feminist blogs

Whoda thunk it? Feminists make better mates. My latest article at nuts4chic goes into more detail about this new study showing how cool it is to hook up with a feminist. I'm surprised the throwback anti-feminist dudes haven't found this study and tried to debase it. To my surprise, the feminist bloggers haven't found this study, either, so I figured I'd let them know about it.

The gist of the study is the following:

Social psychologist Laurie Rudman of Rutgers University found that feminist women were more likely to be in a romantic relationship than other women. Not only that, but a feminist woman's relationship with her man was healthier than average – "better in terms of relationship quality, equality, stability and sexual satisfaction."

Now, head on over to nuts4chic, read my article, and learn in more detail why feminists make better mates.

This judge is a moron.

The judge in this case has refused to allow the alleged victim to say the word "rape" in court. She is also not allowed to say the words "victim" and "assailant". However, the alleged perp and his lawyers are allowed to say "sex" and "intercourse".

This is a rape trial. It is not about "sex" and "intercourse". As usual, he says it was consensual. She says it wasn't.

Here is what the alleged victim has to say about it: "I refuse to call it sex, or any other word that I'm supposed to say, encouraged to say on the stand, because to me that's committing perjury. What happened to me was rape, it was not sex," said Tory Bowen of Nebraska.

This case is infuriating. It's bad enough that women who say they were raped are not believed. Now things seem to be getting worse for them. Rape victims are first assaulted by their attackers, and then they are further assaulted by the court. This sucks.

Forget Botox injections, labiaplasty, and vagina-tightening surgeries. Today's modern woman who wants to plunk down thousands of dollars just so that she is more sexually appealing to men can now get a G-Shot. A G-Shot is collagen injected into the G-spot, making it larger - and presumably easier for the male penis to find. G-Shots bring back the myth of the "better" vaginal orgasm as opposed to the "immature" clitoral orgasm. The G-spot is not even accepted as actually existing, while many women claim that they have one.

Amy at Feministing noticed the same thing I noticed - the testimonials about the G-Shot focused on how much happier the men in their lives were that these women paid about $2,000 for a G-Shot.

“My man is so excited about my G-Shot he can’t wait until I get home from work” and "After the G-Shot® it is simple to direct your partner to your amplified pleasure center.” The quotes seem to imply that women were stressed out and feeling like they were failing their partners by not coming fast enough. (“My G-Spot is always present and ready for action at a moments notice.")

Elizabeth Black included information about the G-Shot in her latest article at nuts4chic. She has just as low an opinion of it as many other women. She talks about several forms of sexual plastic surgery for women. Just how much more do women have to cut and maim themselves before they think their men are happy? And what about their own sexual satisfaction? Sexual surgery seems to focus on separating a woman from her money. It also plays on women's sexual insecurities, and makes women think that a surgical procedure will improve her sex life. Whatever happened to having a thoughtful partner, some massage oil and a vibrator, and a fun attitude while you enjoy sex? No surgical procedure can give you that.

Rapex is a an anti-rape condom developed for women in South Africa. South Africa has the highest rates of rape in the world. The Sydney Morning Herald reported that the South African rate rape is "19 per 100,000 people. Analysts say the total, including unreported rapes, could be nine times higher."

Rapex acts something like vagina dentata. It has little hooks that attach to the rapists penis upon insertion, and it can be removed only via surgery. It is obviously very painful. Bloggers have already noted a similarity between Rapex and a fictional device in the book "Snow Crash".

Rapex is controversial. While some say it's about time something like this was created for women, others have said that Rapex may only anger a rapist, causing him to further harm his victim - even killing her. Anti-rape campaigner Charlene Smith said that Rapex "goes back to the concept of chastity belts" and would incite injured rapists to kill their victims. She also said, "We don't need these nut-case devices by people hoping to make a lot of money out of other women's fear." It's rightly been pointed out that most women are raped by people they know - husbands, boyfriends, acquaintences. However, this product was made mostly for South African women, not western women, and South Africa has its own unique problems with rape.

Rapex doesn't actually prevent rape, because the device only works once the rapists penis is inside his victim's vagina. It also doesn't affect oral or anal rape. While Rapex on the whole seems to be a good idea for South African women, it would be a mistake to place the entire responsibility for rape on women's shoulders. Punishing the rapists, believing victims rather than automatically accusing them of making false rape allegations, as well as educating men regarding the realities of rape should also be undertaken.

Update: Today is International Women's Day. I had forgotten about it, but it turns out that this post is a perfect fit for the day. Since I write about sex, a blog post about women and their enjoyment of sexuality sounded like a perfect fit. Hoodectomies are a very controversial topic - one which fits beautifully with political and feminist blogs. I can see pros and cons regarding hoodectomies.

-----

I was contacted by VibeReview, which wanted to know what I thought of an article on its web site about Clitoridotomy, or Hoodectomy VibeReview's article is written by an anonymous woman who had had a hoodectomy, and she raves about it. VibeReview wanted to know what I thought of the article. I'll have to admit that I had a very visceral reaction against the article when I first read it. All I could see were African girls held down on tables and bleeding while their mothers and aunts hacked away at their labia with dull, unsterlized knives.

Once I calmed down, I took a second look at the article.

Hoodectomy is apparently much different from Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). In FGM, the clitoris and all of the external female genitalia are removed. It is done against the wishes of the woman or child subjected to it. It is also done with crude instruments and without anethesia. According to the World Health Organization, FGM comes in the following forms:

Type I - excision of the prepuce, with or without excision of part or all of the clitoris;
Type II - excision of the clitoris with partial or total excision of the labia minora;
Type III - excision of part or all of the external genitalia and stitching/narrowing of the vaginal opening (infibulation);
Type IV - pricking, piercing or incising of the clitoris and/or labia; stretching of the clitoris and/or labia; cauterization by burning of the clitoris and surrounding tissue; scraping of tissue surrounding the vaginal orifice (angurya cuts) or cutting of the vagina (gishiri cuts); introduction of corrosive substances or herbs into the vagina to cause bleeding or for the purpose of tightening or narrowing it; and any other procedure that falls under the definition given above.

WHO also states that FGM is done for "cultural, religious or other non-therapeutic reasons."

Hoodectomy is apparently different from FGM. It's cosmetic, and done willingly by adult women, mostly in Western countries. A hoodectomy is "the surgical removal of the clitoral hood (prepuce) with the result that the clitoral glans (the tip of the clitoris) is left permanently exposed. This procedure (which is generally called "clitoridotomy" or "hoodectomy") is undergone as elective surgery and its purpose is the enhancement of sexual response."

A 2000 article in Scientific American stated that some women had difficulty coming to orgasm, and that "clitoral phimosis" is to blame. This means "the hood of skin surrounding their clitoris is too tight or there is no opening in the skin for the glans of the clitoris to protrude for stimulation." A hoodectomy is necessary to expose the glans so that the woman may feel more sexual pleasure. The equivalent would be an uncircumsized man with an extremely tight foreskin. His erections can be extremely painful. The remedy for this problem is that his foreskin is removed to expose his penis. Removing the hood surrounding the clitoris could be seen as a similar operation.

I have mixed feelings about hoodectomies. On the one hand, I say live and let live. If a hoodectomy makes you happy, improves your sex life, and gives you better orgasms, I say go for it. If you have clitorial phimosis, that's a good reason to get a hoodectomy. The anonymous Vibereview writer compared a hoodectomy to plastic surgery. I take it she means the type seen on "Nip/Tuck". I do think that American society is too obsessed with physical appearance and youth, and plastic surgery is a profession that takes advantage of people's insecurities. Hoodectomies don't strike me to be quite like that. Western women get them to enhance their sexual pleasure. It reminds me of how drugs like Viagra and Cialis have helped many men with erectile dysfunction get and hold erections. While Viagra and Cialis have their critics (including me), the drugs have helped men's sexuality. The one thing I do wonder is how many women who have difficulty reaching orgasm really have clitoral phimosis, and don't know it? They would be helped by a hoodectomy.

A Massachusetts woman is suing Planned Parenthood for performing an abortion that was not done properly. Even though she had an abortion, she was still pregnant. She went to a doctor a few months later, and he failed to detect her 20 week pregnancy. She then went to the emergency when she felt pelvic pain, and that's when she learned that the abortion had failed. She gave birth to a daughter in December, 2004. She filed her complaint last week. She's suing for the cost of raising her daughter. The daughter has no medical problems related to the abortion and her birth.

If anyone finds additional information about this case, I'd like to read it. It's horrible what happened to her. I would also like to know why she took so long to file her complaint.

The feminist bloggers are blogging today for Blog For Choice Day. I thought I'd participate as well.

Choice means many different things to me. Choice is about much more than abortion. It's about women having the ability to control what happens to their bodies, whether that means getting an abortion when one is necessary, or having access to emergency contraception so that you don't become pregnant. Choice to me also means that women should be able to bear children and raise them as they see fit. Before the trolls jump down my throat (not that they need an excuse - and please note that I will remove any trolling posts from men's rights types if they appear here), I know very well that good fathers provide lots of good things for children. Mothers, however, continue to do most of the child rearing. Choice in my mind means showing respect and giving proper attention to women's reproductive choices, whether that means getting an abortion or choosing to give birth and raise a child.

I'd like to see an end to the push for joint custody (which has been proven to not benefit most children). I'd like to see an end to pharmacists and other medical personnel not giving women perfectly legal emergency birth control and other forms of birth control. I'd like to see an end to promotions of the bogus Post-Abortion Syndrome, which was just written up in the New York Times. I'd like to see an end to abstinence-only education. I'd like to see laws that forbid the sale of sex toys in some states abolished. I'd mostly like to see the government get out of our bedrooms.

Being a sex writer, I also see choice as being about women being able to enjoy their sexual lives without any slut shaming. Women who take responsibility for their sexual live deserve good regard. Choice is about much more than abortion. People who are pro-choice already know that, but the conservative religious types like to frame choice as if it is only about abortion. It's about so much more, and pro-choice people are making sure that the full meaning of "pro-choice" gets out there.

Remember the Dalkon Shield? It's an IUD that was banned about thirty years ago because it caused infections, perfurated uteruses, and led to all kinds of other serious health problems for women. Bet you though that since it was banned it had gone the way of the Dodo bird.

You are wrong.

In a practice called "contraceptive dumping", the Dalkon Shield has made its way to Third World countries. Pharmaceutical companies that make birth control that in the end is declared substandard in the U. S. are sold wholesale to Third World countries as a means of population control. Barbara Ehrenreich has written an article for Mother Jones about this horrendous practice. Poor women are dying, becoming very ill, and becoming sterile due to the use of these substandard products.

The article focuses on three types of birth control - the Dalkon Shield IUD, high-dose birth control pills, and Depo-Provera. Women around the world have been protesting contraceptive dumping - both women in developed countries and women in Third World countries who are the targets of companies that make money from these dangerous products. U. S. women have better access to information about these products as well as the companies that sell them. They send that information to women in Third World countries so that those women are able to protest against them. Women around the world need available and safe contraception. Dangerous, substandard contraception should not be dumped on women in Third World countries. On top of the obvious eugenics quality of contraceptive dumping, these products are dangerous and shouldn't be used on anyone. Contraceptive dumping must stop. Now.

I'm sure my readers have read elsewhere on other blogs about that horrendous decision in Maryland which concluded that once a woman consents to sex, she can't change her mind. She can't be raped if she first said "okay".

