Me Jane, You Tarzan: The Politics of Sexual Polarity

Lori Ann Lothian wants to know if she’s wrong for wanting to be ‘ravished’.

First time I was ravished, I was 23. It was in a university building stairwell. He grabbed my hair in one fist, pressed me against the cool cement wall and kissed me with such ardor it took my breath away and elicited an instant wet-panty response. I married him two years later.

This passionate engagement became the yardstick by which I measured all future suitors. And I admit shamelessly to wanting a man to take charge sexually and to not ask permission to love me aggressively. I even remember telling one timid man, post-husband, “Don’t worry, I won’t break.”

But I recently discovered that these days both genders resist the idea it’s okay for a man to fiercely love a woman. I learned this through the more than 150 public comments and hundreds of private emails sparked by my article A Call to the Sacred Masculine: Ten Daring Invitations from the Divine Feminine (a piece that soared to over 60,000 views and 16,000 Facebook likes).

Obviously the idea of a feminine call to the masculine struck a collective chord. It elicited overwhelmingly positive feedback from men to invitations like show us your heroic heart, slay your demons, care deeply and dare to dream.

But when it comes to the invitation to just take a woman, without apology? Some women clobbered me with the dictionary definition of ravish, which includes the word rape. Some men asked if I wanted them to revert to brutish macho stereotypes. Both men and women asked me if what I wanted was to go backwards to a time when women were chattel, an asset in the possession of mostly abusive, power-drunk men.

Gosh no. I was simply suggesting that men be, well, manly. Or at least this woman’s definition of it.

♦◊♦

The unexpected popularity of Fifty Shades of Gray (which makes Harlequin romance look like high literature) speaks—no shouts—to the wimpification of men in the era of the Sensitive New Age Guy (SNAG). In the self-help, spiritual growth driven western world, women have sent men the not-so-subtle message to buck up and become more emotionally available.

Yet something has gotten lost in the translation of this request for vulnerability. Instead, I’ve seen men have become emotionally tentative and sexually tepid. When a man I’m in relationship with seems to be asking for permission to sex me up, rather than making his move and letting me choose a yes or no, it’s as if I’ve been given all the power and control. And, unless I’m a dom, that is simply not a turn on.

It is arguably this very desire to relinquish control that accounts for the 60 million sold copies of Fifty Shades—simply, the storyline gives women the option to surrender, to opt for the fine print clause of letting go. It’s a story of a 21-year-old college virgin (yeah, right) meeting an emotionally tortured billionaire man who at first wants to make her his 12th submissive but in the end falls in mutual kinky love. And yes, he spanks her, ties her up and even flogs her (without the genital clamps or fisting, items virgin girl wisely takes off the contract.)

That a bondage-domination-lite hit the mainstream best seller charts is perhaps likely because the mainstream woman (housewife and working girl) is tired of being in charge.

We women have become super-manly in our pursuit of independence to the point that trashy, badly written smut like Fifty Shades strikes a nerve and hits the best-seller charts. The invitation of this book is clear—it’s the woman saying, “Show me your troubled male psyche so that I feel connected to you and dominate me so that I can let-the fuck go sexually and otherwise.”

The lure of being not only not-in-control, but out of control, is a potent elixir for some women who have been asked to step up and compete with men. We don’t want to battle for supremacy in politics, corporate power structures or even sports teams. In fact, we women would prefer to collaborate.

But the feminist agenda has got us women all tied up in the mental knot of “never depend on a man” and “anything a man can do we can do, better.”

♦◊♦

Which brings me to this big question: where are we as a gender-neutral society, where women are asked to be strong and capable and men are expected to be sensitive and emotionally available?

We are probably missing out on the juicy current that the natural polarity between a man and a women (an unadulterated feminine and masculine energy) generates. This is a current that writers like David Deida make into big selling books like The Superior Man. Books that ask men to look at their own chest thumping, warrior-hunter nature and say, yes! Books that tell men to penetrate their woman’s moods and remind women that it’s okay to admit they want to be ravished. Because according to Deida, a truly feminine core (in a man or woman) wants to be taken.

