03: Sexuality cont’d

with 10 comments

For Deida, achieving fulfillment and celebrating sexual polarity requires understanding and owning the natures of the two poles. In short, this involves understanding that women are chaotic (albeit lovely) creatures who will poke and test men to breaking point, searching out their weaknesses in the hope they will rise to the occasion (as it were), and prove their manliness. Deida suggests there are only two ways to deal with woman (and the worldliness they personify): renounce sexuality and “the seemingly constant demands of woman and world” or “’fuck’ both to smithereens, to ravish them with your love unsheathed.” Deida believes that not only does this bear witness to the true nature of masculine energy, but women also want it, as it allows them to be at their best: as Deida says, “If you want your woman to be able to relax … you must relieve her of the necessity to be in charge.”

But it’s not all love and light with Deida: he also seeks to explain some of the more pathological aspects of masculinity and sexuality. Earlier, Lawlor suggested there are some problems in society that are caused by our crisis in sexuality, such as rape being caused by overly aggressive men and overly passive women. Deida also ventures into this territory, connecting not taking your woman “savagely, lovingly, and with no inhibition whatsoever” with a fascination with rape scenes on TV or at the movies. He suggests men need to own their “darkest desires,” which may include forcing women to have sex against their will (a fantasy Deida claims is also often shared by women). Such desires should not be quashed, but appropriately contextualized: he writes, “the difference between rape and ravishment is love.” Also part of this dark sexual territory is the “killer insider,” whether it be unleashed upon a cockroach or home intruder, which women want to see in their man, and that men should fully own.

So, in sum, for both Lawlor and Deida masculine sexuality shares a certain commonality:

  • The division of the masculine and feminine into polar opposites.
  • The assigning of a particular set of characteristics to each pole (such as assertiveness to masculine sexuality and receptiveness to feminine sexuality).
  • The need to fully own these two sets of characteristics, but to complement or balance them with those of the other pole.
  • There are stages in history we move through in the unfolding of masculine sexuality, whether the cyclical nature of matriarchy and patriarchy (Lawlor), or a new level beyond the stereotypical macho jerk and sensitive new age guy (Deida).



Written by Joseph Gelfer

August 1, 2010 at 12:33 pm

10 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. A good analysis. The model offered by Deida is attractive and yet asks too much of most men. It is a hard to come by spiritual ideal. The struggle a man feels for true expression of the masculine without becoming a jerk or a boring ass nice guy is something to be taken seriously. Deida doesnt tell men to be aggressive but passionate and controlled, decisive but not domineering, a leader but not a dictator. We should take time to think about and contemplate the difference… The core difference between a leader and a dictator. We all have experience of women trying to improve us because, as Deida points out, she wants us to live up to our own potential, and when we fail, she becomes dissappointed and angry. She wants to see the leader in you. She wants to feel your passion. She is repelled when you misinterpret this as aggression, control over her or bullying. She is repelled when you run from decisions and flee from passion. The masculine femenine struggles are not always politically correct but are bourne out by experience as true. The masculine can be percieved by a woman as fatherly, sexy or… In its immature or sick expression… Scary and intimidating. I say “sick” because yin wants to flow with yang and not to crush it. Yin loves yang. Yang loves yin. Power with women… Not power over women.


    July 11, 2013 at 7:13 pm

    • I hope you get to read on Brendan, as I address some of your points.


      July 11, 2013 at 8:24 pm

  2. These authors appear to be glaringly ignorant of the neuroscience of attraction and drive (dopamine), as well as that of attachment and bonding (oxytocin). I think that arena is vastly more productive, confounded as it still is by “the conspiracy”, than these feeble pseudo-psychoanalytic storytellings.


    July 11, 2013 at 6:31 am

    • At a conference last week I heard a distinguished professor refer to the emerging field of “neuro-bollocks”, but I take you point 😉


      July 11, 2013 at 9:07 am

  3. Deida writes: “the difference between rape and ravishment is love.”
    Whose love? And whatever happened to negotiated consent?

    Unlike prairienymph above, I didn’t grow up with the polarity concept. But when I was first presented with it, it didn’t make any sense. So many words have one gender in German and another in French — le soleil, die Sonne. Any claim to universal gendering of things falls flat even knowing just two European languages.

    Apel Mjausson

    March 16, 2011 at 8:18 am

    • Good point.


      March 16, 2011 at 8:24 am

    • Thank you for bringing up negotiated consent, a feature glaringly absent in Deida’s differentiation between rape and ravishment. I think a lot of stalker attacks and perhaps also “date rapes” are actually fueled by the perpetrator mistaking dopamine-fueled desire for “love”, which is NOT desire but is better called altruism or compassion.

      I am beginning to believe both Lawlor and Deida are what Dr. Peter Levine would call “disembodied men” damaged by pornography and rape culture. Truly embodied men in touch with the entirety of their triune brains would not stoop to such polarizations. Instead, they would use their “felt sense” and empathic skills to note when a woman wants to be approached passionately, not “ravished”, but tantalized to the point of releasing into the brain-wiping glitch that is female orgasm.


      July 11, 2013 at 6:39 am

      • I do like the phrase “brain-wiping glitch”: Google offers no other example of it being used on the internet!


        July 11, 2013 at 9:09 am

  4. Uck. I have a visceral reaction to these ideas.

    On one hand, the polarity/complementarianism is something I grew up with in my fundy church. It is familiar and goes back to a training I absorbed before I knew language.
    On the other hand, it goes against common sense. I have witnessed the damage of these teachings and I know how they cut off valuable aspects of men and women and negatively affect relationships.

    I have no desire to be raped. I do occasionally have thoughts of self-harm, which can be sexual by nature, but they result from struggling with self-hatred and hatred of the feminine. The more I value myself as a woman, the less often these troubling thoughts come.

    I do want my husband to be passionate, but never to the point of selfish aggression. Do these authors differentiate between passion and agression or do they view them as the same with only a contextual difference?


    November 9, 2010 at 3:53 am

    • They would claim to differentiate between passion an aggression, yes. I see it as simply an avenue of speaking aggressively while claiming not to be, thus perpetuating the norm while saying they are doing something different.


      November 9, 2010 at 7:51 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: