I knew things were going to be bad from the get-go.  I was prepared to be lectured on how I just needed to try a different pill, and find the one that’s “right for me.”  Still, I hoped that maybe, at least, she had women who were going off the pill (probably to try and conceive) and came in because their periods were way off or their body started freaking out.

Just the nurse asking the basic questions confirmed that my pessimism was well-earned.

“Are you sexually active?”

“Yes, but I don’t have intercourse.”

She looked at me like I had grown a second head. “…Do you have oral sex?”

“Well, I don’t go down on him.”

“So, ‘no,’ you aren’t then.”

“…”

Can you say, erasure of my lived orgasms experience?  Cunnilingus, of course, does not count as sex, unlike blowjobs.  So, apparently, I’m abstinent.  This isn’t news to me, since men like Hugo and Glen had been telling me I am.  It should make me more upset than it does, to know that the love making I have doesn’t count for anything at all, just because a dick doesn’t get shoved somewhere.  The implications for lesbians are obvious.   I swear, if I’m ever forced to go to a gyno again, I’m going to ask if having anal sex makes me as sexually active…when it’s with a strap-on and my male partner receiving.

I explained why I came in to the nurse: My last period before I came to the doctor that had taken around 50 days to come, and the one before that just 30 days- what scared me was it seemed to be getting worse, not better.  At the time of the appointment, I hadn’t had a period in over 80 days, and I knew stressing about it would only make it worse, so I decided get a doctor’s opinion.   I said I suspected it was due to me coming off the pill,  since the first few weeks off it threw my body into chaos.   She responded noncommittally, telling me the doctor would be in soon.  The urine test came back negative for pregnancy,  which wasn’t a huge surprise since I hadn’t had intercourse.

I repeated my suspicions to the doctor.  Unsurprisingly, she promptly dismissed them.  I should have no problems going off the pill, it wouldn’t throw my body off at all and my periods should be back to normal immediately.  To try and convince her that coming off the pill had a huge impact on my body, I told her about the month long depression after the withdrawal period and about my breast-yup, just one-lactating and becoming sore and inflamed.  (I now think this was a plugged duct, since after I “expressed” some of whatever the hell was coming out, it started to heal and feel better.)

She proceeded to explain to me, as if I had never had a period, that some women suffer from “premenstrual syndrome,” aka PMS, which could cause those things.   (Who the hell goes through a PMS-induced funk for four weeks?)

And of course, the pill had probably been covering up my extreme PMS, and the best thing to do would be for me to go back on the pill to avoid it again.  I tried to explain that I had never lactated or had sore breasts even before I went on the pill, or before my latest period.   Of course, that was ignored, and she suggested instead that maybe I had PMDD, which, of course, would be treated by the pill.

She then went on to tell me I should go back on it, to regulate my periods.  I told her that I didn’t want to “regulate” my periods, I wasn’t going to take hormones and raise my risk of stroke for such a small reason, and reemphasized that I did not want to be on the pill.

As a doctor, she should know and explain to the patient there is a difference between a period and the withdrawal bleeding experienced when stopping hormonal contraceptives.

When I told her about going off the pill, she asked why I would do such a thing.  I said my partner and I weren’t going to have intercourse anymore, so there wasn’t much of a point.  I had health reasons, too: , having migraine headaches makes one four times more likely to suffer a stroke, and I have those probably once or twice a month.  The pill also increases the risk of stroke significantly, and I don’t want to up my risks of stroke for no reason.

Her response?

You’re more likely to have a stroke due to pregnancy than from being on the pill.

…dfjsdlfj.  Hey, doc, you remember where I told you I’m not having intercourse?  And even if I was, you heard of condoms?  Aren’t doctors supposed to look out for our health, and weigh the risks and benefits of the drugs they prescribe?  Oh sorry, I forgot this was women’s health, which means the goal is to make it as non-consequential as possible for a man to stick his dick in you, or deal with the consequences of him doing that.

When the “regulate your [unruly] periods/PMS/avoid pregnacy” approach didn’t work, she shifted gears.

It was “dangerous” for me to have irregular periods, because it could mean I have an estrogen deficiency, which would mean I could suffer from osteoporosis sooner in life.  And guess what I might do, to ensure that I wouldn’t suffer from osteoporosis early in life?   I should be on the pill to ensure I would develop “healthily.”  (No, she didn’t say anything about testing my hormones before recommending I get on the pill).

Eventually, she gave up on converting me to pillitute, and said I could change now for the exam.  I told her I didn’t want a pap smear.  She told me they were needed just to check for STDs.  Well, I wasn’t “sexually active” so that wasn’t a problem-the issue seemed settled to me.

So, after our one-on-one, I changed into the paper thing, took off my pants, got on the table, and laid down.  The doctor and nurse came in. I’m not sure why the nurse was there, she didn’t do anything the whole time.  Now I think she was there to hold me down in case I fought back.

She springs it on me we’re going to do the pap smear.  I said I don’t want to (again).  Couldn’t we not do it.  She said we had to, to see if anything was “wrong.”  She didn’t explain what she might find that way, or what STD might cause a missed period.  Just that I “had to” have one.

I don’t think I said anything, so she started examining my vulva.   At least she warned me before she inserted the speculum, I guess.  I started crying at this point.