Deida sidesteps the whole ravish versus rape debate with this distinction. “The fundamental difference between rape and ravishment is simple: love.” In other words, when a man loves a woman, his forceful passionate engagement is not only welcome, it is desired. When I want to be ravished, I am really saying I want to be loved with fierce abandon by the man I also fiercely love.

 ♦◊♦

I loved a man once, for two years. Yet in the end, I left because he was not willing to man-up (he hated that word) and love me with a ferocious current of the warrior-king. Instead, he wanted to be my equal to the point that he also wanted to be my buddy—not my lover, not the one who would just press me against that wall and bind me with his kisses.

In the admittedly cartoonish film 300, Spartan king Leonides has a queen. Gorgo not only has hot sex with her man, she advises him post-coitus on affairs of state. She is also in many ways, as the film progresses, demonstrably as powerful, clever and brave as the king.

I remember seeing this film years ago and thinking, this is really what I want. I want to be a queen to my king. I want a man who loves me with passionate hands-held-over-my head power and yet, who also recognizes me as his partner, his ally and his equal.

Because I am not the lesser half. Or the better half. I am simply the other half.

And as that half, I am also whole. Within me, I carry the current of masculine and feminine. And it’s clearly my feminine essence that wants to play in the playground of Jane and Tarzan. Of Leonidas and Gorgo. Of heck, yes, even of Anastasia and Christian.

I just want to feel like a woman. Even though I am as powerful as a man.

This article originally appeared in a shorter version in issue 8 of Origin Magazine.

Image: Amazon

NOW TRENDING ON GMP TV

Super Villain or Not, Parenting Paranoia Ensues
The Garbage Man Explains Happiness
How To Not Suck At Dating

Premium Membership, The Good Men Project

About Lori Ann Lothian

Lori Ann Lothian is a sexy daring writer who challenges assumptions about love, sex and relationships in her columns at Huffington Post and elephant Journal and in feature articles at the Good Men Project, Origin Magazine, Yoganonymous, Better After 50 and more. Former editor of the relationship section of elephant Journal, she is now a senior editor at the Good Men Project. Follow her on Twitter andGoogle. Stay informed, sign up for Lori’s mailing list here.

Comments

  1. It is of little importance here whether the man in the stairwell was a stranger or a date or a long term lover — or the truth, a man I was getting to know over several dates. The ravishment is a place of extreme sensitivity for you, and I am sorry to hear of your challenge around a transgression as a young man. YOu say this event with a cousin ruined your life, even though at the time you did not know it was wrong. What comes to mind as a reader, is 1) you were not intending harm 2) the cousin part muddles it with the incest bit (even though cousins were fair game for marriage in other times 3) you use the word abuse when I wonder if it was abuse of other when I can only assume, at 14, you were exploring your sexuality….of course, you are not divulging the girls age. Which again, leaves questions.

    Mike. I am talking about a cultural question in my article and using my own story as a backdrop. I have never been raped, but I did have a quasi date rape once, as a virgin. That was not a turn on. I know the difference between consenting connection in an established relationship (or one where both people know each other well enough for trust and communication) and the very different topic of rape/violence/harm.

    One is about eros. The other about anger.

    Lori Ann

  2. From the article:

    “The fundamental difference between rape and ravishment is simple: love.” In other words, when a man loves a woman, his forceful passionate engagement is not only welcome, it is desired.

    WTF!?
    So all men who’ve ever had their sexual advances turned down by their partner either don’t love her or they haven’t been forceful enough? I’ll just repeat: WTF?

    Gosh no. I was simply suggesting that men be, well, manly. Or at least this woman’s definition of it.

    Perhaps you should focus more on finding a man who happens to be what you define as manly rather than suggesting that men in general should change and adhere to your definition of manly?

    • Tamen, with the first quote it says ” his forcefull passionate engagement was not only welcome, it is desired”, I’m confident that David Dieda intended this to mean literally that the man was welcome and desired by the woman in this hypothetical case.
      NOWHERE DOES IT SAY AGAINST HER WILL !!!
      Are we now at the point that we interpret almost anything as rape? This is exactly the problem…

      There is no mention of her turning down his advances, nor anthing implying that no means anything other than no in Lori Ann’s article – yet above you (and many others further above) jump to the conclusion she is saying no means maybe, or yes or whatever.

      If your read the article – it is about how politicall correctness and gender fiddling have said women need to be like men, men need to be like women (totaly absurd I know) and then, suprise, suprise, there is less sexual polarity between men and women.
      Lori then poses the idea that the popularity of the bodice ripping romance novels, and 50 Shades of Gray speak to a desire (or fantasy?) in many women for more passion, sexual polarity, being taken by a man etc. and that maybe it can spice things up between consenting adults who enjoy it.
      Much as I don’t like women telling men how to be, I think she is just saying she enjoys it, and wouldn’t it be nice if it was not so frowned upon, or downright dangerous to express.

      • A welcome and desired forceful passionate engagement is not rape.

        You didn’t find anything strange with the statement that the only difference between ravishment and rape is love (when a man loves a woman).I thought the difference would be consent.

        I have no problems with the authors desire for being ravished, I have no problems with her finding partners who will ravish her. I do have a problem with her prescriptiveness, her use of gender policing (unmanly) and the implied expectation that men should just magically know whether a woman would consent or not without her having to communicate it in any way.

      • Lori Ann Lothian says:

        @ Jman Yes. And more than that. Sexuality is a canary in the coal mine….there are broader implications there. But that is another article (sure to be misread, but i will keep trying). Thank you for your synopsis. The most level headed and most reflective of what i was actually trying to communicate.

    • Lori Ann Lothian says:

      thanks Tamen for your comments. I have a man who is manly and who meets my preferences. The article is not about my love life. It is about a collective archetypal shift…

  3. Mike Russo says:

    What would I give to meet a woman like Wanda? Let’s start with what I wouldn’t give. That list is shorter…

    • Ah, well, there are lots of patient, compassionate women out there. A lot of them are just good at hiding (I’m a pretty dedicated introvert myself, aha). I wouldn’t worry about it too much. I just hope that you can be happy with yourself and be satisfied with that. :)

      • Peter von Maidenberg says:

        Because he’s clearly too unmanly to satisfy any woman?

        • No, because no one should have to rely on someone else to make them happy. When you expect others to improve your life for you, you’ll never be happy. If you are happy with who you are and what you do, then everyone else can bugger off.

          I’d like you to quote the part where I called Mike unmanly though. As I just finished saying in the comment above that there is no such thing as “unmanly” in my eyes. I would never in my life call a man that. :/ It’s as insulting as calling a woman “unlady-like”.

  4. For those like me who have embraced the Consent paradigm, it’s understandable that the idea of being ravished is alarming. It brings to mind this image of being taken by surprise and seized by an aggressively enthusiastic (unapologetic, to use Lori’s word) lover, and the suggestion that we’re supposed to enjoy this gives many of us chills.

    The more I think on it, though, I realize this is just one model of how ravishment can work, and a rather unnecessarily paranoid one at that. I can conceive of a different model. For example, it’s date night for an established couple. They’ve gone out on the town together, had dinner and a drink, been flirting constantly all night and are both clearly interested in getting to the bedroom. Once they do, they have ravishing sex – sheet-gripping, breathtaking, sweat-dripping, toe-curling, sex.

    They are both unapologetic, because there’s nothing to apologize for here. Remembering the root “to seize,” this model is not about one person seizing the other (which has that rape-y feeling to it), but rather about both being seized by passion for each other (decidedly less rape-y). In other words, ravishment can happen when consent has already been asked and given, and be totally legit.

    Now, I don’t necessarily agree with the premise that the uptic in sensitive, emotionally-available masculinity has really led to a reduction in passionate sex. This model of masculinity is still developing, and still relatively new. It’s plausible to me that some women were unprepared for the ripple effects of the Emotional Revolution and find themselves wanting certain characteristics of both the Warrior King and the New Age Man (or whatever you want to call him) – which, to some men, may seem like wanting to have her cake and eat it too.

  5. What about Lori Ann’s article suggests rape? Am I missing the part where she was an unwilling participant in the events she described, kicking and screaming in an attempt to stop the man from progressing?

    There is a stark, glaring difference between passionately taking charge in the bedroom, in leading the dance as it were, and rape. Perhaps it includes role playing or BDSM or an egg beater, but it’s not that prescriptive. It’s about attitude. It’s about claiming a woman and bedding her without a bunch of conversation.

    • Lori Ann Lothian says:

      Exactly! Thank you for shedding some common sense light on my article. I am, however, learning so much about the filters through which readers will interpret my words. This has been valuable. Better than a focus group!

      • Thank you. This is a topic I’m passionate about. Feel free to email me if you’re so inclined, you should have the address in the email you received about this reply. You can also click on the link in my name and search my blog for “duality,” “because they are beautiful,” and “man without a chest” for some examples of my forays into the subject. (I’m skipping hyperlinks to avoid moderation.) I am a religious right-winger, though, so consider yourself warned. Some find me offensive.

    • Peter von Maidenberg says:

      I already do, and you’ve hardly said anything.

  6. Thank you very much for this article.

    While a number of people commenting have made points that are very relevant to their own experiences, I had spent a great deal of time in my past relationships tediously navigating what I guess could be termed over-consent. I would never make a move without verbal permission because I’d worry that she’d be offended or maybe just not into it, to say nothing of the embarrassment of being shot down for trying. I’ve encountered a very large number of women who feel similarly to how the author feels: actively desiring of ravishing. Some women are not into that sort of thing, and are of course entitled to their own desires. But time after time, I would encounter women that actively and powerfully desired to experience it, and I WANTED to provide that and was unable.

    One of Lori’s statements summarizes my feelings perfectly: “If a man wants to be ravished that is fine, and it is not unmanly. If a man who wants to ravish his woman is afraid to ravish his woman, that is unmanly….” What I interpret this to mean is that confidence, self-knowledge, and knowledge of one’s partner are desirable and manly characteristics. My partner loves to be ravished. I want to do it. If there is previous consent, then the act can have a great deal of intimacy, and be ENORMOUSLY enjoyable for both parties without asking each step of the way. If something happens that she doesn’t like, we have an established safe-word. We have yet to use it, because we also use clear, honest communication, and we respect one another’s desires.

    Lori, thank you once again for sharing your experience and your article!

    • Lori Ann Lothian says:

      Thank you John for your comment. Yes, a man who wants to ravish his beloved but is afraid, is unmanly in that he is not true to his nature, nor desire. That said, for the knee-jerkers out there, no means no, and ravish does not mean rape.

      • Thank you John for your comment. Yes, a man who wants to ravish his beloved but is afraid, is unmanly in that he is not true to his nature, nor desire. That said, for the knee-jerkers out there, no means no, and ravish does not mean rape.
        I think that’s going to come down to why exactly he is afraid to do so. To strike one out as unmanly at the first sign of fear goes right into the old idea that a “real man” isn’t afraid of anything.

        • I did not use the unmanly word, for the record. It was in response to a direct question up the threat. That said, of course it is not unmanly to have fear. Fear can be a healthy fight or flight response. But if a man wants to passionately love his woman, and is a afraid to go there (even as she invites it) the part that is less than manly, is the reluctance to address this fear. Not the fear itself.

          Men have an evolutionary imperative to protect their kin. Protection, (along with hunting, fighting, defending) require courage. Courage is what men (and women of course) rouse in the face of their fear. Fear is natural. COURAGE is a response to fear.

