7 + 1 Reasons Not to F*ck a Woman’s Mind. {NSFW}

Via on Oct 18, 2012

Warning: naughty language ahead. 

“I, with a deeper instinct, choose a man who compels my strength, who makes enormous demands on me, who does not doubt my courage or my toughness, who does not believe me naïve or innocent, who has the courage to treat me like a woman.”

~ Anais Nin

When I first read David Esotica’s article, I was annoyed. Then, I really started to get angry. Who the fuck are you to decide what all women feel and where do you get off listing how women should be—in your words—ravished?!

Because let’s be clear here, we aren’t talking lovemaking. We are using a word we connote with violence. We are using a word that means you are taking something that’s mine. We are using a word that I’m okay with using to describe a certain kind of sex, but fuck you if you think you ever get to do it to my mind.

I believe that gender stereotypes and generalizations are fundamentally unnecessary, but sometimes contain kernels of truth. I love the experience of being female. I love the soft, yielding parts of my body and my mind. I love my strength—physical, mental and spiritual. I love the contrast of male and female. We all contain yin and yang, and the interplay of the two between two lovers, regardless of gender, is beautiful—both mentally and physically.

The thing is, I’d be just as bothered by an equally reductive essay written about men. I’ve written before about how it pains me when women, under the guise of feminism, tear men down and condense the idea of masculinity to a tired joke that only continues to divide the sexes.

We are not just flowers, and men are not wild animals.

So to hear a man reduce this idea of what it is to be female this way does more than make me angry. It saddens me.

I could probably give you a hundred reasons why, but I’ll stick with seven, plus one.

1. “A woman’s sex is all mental.”

I don’t know who he’s talking to, but the moment of orgasm might be one of the few times in my life that I am completely without words. There is no cerebral framework for that sensation. It is body and spirit on fire.

2. “For all her thorns and daggers, every woman holds a fragile part. She hides it, for fear of finding herself vulnerable.”

I prize my vulnerability; it is a strength. I don’t know what to make of this idea of “thorns and daggers”? Sure, we all have our guarded moments. The strong among us (humans, not exclusively women) don’t hide our fragility. We know that where we are tender and raw—sexually or spiritually—is where we are our most genuine, our most essential.

3. “Care taken whilst taking what you want.”

{As a funny aside, part of my annoyance here is the use of the word “whilst.” Seriously? Whilst? Hmm.}

My sex isn’t something to be taken from me, it’s something to share. My mind, my body, my heart, my spirit? They aren’t to be taken. I’ll give them. I’ll share them. They are mine, and I don’t think I’d want to be with anyone who felt the need to try and take them.

4. Painfully. Cruel nails grinding down the sides of her ribs. Gripping onto the bone of her hips. Digging into the soft flesh of her waist.”

Many people enjoy pushing the boundaries of pleasure versus pain. If someone wants to do something “cruelly and painfully” to me, I’ll pass. Thanks anyway.

5. “Every woman.”

I have to say, every time I read “every woman” in this piece, I cringed. Not just for “every woman,” but for every man too. There are seven million plus one things about me and even then I’m still shifting and changing. I can’t imagine reducing the ways to love one man into a list of eight, let alone the entire gender.

6. “Every woman reaches a point when she comes, deeper and harder than she thought possible. Her body and her soul open unleashing a storm.”

Ah, again with the “every woman.” But the part that makes me sad here, and throughout, is the idea that making love is something you would choose to do to someone instead of with them. There is a disconnect here. This is the disconnect that making love should begin to erode. Anais Nin said, “only the united beat of sex and heart together can create ecstasy.” This isn’t something you do to a woman and she “takes it.” This is something you share. This is the ocean between two continents. This is the waves crashing on both of our shores.

7. “This leads us to a beautiful truth about the feminine—every woman is in pain.”

Wrong. This leads us to a beautiful truth about human beings: we are all in pain.

To connect physically, lovingly, whether through the platonic touch of a friend or passionate lovemaking can have a profound affect on our pain. All of us have dark places that need healing. We give it to ourselves; we give it to each other. And I’d agree, our pain is part of the beautiful truth of being human, but stand beside me and hold me through my pain. It isn’t a way into my pants.