She told me if I relaxed it wouldn’t hurt.  Relax, relax, relax.  It’s going to hurt if you’re tense.  She just kept saying to relax.

I cried and screamed the whole time.  I honestly wish I had flashbacked, or dissociated, but I didn’t.

The  finger exam was next.  I had done that before with no problem, because my last gynecologist had been really kind.  I told her I would be okay with that, as long as she just used one finger.

Less than a minute in, she told me she was inserting a second.  It wasn’t a question.

After being allowed to dress myself, she tells me I have to go get blood drawn to test my TSH, LH, estrogen and prolactin levels, which makes perfect sense to me the.  I go the checkout and get the prescreiption for getting the testing done.

Apparently she thinks I’m too dumb to know what the word “hirsutism” means or just too dumb to google it, becuase she put that as a symptom on the sheet, next to amenhorea.   It actually is a legit condition, and a sign of problems-I’m not denying that.

What pisses me off is that she didn’t bring it up to me during the exam-if you think there’s something wrong with me or a symptom that something is off, I have the right to know.  It’s my goddamn body.  But I guess she thought I might get uppity.

I feel like I was raped all over again, but now it’s almost worse.  Because of who I am now, I can’t just write it off as what sex is normally like.  I enjoyed sex so much, and now I can’t.  I feel like everything people say about radical feminists is true: I’m a prude, that I just need to be “taught” how to have sex, I’m sexually dysfunctional and just plain fucked up.

*Do lesbians even really go to gynos?  STDs, cervical cancer, pregnancy, and birth control are pretty much straight-women exclusive.  I suggest they just rename gynos to “birth control dealers” and be done with it.

If I don’t have, or can’t have a relationship, I don’t feel like I should have the right to exchange money for sex. I don’t. Especially since there would be no way for me to know if they had “chosen” sex work, or had only chosen it from a range of other shitty options (minimum wage jobs, etc, etc). Essentially, no one has the right to buy sex or sexual acts-we know that a great amount of abuse exists in this industry, and anyone who risks the chance of raping someone so that they can “get some” is sick.  No one has the right to sex, period.

However pitiful some women are, however lonely they feel, I don’t see them thinking they have a right to sex.  Women want love and understanding just as everyone does, but we never get it.  Yet somehow, we don’t use prostitutes.  Women, FOR SOME REASON, generally don’t purchase sex; women represent sex, thus they are usually sellers.   Why are the roles in prostitution so gendered?   Who has the resources and the money?  Men.  Who has the prestige?  Men.  Who has the power?  Men.  Who represents sex?  Women.   Most men believe they are entitled to sex, and as a result they make up most rapists and most johns.  Women are not raised to think of themselves as “entitled” to sex- sex is something women give and men take.

Wanting love and understanding does not make johns understandable or sympathetic, unless you’re the type who “understands” MRAs.  Yeah, they’re human, but so are rapists.   Wanting love and understanding means get a goddamn therapist, or failing that, talk to people.  Hell, you could even just talk to the prostitute, and not fuck her.  It does not mean you should fuck women.  The fact that people say johns are just seeking understanding and love is disgusting.  If they were, they wouldn’t have the sex, they wouldn’t need it, they wouldn’t demand it, and they wouldn’t be violent, they wouldn’t ask for unprotected sex.

These men aren’t seeking understanding: they are seeking the image of it.  A woman, nurturing like a mother, but also a whore, who will nurture the man through whatever sick fetish he’s developed.  A yes-woman, who will agree that his wife is a bitch, frigid, stupid, whatever.  Consequently, the image for a “sex worker” is that of a college-educated middle class white woman (preferably aryan) who drops every career opportunity and hobby to fuck men for money.  Her image is no different from that of “good mom,” who leaves her potential career behind “by choice,” because she wuves her kids so much and wishes them to have the best.

But, here are a few large differences:  children have a need for someone to care for them, men, on the other hand, and specifically johns, have jobs and the full development necessary to take care of themselves.  No one needs to take care of grown men. However much they seem or act as helpless as babies, they aren’t.  It’s an act.

This whole outlet thing is the same bullshit that says men’s sex drives are natural and unstoppable;  therefore they have a right to an outlet.  God forbid we raise men to NOT feel entitled to sex, so that they will not rape or purchase “sex.”

No one has ever died from lack of sex.   Ever.

So can it about men’s sexual and emotional ”needs.”  Women’s right to not be raped and used sexually is more important than some douchebag’s orgasm.

*So are most child molesters, rapists and serial killers.  I doubt this is a coincidence.

To start, we have to look at how rape (and sex, for that matter) is framed in our culture.   Some examples: “He couldn’t control himself”, “he couldn’t help himself”, “he was just so horny”, “she provoked him wearing that skirt/top/sweater.”  There’s always disbelievers when an attractive woman says she has been raped, but people will disbelieve an unattractive woman even more.  In the popular narrative, rape is about sex and desire, and an act of passion.  It happens when a man wants to fuck a woman and she doesn’t want to let him.

The measure of force a man is willing to take in pursing a woman is said to be a direct measure of how much he loves and desires her.  Following this worldview to its logical endpoint, rape becomes the ultimate expression of desire and attraction.

Is it any wonder, then, that so many women have rape fantasies?  Who doesn’t want to be incredibly desirable?

