It can be an expression of love, of enjoyment of our bodies and their capability for pleasure, given to us by a creator. Most people can agree that sexual enjoyment is pretty awesome-- so why feel shame in it? And why pick that, out of all the things in the Bible, to obsess over? I'd probably be more in the spirit of things to feel shame for judging people, than to feel shame for having sex, after all. Just look at the people Christ hung out with!

If you're not coming from a religious background, there's even less reason for sex to be considered shameful. Sure, its one of our more animal impulses-- one of the big F's (fight, flight, feed, fornicate). But simply connecting it to our animal nature doesn't make it any more shameful than sleep, or exercise, or eating. Like anything, it shouldn't be done to excess. But something natural, done for mutual enjoyment, and especially when done as an expression of love? I just don't see the shame in it.

Ok, yes. Sometimes sex is completely unrelated to emotions. And sometimes its all about physical enjoyment. And sometimes people are sluts and have sex indiscriminately. But even that shouldn't be shamed. Slut shaming is just another way for people to feel superior to others-- based on some arbitrary societal rules. I'd like to believe that the shame is purely some animal reaction to fear of STDs-- but even when people know a promiscuous person is practicing safe sex and has no STDs, they still get all judgey. So whatever it stemmed from in the past, its clearly something more now. But what good does this shaming do?

Um.

Oh wait.

It doesn't do any good.

It isn't going to encourage someone to stop sleeping around-- it just encourages them to lie about it. It might change the way someone feels about having sex-- but probably not for the better. If anything, the shame might make them feel that their only worth is in their sexuality, or that they're used up and worthless, or that they don't deserve someone who treats them right.

When we teach kids all these negative connotations for sex and relationships--which is what we are, in fact, teaching them when we shame them-- we are teaching them to accept and to expect to be treated poorly. We are teaching them to undervalue other aspects of their personality and achievements. And we are crippling their future sex lives, and giving them an unhealthy attitude towards sex to take into whatever future permanent relationships they have.

Part of me finds it hilarious that, on a wedding day, people are supposed to magically transition from a mentality of sex-is-bad-and-wrong to one of sex-is-good-must-satisfy-partner-and-make-babies. But as hilarious as it is in concept, in reality? It's just sad.

A follow up: Sex Advice Columns, and the Altar of the Orgasm

I was completely taken aback by the amount of attention my post on Susie and Aretha Bright's sex column got. Some of the responses were interesting, some were provocative, and some were just plain uncalled for. But I'm going to be addressing some of them head on, both responses to my entry, and responses to Susie's link to my entry. Responses that essentially agree with me-- well, they agree with me, there's not much point in addressing them!

"I thought I'd point out that the Bright women didn't find this woman's story on a blog or run into someone on the street and give her their advice, un-asked-for. She wrote in to a sex advice column."

Right. And... my issue with the column wasn't that it gave advice, but the way the advice was given, and what advice was given. I think it was pretty clear from my post that I knew I was talking about a sex advice column.

"Sounds like sour grapes to me. Once you've had one then you recognize that sex without orgasms may be pleasurable, but it's all foreplay to me."

"You have to wonder if Amanda turns off movies before they are over. Or skips the last chapter or two of the books she reads. Hmmmm. Does she herself purposefully avoid orgasm?

A-ha! There's the question! Those women who have no difficulty achieving orgasm, do you ever stop just before an orgasm? Saying to yourself or your partner, "No, that's fine. I think I'll pass on orgasm this time around."
A show of hands?"

Speculations about the sex life of someone you don't know, awesome! For the record, I'm not going to discuss my sex life. What i discuss here is based on women I know(which may or may not include things that affect me), trends I see in culture, and things I've learned in classes or independent research. I was completely taken aback that not one, but two individuals felt it was appropriate to speculate on my sex life in a public forum that I did initially not have access to. My own experiences are irrelevant to the greater point, I think. Besides, I respect the privacy of my boyfriend, and plan to not horrify my parents or give future employers too much information. Plus, the second part of the second quote misses the point-- the woman who wrote in to Susie had difficulty reaching orgasm-- the experiences of a woman who has difficulty reaching orgasm are likely to be inherently different than that of a woman who has no difficulty.