8. “Yes, this is how I can hold you, take you and claim you…but you are the one who must invite me.”

There is no invitation I would issue, could issue to be claimed, to have someone “fuck my mind.” Love is standing together, no one above or below, but in concert. I am not here in some tower waiting to be carried away and ravished. When I decide to make love, it is something I will give.

It is a gift we give to each other. It is how we surrender to each other.

 

Like elephant sexy on Facebook.

 

About elephant journal

elephant journal is dedicated to "bringing together those working (and playing) to create enlightened society." We're about anything that helps us to live a good life that's also good for others, and our planet. >>> Founded as a print magazine in 2002, we went national in 2005 and then (because mainstream magazine distribution is wildly inefficient from an eco-responsible point of view) transitioned online in 2009. >>> elephant's been named to 30 top new media lists, and was voted #1 in the US on twitter's Shorty Awards for #green content...two years running. >>> Get involved: > Subscribe to our free Best of the Week e-newsletter. > Follow us on Twitter Fan us on Facebook. > Write: send article or query. > Advertise. > Pay for what you read, help indie journalism survive and thrive—and get your name/business/fave non-profit on every page of elephantjournal.com. Questions? info elephantjournal com

56,067 views

129 Responses to “7 + 1 Reasons Not to F*ck a Woman’s Mind. {NSFW}”

  1. Mymble says:

    Thank you for your clear and true words! I was just as annoyed as you – the article was truly disturbing and ridiculous. All this talk about "taking" and "ravishing" and "pain" and "every woman" left me cold.

    I am a person who describe myself as a sub, sexually, but I couldn't fit any of this into that framework – precisely because it was all about taking, not sharing.

    Not to mention the fact that the author clearly perceives women as "le deuxième sexe".

  2. kirsten says:

    Thank you!!!!! I felt like a rug had been pulled from beneath me after reading the original piece; off-balance, a little disassociated…stunned i guess. So, thank you for such a powerful rebuttal/response/declaration!!!!!

  3. Guest says:

    Thank you for this post. I found the other one to be sexist at the least and verging on violent. Thank you for taking the time to address this!

  4. David Esotica says:

    Hello Kate.

    Thank you for a sound and resolute counter-piece, so soon after mine was published. The only thing that comes to mind is this:

    "But of course you're right."

    And so am I.

    I was indeed anticipating polarised responses. Both articles are true. How else could they generate such passionate replies?

    When I read the words that you write, I think, "yes, this woman is writing her truth." Does that mean that I am not?

    If I am willing to entertain that your words are your truth, is it so difficult to accept that this is mine? That I witness this unfold, frequently and consistently? Enough for me to put my reputation on the line? If my words were merely ridiculous invention of neotenous fantasy, they would have been universally torn down. They have not.

    Let us go to the crux of it. There will be women who read my article and say "YESSS". And I will notice it. And I will know what is possible when I am with then. Then there will be women who say "NOOO". And that is fine. I would be unable to share anything with that woman. In fact, I will never meet her.

    But as you said, you will always be shifting and changing. Time will tell.

  5. Skink says:

    I'm a guy, and think Mr. Esotica's article is a bunch of hogwash. Each of us is blessedly different from the person next to us.

    I see it as another guy trying to assert patriarchal dominance.

    I think he just read 50 shades of grey or something.

  6. David Esotica says:

    Yes, I certainly did present it that way Kate. I did not do that unconsciously nor accidentally.

    There's a critical point when two people disagree, and it's happening here. As long as we try to understand each other, this need not be a point of contention. Not for us, or anyone reading.

    I'm happy to keep the discussion public, but facebook would be better. Real-time notifications and all.

    From what you said, I hear that you felt that my piece accentuated a gender divide. That is the opposite of what you want and what you believe in. I can see your point. The way I conduct myself can be powerful, and can be used as a weapon to sever connection. I had to take extreme care when I was learning about this, and it had a lot to do with the impact of my "masculine power", as some might put it. Indeed, if I do not conduct myself with utmost integrity, I can deeply heart women. And I have. I have made many mistakes. And chances are I always will.

    Again, open to discussion. A mutual facebook group preferred. Keeping it public will contribute to the elej community.

  7. YoMamaMusic says:

    David,

    For me, the most interesting thing is how often you use "I'. From a much older woman, who has never had a problem reaching the orgasm you describe without your rules, it is about "us". Not you. You are profoundly uninteresting, but I was disturbed as someone who has worked in women's shelters for many years to read words that women who are abused so often shared…the concern is that you would be comfortable not taking full responsibility for the women you have hurt, and are bragging that you will continue to do so in the future.

  8. Hi Kate and everyone. Such a rich discussion. I think what might be useful for us all to step back, way back, like from outer space and look at what this piece by David is really tapping into. As the writer of a piece like it, that generalized what women might want from men (A Call to the Sacred Masculine), that went viral to 63K views this summer, we need to look at something beyond our preferences.

    What i see is a clear collective chord — and nerver– being struck by the idea of a man as powerful, leaderful, and so much so, that a woman can TRUST HIM into a place of sexual and emotional surrender. This yearning is in the collective, which is why the badly written Fiffty Shades of Grey, sold 60 MILLION copies in months. It's an extreme version of this yearning…as one reader said, not to submit, but to surrender.

    Perhaps women of the world are tired of doing it all? After the two world wars, we moved en masse into the workforce and WE STILL RAISED THE KIDS. Suddenly, we are both driven and ambitious, competing and working hard in the "man's world" and yes, making strides for fairness and equality.

    And yet, the receptive feminine, the nourishing and collaborative feminine, the softer and intuitive feminine–got trampled down in this process.

    Maybe we are asking men, deep down, to join us in a new kind of alliance. David Deida writes at length about his kind of third level "communion" where we take each other to "god" or our place of Oneness Consciousness, through a polarized but EQUAL union.

    Getting off my pulpit now.

    hugs

    LA

  9. bikesandmath says:

    Awesome article. I respect the idea of the sacred masculine and the sacred feminine but being typecast entirely based on gender sucks. It's just super annoying and, quite frankly, disrespectful. One can't know what I want or need just because I am a woman!!

  10. BK says:

    I don’t comment very often, but I had to let you know I am grateful for this article. When I read the other one, I was both disturbed and amused that he thinks he knows what all women want. I think I will have to agree about the “50 Shades of Grey” fans.

    And it’s a bit hard to explain but he chooses his wording too carefully. It’s quite creepy to me, actually. It’s like he is tip-toeing around everything. And as another member pointed out, he definitely overuses the word “I” considering the topic is supposedly about women.

    To me, it just seemed like a self-masturbatory article from some fantasy in his head where he is god’s gift to women.

    Sorry for the harsh words. It seems the article pissed me off a bit, too.

  11. Timmy_Robins says:

    "Ha! Right on. That was my thought when I read the comments…that most of the women that loved it were probably 50 Shades fans."

    Wow, and you think this is not offensive? Are you yourself not dividing women into categories …'those who think like me' Vs 'those who like stuff like 50 SHOG and the stuff guys like David write' ?? There is a complete lack of humility and understanding in what you are saying ,as if you were somehow better for not being like 'them'. Really sad specially coming from a feminist.
    I think this post says more about you than about David.

  12. timful says:

    I think we can all appreciate the fantasy of being with someone who is better than we are, and in some sense deserves to dominate us, is worthy of our devotion. What is offensive is the idea that every man can be that person simply by being born a man and going through the motions as if he believes it to be true. Intimacy begins with authenticity.

  13. […] Update: a rebuttal, via Kate Bartolotta. 7 + 1 Reasons Not to F*ck a Woman’s Mind. {NSFW} […]

  14. roamingbard says:

    I read both articles and comments. It seems that the source of disagreement is a common linguistic phenomenon: the gap between the "connotations" and "denotations" of a word. Generally, each word "connotes" more than one thing, while it has a certain (or several, yet fixed) "denotation" (s) or "dictionary meaning" (s). In David's article, I feel that whenever he uses the word "woman", he is thinking of the “archetypal feminine”, which is one of the many “connotations” of the word “woman”. In Kate's article, in contrast, "woman" is the biological female person with all the nuances and complexities of a human-being, as is the “denotation” of the word “woman”. Hence, David is talking of how to connect to the archetypal feminine from the pole of the archetypal masculine, and of course, he is using the word "woman" in a poetic sense ("This leads us to a beautiful truth about the feminine—every woman is in pain.") Kate, on the other hand, is saying how reductive it is to conclude things about "every woman", because certainly women are different — which is a fact. So her language is more literal and denotative. Bottom line, BOTH are right… they are just engaging different layers of language, and therefore, coming up with arguments which are BOTH correct, but not necessarily related: One is "connotative", the other "denotative". Also, and this is beside the point, it was very entertaining for me to write a comment on the apparently-opposing articles written by a man and a woman, as, in fact, I am a bisexual woman in a long-term Ménage à Trois with two beautiful people, and this is a habit I have developed over the years: seeing BOTH layers of language, and life :-)

  15. Erika says:

    Thank you from my body, mind, and the absolute bottom of my heart.

  16. Brianna says:

    Thank you, KATE! I say this with a sigh of relief after reading your article.

  17. Muks says:

    Thanks, Kate! I loved to read your article. Now I can hold my chin up again 😉

  18. sluczaj says:

    "stand beside me and hold me through my pain. It isn’t a way into my pants."

    Kate – I am standing here applauding. The creepy tone of the article was amplified by David's comments.

  19. Ben Ralston Ben_Ralston says:

    Kate and others editorial staff: why did the original piece get published on EJ?
    Because it's just about sex, and not the mindful kind, despite it's pretensions.

  20. Hello everyone. I posted this comment on David's piece as well:

    The comment range here runs from appreciation to scorn, which means the article has struck both a collective nerve and chord. There is not much in the middle, where discourse is about the bigger picture. I see this piece as having social significance beyond the BDSM overtones—in fact, perhaps addressing the loss of sexuality polarity between men and women in an age where women are expected to be as powerful in business and career as men, while also retaining our femininity, and receptivity. Fifty Shades was a hit, to the tune of 60 milllion sold copies, because women readers were compelled, fascinated and curious, not to mention turned on, by Anastasia's submission to a dom. Yet that poorly written book was an extreme, and it did not really hit the mark for most intelligent and strong women who perhaps yearned not for submission, but for a deeper surrender in sexual contact with a beloved.

    And yes, men too can surrender or want to experience surrender. It's not about gender. It's about receptive vs active polarities.

    Lori Ann
    elephant love and relationships
    editor

  21. Charolette says:

    Thank you so much! The article was upsetting to me as well. I try very hard to remain unbiased towards an author and reflect on why something written effects me the way that it does. Usually when something produces an extreme reaction there is some room there for reflection and perhaps growth but….this particular author continues to write sweeping generalizations about women and does not seem to notice that he does so! I think my growth in this situation is patience, tolerance and perhaps giving my voice an opportunity to speak.

  22. iambethanne says:

    Thank you Kate. I couldn't finish reading all of David's article because I thought really, this is what I am supposed to feel? NO!!! I DON'T THINK SO!!! I only opened the article to see what all the buzz was about. And I was actually saddened to think this is what people think is "normal" or desirable.

  23. Vision_Quest2 says:

    The point-counterpoint expressed in the first article and the pushback in this one; is a better metaphor for an equal sexual "exchange" than the original article was as a metaphor for gratifying sexual encounter.

  24. bikesandmath says:

    Your logic is very confusing. Firstly, polarity inherently implies that two things are different. Wether they have opposite charges, applied forces or opinions the two "poles" are different. A force is a characteristic of an object not an object in and of itself. It's definition in your example, Force=mass x acceleration (F=ma), clearly shows that there must be a mass present. So, while two objects can have equal but opposite forces applied to them it depends wholly on what those objects are as to the outcome of this applied force. You seem to be mistaking have equal characteristics (charge, force, etc.) with being inherently equal. Why is this relevant? Because there are no two people that are equal. We may have equally valuable characteristics but we are not equal. You, in fact, make this argument for me when you state that the masculine pole and feminine poles are equal but different. I am unsure as to why you insist on using the word equal.