This is bad. Really bad. I hope the decision will be appealed.

It completely goes against a 2003 case in California where a woman had initially consented to sex, changed her mind, and her assailants were convicted of rape. One of the guys appealed the decision, and lost upon appeal. The other admitted that he had raped the woman (Laura). He "admitted amended charges of sexual battery ... and unlawful sexual intercourse." Of course, the woman-haters had a field day with this case, making it sound as if she had a case of post-coital regret, and wanted to slam the guys with a false rape charge. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Below is an account from the California testimony regarding what had transpired. She was very clear that she wanted to stop, and the guys would not listen to her.

When the minor returned to the bedroom he and Juan asked Laura if it was her fantasy to have two guys, and Laura said it was not. Juan and the minor began kissing Laura and removing her clothes, although she kept telling them not to. At some point, the boys removed Laura's pants and underwear and began "fingering" her, "playing with [her] boobs" and continued to kiss her. Laura enjoyed this activity in the beginning, but objected when Juan removed his pants and told the minor to keep fingering her while he put on a condom. Once the condom was in place, the minor left the room and Juan got on top of Laura. She tried to resist and told him she did not want to have intercourse, but he was too strong and forced his penis in her vagina. The rape terminated when, due to Laura's struggling, the condom fell off. Laura told Juan that "maybe it's a sign we shouldn't be doing this," and he said "fine" and left the room.

Laura rolled over on the bed and began trying to find her clothes; however, because the room was dark she was unable to do so. The minor, who had removed his clothing, then entered the bedroom and walked to where Laura was sitting on the bed and "he like rolled over [her] so [she] was pushed back down to the bed." Laura did not say anything and the minor began kissing her and telling her that she had "a really beautiful body." The minor got on top of Laura, put his penis in her vagina "and rolled [her] over so [she] was sitting on top of him." Laura testified she "kept . . . pulling up, trying to sit up to get it out . . . [a]nd he grabbed my hips and pushed me back down and then he rolled me back over so I was on my back . . . and . . . kept saying, `will you be my girlfriend.'" Laura "kept like trying to pull away" and told him that "if he really did care about me, he wouldn't be doing this to me and if he did want a relationship, he should wait and respect that I don't want to do this." After about 10 minutes, the minor got off of Laura, helped her dress and find her keys. She then drove home.

On cross-examination, Laura testified that when the minor entered the room unclothed, he lay on the bed behind her and touched her shoulder with just enough pressure to make her move, a nudge. He asked her to lie down and she did. He began kissing her and she kissed him back. He rolled on top of her, inserted his penis in her and, although she resisted, he rolled her back over pulling her on top of him. She was on top of him for four or five minutes, during which time she tried to get off but he grabbed her waist and pulled her back down. He rolled her over and continued the sexual intercourse. Laura told him that she needed to go home but he would not stop. He said, "[J]ust give me a minute," and she said, "[N]o, I need to get home." He replied, "[G]ive me some time" and she repeated, "[N]o, I have to go home." The minor did not stop, "[h]e just stayed inside of me and kept like basically forcing it on me." After about a "minute, minute and [a] half," the minor got off of Laura.

The California court ruled that she had been raped. When a woman initially okays sex, and during commission of the act says "no", the guy had better stop, or - at least in California - to continue constitutes rape. If only Maryland would see the error of its horrible court decision.

I'm working on two articles about the Maryland case for two magazines. I'm in the middle of research for those articles now, but I wanted to stop long enough to post about it. I will mention the California case as well as a couple of other similar cases. The Maryland ruling is a travesty. I hope it is overturned.

I received e-mail from Catholics For A Free Choice. It's about the Condoms4Life campaign. The idea is to encourage the Pope to lift the ban on condoms, since condoms can help prevent the spread of HIV. It sounded like a good cause to me. Go to the link and read the press statement and sign the letter being sent to the Pope.