"The only times I've been satisfied with sex without orgasm is when I have had an orgasm earlier in the day. I typically have trouble getting to another one.
Certainly, I am male and there are differences, but I think that there would be a level frustration building in anyone who had orgasm-less sex for two years or more.
A female friend of mine says this, "I feel that an orgasm isn't always necessary. But it would be disappointing to go that way repeatedly.""

This quote explains a matter of personal preference, and is an example of what I think is harmful in this discussion-- assuming that anyone who does not experience sex in the way you do must, by default, become frustrated with it. In answers like this, I see a lack of empathy for the people involved, and a side order of intolerance. There are plenty of people out there willing to talk about their pleasurable history of, and lack of frustration with, anorgasmic sex. If you, personally, need an orgasm to enjoy sex-- by all means, have your orgasm! But don't insist that other people need the same result to feel good.

To everyone who said anything about faking orgasms: I'm a big fan of honesty, and would never recommend someone fake an orgasm. I do think that the fact the writer had been faking for two years is a problem, a BIG one in that relationship. But I do think that, given an understanding enough partner, that hurdle could be overcome, and they could have a dialogue on how to have an honest sex life that fulfills them both, without her feeling the need to fake something she doesn't even care about.

"In the specific case at hand, if the woman had been ok with the situation, she wouldn't have written the letter. Something or other in the situation bothers her. It's not theoretical, it's individual. ((I wonder how Dan Savage would have replied.))"

Well, yeah. Something WAS bothering her. She wanted to talk to her guy about the faking. That's pretty clear. From what I can tell, the lack of orgasms wasn't bothering her, which is why I took issue with the focus on it.

"Actually, I like them there orgasms, and I'm curious as to why someone wouldn't WANT one. Can anyone enlighten, me? Ok maybe it's hard for her to get to that point, but then shouldn't the important thing be trying to get her to that point... not hiding it from someone or faking it to make your partner/yourself feel better? There's so little reliable having-sex-for-pleasure info out there, no wonder there's this compensatory "no-rgasm is ok" attitude. Look, I'm not saying there's something desperately wrong with you if you haven't had one. I'm just saying "What have you tried?!"

Because I don't understand why anyone would avoid one... If you haven't had one, I understand it's a touchy *snicker* subject, but wouldn't you at least be curious?! I'm assuming you've heard good things about the mysterious and legendary orgasm. (I haven't heard any bad things.) Go seek it out! And when you find one, a good one, and you can tell me "meh" then fine.
Worshipping at the orgasm altar? You betcha!"

There are multiple reasons someone might not want one. The most common explanation I've heard is that the activities that get the individual too orgasm are too time consuming, annoying, or boring for them to want to do on a regular basis. They might enjoy sex itself a lot, but sex isn't the right kind of stimulation to get them to come-- and the stimulation that does get them to come might detract from the enjoyment of sex. The orgasm itself may be pleasurable, but that pleasure might not be enough to make it worthwhile to go through all the steps to get there. I don't think the important thing should be getting to orgasm-- I think the important thing should be that both partners have a great time. And if sex without orgasm is more pleasurable than going through the motions to get to the orgasm, then I'm going to advocate that couples have sex for their mutual pleasure.

"Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo -- H. G. Wells

The ranter overlooking a very wide practice in hetrosexuality:
Women who provide and never get orgasms (or pleasure in general) unless they speak up/demand it.
That's like being the f-ing designated driver at every party, even though you enjoy drinking too -- or helping someone paint their house while they watch tv.
Men manage to have their orgasm every time. Women can too, and should, every chance they can ... and stop lying and faking."

Nice quote, but it doesn't apply here. Neither do the analogies. This isn't about women who want an orgasm being deprived of it, its about women getting what they want, and not being judged for it simply because what they want is unconventional. Yes, I ignored women who don't get pleasure unless the speak up-- that's because I was specifically addressing women who get pleasure without an orgasm, and are perfectly happy with their lack of orgasm. To fix the analogy, instead of being the DD at the party, they skipped the party entirely, and went out for a steak dinner and luscious cocktails, taking a cab home. Different kind of evening, different kind of pleasure, but you can't really argue that one is better than the other.

Oh, and as to men? Not all men have orgasms every time. Its certainly easier for them to have orgasms than women, due to how things are set up, but men don't always come-- and some men even fake it. (easily done if they're using a condom) Though faking, of course, isn't good for either party to do.