This is only amplified by the effect of the media, which tells us that we’re ugly and undesirable, especially when compared to that girl.  Most women feel hideous, and are expected (and do) to appreciate any attention from men, with more appreciation being required the less conventionally attractive we are.  I suspect that the less conventionally attractive a woman is, or the uglier she feels, the more likely she is to have rape fantasies.  With nearly all of us having some insecurity about our bodies and our desirability, its no wonder lots of us fantasize about being raped-which in our culture, means being desired by men.

I have to credit Twilight with me putting the pieces together.  (I know, what the hell?)  It’s always seemed there are more fans of Jacob than Edward, for whatever reason.  My lover wondered frequently why Jacob’s fans say that he “loves Bella more,” when he clearly is manipulative creep with a rapist mentality, and thought liking someone so obviously dangerous was stupid.   I got quite pissed, because he essentially was calling women “stupid” for feeling insecure and wanting to be wanted, which is completely understandable.

On a personal note, I used to have them myself, and even though I only let myself think of healthier things now, I can’t deny that sometimes they seem more appealing than my partner always asking what I’d like.  The thing is, even though I hated being touched without asking or after I said no, it still made me feel desired.  I think I would feel more desired if control were taken from me, even knowing what it means.  A part of me simply doesn’t care if I’m objectified, because I want to be wanted.

Stating the Obvious: I don’t blame women who have rape fantasies at all, even if they  seek to “roleplay” them with their partner or feed them privately with romance novels.  I do, however, blame anyone who goes along with “roleplaying” as a rapist.

My period hadn’t come for 80-something days, so I went the gynecologist to try to figure out if this was normal for someone coming off of the pill and maybe check my hormone levels.  I made it clear from the start I didn’t want a pap smear, and she didn’t say I had to have one, until I was already on the exam table.  I still said I didn’t want to but she said I had to, and I guess I froze up from there.  I haven’t felt that violated in years.  It feels stupid because it’s just an exam and they all say it doesn’t/shouldn’t hurt, but it did.  I felt, and still feel, like I was raped again. 

I’m not sure how to label it or anything-that word feels too extreme, maybe.  Just feels like it shouldn’t have happened, because I thought I wasn’t as “weak” as I was before, when I didn’t fight back.  But I still froze up, and didn’t fight really. 

I avoided radical feminist stuff for months-I didn’t read a single book or article.  I didn’t even talk about radfem issues, unless it was blatantly shoved in my face.  I can’t really explain why, I guess, but I think it maybe just felt pointless in a way, since I thought I was stronger for it and, look what happened?  I still let myself get hurt.  I knew the medical establishment was shit, yet I still let it win.  It’s not really the same, but I imagine it might be how Dworkin felt after she was raped the last time.  Knowing so much about the issues makes it worse for me.

Anyways, I figured I’d share the one thing I did write during this space: my term paper for Global Feminism.  It isn’t as radical or angry as I felt about the issue, because college (and liberal feminism) discourages that sort of thinking, but the approach I think couldn’t come from anywhere but radical feminism.  I started with the idea that marriage is basically prostitution, and you can see where it goes from there.    Warning: It’s loooong.  And by the way, I got an A.

        The “mail-order bride” industry, as it is known, has grown significantly since the advent of the internet and represents many of the forces of globalization.  Estimates on the number of marriages orchestrated by mail-order bride agencies vary and many suffer from methodological problems, but generally report around a few thousand marriages a year in the United States.   Concerns have frequently been raised about the exploitation involved in mail-order marriages, resulting in media and scholarly attention to the issue.  Reading the literature, it becomes apparent that there are connections between the mail-order bride industry and human trafficking.  Some of these connections are concrete, such as the use of mail-order bride services for recruiting victims, while other connections lie in the forces behind the trades and the people involved with it.

              In order to compare the mail-order bride industry to trafficking and argue that they are different manifestations of the same phenomenon, a definition of trafficking is necessary.  The UN defines human trafficking as involving “an act of recruiting, transporting, transferring, harboring or receiving a person through a use of force, coercion or other means, for the purpose of exploiting them.”  Exploitation is defined broadly enough to apply to not just prostitution, but other forms of sexual exploitation as well, along with servitude or other practices similar to slavery (United Nations).  Similarly, “other means” is defined broadly, allowing it to include the “giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person” (UN).
            Trafficking women for sex and domestic labor has come along and expanded with globalization; likewise, globalization has also expanded the mail-order bride industry.  Mail-order bride services are driven by the same dynamics as trafficking organizations and their male customers hold power similar to traffickers.  The destination countries and source countries for the mail-order bride industry are nearly the same as those in sex trafficking—the only significant difference is the lack of Thailand as a destination and that the destinations are almost always Western (Seager 56).  For all of these reasons, mail-order bride services should be examined as either trafficking organizations in themselves or, at the very least, a way for traffickers to easily and obtain access to women for the purposes of exploitation without drawing much suspicion.  Similarly, prostitution, which feeds sex trafficking, and mail-order bride services work hand in hand ideologically and at times (or in some feminists’ view, all the time) in practice.

