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.

 

62,017 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 info@elephantjournal.com

Comments

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. Thanks Mymble. I agree…there is no sharing there at all, and to me, sharing is kind of the point.

  3. 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!!!!!

  4. […] http://www.elephantjournal.com/2012/10/7-1-reasons-not-to-fck-my-mind-nsfw/ Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. […]

  5. 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!

  6. Thanks for commenting! I agree…

  7. 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.

  8. The main difference, David, is that you are presenting a truth about an entire gender, and one that you do not belong to. I am willing to concede that this may be your truth, your perception of the women you have known, but you present it as "this is what women need and what they are about."

    My belief is that for all human beings of both genders to truly connect, we need to let go of the ideas you are presenting. They seem to accentuate the divide rather than bring us closer together. And yes, that is my "truth." Many women felt your post was a fit for where they see themselves.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. Mymble says:

    I agree, Kate, the main problem with Davids article is that he is talking about "all women". Of course, some women will identify with what he is saying (and personally, I can identify rather strongly with some of the tangible things he is describing (due to my sub orientation) but I certainly don't identify with the tone of the article. My sexuality is not passive, it is not to be "awakened" by a man), and he has clearly met a few of those, but that does not justify generalization.

    As a way of showing how utterly wrong it is to describe women's sexual psyche as homogenous, his article should be written out with reversed gender roles….

  14. David Esotica says:

    🙂 Unless you want me to say phrases like "One must conduct oneself as such", I will continue to use the word "I" to refer to myself.

    But you are making a valid point, this is a thin line to tread. I have made mistakes, and taking full responsibility is difficult. But I won't be discouraged because of my mistakes.

    Happy to remain uninteresting to levels of profundity. Perhaps one should discuss music instead? I like classic rock and jazz. Mingus.

  15. David Esotica says:

    Oh, I didn't hit reply before, so you might not have seen what I wrote. It's down below, just in case.

  16. Exactly! Men are fascinating and complex—and each one is different. I would never presume to describe what "all men want" or need or how to f*ck their minds. I respect and appreciate men and masculinity, and it saddens me that David has also, in effect, reduced men to simply "ravishers and subduers" of women. Where do men get to receive in that picture? How are their needs met? I don't think the whole of the male experience is the need to dominate and conquer.

  17. Lori Ann Lothian says:

    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

  18. 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

  19. 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!!

  20. shelleyreece says:

    Lol, now THAT's offensive…. 50 Shades of Grey competes only with Twilight for it's assault on the intellectual mind.

    What's also offensive is this concept that a woman cannot love, passionately…. cannot give herself over to a man, passionately… without something being wrong with her. Cannot surrender to bliss, to instinct, to an animalistic primal nature, without something being wrong with her.

    Your post opened with a quote by Anais Nin. I would agree with it. I think that a man who is capable of demanding I be strong enough to be nothing but my true, deep, inner, primal and beautiful self with him, is a man who neither thinks me naive or innocent. Rather, he knows I am capable of meeting him on that torrid field as an equal. He know I am capable of worshiping him in his primal God form – and that by making that demand, he is capable of seeing me and worshiping me as the primal Goddess. Why are we all so afraid of our animal natures? I suppose that there are those of us who choose to run with wolves, and those that don't. But I am proud to be a barefoot woodland runner, howling wild and free and rutting – yes, RUTTING – beneath the full-bellied Moon with the Man who is MY sexually secure and liberated equal. I do not understand this concept that this is something David – or myself – should be ashamed of.

  21. As I think about this more, I'm equally concerned for the message this sends to men. This says you have one role: conqueror. Where is the room for men to be nurtured or have needs? Men are not completely yang any more than women are completely yin. To put women collectively in the role of the surrendered leaves no room for men to experience that—and we ALL need it, though I'd argue, not necessarily always in the way David describes.

    There is a collective yearning in women to surrender—and society accepts that. Shouldn't men also be encouraged to do the same? I believe we surrender to each other. There is a ebb and flow here—they aren't static roles.

    I also wonder if some of this is generational?

  22. Hi David, usually we encourage discussion to stay in the comments, to keep it available for readers, as FB swiftly moves away. Time constraints make it tough this coming week to set aside time to do real time discussion on this elsewhere as Lori had suggested, but I'm happy to continue to respond to comments as I get notifications & have time!

    I understand where you are coming from, and still disagree, but happy to continue discussing.

  23. "a woman cannot love, passionately…. cannot give herself over to a man, passionately… without something being wrong with her. Cannot surrender to bliss, to instinct, to an animalistic primal nature, without something being wrong with her."

    Nope, not my point at all. My point was that we can do this—all of us—but to decide this is what all women need all the time? Not buying it. I think this perspective ignores the complexity of masculinity and oversimplifies women's needs and desires.

  24. David Esotica says:

    Well pointed out Kate. This is an entirely complicated topic. Note how there have been so many different shades of responses (see what I did there?)

    I will use this to inspire my next piece.

  25. 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.

  26. shelleyreece says:

    Can you cite, please, exactly where David said, "this is what all women need all the time" ? I think I missed it…. just like I missed the part where apparently this is all about male dominance. I didn't read a single thing that suggested men are superior, or a single thing telling me I'm not allowed to bite back, while this passionate event takes place…

    I would suggest that everyone who did read such things needs to realize that those concepts exist in their own psyches…

    Unless you CAN point me to the specific places where he said, "This is what women need, all the time", and explicitly said the woman is a passive recipient to all this….

