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

Via elephant journal
on Oct 18, 2012
get elephant's newsletter

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.

 


61,814 views

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? Send to [email protected]

Comments

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

  1. 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)

  2. Ha! Thanks Teresa.

  3. Agreed. Even among friends I've talked with that enjoy a BDSM addition to their lovemaking, there seems to be more mutuality then what David describes in his article.

  4. 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.

  5. 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…

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. tarenlane says:

    I love both pieces because they both made me think, and feel, physically and mentally. I thank you each for your time and for sharing. Please, continue!

  9. Auki–here is note of mine, to another woman who saw the piece as a rape culture collusion. This might help.

    Escape zone and safety zone are what I hear you wanting EJ to be for you. Yet, the choice to read a piece that you are not enjoying is your choice. If you must play the Rape Culture card (a huge stretch here) there is a thing too called "victim culture"…being a victim of your choice to read a piece but to project the responsibility on others, in this case EJ editorial.

    EJ presents many facets of reality and respresents many kinds of readers. Some would object for instance to LGBT lifestyle material on our site, which do also cover, or the upcoming series on Men and Pornography (pro and con) which we are doing in conjunction with The Good Men Project.

    Bottomline, is, if you don't like it, don't read it. Why throw a baby out with the bathwater, and ditch the whole magazine because one article, in one subsection, (or a few) are not to your taste? (PS: that is also why we label pieces Adult, or NSFW –not safe for work– or Nudity. To forewarn our reader before they click the link.

    Lori Ann
    elephant love and relationships
    editor

  10. hey kate, see my note below to Auki…and yes, you are right. This is far from a cut and dried issue–yet one thing is clear, it has generated a polarized love it/hate it response. That just makes me curious, frankly. That is what good journalism does, it reveals the collective shadow. This piece, with a counter piece by you, was a huge shadow dance of the apparent right and wrong, good and bad….

    Some women read this piece as a surrender (which is a female perogative) and others read it as a power play/rape. most interesting to me too, is when people take their dislike of a piece of writing and then throw shaming, blaming and character attacking statements at the author.

    That says more to me, about what is not healed in those whose anger is provoked to attack levels, than it says about the man who wrote the article.

    Lori Ann

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

  12. HI Padma…It's lori ann here–I agree. Just saw this thoughtful reply. Yes, beyond duality, everything…

  13. 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.

  14. onesadhaka says:

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

  15. Shay says:

    Sure, men can surrender. But the man wasn't talking about himself surrendering. He was talking about "claiming" a woman's sex (by fucking her body and mind). Internalizing the effects of patriarchy doesn't make you healthy. We're NOT merely or only or just polarized creatures. Duality is a societal concept, we don't have to be only "good or bad" or only "right or wrong" while there may be shreds of truth in his writing, why such a defensive attitude about it? Why not just accept that some women find this behaviour by men to be extremely creepy and borderline predatory? Why the telling us that we're wrong to feel this why when a man says/does these things TO us, instead of WITH us? There is a HUGE difference in doing something TO someone and doing something WITH someone. And I'm into various kinks and S & M and BDSM somewhat as well, so I do understand the "alt scene" and the desire for a lack of control. But his piece was creepy. It just was. You gotta own up to that and deal with it, and hopefully learn from it.

  16. Kejanz says:

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

  17. 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.

  18. Booster Blake says:

    Whoa Lulubelle! Some serious projections there. Maybe some of that lands for David but its seems to me that you want your perspective to be true more than you want to know his truth. Sharing experiences, opinions, perspectives, and insights is what this journal is all about. I'm grateful to those with the courage to express their experiences, David's included. Maybe we can spare David a psychological drubbing, whether your insights are true or not has nothing to do with the content of his article.

  19. 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.

  20. solfulsoul says:

    The reality is you are both making unfounded generalizations but, because one of you chooses a safer route, the other is deemed far too offensive. You can both hold to your "truths" as long as you like, but the real "truth", as it were demands reconciliation. The masculine perspective of "taking" is primitively objective, it is about alleviating the obstacles men face in wanting to please and/or receive the admiration of their gentler counterparts. The feminine notion of "we are all human" is a subjectivity just as destructive and saddening in my opinion; it is the blight of any sort of wisdom and governance to reject the inherent differences between human beings, let alone men and women. If you do not know what these differences are, or if you believe they are merely to set one over the other, or, if you do not believe these differences exist or are worth mentioning, do the entire race a favor and keep silent.