            On the demand side of the industry, are the men who wish to find a wife, who typically live and work in more affluent countries such as Australia, Israel, and the United States.  Not many studies have been done that investigate the motivations of men who seek out mail-order bride services; however, one mentioned in the research found that respondents were “roughly representative of the general population of men” (Jackson 498).  However, she uses this data to suggest that criticizing the motivation of these men “indirectly call[s] into question” the women who take the “obvious risks” of finding a husband through mail-order bride services (Jackson 498).  Firstly, she herself notes that such risks are not made obvious to women using the services: no criminal record history, medical check, or other information is sought from the male, but is from the woman, and as Jackson herself states, she might reasonably assume similar measures are done to filter out dangerous men (500).  Secondly, many feminists would contend that no matter the risks “chosen” by the woman, the bigger picture is what really matters: and that picture is the social forces, such as poverty, globalization, and inequalities that subordinate the bride to her husband (Belleau 603).

            Because of the lack of studies examining men’s motivations in seeking mail-order brides, looking at the materials of the “matchmaking” agencies themselves or sites sponsored by them might provide some insight into their customer base, as they likely have more data to work with and an obvious incentive to accurately target their market, since their profits depend upon it.  Here is an excerpt from a site oriented towards helping men who wish to find a “good wife,” as they define it, using mail-order bride services:

Many men have found exactly what they desired in a woman from another country. How did they do this and what are the pitfalls involved in this process? This is where Goodwife.com can help out. This site along with our sister sites Planet Love and Russian Women Discussion are all about the search for this woman and how to have a happy and successful and long lasting marrige [sic] to a foreign woman. Are there any good women left in the West? Sure there are. Are they easy to find? Not on your life!

We, as men, are more and more wanting to step back from the types of women we meet now. With many women taking on the “me first” feminist agenda and the man continuing to take a back seat to her desire for power and control many men are turned off by this and look back to having a more traditional woman as our partner. (GoodWife.com)

It’s also worth noting this entire article was illustrated with 1950s pin-up girls and ended with a (possibly fake) article from Housekeeping Monthly. Mail order bride services, as well as their male customers, repeatedly emphasize their distaste for the “radically feminist” Western women and their desire for a more traditional wife (Belleau 596).  

            The gender ideologies of colonialism and imperialism are reflected in the language used to describe the non-Western women men seek for brides.  Just as the lands countries wished to occupy were portrayed as untainted by humanity, now foreign women represent the “last pure space untainted by modern life” and the materialism, individualism, and feminism it contains (Schaeffer-Grabiel 339).   Further, Western men who look to foreign women (especially those of Asian or Latina descent) for sex or courtship typically exotify their looks and personalities, just as colonists did in the past.  Sex tourism, for which many girls are trafficked, and the prostitution of non-white women in general are marketed by extolling their differences from Western women.  For example, Filipina women are described by one agency as “small,” “slender,” “hard-working” (So 405).

            Besides being trafficked for prostitution, women may be forced to work as domestic labor.  Unpaid labor such as housework and childcare is almost always assigned to the woman in heterosexual relationships and made invisible, and thus few discuss mail-order marriages from the angle of domestic labor.  Considering the men’s insistence on wanting a “traditional” wife, that women have traditionally been responsible for most to all of the housework, it is likely that they also desire a domestic servant.

            It must be stated that the men using these agencies are in all likelihood not seeking out abstinent relationships, and for this reason, the separation between sex trafficking and mail-order brides should be examined.  In practice, the separation, when mail-order brides are not outright prostituted, appears to be nominal and only occur due to the woman’s status as “wife.”   The idealized and traditional form of marriage typically casts the male as the bread-winner, and the woman as a subservient housekeeper and sexual servant.   Mail-order bride services, then, simply combine two forms of trafficking into one.  The major difference is that instead of having to service a number of men sexually as a prostitute does, a mail-order bride will only have one.  Sex is still being sold, but instead of being exchanged for money or drugs, the payment is room, board, as well as US citizenship.
            Besides wishing to seek a wife more traditional than the average “radical feminist” American woman, the Western men who use mail-order bride services appear to view themselves as better than the men from the woman’s homeland.  For example, in the past, the colonialists “thought they were improving the position of native American women – whom they saw as beasts of burden, items of exchange, sex objects, or slaves” by saving them from the tyranny of Native American men (Jackson 483).  Today, agencies assure men that the women want American men because prospective husbands in their homeland are horribly sexist and abusive, such as this agency: “In Russia, men who drink, sleep around, beat up their wives…those men are a norm” (Petrova).  Obviously, male violence towards women in marriage occurs in Western countries as well, but by sensationalizing the violence “over there,” men can feel assured that even though they may be exploiting women by using mail-order bride services, they are not as bad as foreign men. 

            Interestingly, although there appear to be little differences in motivations between sex tourists and men using mail-order agencies, there seems to be one major difference in their self-perceptions: the men who seek foreign brides not only see themselves as saviors to the women they marry, but also to their homeland, which as discussed before, is seen to be corrupted by Western women’s materialism and feminism (Schaeffer-Grabiel 344).  The other slight difference between johns and sex tourists, who use foreign women for casual sex, and men who use mail order brides, is the length of the relationship they seek to have, as men using mail-order agencies seek sex, domestic labor, and sometimes even a bearer of their children.   In this way, men who marry or propose to foreign brides may be more similar to traffickers than johns, since they have an ongoing relationship with the foreign woman.