"it's one thing if a woman sometimes does not have an orgasm but has otherwise fulfilling sex, but if a woman is mostly non-orgasmic, i think it IS a problem. and to dismiss it as a matter of lifestyle choice appears to be denial to me."

But whose problem is it? It isn't a problem to the woman who is having an enjoyable fulfilling sex life-- so is it a problem to you? If so, why? And what is it denial of? Is it better for a woman to feel frustrated and broken, as if something is wrong with her, because she can only occasionally achieve orgasm, and then after much effort that reduces the pleasure of sex? Is it better for a woman to have a lower sex drive because she doesn't want to have sex only to discover that she has "failed" again? Is it better for a woman to think she is defective because she enjoys sex, but can't get off? I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if someone is enjoying sex, then that's good. Regardless of whether or not their sex practices fit into the norm.

this one is from Susie herself: "I have tried to think what the hard consequences would be of indifference to orgasm over the long haul. It seems to me it would be difficult in a long term relationship... after years and years, the interest in pleasing the other all the time would wane, and if affection sufficed, you wouldn't even want to put on a show. I'd think it be hard to find a match. "

It taps into what I think one of the issues of misunderstanding is: the idea that a woman who doesn't orgasm is just focused on pleasing the other person all the time, and not pleasing herself. An anorgasmic woman can put just as much focus on pleasing herself as she does her partner, if not more, and simply because she does not have an orgasm does not mean she is not being fulfilled.

"This sort of critique would make more sense in a world where there wasn't strong pressure on women to "perform" sex for men in a way that made it unpleasurable for women, mostly because we're too busy checking to make sure our ass is attractive to ask, "What feels good?" God forbid that we have equality in the bedroom! I just don't buy this mentality. Sex that's all about the man's pleasure is so limited. /rant"

I guess one of the other issues is that I came into my post with the presumption that men and women are equal in the bedroom, and that women aren't performing sex for the men, but that they are instead intent on pleasure-- for both parties. Maybe this is a generational issue-- regardless of ability to orgasm, none of the chicks I know have sex that is all about the man's pleasure. The girls I know are all about getting whatever enjoyment they want out of sex.

"I think that for some of us, the ability to have an orgasm is directly linked to how much trust & intimacy we feel with our partners.

Sex without orgasm can, indeed be very pleasurable...but sex with the level of trust & intimacy required to allow an orgasm is astonishing - and it's the kind of thing that, once experienced, most people will seek out again and again.
It seems clear to me that someone who has been lying to their partner for years about orgasm does not have very much trust or intimacy in their relationship. And maybe they have never been in a relationship that has that, and so believes that's just the way the world is.
I can see, with this set of circumstances, how someone would want to normalize the view of orgasmless sex as a lifestyle, but I think that they are hiding some deeper issues from themselves, and that this wish for normalization is just a part of that."

I think this response just displays a lack of understanding and empathy for people with other outlooks. Orgasms do not magically come from trust an intimacy. If they did, a lot more anorgasmic women would be having them, as well as a lot more orgasmic women not having them. Trust and intimacy play into it, sure, but so do physical sensation and biology. There's actually a genetic influence on orgasmic experience-- thanks, London researchers (Dunn, Kate M., Cherkas, Lynn F., and Spector, Tim D.)! From the abstract to their study: "A significant genetic influence was seen with an estimated heritability for difficulty reaching orgasm during intercourse of 34% (95% confidence interval 27–40%) and 45% (95% confidence interval 38–52%) for orgasm during masturbation." So, its not all in the mood, or the moment, or the trust. There is some biological basis here too.

And finally, there were a number of comments implying that if she had been lying about orgasms to her partner, then she was probably lying about her ability to orgasm to the Brights/herself, or didn't really know what an orgasm was. She said she orgasms. She probably knows what an orgasm is. She also has no motive to lie to the Brights about it-- she's coming clean about her past lying, trying to lay everything out, what possible motivation would she have to keep one lie in place? I'm inclined to believe her on that point-- and also inclined to believe that she does know what an orgasm is, and can tell when she is and is not having one.

I hate, hate, hate when people go on about privilege, but-- well-- I'm about to be one of them. Take your orgasm privilege and shove it. Having orgasms doesn't mean your sex is better.