    To be as blunt and and simple as possible: the difference between men and women is simple, but it is not the issue of our modern world. I think deep down we all know what the differences are, even if we have lost the words (think vengance). What ought to be of the utmost concern is how this confusion is so widespread that the basic human traditions of masculinity and femininity and beauty are being dissolved. So as not to sound like a sentimental-purist-preacher, what I mean is that when we lose sight of our nature we lose the ability to meet our true (highest) potential, both as individuals and as lovers, teammates, collaborators.

  21. ks3nia says:

    The problem with the original article is not necessarily all the ideas David presents, it's his language, which is condescending and loaded with clichés from soft porn novels. The fact that some who expresses himself like that thinks he knows how to "f*ck my mind" is kind of infuriating. He presumes way too much and MY "personal demon" wants to crawl out and make him cry. But then it goes back to sleep – it's a lazy creature. #applause2Kate

    Which literally genre is David in, anyway? If it's a personal, poetic, philosophical piece about every woman's sexuality it should've been stated more clearly: "David's musings about sex", and not presented as a failproof recipe for f*cking female minds.

    Example (somewhat random, as I couldn't bother to read the whole piece a second time):
    "What will make me come to a woman is not her sex, nor her elegance, nor her strength, nor her brilliant intelligence. It is her openness. | How prepared she is to feel that groan, that pain. Feel it, and express it. That is the key." – First two sentences are very good, while the last part states… what exactly? That he wants a moaner? Or someone who finds pain a huge turn-on? Either way, it will be some kind of key! To his heart? To his penis? To communication?

    Yup, some lines David wrote are definitely truthful and pretty, but if he didn't expect negative reactions on the other bullshit, well, then he definitely doesn't know women as well he thinks he does.

  22. 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

  23. 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.

  24. Jen says:

    I just posted a similar response. The term egoic is perfect. It is not pure spiritual union, which in my experience is the most satisfying and goes far beyond this realm and the stereotypes presented he presented. He seems to "Win" something here. I think that is the underlying annoyance for a woman who is truly sexually empowered and comfortable with her own sexuality. As I presented in my response below: What if it is me who wished to F*&^ you? What If I pursue you? What is the dynamic then… because it's not about the pursuit, it's about communication, consciousness (out of the ego) and divine communication, which is a state of ecstasy that brings you out of your own body.

  25. Jen says:

    Go past your mind and to your soul…

  26. 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.

  27. 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.

  28. Muneeza says:

    Whilst I can see where you are coming from about a more “equal” footing on the relationship rather than the dominance/ surrender scenario described by David E., I believe most women beyond their fear actually crave being taken, but as David E alludes to a woman would never go there ultimately if she didn’t feel deep love, security and safety. Also the roaring success of the Fifty Shades of Grey series has to tell us something about why women went crazy buying and sharing those books. It did touch upon something primal and visceral. And is wasn’t mostly men reading that book, it was mostly women. I used to fear being taken. Exactly what you describe above. But I have gone through healing, coaching and therapy to heal abuse and on the other side of that I connected with what is deep and primal within me and within most women (every woman). It is the nature of masculine/ feminine. Look at the egg and the sperm. In her feminine the egg embodies deep surrender to the sperm that “takes” her. To me this idea is primal to life, and the basic constructs of the energetic structure of life. Maybe dominance/ surrender turns you off. And that’s ok. To some, it’s a turn on. Each of us could if we wanted look deeper into the why. For me, my why was it turned me off because fear of feeling vulnerable again. I vowed I would never do that again. But I couldn’t have figured it out on my own. Even amongst friends of mine (no abuse) there is so much conditioning around not surrendering. However surrendering for a woman (think egg) is her greatest strength. It’s how she creates new life (most powerful force on the planet). It doesn’t happen by holding strong and not giving in. Anyway I just wanted to share my viewpoint. Thanks for writing, it definitely got me thinking. Hugs!

  29. 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