            However, many of the mail-order bride industry’s practices are eerily similar to those found in brothels and areas where prostitution is legalized.  Women using these matchmaking services are subjected to questionnaires, medical and background checks, presumably to screen out women with STDs, disabilities, or criminal histories (Jackson 500).  Just as when prostitution takes place, only the women are screened: men, having the social power, legitimacy, and perhaps most importantly, the money, are considered above screening. 

            Other parallels between prostitution and mail-order bride agencies go beyond financial ties and have to do more ideology and presentation, such as how the matchmaking process occurs.  There are striking similarities in the process of arranging to meet a prostitute and matchmaking for a potential bride, especially in regards to the language used.  In mail-order bride services, hundreds of women and their profiles are listed, allowing a man to find out their age, height, weight, hobbies, other relevant information, and also usually has a few pictures of the woman.  The man is thus able to choose from hundreds of beautiful and primarily young women, who he is assured by testimonials and the agency itself, are willing to love, cherish, and support him. Correspondingly, one escort agency says “The Las Vegas Escorts look forward to serving you” and that their escorts are “exotically beautiful and skilled in the art of pleasing a man” (Las Vegas Escorts).

            The rhetoric used to defend the trade also mirrors that used in prostitution: IMOs justify themselves by arguing they simply serve as a meeting place for “consenting adults” (Belleau 603).  Of course, such arguments inevitably ignore the forces of globalization, colonialism, and capitalism that drive women to sign up for these agencies.  These inequalities are further erased when men are portrayed as helpless victims to scammers in the media, which creates “assumptions and accusations that the U.S. men are at a disadvantage” (So 402).  This not only erases the power dynamics in the relationship, it also reverses them: the non-white, most likely poor, and isolated woman is using her “exotic beauty” to make men fall in love with her and give her a green card.  Similar narratives of men having “losing control” and being “helpless” to their sexual drives can be found when men discuss prostitutes or even dating.

            For the most part, mail-order bride services are not regulated by the law in any way, shape, or form, in Canada and the United States (Jackson 481; Belleau 597).  All “regulation” thus takes place in the immigration policies of the man’s country.  In the United States, the bride is essentially a conditional resident on the whim of the husband, although some changes in the late 1990s allowed for exceptions to the rule requiring joint applications for permanent residency if she proves “her good character, her good faith in getting married, the battering or extreme cruelty to which she and her children are subjected by the husband, and the extreme hardship that would result if she were deported to her country of origin” (Belleau 599).  A woman whose partner has assaulted her may also apply for permanent residency under the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Act of 2000, but it faces the same problems as earlier legislation (Belleau 600).  Considering that even women born in the United States who are native speakers of English have enormous difficulty reporting male violence, let alone having it proven in court, it is unlikely any of these exceptions provide concrete help for abused brides.  The single act passed in the United States that specifically deals with the mail-order bride industry only requires agencies to disclose information on immigration laws and procedures to the brides they recruit, with fines for a failure to comply.  However, there is no evidence that this law is being enforced or having an impact on the business practices of international marriage companies (Jackson 481).

            Traffickers often maintain control over their victim(s) by keeping their documentation and threatening them with deportation.  Because the bride is essentially dependent on the man for her citizenship, a husband holds comparable power to that a trafficker has over his victim: both can threaten deportation over the woman’s head, and both probably provide the woman with her first impression of the legal system.   Further, depending on the level of fluency she has in English, he may assert himself as her interpreter, limiting her ability to speak honestly with law enforcement, doctors, and lawyers if she even manages to reach them, which is quite a task in a foreign country.

            Despite the fact that the study congress ordered of marriage organizations showed links between them and trafficking organizations, an Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) report on the industry  “did not link the increase in fiancée petitions and “missing” fiancées to possible sex trafficking and made no further inquiry into the troubling issue” (Jackson 503).  In addition, the INS “conducts no investigation of applicants for fiancée or spousal visas, not even routinely examining its own files to see if an applicant previously petitioned for another person” (Jackson 500). While the United States purports to be anti-trafficking, their repeated failure to even examine the issue critically and to not act on the knowledge they have shows little concern for exploited immigrant women.

            Overall, the traffic in women and the mail-order bride industry have much in common.  Direct connections exist between the two, as noted in government reports, yet no precautions are taken to try and protect foreign women who marry Western men.  In addition, the colonialist narratives, exotification of non-white women, and ideologies enacted by the men are the same as those which create the demand for sex trafficking and sex tourism.  Women in these marriages suffer the same disadvantages as trafficked women: separation from their family and friends, a language and cultural barrier, lack of experience with legal institutions in the country, and dependence on another for immigrant status.  The narratives of the men seeking foreign wives suggest that they seek a “traditional wife,” whose role essentially combines domestic and sexual servitude, while the power dynamics of the “traditional marriage” these men seek leave him with control over the woman economically, legally, and socially.  These inequalities and similarities between the mail-order bride industry, human trafficking and prostitution raise the question as to whether mail-order marriages constitute a form of trafficking by UN definitions, and evidence suggests that this is the case.  (Had to deradical it a bit for my “feminists-shave-their-legs-now-WEDONTHATEMEN” women’s studies teacher.)

Works Cited

Belleau, Marie-Claire. “Mail-Order Brides in a Global World.” Albany Law Review 67 (2003):       595-607. Print.

Jackson, Suzanne H. “To Honor and Obey: Trafficking in “Mail-Order Brides”" The George         Washington Law Review 70.3 (2002): 475-569. Print.