    This is all relevant to the point you bring up later – Social equality is most certainly about fairness but it is not about making one person equal to another, it is about giving them the opportunity to let their characteristics shine without having unfair disadvantages despite their differences. Everyone has different talents, strengths and weakness' that make us valuable. And saying that the original piece is not about that is missing a key point as to why it has upset so many people!

    The original piece defines very narrowly what is expected of a man and a woman and is an example of what the social equality movement has been working to eliminate. In fact, making broad statements about all women or all men hinders our ability to reach a place where we can equally share all that is within us. The original article is insulting to anyone who wishes to explore sexuality in a way that opposes this twisted idea of what is masculine and feminine (at least defined here). And the worst part is that nowhere does the author attempt to blend the two but rather concentrates merely on the conquest.

  25. I agree to an extent. If there is no polarity going on, there will be no interest. But! I think it varies per person and per relationship so widely…we are each on such a unique continuum of yin and yang within our personalities that to describe it as "every woman" feels like a really poor fit. I've seen you write on the topic in the comments in a way that feels much more accurate to me.

  26. cassandralanesmith says:

    Thanks for this, Kate. I felt like I needed to respond to David's article too, but you've said everything I wanted to say here. His article really creeped me out. It was like he was trying to convince me what an awesome lover he is in hopes of getting me (and all women) to want to 'surrender'. I love the idea of presenting fully embodied surrender to your partner during sex, but only when that partner has earned my surrender by being equally open and compassionate. David's words do not prove to me he is worthy of a woman's surrender; instead they make me worry he sees women's bodies merely as tools to perpetuate masculine dominance. I get that he was trying to talk about the polar relationship between masculine and feminine energies, but his word choice made the concept sound disturbing instead of divine. Thanks again for speaking up.

  27. Auki says:

    David's article was over the top. Who's making the editorial decision to post that kind of crap on this website? Where's the spiritual integrity? Integrity and good taste are getting hard to find here. There's a whole world out there in dire need of healing. Is that the best you can do, Waylon? I won't be renewing my subscription.

  28. mivox says:

    Thank you for this! The original essay came off so arrogant, manipulative, and patronizing, I was saddened to see it published here. And I would like to add my voice to the other commenter who enjoysBDSM, but found David’s piece to be a very unhealthy way to approach any sort of power game.

    Reading his comments here further cemented my already low opinion of his attitude toward women. He reads like a pick-up artist who uses women’s orgasms as his scoreboard.

  29. Teresa says:

    Well said Kate! David's article actually kind of put me off sex for a bit. (but after an hour with some bleach and a metal scrubbing brush I feel clean and ready to interact again lol)

  30. Dee says:

    Hallelujah!!! I was so pissed and completely flooded with a torrent of frustrating feelings (the same feelings I felt when I started to read 50 Shades of Gray) after reading David's article! That can't be what other women feel and I don't ever want to make love like that! I immediately opened your article and felt like every emotion I felt was completely validated by your words. You are a true woman in touch with your true heart and soul.

  31. nylassej says:

    Thanks for writing a response, Kate. I had a hard time getting through the original article because I was having a hard time keeping it down – strange, considering everything he describes, separately, sound like acts/attitudes I might enjoy, but something about the entire piece just creeped me out. I tried to empathize by reading his little blurb bio but when it described him working with his partner (business? romance?) I felt even more uncomfortable- was this about their private sex life? Not sure…anyway I can respect his truth and your truth but mine matches yours a little more…
    Maybe it is just hard to express personal experiences and beliefs around sex without offending somebody, but I have to agree that the "every woman", the "whilst" (and I'm a language dork) and the repeated "fucking beautiful" made me feel like I was listening to a wannabe new-agey pirate who crashes parties to talk about conquests as if they are artful masterpieces of romance…

  32. Michelle says:

    At first,I felt the sexual,primal energy of his words. As I read the article by Kate,and the responses to all of it,I felt his choice of experience was egoic. Coming from an empath,I felt there was nothing from a higher consciousness about it . But everyone has their own ideas and concepts of how they choose to be loved. I could only surrender to that space with a man who we would share so much more . I think he should have stayed away from all the generalizations about what woman want and feel in the union of the masculine and feminine energies. He might feel this is his ultimate expression of his masculinity. I am not into that sense of a man . That kind of mindfuck turns me off . The way I experience the exquisite surrender is through my trust,respect,and open communication with my partner. Like religion,sex is an individual path to " God", ecstasy, and the other . Love and light is what I surrender to in everything I choose to experience.

  33. Ken says:

    I was mostly un-awed by David's original article, except for the part about:

    "This leads us to a beautiful truth about the feminine—every woman is in pain. It is a pain that goes deeper than the reach of any brutal force or cold analysis. It is something wrapped inside her, around her spine, engulfing her chest. But it is not something to be feared. This is a beautiful pain. It emerges when she feels that hunger. A hunger to be loved and cherished. To blossom. To feel. To touch. And yes, to be ravished. She feels it in anticipation and in deep harmony. It comes during times of loss, despair and fear. It groans in her sex, screaming in her thrill. It drives into her skin with touch. It deepens with burning love."

    This hit me especially strongly because I, as a man, have felt this pain, too.

    Thank you Kate, for expressing that pain is a condition of humanity, not femininity or masculinity. It can't be something we can bond or connect over unless each sex recognize it.

  34. […] To the other half, you caught our attention. We felt the stab deep into our bellies from those opposed to his view. […]

  35. Jeana says:

    I am very drawn to the idea of surrender in sex, but for me, BOTH partners have to be surrendering. In some ways, the original 7+1 piece was sexy and alluring, but the major thing that's missing from it for me is his willingness to also surrender, to be vulnerable, to admit and feel his own pain. I, personally, can't fully release and let go unless my partner is just as engaged, just as surrendered.

    That to me is the ideal, but of course I realize that people–men and women–vary in their preferences, which is something that the writer of the original article doesn't seem to be in touch with.

  36. onesadhaka says:

    Love it! I knew you could elucidate this much clearly and less angrily than I…and you did. Unchallenged ignorance just multiplies…

  37. Kejanz says:

    yeah girl !!! superbly said !!! thanks for your response to him ! thanks to elephant for publishing it on the post!

  38. WarriorWidow says:

    ok. I only read a few comments, so I am not really addressing anyone in here, but the original authors, I guess. And I hear what both of you are saying. For me, when I read the original article, I was moved. I didn't mind the word F*ck being used…because it didn't sound like it was about just a screw. I think the idea is that to get to most women, most people, you need to engage our minds…if you start with our minds, everything opens more fully. And when you are fully open, the thorns and fear and doubts all melt away. And that is a deep passion, which usually makes me want to use the word f*ck. That type of opening makes me want to be taken. And to take in return. And also, for me, I don't like pain, but sometimes when I am that open, brief moments of the rough in contrast to the tender send me over the edge to somewhere magical and tremendous. I'm sorry you were so angered by the article. I'm glad you wrote about your anger. I am also glad the original was written.

  39. Karine says:

    Wow. David's number 8 actually made my body tense, in like a 'warning, possessive, psychic vampiric' sort of way. To me it signals a powerful underlying need to possess and control, and a powerful dysfunction. That's my gut reaction to it.

  40. Wow, I did not "read" David's article at all the way you did Kate. So interesting; in fact probably the most interesting aspect of all is this polarity. The article spoke to me in a yearning, craving way. It spoke to the depths of me that have yet to be explored and discovered sexually. In part because I have not been able to surrender to it, and by so doing (or not doing as the case may be) have not chosen men who were able to go "there". All that has shifted for me now and I for one cannot wait to be "taken" in this way; to be "SOUL FUCKED" as I wrote about here recently. I see a lot of overlap with that.
    David's article spoke to me in the same way that the work of David Deida does at times, and while it is not a direct comparison there are many aspects about the ideas of women wanting, desiring and craving that strong, masculine presence and yes "taking" of us in a very dominant way. Of course there is a "dance" og give and take and I felt that David did address that as well.
    Anyway, for me it was a profound read and exactly what I seek.
    In love and light, Debra

