first_page

Flippant Remarks about “My Sexual Fantasy: Dominate Me”

None other than Brown Sugar wrote, “My Sexual Fantasy: Dominate Me.” My first reaction to this announcement was self-defensive. Here we go again: another indication of those “strange” contradictions that frustrate us dudes with no game. But my personal experience with these contradictions has shown me that I am not the only one that’s frustrated. In research fact, according to “What Do Women Want? —Discovering What Ignites Female Desire” by Daniel Bergner, 30 percent of women fall into frustration:

Chivers has scrutinized, in a paper soon to be published in Archives of Sexual Behavior, the split between women’s bodies and minds in 130 studies by other scientists demonstrating, in one way or another, the same enigmatic discord. One manifestation of this split has come in experimental attempts to use Viagra-like drugs to treat women who complain of deficient desire.

By some estimates, 30 percent of women fall into this category, though plenty of sexologists argue that pharmaceutical companies have managed to drive up the figures as a way of generating awareness and demand. It’s a demand, in any event, that hasn’t been met. In men who have trouble getting erect, the genital engorgement aided by Viagra and its rivals is often all that’s needed. The pills target genital capillaries; they don’t aim at the mind. The medications may enhance male desire somewhat by granting men a feeling of power and control, but they don’t, for the most part, manufacture wanting. And for men, they don’t need to. Desire, it seems, is usually in steady supply. In women, though, the main difficulty appears to be in the mind, not the body, so the physiological effects of the drugs have proved irrelevant. The pills can promote blood flow and lubrication, but this doesn’t do much to create a conscious sense of desire.

Buy this DVD at Amazon.com! After reading this New York Times article which gave more words to my personal experience, my guess is that Brown Sugar wants to be dominated because, in “our” (patriarchal) society, the act of domination is an indicator of desire—and what seems to “strange” to we males is that women must feel like they are desired in order to be aroused. This is yet more evidence (backed by the white-lab-coat science) that women are receivers more than penetrators. My emphasis is on the words “must feel like” because it is an error to assume that all women have some kind of special power to detect authentic desire—this is why having “game” plays a serious role for the male and female predators who process a lot of ladies.

There are two barbaric ways to make women (raised in patriarchy) feel like they are desired: (i) you are willing to commit an act of violence for your desire (researchers in the Bergner article acknowledge this as the “rape fantasy”—to label the act of violence directed at the woman herself) and (ii) you are evidently willing to invest vast sums of material resources (money) for your desire (this is covered in the David Derbyshire article, “Why rich men are better in bed: Women have more orgasms with wealthy partners, study finds”). Now, about this “rape fantasy” thing: Bergner takes care to report that feminine arousal does not mean feminine consent. This fact may seem bizarrely complex to both males and inexperienced females.

Experience informs me that frustration reigns when it becomes clear that the woman is truly unable to imagine herself as desirable. Her rejection of herself blocks out almost all of the “game” that might distract her for two minutes. This repulsion can increase with age. Here in the rasx() context, the woman’s self rejection begins with her inability to see herself as integrated in the so-called “natural world” (like there is actually anything other than a natural world). For women of African descent, after centuries of mental bondage, this self-alienation is arrogant, ironically proud, rampant and religious. And, yes, certainly my brothers get jungle fever too. What is left of the feminine “outside” of nature is imperial womanhood. It is a grave, misogynistic, self-hating error for modern masculinity to confuse imperial womanhood with the biologically altruistic, matriarchal womanhood that made civilized humanity possible.

Comments

JJ, 2009-01-27 16:47:36

LOL.

Actually, for a long time...I preferred to be in control in the sack...but because I spend so much time taking care of everything outside the bedroom...it's nice to get handled inside.

I can't speak for other women, but I don't need to feel desired to be turned on. Desire, for me, is not the least bit mental but all about the physical. I need to be attracted to you to "get that love and feeling." lol.

rasx(), 2009-01-27 18:49:32

Ken Burns showed archived clips of Jackie Robinson handling his wife affectionately in his film Baseball---and this sister-momma was just melting in Jackie Robinson's muscular arms. I haven't seen a woman melt like that since I was a child watching the grown ups. So when you talk all about the physical I can see where you are coming from when you are talking about the straight-forward ability of the man to move his woman. I mean literally move his woman. I do find it disturbing when it is clear that I cannot move the woman I am with in bed. I consider myself just a little athletic...

rasx()