Las Vegas Escorts. “Las Vegas Escorts.” Las Vegas Escorts. Las Vegas Escorts, 20 Oct. 2010.     Web. 07 Dec. 2010. <http://www.lasvegasescorts.com/>.

Petrova, Elena, and Nina Jones. “Why Russian Women Want to Leave Russia.” Russian Brides     Cyber Guide. Elena’s Models. Web. 6 Dec. 2010. <http://www.womenrussia.com/why-   russian-women-want-to-leave-russia.htm>.

Schaeffer-Grabiel, Felicity. “Planet-Love.com: Cyberbrides in the Americas and the          Transnational Routes of U.S. Masculinity.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 31.2 (2006): 331-56. Print.

Seager, Joni. The Penguin Atlas of Women in the World. 4th ed. New York: Penguin          Group,             2009. Print.

So, Christine. “Asian Mail-Order Brides, the Threat of Global Capitalism, and the Rescue of the   U.S. Nation-State.” Feminist Studies 32.2 (2006): 395-419. Print.

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. “Human Trafficking.” United Nations Office on         Drugs and Crime. United Nations. Web. 3 Dec. 2010.   <http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/human-trafficking/what-is-human-            trafficking.html?ref=menuside>.

“Welcome To Goodwife.com!” GoodWife.com. Web. 4 Dec. 2010. http://www.goodwife.com.

We’re going to the world series, for the first time EVER! I’m not usually a baseball fan, but I am SO pumped for this. Especially since we kicked Yankee butt. (Sorry Yankees fans-I’ve had a grudge against them since I was little-long story.)

But for Frommer, precisely because it simplifies and reduces everything to bullet points, it easily hides the emptiness of propositions behind buzzwords and provides visual distractions and quick changes that don’t give the audience a chance to critically examines the ideas or proposals presented to them.

Pretty much sums up everything I hate about them.  But of course teachers almost always use them now. It drives me insane.  I swear they suck the energy out of the room and kill discussion entirely.  I wish I could read the book, but I don’t know any french.

I dunno why exactly I’m putting this here.  I just thought it was a really interesting analysis.

For context, I provided on that thread a pretty detailed summary of my sex life.  I wanted to demonstrate that it is possible to have heterosexual sex that doesn’t end or even center around intercourse, mostly for the benefit of straight women who feel like they just have to accept it as “part of” sex, even though for most “foreplay” is the most enjoyable part.  Secondly, I wanted to see how they’d respond to the lived experience of someone (me) who belongs to a group demonized as anti-sex and anti-male.  Would they ignore it, call me a liar, or realize that radical feminism has never been against sex and that its portrayal as such is a simply a lie used to dismiss it?  As most could guess, the latter never happened.

The men on that Hugo thread completely ignored my hobbies and anecdotes about my sex life.  My sexuality clearly was still unhealthy, because I’m experiencing “anxiety” about intercourse and don’t want to have it.  Men never take the female sexuality seriously, unless it’s pleasing to them (see their rationalizations on burlesque/”sex work”).  To men, female sexuality requires fucking, because we’re voids just waiting to be filled.  If you don’t want to be fucked, you must be a lesbian or a prude.

But, I think that the complaint is not just that we’re against intercourse, judging by their comments and portrayal of me.  It’s that we’re setting a boundary-a sexual boundary, at that- that cannot be crossed.  We’re saying no, and for that they call us mentally ill.   Men have pathologized “frigid” women over the years, as well as demonized those who have sex on their own terms, via masturbation or lesbianism.

No doesn’t mean no, of course-it means we’re immature, we have “anxiety” about intercourse that we shouldn’t have.  And instead of dealing with it, by taking hormone-altering substances for the rest of our lives, we’re simply saying no.  This is unacceptable.

One person (who also called me an idiot yet was not banned-nice “no attacking people” policy, liverlips) suggested that I and other women who are against intercourse are in need of sex ed, where we would learn how to “negotiate” with our partner and have “healthy sex.”  Firstly, it’s mansplaining to the nth degree to suggest that a woman needs sex ed when she clearly knows what she wants and uses the terminology related to sex better than most.  (Most importantly, that heterosexual sex != intercourse.)   It also suggests that refusing intercourse is simply a product of ignorance-that is, if you knew how to “have sex,” you’d want intercourse.   When in fact, the information taught in heteronormative sex ed- about contraceptives, STD risk, and damage control (aka the morning after pill and abortions) are precisely the reasons some radical feminists want to forego intercourse.

We’re supposed to have “negotiation” in our sex lives, as if our bodies were some kind of thing we can trade and agree to use.  I doubt it’s a coincidence the first things that come to mind when I think of “negotiation” are car sales and hostage negotiation.  Women are not allowed to enter sex with a clear boundary, as I was doing-to do so means you’re messed up or immature.

From this, negotiation seems to not mean, “talk about what you like and don’t like, and then do the only the former.”  The only other thing it could mean, as far as I can gather, is being willing to change your mind-that is, be willing to let him “test” your boundaries,* or eventually give your “consent.”  This is hardly surprising when you consider how far men will stretch the concept of “consent”: there have been studies (too lazy to find them now) that show even convicted rapists think the “sex” they had with their victim was consensual.