          So in the end, I guess what manly means here, is courage in the face of fear.

          • Of you course you didn’t start the use of unmanly in this particular string, just following suit.

            I think the reason this is so difficult is the whole mass that is made of the concepts of fear/courage/etc… have some pretty specific implications for men. Implications that frankly women don’t face (they seem to have another set of implications, which of course men don’t face).


            But if a man wants to passionately love his woman, and is a afraid to go there (even as she invites it) the part that is less than manly, is the reluctance to address this fear. Not the fear itself.

            But even then it’s still a question of where that reluctance is coming from.


            Men have an evolutionary imperative to protect their kin. Protection, (along with hunting, fighting, defending) require courage. Courage is what men (and women of course) rouse in the face of their fear. Fear is natural. COURAGE is a response to fear.

            So in the end, I guess what manly means here, is courage in the face of fear.
            Perhaps that is what you meant. The path is still going to be a tricky one to walk because for the longest time men were expected, almost demanded, to show some sort of courage at all times. The problem is the expectation ran so strong to the point that it’s just that men were expected to show courage, we were denied the allowance to even acknowledge the fear in the first place much less the courage needed to confront it.

            (This denial plays out in the form of wrecklessness, bravado, macho, etc….)

            That’s why it’s going to take more than just saying men need courage to make everything better.

          • Then I must be exceptionally manly. Women show courage in the face of fear as well, and we have an evolutionary imperative to protect our kin as well. This makes no sense.

            Some women love being ravished. Some men love ravishing. Vice versa. In same sex relationships those dynamics exist.

            I’d have a much easier time appreciating this article if it was about assertive energy and receptive energy rather than some binary on male and female roles. Roles can switch mid sexual encounter for that matter, and often do.

      • ” Yes, a man who wants to ravish his beloved but is afraid, is unmanly in that he is not true to his nature, nor desire. ”

        Do you likewise believe a woman who is unwilling to be ravished (by that I mean taking great offense to even an attempt to initiate, even when no is accepted as no), is unwomanly, unfeminine, regardless of her reasons?

    • Peter von Maidenberg says:

      Seems like there are too damn many rules to this ravishing act.

      If I’m not concentrating on MYSELF, being all archetypal and animal and nonverbal, I’m not man enough to stir the woman. One touch that is a fraction of a pound-per-square-inch too tender, one jaw muscle not sufficiently flexed, one murmured word followed by her name, and my manliness is in ruins. I have not “taken” her. I have not “led” the dance. I have merely grabbed her disgustingly, like some stumbling “little” male.

      It’s enough to make a guy long for the days of plain old erectile dysfunction.

  7. So, alot of complaining about how porn have ruined male wiev of sex.
    Can we now say the same about women and romance novels?

    I have to be honest. This talk of ravishment makes me want to laugh. It just like what PUAs are saying but with a prettier ribbon.
    Also: It is NOT unmanly to be afraid of anything. Fear is natural. Fuck anyone that is saying that. This comes from an extremesporting, mix martial artist. If the woman is saying this dump her because she is an asshole and can’t value you for who you are.

    • Also, I as a warrior/king/alpha or wathever you want to call it. Do not want a queen. I have had to, since I was a little boy, endure hardships and fight for my right to exist. I would like an equal, both in the bedroom as in all other things. A queen is someone that I Have to be with not someone that I want. I want a warrior as well. Someone that, when I kiss her, she kisses back a little harder. Pushing me to become harder, hornier and gives as much energy as I. A woman that isn’t afraid to show me how she want’s to be fucked. Here we can talk about energies, synergies and other hippie bs.

      Those women are the ones that becomes ravished. They are the ones that deserve it!!
      Othervise why should I even try? Ravishing is hard work and kinda thankless if it’s with someone that lies there like a wet rag.

      • This!!! cant agree more! I think why I don’t really into ravishing things is because when someone said men need to ravish woman and need to be dominant, I think of one sided sex. Man desire his woman, but woman want to be desired. The woman do not desire her man, just want to be desired. And I don’t like it. If I want to ravish a woman, and show her that I desire her badly, she need to show me that she desire me badly too.

        “Someone that, when I kiss her, she kisses back a little harder. Pushing me to become harder, hornier and gives as much energy as I ”
        Yeah!!! This is what I like!!

        “Ravishing is hard work and kinda thankless if it’s with someone that lies there like a wet rag”

        Again I cant agree more with you.

      • There are a lot of assumptions here by you about what a ravished woman looks like. When my man ravishes me, I ravish back. As for the king-queen analogy, that IS about equals, INTERDEPENDENT partners each on the throne of their innate masculine and feminine power. The trouble with this dialgoue, is you are reading my piece entirely literally, and missing the archetypal.

        • Yes, exactly, thank you Lori! Too many readers are taking this dialogue way literally. Check your preconceived notions of what kings and queens are in the mundane world and open up to the archetypal energies as they exist in our collective superconsious.

        • Equal have a different meaning between men and women.
          An equal is somenone that gives and takes the same as I. Not someone that have the same station. You need to earn it. And women, if you want to do just that, you aren’t doing so by complaining about how so few men just don’t seem to want to “man up”.

          Women seem to believe that they are good in bed by just showing up. This notion is so ingrained that most women I have been with become extremelly insecure or angry when I have said that the sex could be better. So when I hear a woman say that she ravishes back i become a little sceptical. Because what i have found is that the power of who can say what good or bad sex is, lies mostly with the woman.
          This makes it hard to know what women mean when they say that they ravish back. Because the man usually don’t have a voice that can agree of dissagre.

          This kind of domination of sex dicource is seen in this piece as well. You talk about archetypes. But I don’t think that they are so universal if som many don’t agree with them. Alot of men seem to dissagre what the “masculine energy” is. And frankly, their words are more important because they are men.

          • I totally agree with you about the “just showing up” part. And I love the double bind it places men in. Either we don’t mention what could be better, don’t complain about sex and remain chronically dissatisfied. Or we speak up, turn her off, bring on the wrath and scorn and miss out on the boring sex too.

            I think what it means when a woman says she ravishes back is that all the hand-wringing, apply-back-of-wrist-to-forehead comments comparing ravishing to rape were way out of line. Because I’m sure they don’t mean they rape their men back.

            “Women seem to believe that they are good in bed by just showing up. This notion is so ingrained that most women I have been with become extremelly insecure or angry when I have said that the sex could be better. So when I hear a woman say that she ravishes back i become a little sceptical. Because what i have found is that the power of who can say what good or bad sex is, lies mostly with the woman.
            This makes it hard to know what women mean when they say that they ravish back. Because the man usually don’t have a voice that can agree of disagree.”

        • Many of aren’t missing the archetypal, it’s just that it doesn’t fit for all of us. If you ravish back, does that mean you are enlisting innate masculine power and he is enlisting innate feminine power? Curious, not snark. Are you seeing all humans as containing both? Or that males have masculine and females have feminine. I know a great number of women who don’t fit that particular mold….

  8. I agree with Julie about the archetypal stuff – which often ends up being essentialist. I found Deida’s book utterly offensive and the archetypal discourse rooted in patriarchy with little room for different expressions of masculinity and femininity. When will we move away from basing our sexual life and understanding of sexuality on fairy tales?

    Isn’t it time for the discussion on gender and sex to grow up? When Lori talks about being ravished it sounds like what she is talking about is knowing that she is really wanted, needed, taken, given her a sense of belonging – men want this as well – as other writers have commented on here. When I suggest we grow up, what I mean is that this discourse sounds like a child / princess/prince wanting their parent / prince /princess to look after them/ take care of them/ take control – isn’t it time both genders treated each other as adults?