  27. Thank you! A male friend read his version and said, "oh…so he's trying to get laid?" And that's how it felt. It's for a particular audience I think, and I'm not it.

  28. 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.

  29. Well, the phrase "every woman" was used many times throughout his article, which I would take to mean the same as "all women." I don't feel there was any issue of male superiority expressed, but dominance is pretty clear, and I don't think even the author would dispute that, though he'd probably attribute it to "polarity."

  30. No, not really a me vs. them, just trying to understand why a woman would like that article and realizing that the same type of person who enjoys reading fiction about dominance would probably enjoy David's article. I don't feel like I'm better (or worse) than them…it's just not a perspective I share.

    As I've said in the article, though, I do believe that being this reductive about what "all women" or "all men" want or need isn't helpful to any of us.

    and fyi: I don't consider myself a feminist.

  31. Shelley says:

    I see. So, he never said, "this is what women need, all the time."

    And I am to assume that you have never made a sweeping generalization in a post, geared to arousing the passions – such as – hmm… "We are all in pain". How can you possibly know that?

    How about your sweeping assumption that most of the women that read David's article and loved it must be 50 Shades of Grey fans?

    I read a lot of your work Kate and I usually love it. But in this instance, you seem to have a personal demon that crawled out and foamed at the mouth on your behalf.

    I really would like to see you explore why you felt so threatened by this article, and threatened enough by the women who enjoyed it, to assume they must mostly be members of a fanbase you apparently hold in a derogatory opinion.

    And again – yes, the post displayed "male power" – but nothing in it said that women have no power, are submissive, or inferior. The assumption that we, as women, can only be powerful if our men are not, damages both genders. And like I said – I, as a sexually powerful woman, would not deign to sleep with a man unable to match me. I seek dominant men because I am a powerful woman, and I demand of my men, that they be my equals. There's nothing degrading about it – unless you make it so.

  32. Timmy_Robins says:

    "My belief is that for all human beings of both genders to truly connect, we need to let go of the ideas you are presenting. They seem to accentuate the divide rather than bring us closer together. And yes, that is my "truth." "

    Well , your discomfort seems to come from your belief of how things should be…but guess what , your idea of how things should be is not shared by everyone.

    "…just trying to understand why a woman would like that article and realizing that the same type of person who enjoys reading fiction about dominance would probably enjoy David's article"

    You dont know that and again you are categorizing.

    The fact that you needed to respond with such urgency suggests there is something in David´s post that makes you extremely uncomfortable. This is really obvious because many female commenters actually liked David´s post and I doubt that it is because they are the *type* (whatever that means) of women that like S&M fiction.

    Like I said , I think this says more about you than about David or the girls that liked his post.

    "and fyi: I don't consider myself a feminist"
    It figures.

  33. 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.

  34. Well said, thanks!

  35. Timmy_Robins says:

    Couldnt agree more.

    I detect 50 shades of… the author took it personally.

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

  37. riannemarie says:

    I enjoy reading fiction about dominance. Quite a lot! And I still did not enjoy that article. Rubbed me the wrong way for all the reasons you listed (50 shades is also, IMO, rather awful tripe).
    I cultivate deliberate power exchange in my relationships, but my choice to do so does not come from my femininity. If it did the relationships I've had with women would have just been terribly confusing, people swooning and surrendering all over the place with no one to swoop in and masterfully take charge.

  38. 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 🙂

  39. dan says:

    I just read your article; you are a feminist whether you consider yourself one or not.

  40. dan says:

    Change the venue, change the subject, put the discussion "in the now" to make the discussion less analytical and more emotional- classic!

  41. dan says:

    I'm glad you admit to trolling for ladies with that piece. "as you said, you will always be shifting and changing" – another classic way place yourself in control.

  42. dan says:

    The woman in his piece is biological (spine, thighs, ear, shaking), and is a story of him inducing orgasm in that woman. He uses "I" to mean him, David Esotica, the ravisher. The woman is the reader who "responds" with "YESSSS" to the piece; he made these clear in his comments here.
    Reading his piece as "connotation" makes no difference to the analysis in this article, and it does not make him "right"; for him to be "right" his piece (any piece) must be denotative. He presents a fiction, one designed to draw me to him.

  43. Erika says:

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

  44. Thanks Rianne, good point!

  45. Well, I used to consider myself I feminist. I got tired of how some feminist arguments move into the realm of being overtly anti-male. I consider myself an equalist/humanist. Equality is equality.

  46. You're welcome & thanks!

  47. Interesting! And yes, I believe some of the disagreement here is the language use and perception. To me a "mind fuck" as I have always heard the term used, is not something that is a mutual relationship. It is one person (male or female) trying to control/dominate the other.

  48. I am the managing editor for the site, and our publishing of the first article was contingent on the publishing of a rebuttal or response. A big part of our site's editorial focus is equal rights for all, and so David's piece raised some concerns for me as to whether it was a fit with that focus. So yes, it made me uncomfortable—professionally.

    Did it raise issues for me personally? Of course! We all respond from the our own perspectives. There are two issues I see here. One I have zero emotional attachment to: some people like to accentuate this polarity and enjoy the idea of dominance. That's fine, it's just not my cup of tea.

    The second issue, and my reason for my response, is looking at how presenting these ideas in an open forum rather than to one's lover affects the societal conversation on relationships and sexuality. David has his perspective and I have mine. I feel that describing male and female roles on these terms does nothing but hurt any progress we make towards equality, societally and in relationships. David disagrees, and so do several of the readers…agree to disagree & it's a great conversation to have!

  49. Brianna says:

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