While these “feminists” will argue till they’re blue in the face that you can chose to be fucked using your “agency,” you can’t chose to not be fucked using your agency.    If you chose to not be fucked, you’re brainwashed by radical feminist philosophy or conservatism.

This dynamic is especially interesting considering that they argue the culture and upbringing in a world drenched in misogyny and rape has no influence on their choices, or the choices of most people.  Obviously, this would suggest that radical feminists somehow have far more influence than the dominant culture and media, since we are allegedly able to influence choices while society does not.  Which is a laughable idea, since even the majority of feminists shun us.

Lastly, I’d like to say that, as lame and nerdy as it might sound, fanfiction is a major part of my sexuality.  And I have a feeling the reason it’s ignored, stigmatized and mocked is because the primary authors and readers are women.

Really, what’s more sexually messed up: requiring female risk for sex, or foregoing activities that require female risk?

*This is a common thing in bondage, often outright called “pushing one’s boundaries,” more often/specifically pain tolerance, and is often considered an essential part of “good” BDSM.  And this is a very large part of D/s relationships, from my understanding, especially when “training” (ew) is involved.

PS: Sorry this first post after a long break kinda sucks.

I cannot express how much I love this band.  Their music, their clothes, their hair, their personalities…all of it.  They are so over the top fun.  This is their most recent single, from just a few months ago, and now they’re releasing another one at the end of this month.  Oh my gawd I am so pumped.  This totally made my shitty week better.

Stay tuned for your normal depressing radical feminist blogging.

I had no idea why that search combination would lead someone here.  So, as per my usual habit explained above, I copy and pasted what they searched and put it in google.  And oh my, I think I found a slight conflict of interest regarding at least two of the plaintiffs on this case.

I would like to warn everyone reading this that this post is super long, so much so that I’m getting lost in it myself, trying to edit and everything.  I’m not sure if that’s because of all the citations I’m making, how long this post is, or if it’s simply poor writing on my part.   Apologies if it’s the latter.

According to the article I posted, “Ms Bedford said she hoped to work as a dominatrix.” According to a few BDSM sites and the official court document, however, she already was a dominatrix, as far back as 1993.   The court documents confirm this, as well as that she’s been charged on various prostitution-related offenses (more on that later).  The articles make it sound as if she is currently a street prostitute-which is not true, and it hasn’t been true since the early eighties.  She hasn’t even been in “sex work” since 2000, and maintains that this is due to illness.  [52]

Interestingly, the BBC article (or any other I could find) makes no mention that the exact portions of the anti-prostitution laws challenged by the plaintiffs are those same ones for which she stood trial for breaking.  More than once.  There was no mention that she had been convicted of operating a “bawdy house” in 1998 had been mentioned in any of the news articles covering the ruling that I found.  [30] This is the arrest and prosecution for which she claims was the “financial and emotional toll” was “devastating.”  Interestingly, she doesn’t mentioned being similarly devastated by her several arrests for being an inmate at a bawdy house.  This is one of many things that suggest to me she doesn’t wish to merely return to working indoors as a dominatrix, but to run an brothel or an agency herself.

On the “bawdy house” Bedford operated, she contested that the acts performed were not sexual, despite the testimony of “Princess” in that trial which suggested that they were.  In the case of where acts were sexual, her defense argued that the men were “guests,” not clients, and thus did not constitute prostitution.

When it was suggested that the activities were limited to personal guests (rather than clients) Princess was clear: They were clients.  It was a business.  Whatever they wanted , if they wanted something like that, it was done.

I found it interesting that one who claims to stand for “sex workers” went against the testimony of her own “employee” to try and save her skin in court-but that’s a bit irrelevant to the present.  Princess’ testimony, as well as the presence of a “training video,” provide evidence  that she trained the dominatrices there on how to perform in this bawdy-house.  Which obviously to me that she was more than simply a protector of “sex workers,” and was the person who ran the joint.  Most importantly, she never did contest that the “bawdy house” existed for profit and under her ownership:

It is obvious from the testimony of Princess, which the trial judge accepted, that the pain and humiliation resulted, and was intended to result, in sexual arousal culminating in orgasm.  That the operation was commercial and the keeper of the house was the appellant was uncontested.

Speaking of commercial operations-reporters have also failed to mention she ran an escort agency in the mid-80s, and had even served time in jail for doing so.  Although, it is important to note that in this case she only served the time upon returning to face the charges-she had fled and avoided prosecution for two years.  [28]

There’s something else I find especially odd, considering she claims to want to protect “sex workers” and people who make a living off of the industry.  If as she contests, the “work environment [at her agency] provided the escorts with a sense of security, dignity, and self-respect”, then she would likely know of other women in the industry who support her effort and be close to those she met.  Yet, none of her former “employees” who worked as escorts, or in the bawdy-house she ran, appear to give any testimony for her case or even as evidence that the house she ran was safe.

Ms Scott also wishes to “reenter the sex industry,” as the court phrases it.  However, her wishes are:

If this challenge is successful, Ms. Scott would like to operate an indoor prostitution business. While she recognizes that clients may be dangerous in both outdoor and indoor locations, she would institute safety precautions such as checking identification of clients, making sure other people are close by during appointments to intervene if needed, and hiring a bodyguard.