My original entry is here, The Brights' original column is here, and the majority of the response comments are from this thread of facebook.

No Thanks

I usually save my anger for things in society that are insulting to women, but this time I'm pissed because of something that's insulting to men.

Wedding websites.

Even though JD and I aren't truly ready to get into planning our wedding yet, what with not yet knowing what state we'll be in or what jobs we'll be working, I've started poking around on wedding websites. And... it seems that most of them, at least, are aimed at brides. Plus, since my relationship status changed on facebook, I've been bombarded with a series of incredibly similar incredibly offensive ads for even more wedding planning sites.

They all seem to assume that grooms are not invested in their wedding. The sites and ads paint this picture of a lazy groom who doesn't care about anything, and who won't help the bride out in planning unless he's forced. I find that depiction to be just... insulting to men. As insulting as the Bridezilla depiction is to women. Sure, a guy may not care that much about centerpieces, or menus, or... whatever. But a chick might not care that much either! In my case, I think that while we do care about the look of things, neither of us are going to care too much about the aesthetics-- we just want to be married! But JD and I will be equal partners in the planning.

I just dislike the assumption that men will be lazy, careless, thoughtless, avoidant. It seems like so much of the pop culture idea of a marriage is two wildly unsuited for each other individuals, him reluctantly committing, and her gleefully committing more because she wants a wedding than because she wants to spend her life with him. It almost seems as if the ads and sites assume that, to some extent, we're all like that-- and it is just so. offensive. Why would anyone marry a man who doesn't want to spend his life with his partner? And why would anyone marry a woman who cares more about a dress and some flowers than she does her partner? And why oh why does gendered advertising have to be so blatant and insulting-- to both your market, and the ones they love?

Pron

I spent part of the day yesterday hovering in the comments on a Jezebel.com article on porn, reading about how some women view porn and the problems they have with it. The prevailing viewpoint was that porn is harmful, in that it alters the way men view and interact with women-- not in that they expect women to look like porn stars, but in that they expect them to have sex like a porn star, or that watching porn somehow leads to a lack of respect for women in general.

I disagree.

When men lack respect for women, or treat women badly in bed, it isn't the fault of the porn-- it's the fault of the man. I'm not saying porn has no effect on men. I think it could expose them to a wider range of sexual activity, make them more tolerant of kinks, and yes, possibly even lead them to think some behaviors and attitudes are more common than they actually are. But when things go wrong, even if porn does have an influence, the problem is not the porn itself. It is the person, and how the person relates to their influences. People need to be able to treat all others as individuals-- and realize that you can't blame one influence for the result.

I think that porn, overall, can be a valuable thing-- it allows people to experience their kinks on their own, it enhances masturbation (which is valuable for those who can't get sex partners, as well as those in long distance relationships), and it allows them to have a sexual experience without a partner.

But so many people seem to think that watching porn is responsible for sexual attitudes. I'm not going to deny that it has some influence. But really, watching a video cannot be blamed for a romantic partner becoming less intimate with you, or treating you negatively, or.... some other issue.

It all comes down, as far as I'm concerned, to the lack of communication, and a lack of involvement. If your partner is asking for new things, or things you consider strange-- ask why! If your partner is treating you with less respect-- talk about it! It your partner seems unsatisfied with your sex life-- talk about it. I guarantee that adding a healthy does of communication will do more to fix relationships--and attitudes towards sexuality and women-- than eliminating porn would.

Speculation is for suckers

One of the interesting things I've noticed on the internet is that, whether you're talking about sex in your own blog, or in the comments of some other site, people seem to think that whenever you say something about sex, it means that your own sex lie is up for speculation, questioning, and insults.

I so, so, do not agree with this attitude. I'd love for people to be able to talk about sex and sexuality openly, with no shame on either side. But... that seems likes it's not going to happen. Whenever people disagree on issues of sexuality, someone always comes out and says that someone on the other side just needs to get laid, or find a better partner, or have some other kind of orgasm. People immediately jump to the most cutting insults they can think of-- reducing someone to simply being a failure at sex, and therefore putting their role as a sexual object above any other trait they have. Sex is important-- one of the top three things couples fight about-- but the sex life of someone you're not involved with has nothing to do with you. And it should never be used as a tool to shame someone.

Talking about sex, blogging about sex, does not give anyone a right to speculate on your sex life. People on the internet are not the same thing as people you meet in real life-- they don't have the same context, they don't have the same background information, and they don't know what's going on. It would be a great world if eventually everyone could talk openly about their sex lives-- but as long as some people use even the slightest bit of sex info as a weapon, than sex isn't really a safe topic on the Internet.

I love talking about sexual health and sexuality, and the range of human experiences. But even without discussing my own sex life, I've managed to get insulting comments as the reactions to my posts (Mostly on a link to my blog from another source-- that I'm NOT going to give traffic to because, while the author is someone I respect, her commentors in that case are very much not), comments that cross the line into people speculating on and judging my sex life. It's a dangerous, misogynistic world out there on the Internet.

The horrifying part of it is the number of comments that come from other women and from individuals who claim to be feminists and sex positive/ I expect it from the readers of trashy sites. But it's horrifying to see it on feminist sites from people who should know better.

SERIOUSLY????

Oh. Oh my. Oh man.

There are ways to make me angry-- and then there are ways to make me disgusted-- but this? I does both.

My friend Jenny led me to this link: When Getting Beaten By Your Husband is a Pre-Existing Condition. When I saw the title, I thought "well, obviously, it can't be serious, domestic abuse wouldn't count as a pre-existing condition, it's not a disease and its the result of someone else's actions.

But then I read the HuffPo article. And it is exactly what it sounds like. Not every insurance policy has being a victim of domestic abuse as a pre-existing condition-- but at least seven of them allow it. That is, if you are a woman (or a man) who has been abused by a man (or a woman) and you stay in a relationship with that person, it is allowed for you to be charged a higher rate as a result. The HuffPo article points out the obvious logic to it-- women with abusive partners are more likely to be abused again, and thus, need medical treatment; since they statistically cost more, charge them more. But... this is not as easy a situation as this would make it out to be.

Yes, being a victim of abuse is like having an illness-- you don't want it, and you can't escape it, even though you may try to treat it through medicines or self help. But it's also different. This is something the system could fix if we gave more resources to women (and men! but for ease, I'll stick with saying women) who are abused. This is a time when our tax dollars could go to a good cause-- helping women escape their situation, have a shelter until they find work, and have therapy so they don't go back.

This is affecting me especially strongly because it hits close to home. One of my close college friends has dealt with domestic abuse, and is currently in the process of leaving her abuser and forging out on her own-- and there is not a great wealth of social services available to help her with this; she's had to move back with her parents to make this possible, and she has a job that makes some money, which helps. But for many abused women, there are no parents willing to help, and there is no job to help support them-- and even if there had been, there is likely no savings they can access. Men who are physically violent are often controlling in other ways, which often includes control of finances-- either not letting a woman work at all, or having her paycheck direct-deposited into an account he controls.

Also, getting a woman who has been abused to admit to that abuse is hard-- so if its on the record, making that record hurt her is the last thing we need, if we want to help people-- and I know insurance companies are corporations, not charities, but I believe that even corporations should have some ethical guidelines.

I guess what I'm basically saying is-- abuse should not be treated as a pre-existing condition. Women who deal with abuse have to deal with mistreatment from their partner and the legal system. And now I find out the insurance system would like to make it even harder for these women to tell their stories-- which ultimately makes it harder to leave. Because that's the other shitty part of domestic abuse-- psychologically, most of these women can't leave their abuser, at least not on the first-- what, ten or more?-- tries. You may not understand it, but there is some serious mental stuff that goes on-- more than i can get into here-- and the system itself is failing women whenever it refuses to acknowledge that.

Distance

JD has been back from New Hampshire for a week now. Gotta say, I'm totally pleased with this. I missed him a lot this summer-- even with him coming back every weekend, I missed him. A lot. it was almost ridiculous, and made me question my tough independent self-sufficient street cred. Buuut, then I realized the street cred never existed except in my own mind, so I got over over.

But distance was hard. I spent most of my summer evenings alone in my apartment, on line, in books, or watching TV. Most nights, I talked to him on aim while we did whatever in our own spaces. It was excellent talking to him every day, but its even more excellent talking to him in person every day, seeing his face, hearing his voice, and feeling his skin.

I have never missed anyone the way I missed him, especially over such short periods of time. Being with him enables me to be more completely me, totally myself. Calm, safe, happy-- and a bit of a spaz. I think we really bring out the best in each other. The distance was hard.