  41. Jen says:

    I think the issue is that there is a generalization/stereotype/ tired archetype here. The conquest and the chase.It seems the author, who clearly enjoys the type of lovemaking he is describing, enjoys the chase and conquest. This is the Madonna archetype. The "good girl" who holds out, makes you wait; you find her deep inner "pain" and you dominate her. You win in a sense. There is a clear sense of achievement in the article. I think this may be what annoys some women. Because I do believe it is a very mutual act. This is what is going on in YOUR mind. Not exactly hers- always. This is the Madonna/ Whore bullshit that still pervades within our society, UNCONSCIOUSLY. Sure, this is ONE WAY to view and have amazing sex. Do I enjoy this at times, yes. Amazing love making doesn't ALWAYS come from that in my female perspective. I believe, in my experience, that it is the connection between two people. The ability to be completely present and aware of what is going on between you and your partner. To be in a divine state of communication. Sure, Some nights I may want to be ravished- ok. Other nights I may want to F*&$ the Sh^& out of you…. In fact I may try to ravage you. I may remove you from your state of consciousness and seduce YOU AS A MAN. And I may really enjoy that. SO, WHAT IS THE DYNAMIC THEN? I have chased you… you have succumbed to me…. Hmmmm. Is that satisfying, or does that make me the second part of the paradigm… the "Whore", or what I like to refer to as the Sexually Empowered Woman???? A woman who is so comfortable, in fact, that she knows her own needs and wants and sets out to satisfy them. Is it not as satisfying to the author to be pursued, himself? Because, I surely get off on that as well. But I wouldn't call it "Fucking your mind". I would call it I want to F'ing come. You F'ing turn me on, just by your smell, your presence, the thought of you inside me, and I need you, NOW. How about that? There are all kinds of sex, for all different occasions, and to look at it in a limited fashion, limits the act, the connection, the people, and the divinity of the entire GIFT that we have been granted in the ecstasy of the union. The best love making I ever had was when I felt the man and I connected, with whatever we were feeling, right there.. at that time. No Paradigm, whatsoever. There was no notion in my head about any of what you stated. I was just there and present, and so was he, with everything that was occurring. We consciously took breaths together, even. It was hours and hours of interplay- of Divine communication. No one was dominant, no one was submissive… we just knew through some divine energy how to please one another. And that, my friend, was magic. It brought us both to a state of consciousness that was beyond the realm of all words and stereotypes… it was a complete letting go of self fro BOTH people. It was SOUL F'ING You should try that. It's better. I hope everyone has a chance to experience that. Bu you must first drop all of the paradigms in your head. Try it.

  42. Teman Cooke says:

    I’d like to thank David, for the original article; Kate, for this response article; and also Joyce, for adding yet a third dimension in her article (http://www.elephantjournal.com/2012/10/more-than-7-1-ways-a-closer-look-nsfw-joice-joker/). I was pointed to the original article by a friend, and that lead me into reading the two accompanying pieces. I’ve tried to read (or at least skim) most (if not all) of the comments on the articles as well. To be honest, it took me quite some time to finally decide to comment. I realize that these articles are over two years old now, and I struggle with discerning when adding my voice will be productive vs. divisive (which is not my goal). However, it’s clear that these articles are still speaking to people — people are still making comments, and still sharing the articles, and still talking. Let me also take this opportunity to apologize as well; my thoughts are still very much evolving and organizing, so if I have not fully supported an assertion, please let me know.

    David’s article bothers me for many of the reasons that Kate names in her article. In addition, many of the comments made about the article — both in support of David, like Joyce’s article, as well as those against it — also bothered me. It took me a while to figure out why. Ultimately, I think the reason the piece bothers me is because it is written from a position of unaware privilege.

    Now, I realize that I said, not two paragraphs above, that it was not my goal to be divisive, and I’ve just used perhaps one of the most divisive words in the American language. So let me clarify what I specifically mean by privilege. Privilege is the ability to take the role of protagonist in the narrative templates provided by our culture and society. In other words, culture, society, and history provides us with meaningful story frameworks — archetypes, if you will — that allow us to both define and explore who we are and how we fit together as a people. One side-effect of this, however, is that certain roles have developed limitations on who is “allowed” to fill them. In many stories, the role of protagonist — the actor and influencer and controller — is only available to those with certain characteristics, such as being male, or being white, or being wealthy, etc etc. Those lacking these defining characteristics are then shunted into alternate roles — either as a supporting character, or as an antagonist. (I won’t go very deeply into why I believe this happens; in short, I suspect that it tends to serve as an organizing and stabilizing influence for human communities, and allows the community to respond more quickly to external threats. But I digress.)