Oh goodie, how kind of you to implement some precautions!  Does anyone ask why the hell so many precautions are required in order to reduce the vulnerability of prostitutes to violence?  Maybe that kinda shows that the men who do the buying are violent?  Or that the trade itself is violent, if these precautions are that necessary to people ont being murdered?  You don’t see mailpersons or hot dog vendors having to hire bouncers to protect them on the streets, do ya?

Both Bedford and Scott claim to have quit “sex work” due to illness, and express an interest in returning to the trade only if it is allowed indoors and the provisions against pimping removed.  Because it seems that both of them have a chronic illness (from 2000 for Bedford, the 1990s for Scott)-an illness that’s lasted this long likely will not recover.  Because of this, Bedford’s history of pimping, and the stated intentions of the women, I feel that they aren’t likely to return to the prostitute-level of the sex industry.   Instead, they are most likely to establish (or return to owning, in Bedford’s case) a brothel or escort agency.

To me, it seems as if the plaintiffs involved in this case used their pasts as street workers to gain credibility on the issue, simply because they wish to make money.  I believe I’ve heard of similar things happening in other countries, where prostitutes will sort of “rise in the ranks” and become madams themselves.  Although the press does not report this, let’s call it like it is: two of the three plaintiffs in the case are not currently prostitutes. They want to be pimps.

C’mon, journalism.  There’s more in depth coverage in an article from a 19 year old girl who’s never read a real newspaper or taken a journalism class in her life.  That’s just pathetic.  Hopefully this article doesn’t totally suck, despite my inexperience with this sort of thing-I’ve been working on it on and off since yesterday afternoon, and I’m fucking exhausted.   Phew.

——

A little aside for those interested in what other prostitutes were heard by the court:

The applicants submitted affidavits from eight witnesses who described their perceptions and experiences of working as prostitutes….to provide “corroborative voices” to demonstrate that the applicants’ experiences are shared with many other women…..The affiants recounted that they entered into prostitution without coercion (although financial constraints were a large factor) and most reported being addiction-free and working without a pimp.[7]

The respondent tendered nine affidavits from prostitutes and former prostitutes, whose stories painted a much different picture. The respondent’s witnesses gave detailed accounts of horrific violence in indoor locations and on the street, controlling and abusive pimps, and the rampant use of drugs and alcohol.

What a convenient sample for the sex industry, eh?

Court case: From the Canadian Legal Information Institute

Some details on Bedford’s bawdy-house: Same place

Ontario judge overturns Canada anti-prostitution laws
The judge found the laws force sex workers to choose between safety and liberty

A judge in Ontario has overturned key Canadian anti-prostitution laws, finding they force sex workers into the streets at risk to their safety.

She ruled with three prostitutes who had challenged bans on brothels, pimps and solicitation.

The ruling applies to Ontario province but could, if upheld on appeal, allow the rest of Canada to follow suit.

One sex worker said she no longer had to fear rape, robbery and murder. The government is weighing an appeal.
‘Emancipation day’

Finding the laws unconstitutional, Justice Susan Himel called on the Canadian parliament to regulate the sex trade.

“These laws… force prostitutes to choose between their liberty, interest and their right to security of the person,” she wrote in a 131-page ruling in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

Plaintiff Terri Bedford, described in court documents as a prostitute who had been beaten and raped while working in the streets of Windsor, Calgary and Vancouver, said: “It’s like emancipation day for sex trade workers.”

Ms Bedford said she hoped to work as a dominatrix.

“The federal government must now take a stand and clarify what is legal and not legal between consenting adults in private,” she said.

Justice Himel found national laws banning brothels, forbidding solicitation of clients, and banning Canadians from managing sex workers as pimps or madams violated a provision of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guaranteeing “the right to life, liberty and security”.

Supporters of the overturned laws fear the ruling will make Canada a haven for human traffickers.

The ruling will not go into effect for 30 days, giving the government time to appeal if it chooses.

Street prostitution in Canada has been under increased scrutiny in recent years following the trial of Robert Pickton, a Vancouver pig farmer convicted in 2007 in the killings of six sex workers.

Pickton is suspected in dozens more killings. A Canadian court this summer denied him a new trial.

—————

Various thoughts and comments I had, besides just sheer horror at the implications:

Emancipation? Really? Again we see the language of freedom adopted by those defending the sex industry.

One sex worker said she no longer had to fear rape, robbery and murder.

Oh yes, because now you’re absolutely immune to everything. No prostitute who works indoors has ever been raped. Just as women who don’t walk alone at night no longer have to fear rape, right?

Justice Himel found national laws banning brothels, forbidding solicitation of clients, and banning Canadians from managing sex workers as pimps or madams violated a provision of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guaranteeing “the right to life, liberty and security”.

I can understand, at least, where the argument that prostitution is safer indoors is coming from, thus denial of  “security” argument, however much I feel it’s a load of crap.  But seriously-how in the hell does not being allowed to pimp, have brothels, or solicit deny the right to any of those three values?

“These laws… force prostitutes to choose between their liberty, interest and their right to security of the person,” she wrote in a 131-page ruling in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

Perhaps the Canadian court should consider the economic structures and patriarchal society that force women to chose between being prostitutes and not having a livable income.  In fact, considering the dangers of the sex industry, it seems that the real “choice”  is between prostitution itself and “liberty, interest and their right to security of the person.”