‘I have vaginismus and I'm afraid I'll never find a man who doesn't pressure me'
Dear Roe,
I am a straight woman in my late 20s, and I have diagnosed vaginismus. I have attended a few initial sessions with a qualified sex therapist, but have not gone as far as using dilators. I have tried and failed to have penetrative sex in the past, with men I was not in a committed relationship with, and have not been successful. I now have a better relationship with my body, having explored other paths to sexual satisfaction such as using vibrators, and am easily able to reach orgasm. But I still haven't been in a heterosexual relationship, and part of the reason is vaginismus. The partners with whom
I attempted penetrative sex
in college backed away once it became clear that sex was not straightforward.
I am willing to have a mature conversation about my condition with a man I am dating if it looks like things are becoming serious, but I then feel a pressure to quickly train using the dilators purely because the man may have penetrative sex high on his list of crucial relationship markers, and this frustrates me. I need a partner with patience and understanding. I want to train on dilators for my own pleasure, but back away every time, partially because I feel I'm really only doing it to serve men's pleasure. I'm open-minded and would love your thoughts.
Thank you for writing. What you've described is more common than most people realise, but because vaginismus is so rarely talked about openly, many women carry it quietly and with shame. Your self-awareness, reflection and act of sharing your experience here are already powerful acts of courage, so be proud of yourself – just by addressing this issue, you're making life less lonely for others going through the same experience.
READ MORE
Clinically, vaginismus is described as an involuntary spasm of the vaginal muscles when penetration is attempted. That's not wrong, but it's incomplete. This framing it puts all the focus on the vaginal muscle, as if that's the only part of your body that matters. But vaginismus is more than a muscle reflex – it's a whole-body, whole-person experience, and it often involves fear, pain, anticipation, and deep emotional responses that are shaped by personal history, relationships, and social messaging around sex.
There are different types of vaginismus. Primary vaginismus is when a woman has never been able to tolerate vaginal penetration – not just sex, but things like tampons or gynaecological exams. For many women, it's not just discomfort; it's physically impossible.
Then there's secondary vaginismus, where a woman has previously been able to experience penetration, but then experiences a change like a painful medical experience, a trauma, an injury, or even just one unexpectedly painful encounter that triggered a protective tightening of the muscles going forward. The body, trying to shield itself from more pain, responds by closing off.
Both types of vaginismus are real, both are valid, and neither define your worth or your ability to have a full, intimate, loving life.
.form-group {width:100% !important;}
Some women who experience vaginismus have been deeply impacted by the cultural messaging they've experienced around sex. If you have been taught that penetrative sex is dangerous in some way – socially, emotionally or psychologically – it makes sense that the body would try to protect itself from it. And if your experience does resonate with vaginismus even without a formal exam, you deserve to be believed and supported. Some women have unfortunately reported having insensitive and upsetting interactions with doctors who either patronise them, pathologise them, or insist on invasive examinations, and this should never be the norm or tolerated. You know your body, and you deserve support.
[
'I got back with my partner after breaking up with him but I am still plagued by doubts'
Opens in new window
]
I know you know this on some level. What I hear in your letter is a woman who's caught in the tension between healing on her own terms and feeling pressure to make that healing palatable or convenient for potential partners. That's a hard place to be, especially in a culture that puts penetrative sex on a pedestal. It's great that you've taken the important step of seeing a qualified sex therapist, which shows commitment to healing. But remember to give yourself a lot of patience and grace. The early stages of therapy can be disorienting. You may not yet feel ready to begin physical tools like dilators, and that's okay. Therapy is not a race, and it's certainly not about 'fixing' you. It's about understanding yourself with more compassion and care.
What's also wonderful is that you've found your own path to pleasure through solo exploration – which
is
sex! Masturbation, non-penetrative touching, orgasms – all of this is sex, and counts as sex when done with a partner too – as does oral sex, using sex toys and all the other things sex can entail apart from penile-vaginal penetration. Many women don't even orgasm from penetration, yet it's still held up as the ultimate goal – which is ridiculous and limiting. There's a whole world of sexual intimacy beyond penetration, and good partners – the ones worth your time – will understand that. They won't rush you or see vaginismus as a barrier to intimacy, because they'll know there are many ways to connect.
You seem unsure that kind of partner exists. There's an urgency and pressure in your letter, driven by fear of not being accepted by a future partner who isn't even here yet. So it makes perfect sense that your body is hesitant. If you're using dilators just to make yourself more 'acceptable,' your body will resist – and rightly so. That's not failure; it's self-protection.
Try shifting your focus. Instead of centring what a potential partner might want from you sexually, centre what you want in a partner generally. If dating feels daunting, that's understandable – especially if your past partners lacked empathy or put pressure on you. These past experiences deserve exploration and empathy in therapy. But it's also important to remember that not all men are like that. Enter dating expecting kindness, emotional intelligence, and respect as the baseline. Think of dating exploration and connection. Move slowly. Be discerning. Maintain boundaries. Notice who makes you feel safe, and comfortable, and like yourself. Assume you deserve to be treated well – and don't accept less.
You might also find it helpful to connect with online vaginismus communities. They can reduce isolation, offer support, and show you what's possible. Many women with vaginismus are in loving, thriving relationships with supportive partners. For couples navigating this together, sex-positive couples therapy can be transformative. Seeing these stories may ease the pressure you're putting on yourself and help dismantle the belief that men will inevitably pressure you into penetrative sex – which, frankly, is the type of man no woman should be dating anyway.
If you decide to have that conversation with a future partner, you're not revealing a flaw – you're sharing an important part of your story. The right person will see that as a strength. You get to say: 'Here's what I've learned about my body. Here's what I enjoy. Here's what I'm still working on.' And then you get to watch how they respond. That response will tell you a lot. If you share your story with someone and they back away, that's not a reflection of your worth. That's a filter.
[
'My ex blanks me at group events – and my family and friends make excuses for him'
Opens in new window
]
Whatever comes next – whether it's more therapy, dilators, dating, or just continuing to enjoy solo pleasure – know this: you are already doing the work. You're already enough. Your body deserves respect, and so do you. Give it yourself, and expect it from others. Wishing you the best of luck.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
3 days ago
- Irish Times
RFK Jr names new vaccine panel members after firing previous ones
US health secretary Robert Kennedy Jr on Wednesday named new members to serve on a key panel of vaccine advisers after abruptly firing all 17 sitting members of the independent panel of experts, according to a post on X. The eight new members of the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices are: Joseph R Hibbeln, Martin Kulldorff, Retsef Levi, Robert W Malone, Cody Meissner, James Pagano, Vicky Pebsworth and Michael A Ross. 'All of these individuals are committed to evidence-based medicine, gold-standard science, and common sense,' Mr Kennedy said in a post on X. The panel is part of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Mr Kennedy said the new members are committed to demanding definitive safety and efficacy data before making any new vaccine recommendations. READ MORE Mr Kennedy, a longtime vaccine skeptic, has alleged that the prior panel members, many of whom were appointed by former president Joe Biden, had conflicts of interest, without providing evidence of specific members' conflicts, and said the move was necessary 'to re-establish public confidence in vaccine science'. Numerous physician groups have expressed concern and suspicion over Mr Kennedy's unprecedented removal of all the panel's prior members. The American Medical Association, the nation's largest physician group, has called for a Senate investigation into their dismissal and sent Mr Kennedy a letter calling for an immediate reversal of the changes. —Reuters
Irish Times
4 days ago
- Irish Times
US health secretary Kennedy guts vaccine advisory committee
US health secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr has fired all 17 members of a panel of vaccine experts and is in the process of replacing them, his department said on Monday, drawing protest from many scientists. The move is the most far-reaching in a series of actions by Mr Kennedy, a long-time vaccine sceptic, to reshape US regulation of vaccines, food and medicine. Scientists and experts said the changes to the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention vaccine advisory panel, which recommends how vaccines are used and by whom, would undermine public confidence in health agencies. Mr Kennedy promised the move would raise public confidence. READ MORE 'Today we are prioritising the restoration of public trust above any specific pro- or anti-vaccine agenda,' he said in a statement. Mr Kennedy has for years sowed doubt about the safety and efficacy of vaccines, but he pledged to maintain the country's existing vaccine standards to secure his appointment in US president Donald Trump's administration. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is overseen by his department, has approved a number of vaccines during his tenure despite concerns over his stances. Even so, at least one senior Republican member of Congress expressed doubts about the changes in the panel. Mr Kennedy said the advisory panel is rife with conflicts and has never turned down a vaccine, even though the decision to approve vaccines rests with the FDA. 'That's a tragedy,' said former FDA chief scientist Jesse Goodman. 'This is a highly professional group of scientists and physicians and others ... It's the kind of political meddling that will reduce confidence rather than increase confidence.' The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America called Mr Kennedy's action concerning for public health. 'Upending the [panel's] membership increases uncertainty and vaccine scepticism, undermining the health gains achieved through vaccination,' the industry body said in a statement. Shares of vaccine makers Moderna and BioNTech fell more than 1 per cent, while Pfizer was down marginally in extended trading on Monday. Mr Kennedy said most panel members receive funding from drug companies, although members are required to declare any potential or perceived conflicts of interest that arise in the course of their tenure and any relevant business interests, positions of authority or other connections with organisations relevant to the committee's work. Mr Kennedy provided no specific evidence of industry conflicts of interest among departing panel members. All 17 panel members were appointed under former president Joe Biden's administration, including 13 in 2024. Without their removal, the Trump administration would not have been able to choose a majority of the committee until 2028. – Reuters
Irish Times
4 days ago
- Irish Times
Why is Irish media so reticent about covering gender issues?
The phrase 'third rail' was originally coined to describe the electrified line that runs alongside train tracks, deadly to the touch. In politics and public discourse, it has come to signify any subject deemed too dangerous, too radioactive, too fraught to approach. And while journalism in a liberal democracy is, in theory, about touching all the rails – especially the live ones – theory and practice often diverge. Last week, the New York Times published all six episodes of The Protocol , a podcast series that represents a significant moment in the polarised US debate around youth transgender healthcare. The series explores how the standardised medical approach to gender transition in minors was developed in the Netherlands in the 1990s. Known as the 'Dutch protocol', the model recommends the use of puberty blockers and hormone therapy for carefully assessed adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria. That protocol was later exported, adapted – and contested – elsewhere, including in the United Kingdom and United States, where culture war battle lines have long since been drawn. The New York Times podcast tells a story of shifting medical consensus, political pressure, and institutional confusion. But it also carries a subtext about journalism itself – how hard it can be for newsrooms to report accurately and fairly on an issue that cuts so close to the cultural bone. READ MORE It's worth noting that the New York Times has not emerged from this process unscathed. Over the past few years, its coverage of trans issues has prompted significant internal dissent. A 2022 feature by journalist Emily Bazelon questioning aspects of the prevailing medical model and an article by Katie Baker in 2023 titled, When Students Change Gender Identity and Parents Don't Know sparked public protests, petitions signed by some of the paper's reporters, and an open letter from celebrities and activists accusing the newspaper of platforming 'anti-trans bigotry'. Senior editors responded with unusually sharp criticism of their staff, insisting that journalism 'cannot exist in service of any cause'. The Protocol feels, in part, like an attempt to reset. Bazelon is credited as an adviser on the podcast. The editorial tone is serious, sober, and almost anxious in its caution. There are no polemics. But the very act of producing it – at scale, with resources and rigour – feels like a line being drawn: a claim that this subject, however charged, can and should be reported on without fear or favour. How to manage your pension in these volatile times Listen | 37:00 Which brings us to this side of the Atlantic. In the same week The Protocol dropped, Irish psychotherapist Stella O'Malley published a blog post recounting her own experience with Irish media. O'Malley, a founder of the organisation Genspect, is sharply critical in the post and in an interview on the State of Us podcast , of what she describes as the effective blacklisting of dissenting voices on the issue of youth transition by Irish media, including The Irish Times. 'In Ireland,' she writes, 'cancel culture doesn't burn you at the stake – it quietly leaves you out in the cold'. O'Malley is particularly scathing about RTÉ, where, until 2021, she had been a regular contributor to national discussions on youth mental health. Since then, she says, her media invitations have dried up. She cites the Irish media's lack of coverage on key developments abroad, such as the closure of the Tavistock gender clinic in London following the Cass Review, or the recent UK Supreme Court ruling that sex, not gender identity, should be the basis of protections under equality law, as evidence of what she characterises as a systemic avoidance of uncomfortable facts. Of course, O'Malley is now an activist with a clear ideological stance, and reasonable people can disagree with her conclusions or question her affiliations. But if activism were a barrier to participation in Irish current affairs programmes, there would be an awful lot of silence on our airwaves. What seems harder to deny is that, in her case and others, views that challenge the prevailing orthodoxy on gender identity are seen as beyond the pale. This may explain a striking media gap. The Cass Review in the UK, a years-long, evidence-based review of youth gender services led by a respected paediatrician, concluded that the medical model developed in the Netherlands and exported widely was, in many cases, being applied without sufficient clinical oversight. It led directly to the suspension of all routine prescription of puberty blockers to under-18s in the National Health Service. The Irish media coverage of this was scant, scattered and mostly relegated to the opinion pages, even though it had a direct impact on the treatment of Irish children, or that the largest political party on the island, Sinn Féin, was forced into policy contortions on either side of the Border as a result. Why the reticence? There is a commonly heard view that to even enter this debate is to engage in a 'toxic' discourse imported from Britain and the US – best avoided in a mature, progressive society. But this is an odd position, especially in a media culture that otherwise shows little hesitation in following every twist and turn of UK and US affairs, from the post-Brexit travails of the Conservative party to the power struggles within the Trump White House. The truth may be simpler and more uncomfortable. Irish journalism, like Irish society, is small. The circles are tight. The cost of stepping on the wrong third rail – socially, professionally, reputationally – is high. Better, perhaps, to look away. And yet the issues are not going away. Ireland, like every other country, is grappling with questions of medical ethics, consent, identity, and law. Young people experiencing gender distress deserve compassionate, evidence-based care. But they also deserve a society willing to discuss that care honestly. And journalists, if they are doing their jobs, have to be part of that conversation, even when it's difficult.