    I would be more interested in being emotionally ‘ravished’, emotionally wanted , knowing that I am known, that I belong, am loved and accepted. We live in a sex-obsessed society where it is perceived that sex will save us, fulfil us, meet our needs and give us total understanding of issues of masculinity and feminity. In reality sex is a minute part of most people’s life. Yet on this site – Sex associated writing is common place with many associated comments -

  9. Peter von Maidenberg says:

    Seems like there are too damn many rules to this ravishing act.

    If I’m not concentrating on MYSELF, being all archetypal and animal and nonverbal, I’m not man enough to stir the woman. One touch that is a fraction of a pound-per-square-inch too tender, one jaw muscle not sufficiently flexed, one murmured word followed by her name, and my manliness is in ruins. I have not “taken” her. I have not “led” the dance. I have merely grabbed her disgustingly, like some stumbling “little” male.

    It’s enough to make a guy long for the days of plain old erectile dysfunction.

    (I posted this as a reply to a reply and it got buried. I’m doing it again in hopes it’ll get more visibility. Tough titty if I shouldn’t have.)

  10. Mike Russo says:

    Bump to the comment about women assuming all the have to do is show up. Sex with my last girlfriend sucked, it always did, at least for me. She never acted like she wanted to be there, and she was probably always thinking about something else. And bump again, women do not have the sole say as to whether the sex was good or not. You asked for men to be more sensitive, so now we are. We’re telling you that you have to do some work here was well.

  11. Mike Russo says:

    This whole article is one of two things: It’s either:

    1 – A personal diary entry that one woman made public about how she wants rougher sex from her partners, which she attempted to make the audience (including herself?) believe that this is what all women want.

    2 – This is just another article attempting to emasculate men. In fact, I guarantee this is at least part of it, because of the “dilution” commentary. That is a direct emasculation/nagging act.

    Maybe you’ve had problems with men who don’t f*ck you hard enough, make you sore enough. Where do you get the right to bag on the rest of us? You want to be f*cked harder? Just ask for it. We’ll f*ck the crap out of you until you can’t walk anymore. Don’t attempt to make the rest of us feel like crap because you aren’t getting it put to you hard enough. That’s ridiculous.

    • Revo Luzione says:

      Russo,
      You’re projecting. Nobody’s trying to make you feel like crap. Nobody’s emasculting you but yourself.

      You feel like crap because you’re projecting your insecurities in the bedroom upon the author’s request to be ravished. Ravishment is not about pure force, it’s not about the foot-pounds of torque your pelvis can deliver into hers. It’s about the projection of a feeling, the feeling of masculine power overtaking the feminine. It’s the way a man uses his voice, his lips, his tongue, his hands, that convey passion and need, and a little bit of “owning” her body.

      It is my Italian nature, when a woman makes mention of being ravished, it is like putting racing grade fuel into a Ferrari. I will eat her whole, I will lovingly command her mind and body, I will possess her, passionately and compassionately dominate her. I will pick her up and flip onto her belly, take charge of the situation. Ravishing a woman tells her in no uncertain terms that she is *desired,* loved, appreciated, protected, cared for, and cherished, because she allows me to lead. Her feminine essence yields to my masculine power. That power, while animating my glutes and my biceps, does not originate from there. Nor does it originate from my loins, though it is greatly fueled by those masculine orbs that gird when I see and smell her. No, true masculine power originates from the heart.

      • Beautifully put Russo. Bravo!

      • I think Justine meant Revo, I hope she did, a wonderful reply to Russo.

        “The fundamental difference between rape and ravishment is simple: love.”

        I don´t feel any love in Russo´s post: for himself, for women, for anything. Sort yourself out bro, be good to yourself and stop stinking the place up.