And it made me think more about distance in general-- distance in relationships, friendships, families. I will probably not ever have to be distant from JD for long periods of time, but I am physically distant from my family and many of my friends. It's hard to maintain close relationships from a distance-- easy to maintain them with my family, sure, but so much harder with friends. I miss my friends from college, but I'm bad at keeping in touch-- I don't reach out as much as I should, and I don't hear a lot from a lot of friends. Maybe they're just like me, bad at keeping in touch-- or maybe they don't care to keep in touch. You never know-- just as you never know even when you see them every day, whether people really like you, or whether its all just a matter of convenience. Distance makes it easy to cut out the people you don't like, and hard to keep in contact with the ones you do-- I talk to only one of my college friends on a daily basis. I try to send emails to the other ones, and occasionally IM the ones that are online, but I'm honestly just so lame about it all, that it doesn't surprise me when they don't respond.

In less than a year, I'll have physical distance from yet another group of friends. Hopefully this time I'll be a little better at staying in touch-- or hell, even get back in touch with college friends-- roommates and sorority sisters who I used to talk to constantly.

But still, the question lingers-- is it distance that makes maintaining the friendships hard, or am I simply a bad friend?

I didn't realize until now that a wedding gift could be offensive

We received today a wedding present from an older couple who were invited to the wedding, but not able to attend.  The present consists of a generous gift card, and a book.

The book is Unplanned, by Abby Johnson.  It's "The dramatic true story of a former Planned Parenthood leader's eye-opening journey across the life line".  Abby Johnson, as you may recall, made national news when she quit her job as a director of a Texas Planned Parenthood.  Citing sudden religious conviction and a new realization about how abortion worked.

They thought I "might find the book interesting, in light of our conversation" at our engagement party about my goals to work for a pro-choice non-profit-- in my dream world, Planned Parenthood, and that "Often an evil is made to look like a good, as was the case in the author's personal experience".

I would find the book an odd and inappropriate gift if they had not known about my personal politics and feelings, but the fact that they did know makes it not only inappropriate, but offensive.  It's like a very personal attack, in a way-- implying that my life goals and beliefs are evil.  I know, as JD mentioned, that they are probably doing this is some misguided effort to save my soul, but we're moving to the city they live in.  There are more effective and appropriate ways of challenging someone's views then sending them something like this as a wedding present and implying you think their path is one of evil.  It's rude and unkind and not a loving action.

I have no desire to read the book.  I read some things in the news when she resigned, saw how her story seemed a little... off (How can someone be a director of PP and not know how abortion works?  Or have never seen an ultrasound?)

Abortion is a necessary medical procedure for many women.  It is important, and while I would love for the number of abortions to be reduced through greater access and affordability of birth control and greater access to sex ed, the availability of abortion must be protected, for the sake of women's health.  I've never had an abortion, or even a pregnancy scare, so it isn't an issue that has directly affected me in the ways it has so many others, but it is so, so important, and I will fight to keep abortion safe, legal, and available for women who need it.

I just don't even know what to say.

I guess this is my first Oklahoma culture shock (even though I know they are not representative of most Oklahomans, or even any of the other Oklahomans I have met.)

So, a pick up artist has allegedly shot a woman in the face

So, a man called Gunwitch, who is internet famous for running a pick-up artist site has allegedly shot a woman in the face.*  My first reaction to reading about this was to be… horrified, but not extremely surprised.  Which is so, so cynical—but if you ever stop by pick-up or “game” blogs, you quickly realize that most of the guys who are well known in those circles project seriously hateful, dismissive, and entitled attitudes towards women, and that a lot of the attitude that gets spoken about is a mindset where women’s only worth is found in their fuckability—women are discussed as objects to gain access to, whose feelings, desires, and humanity are nothing compared to a guy’s desire to get laid.  It’s disturbing.

