Why is there this apparently common desire for women, even educated, emancipated ones such as yourself, to be sexually taken with an almost rapey level of male aggression? The idea of being so sexually aggressive makes me intensely uncomfortable as a person, goes against everything I was taught, and seems to fly directly in the face of the openly expressed desires of women themselves. This message seems utterly mixed to me, and seems also to leave any sexually assertive male at risk of an accusation of rape after the fact.
The human brain is not rational, and we don’t get to choose what turns us on. Our prudish, sex-negative culture wants us to believe that sexual turn-ons and turn-offs can be controlled, that “demand” for pragmatic sex can be “ended”, that the gay can be prayed away, that average guys can be “taught” to be attracted to older or fatter women than they might otherwise desire, that women can exorcise subby or bottomy feelings via “feminism”, and so on. And I’m here to tell you that all this is, in the words of the late, great Douglas Adams, a load of dingo’s kidneys; sexual likes, dislikes, kinks and fetishes emerge by mysterious paths from the murky swamp we carry deep in our brains, and there’s no known way to reroute those pathways once they’re established. Sure, we can choose whether to act on our feelings or not; there are some things I’ve found very hot my entire life yet have never acted on, and probably never will. And there are other things I’ve tried, enjoyed and still find hot as hell, but will probably never act on again because they either come with too much baggage or it’s much too difficult to find the right person or persons to do them with.
Furthermore, some things are, as my old friend & sometimes-bottom Philippa used to say, “good fantasy, bad reality”; for many women rape falls into that category. There’s a vast gulf between a fantasy rape by a guy one already trusts under controlled conditions with a safeword to stop the scene if it gets too scary, and a real rape by a stranger who may even mutilate or kill her when he’s done. Fantasy rapes are (properly) negotiated ahead of time by two clearheaded adults who want to share an exciting experience; real rapes are one-sided violations of another person’s consent and well-being. There’s nothing wrong with your being “intensely uncomfortable” with acting out rape fantasies; it just means they’re not your bag, and you would be better off with a woman who doesn’t like them either. No harm, no foul. The problems start when a guy who is turned on by raping women doesn’t bother to secure their consent first, or (like James Deen & Jian Ghomeshi) ignores their clearly-stated “no” and tries to hide his very real violence behind a smoke screen of consensual kink.
(Have a question of your own? Please consult this page to see if I’ve answered it in a previous column, and if not just click here to ask me via email.)
One does wonder if this fantasy theme arises from the urge to find the excitement of “the stranger”; maybe this is the feminine analogue to the male urge for variety?
I quite agree that, in a mutually consentual setting, *anything* that doesn’t cause lasting harm can be hot for both (or more) partners. Which is nobody else’s business but theirs.
A negotiated fantasy “scene” and the real criminal act are, of course, light years apart; but it’s a distinction that some people, especially moralists and lawheads, seem to have great difficulty telling apart; or may prove expedient to ignore the critical difference, take your pick.
Douglas Adams and Boris Vallejo art in one post? We’re being spoiled, Maggie :)❤
There is no explaining what we find sexually attractive or alluring. No one is given a checklist that we tick off what we’re going to like.We are emotional creatures, and attempts to the contrary, will always have a primal part of us that can never be suppressed. It’s always been my thought we should reconcile ourselves to sex and what it means to us. It’s far beyond just a process for making babies, which would be a horrifically robotic process if that was it. As emotional creatures we have an urge to express desire, and I can’t say that’s a bad thing.
Hmmm. So “sexual likes, dislikes, kinks and fetishes emerge by mysterious paths from the murky swamp we carry deep in our brains, and there’s no known way to reroute those pathways once they’re established” because “the human brain is not rational,” but at the same time “our prudish, sex-negative culture” can be criticized rationally?
Methinks there’s a double standard operating. Sexual tastes get a free pass because, shrug, they’re not even rational, but prejudices against some of those tastes are fair game for criticism, since hey, the prudes ought to be rational enough to allow the irrational in the things they don’t like.
I doubt that there’s a way to square this circle, and in the end suspect the conclusion has to be that both sets of tastes and attitudes are equally amenable to rational oversight. The alternative of allowing some things immunity to reason not only opens the floodgates for a bunch of other things to be allowed the same immunity but also leaves us with a nihilism in which there are no criteria to evaluate anything.
If you really don’t see a difference between an individual’s turn-ons & turn-offs and a society using violence to suppress them, there’s very little I can say to you.
Now we’re adding violence to the original statement, which is a nice rhetorical dodge but doesn’t really change the issue. It would appear to be possible to maintain that nobody’s irrational should be enforced on others by means of violence, and we could all agree on that, without changing the fact that there are multiple equivalent irrationalities, which your original post denied. However, actually, even violence can’t be condemned unless there some supra-rational basis overriding the various irrationalities. So sorry, you can’t condemn violence (as you also do with irrational turn-ons) unless you don’t truly believe that they really are all that irrational. No need to harp on this, but I’m afraid that there is an internal contradiction in your position.
I’m afraid you’re making an idiotic and morally bankrupt argument, which I have neither time nor inclination to bother refuting.
You got an argument out of that? It looked like a load of pseudoreligious bafflegab to me.
Maggie: Interesting that you had the time and inclination to insult me, just not enough to respond to the content. Whatever, it’s your blog.
I Agree. I’ve been raped. I do not recall it. I only recall before and after.
I do not believe in order to live my life recalling this experience is necessary.
I went into the industry becuz I wanted to help people use the sexual outlet in the confines of a safe scenario to express what in fact is best for the bedroom.
20 plus years later, I’m a success add I don’t screen. I use intuition. I trust it. Not bad here lol
Did you once tell me that this was your favorite Vallejo piece? Or was it a different one?
It’s certainly among my favorites.
Well, it definitely is my favorite. Anything from the Mirage/Enchantment period of Boris Vallejo’s career is good, but “Hands” was positively wank-worthy to a twelve-year-old. Danielle Anjou was by far his hottest model; she’s now a sculptor.
Lol.uhhh I love rape fantasy. And it’s not coming from any thing negative.
I celebrate things in bed that are meant to be in the bedroom. That’s it