    • lori Ann Lothian says:

      Thanks mike. Your commentary strikes to the heart of absolutely nothing I wrote about. It’s not about rough sex, or your cock. This piece was about the kind of energy a man brings to a sexual relationship with a woman, which also translates to the kind of energy he brings to the rest of his life…just as the kind of presence I bring to the world as a woman, is reflected in way i am with my man….but you seemed to have taken this awfully personally. Just say’in.

      • Mike Russo says:

        I apologize. It’s been a long time since I’ve read this article. I really don’t remember what it was about. I have a strong reaction to this kind of thing because I have a personal history that haunts me. But I have to say I don’t believe that any strong social forces have diluted men. How the h*** did you think that was going to go over did you honestly think anybody would respond pleasantly to that? You claim I didn’t get to the heart of anything that you wrote. Maybe it’s time for authors to finally consider what the people might respond to when they write. Honestly weight some of your arguments bring whiffs of eugenics. Don’t write something and assume everybody’s going to understand exactly what you meant. That’s illogical and hubrist. I’d be happy to have this discussion. But I want to do it in a way that make sense. People who have no idea. Really have no purpose making a grande arte statements about culture.

  12. Revo Luzione says:

    This is a sexy, beautiful, powerful, passionate post.

    I love it, and it arouses my masculine essence. Were you my lover, Lori, I’d ravish you in a heartbeat.

    Bravo, and I hope to see a lot more of this on the GMP. This is what the GMP’s core ethos should be like.

    PS David Deida’s stuff is truly a gift. The man understands sexual polarity, and I credit to him in part for the inspiration that is my sexual, personal, and masculine renaissance.

  13. What is feminine and masculine by societal standards may conform with your liking, author. But it does not conform with everyone’s. Do not speak for all women. We are all different and we all like different things. Share your opinion, but share it as what you enjoy not a rant about what women and men should be like. Not everything in the world has to follow to your liking. Sorry.
    Not all women fit your ideal of “feminine” and not all men fit your ideal of “masculine.” Not every man wants to “ravish” and not every woman wants to be “ravished.”

    • This. A man who doesn’t want to always be dominant isn’t less of a man. This seems to be more her communication issues.

      • Hey Mandy, I recommend reading this article on GMP, David Deida´s The Way of The Superior Man. and Robert Moore´s King, Warrior, Magician, Lover. There´s a lot going on here – there is a crisis of masculinity and men are looking to redefine their masculinity to enjoy our strength, underlined with love and calm as we don´t want to fall into the bad habits of abuse that some men mistake for masculinity. These books have been of real benefit to me and my partner.

        http://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/every-man-should-be-a-warrior/

    • Not all women fit your ideal of “feminine” and not all men fit your ideal of “masculine.” Not every man wants to “ravish” and not every woman wants to be “ravished.”

      But plenty of us want to be ravished and to ravish, whether we be men or women. Great article.

  14. My, my, my, it’s getting hot in here.

  15. I agree with everything you’re saying. And of course there is nothing wrong with wanting to be “ravished.” It’s healthy to want to passionately connect with the person you love. Fifty Shades of Gray turned me into Fifty Shades of Red and got my fantasy wheel spinning. I say no matter your age, harness your inner Anastasia or Tarzan or masculinity or femininity or whatever you want to label it. (If you need a little help getting ready physically, which can happen with menopause, check out some of these options for vaginal dryness: http://www.shmirshky.com/menopause-blog/2012/05/13/menopause-mondays-vaginal-renewal-complex/)

Trackbacks

  1. […] This is a comment by Jonathan G on the post “Me Jane, You Tarzan: The Politics of Sexual Polarity“. […]

  2. […] my Awakened Dreamer blog, all in a dither about my writings elsewhere on sexuality. For instance, Me Jane, You Tarzan: The Politics of Sexual Polarity now buzzing up the popular charts at Good Men Project online […]

  3. […] of our members write for syndicated online magazines like Huffington Post, The Elephant Journal, The Good Men Project, Better After 50, Vibrant Nation, In the Powder Room, Aiming Low, and Next Avenue, but our entire […]

Speak Your Mind

*