I have to think that most guys who read those sites are probably not that messed up though, because otherwise, it’s just sad.  A lot of the men who read pick-up sites are probably just insecure and bad with women—and if all the sites taught men was how to be their best selves, I wouldn’t have a problem with them.  But they don’t, and the men who spend a lot of time on those sites come off as terrible human beings.  Their tactics seem aimed at focusing on women with low self esteem or reducing a woman’s self esteem, on lying about themself, on projecting threat, and on physically getting her away from her friends.  Gunwitch’s pickup strategies seem to be focused on threat—escalating physical contact, projecting animal sexuality (which—what does that even mean?  It seems to mean, treat her like an object you own), and ignoring any body cues or language that a normal human being would interpret to mean stop.  His catchphrase seems to be “make the ho say no”—an idea that a man shouldn’t leave a woman alone until she flat out directly refuses him.  In American culture, at least, women are taught from the time we’re girls that we’re supposed to be “nice”, that we shouldn’t flatly turn guys down because it will hurt their fragile egos, and that we need to sort of finagle are way out of being hit on.  Problem is, if you’re stuck in a corner while some guy keeps putting his hands on you, and you’re trying to get out while saying “I really don’t think this is a good idea” or trying to put him off with a phone number so that you can politely ignore him later without the direct esteem blow—well, this guy’s advice is for men to ignore all that and just touch her more.  Until she either actually says not, or just stops trying to escape.

I can totally see a woman stopping her escape attempts in this situation, not because she’s been seduced, but because the man is acting so outside of the normal bounds of human behavior that she’s afraid he’ll become violent if she doesn’t just shut up.  And sure, that might not lead to sex, but it’s going to lead to her dealing with a lot more touching than her comfort zone is ok with.  Plus, we all know that not all guys interpret no to mean no—I remember running around a club one night in college, trying to avoid a man who kept groping me, even after I’d told him thatn o, I did not want him touching me and no, I had no interest in him whatsoever.

So with all that—I find Gunwitch’s methods to be horribly creepy and morally deficient. But the phrase “make the ho say no” has another problem—ho.

It seems that a lot of men in the pick-up (and men’s rights) community view all women as—or at least, all American women—as morally devoid sluts… who still need to be seduced to get them into bed. (There is a blog post somewhere on the ridiculousness of this doublebind.  I thought it was on Figleaf’s blog, but can’t find it.  You should check out his blog anyway.)

I know, the two concepts don’t make much sense together.  The amount of cognitive dissonance going on in some people’s heads must be staggering.  And it will seem really odd if, like me, the men you know in real life are all good human beings who treat women like people and yet who still manage to have self respect and earn the respect of others.  But the truth remains—there are women who go out to bars or other locations, who live relatively chaste lives, and who are not going to go home with some random PUA no matter what his “game” is like.  There are also women who go out to bars looking for someone to go home with—and who might go home with a PUA, not because he has good “game”, but because he happened to be there and interested, and not too bad looking at the right time.  Pick-up treats women as if we’re all the same creature though, and as if we’re all able to be manipulated in the same easy X number of steps.

But a lot of guys will admit that pick-up is really just mostly a numbers game.  Which means that the pick up itself, for most people, is probably not what’s getting them laid—the fact that they asked ten women, and found one of two or three in the bar who was already looking to get laid is.  (Sidenote: I think it’s interesting how many guys in pickup talk about the “number close”, where they get a woman’s phone number.  When I was single, giving the phone number was usually a good way to get a guy to leave me alone when he wouldn’t listen to me telling him I wasn’t interested.  Then when you get a chance, change his name in your phone to “Do Not Answer”.  You’ve already told him you aren’t interested, and since he’s begged for your phone number “in case you change your mind”, he’ll be able to tell that you…. Haven’t changed your mind)

So yes,  I’m horrified, and honestly surprised that a pick-up artist actually (allegedly) shot a woman, even though my first instinct was to not be surprised.  But in a way, it makes a sick kind of sense—if you’re part of a culture that views women as only good for sex, and you are in fact someone who teaches others how to dehumanize women, then it makes sense that eventually you might internalize it to the extant that you end up shooting a woman.  I don’t know that the shooting was intentional, of course—other’s have pointed out that in his most recent videos, Gunwitch seemed mentally unstable, and managed to shoot a bullet into his wall with a gun he thought was unloaded.  Even if he was just trying to be cool and do an idiotic form of show and tell, he’s still responsible for shooting her in the face.  I’m just saying that, at this point, shooting a woman in the face is a disturbing, but slightly logical, extension of some of the thought in pickup blogs that treats women as interchangeable and less than human.