    The freedom to take on the role of protagonist — the role of power and control — within a given story template is what I am calling privilege.

    So, when I read David’s piece, I am continually confronted with the language and understanding of someone who has never had to struggle with being forced into a role he did not want. And that, at its core, is what bothers me about his piece. I don’t disagree with any of the points he presents. I am not a woman, so I cannot say whether he is on target or not. But I have heard women talk about issues of weariness, and wanting to trust, and wanting to be able to just let go and be carried along and taken care of. And, to be honest, I can’t say that I haven’t experienced similar feelings. The ability to surrendering control — to be able to trust in your body, in your partner, and in the contact between the two — is quite alluring and quite healthy. The core message of his article seems, at least to me, to be a positive one.

    However, the fact of the matter is that he has written himself (and other men) as the protagonist in this article, and in doing so falls back into a social context that has effectively suppressed and trivialized women’s autonomy for centuries. “We (men) Do, You (women) Receive.” This bothers me. In seeking to perhaps offer something new, David has (inadvertently, perhaps) fallen back into the same old stories, and in doing so reinforces the role stereotypes of those stories. Man == actor/choosing, Woman == passive/receiving.

    In addition, although the intended audience at the start of the article seems to be other men, the language he uses changes halfway through — from “she” and “her” to “you”. It’s not enough to reinforce to other men that their role is to be the actor; the article then goes on to reinforce to his female audience that their role is to be the passive recipient of such action. I cannot express how much this drives me nuts. I don’t think women need to be reminded of the roles they’re “allowed”; I think women need to be reminded that they can take on the roles they’re “not allowed” — and, in addition, must be supported and nurtured when they do so.

    Let me say again — I don’t have a problem with the explicit message of his post. Perhaps women do enjoy being taken — “ravished”, as he put it. However, the element of choice — choosing that surrender, choosing to be ravished — is absolutely *fundamental*. And I don’t think that David’s article really respects — or indeed, even notices — that underlying point: THE WOMAN IS THE PROTAGONIST OF HER OWN STORY. Period, end of sentence, full stop. Even in the situations that David describes, the woman MUST know, deep in her heart, that her partner, whoever it is — David, another man, or even another woman — will respect her choices. That she is the protagonist, and that her partner is the supporting character. Anything else veers dangerously close to narrative frameworks that not only support, but encourage, rape.

    As a man, I think that we, as men, can do this. In fact, I’d love to see David write another version of this article — one in which he describes how to do everything he described, but as a supportive partner. Maybe he could call it “7+1 Ways to Help a Woman Choose You To F*ck Her Mind”, or maybe “7+1 Ways to F*ck a Woman Who Has Requested That You F*ck Her Mind”. Or perhaps even “7+1 Ways to Support a Woman Who Has Decided That She Wants To Be Mind F*cked.” (Ok, maybe not that last one.)

    In any case, I hope I’ve added something new and interesting to the discussion; reading over what I’ve written I realize that I may have failed in my goal of being “non-divisive.” Thank you very much for your patience, however, and I look forward to feedback and thoughts about this.

  43. Melissa G says:

    Thank you. I don't know what else to say…..thank you.

    When I read the original piece I saw some truth, but it's a "one size fits all" mentality of women as a whole.

  44. Shaun DeLoach says:

    Thanks for the article. As a former woman idealizer, from the infinite problems that’s caused me with the opposite sex, always ending in rejection that forced within my lonliness introspection on the value of myself as a human being, made into a loathesome ceature, (ok, yeah, I’m getting a little dramatic here) I like articles clearing the irony of the term “the second sex.” The alien beings called women. What an unfotuante social construct for men confronted with sexual attraction towards another human to deal with this eloquent and ethereal wraith of the night that for some reason wants to act and think like a normal person. What’s her problem? But I did have one issue with your article: what’s wrong with using whilst? See the alliteration I was able to do just making that sentence! Whilst – c’mon, it’s not that histrionic. Oh, I wonder what the guy that wrote the article would think about your article.

Leave a Reply