*Because I’m not a court of law, or even a lawyer, I’m going to say that I think he’s very likely to be guilty.  Because, contrary to some people’s understandings, innocent until proven guilty doesn’t mean that individuals can’t have their own opinion as to someone’s guilt or innocence.  So no, I don’t know that he shot her in the face.  But I think, given what’s been reported, that he probably did.

Sex Offenders in Church

Apparently there's been some discussion on whether or not sex offenders should be allowed free access to churches, rating an article in Time, and even discussion in court cases-- but I heard about it in an article at Jezebel.

My reaction to this is basically to wonder how there is even a question here.  Yes, I'm very much against sexual assault, and don't think someone who assaults someone else should just be able to go back to their life as if nothing happened-- but not all sex offenses are actually harmful (public urination, statutory rape committed by a teen to hir close-in-age significant other), and I believe in a deterrence and rehabilitation model of justice, rather than a retributive one.

As both a Christian and a feminist, the double bias is going to show.  But I believe that churches should not only be for those upright citizens who are paragons of virtue.  You shouldn't have to be as "good" of a person as the minister to take part in worship, and you certainly don't have to be blameless to ask God to "lead you not into temptation".   Granted, a large part of church is the community, and adults do have a lot of interaction with children in a church setting-- but unless that adult is a youth group leader or Sunday school teacher, chances are they don't have much one-on-one time with kids.

Note, I also do not think that sex offenders should be ministers (exception-- teenage mutually consenting statutory rape and teenage/college public urination type activities, as long as, you know, that sort of disregard for public spaces didn't stay with them as an adult.).  Ministers should be devoted to living a Godly life in a way that really can't be expected of ordinary people-- that's why it's a calling, instead of just a profession.  That's why they're ministers, instead of parishioners.

But, a regular member of the congregation?  Someone who comes to church to worship in community and who tries to better hirself?  Well, I totally and completely think that sex offenders ought to be allowed to do that, if they're out of jail and living in general society.  And I think that disallowing them, even out of concern for children, is rather unChristian.  Jesus wouldn't shun someone for the crimes ze's committed, and leading people out of lives of sin is supposed to be one of the main functions of churches.

Ugh.  This ties into my problem in general with many modern churches-- the expectation that everyone coming is there to celebrate their own comparatively sinful lives, rather than to unite as sinners who are trying to be good to others and help lift others up.  Part of being Christian is extending love and help to the unloveable, after all.

The Wage Gap and Women's Choices

Some thoughts on the wage gap, women's chocies, and Clay Shirky's A Rant About Women, courtesy of my Feminist Jurisprudence class.

Choice After Death?

A large part of feminism is about the importance of choices-- the importance of making them freely, and the importance of trusting women to make them.  The political discourse usually centers around the choices about what to do regarding a pregnancy-- but really, the relevant choices extend into every aspect of life, and feminism is about letting women have agency and not making important choices for them.

So where do those choices stop?

I saw something today about the idea of opt-out organ donorship rather than opt-in, and some of the reactions were a little surprising to me-- but honestly, they were fairly in line with the ideal of choice. Though I see a dead body as simply a body, some of the Feministe commenters worried that less well off individuals would receive worse treatment under an opt-out policy, and some felt that bodily integrity and choice, even after death, ought to be paramount.

I do see the issues.  There is a large chance that if there is improper behavior it would impact the poor gar more severely than others.  There is also the fact that, if it is an opt out system, people without licenses or state ids would unwittingly be taking part and consenting, merely by existing.

The thing is, to me at least, that once we are dead-- well, choice no longer matters so much.  Or at least, our choice.  After all, we're dead.  Maybe it still matters to our living loved ones, the people we've left behind, but I highly doubt that nay higher power will hold the actions of others against us after we die.  And if my organs or body can do someone else good-- through a transplant, research, or study-- well, that's a hell of a lot better than letting my organic remains be preserved and stuck in the ground.  And I am admittedly biased, in that I have opted in to organ donation, and in that I would like my body to have use after my death-- but this is one case in which I think making people opt out is not that large of a harm.  We're all part of a complex system of living things, and our preserving corpses in the ground is, to me, a strange denial of that fact.  I think that once the consciousness leaves, the body itself becomes just an empty shell-- and as such, if it can give someone else life or promote research-- well, thats a definite positive.