Sometime in the history, the ideal woman was thought to be sexually completely passive. She was said to have no desires of her own, her only purpose was to pleasure the man. This was the ideal, until the women who are not sexually passive rebelled.

Now, I am saying the sexually passive woman has to raise a complaint.

The trouble is, that a sexually passive woman, a state of which is a natural sexual alignment, not a character flaw or a situation she wound up in against her will, is now being forced into an active role that doesn’t excite her. This is quite the paradox; she would do anything for a man, including “ride him” if he feels that that is what he now wants, as she will always get aroused by being controlled by the man. There is several problems that comes into the picture with this. The feeling of being controlled is mainly mental, and men are aware of the fact that in current social environment attempting to sexually control his woman is a huge taboo and a no-no. Therefore the men who would naturally respond to a passive woman by taking the active, powerful role, try not to be that chauvinistic and stop themselves from being controlling. But it is the chauvinist pig that the passive female loves to pleasure. Secondly, with the females screaming for men to last longer in bed, forcing him to take his mind of what he is doing, and to make the act about her needs rather than his own, turning the sexually passive female right off the whole thing, causing her not to climax, giving him the impression he doesn’t last long enough… However, the sexually passive female will come as soon as he comes, even if he lasts 2 seconds if he allows her to follow him to the finish line without being embarrassed that he’s getting there so quick a rabbit would be impressed.

To a woman like that, a man who pre-ejaculates gives her a massive compliment: “You are too hot for me to deal with; I cannot hold myself steady with you.” On the other hand, a man who lasts for hours is telling her the opposite: “I am using you for my physical needs, I am not very turned on, nor in love, but I will keep banging on until I come because my balls are blue. You could be a blow-up doll and I’d be just about as excited about fucking you as I am now; you are just a hole I need.” If a man can’t get off on you in ten minutes or less, you’ve lost your charm, that is how she feels, while the active female will feel he only cares about his own pleasure – a turn on for the other type, a turn off for the other. (Of course, after the two second race, he should have a new hard on ready in about 15, but men rarely allow themselves to get excited again given that the idea is that she’s doing him a favor, doesn’t really like it, and when she finally lets him have a go (*puke*) he’ll last 5 minutes… But to a woman like this, being fucked several times a day for a quickie… A bliss – provided it’s ABOUT HIM, not her, she loves the idea of being able to turn him on by just being in the same room with him because she knows not all women can. (They’ll have relations with any attractive woman, but to turn a guy on by just being around him… A super woman!)

Men need to know women like this exist and women like this need to be forgiven for existing

Men have been told, a million times over, to not a) fall in love with these women because “they are bad” and b) that an easy woman is not worth having and c) they are being abusive towards her if they take advantage of her “weakness”. And now, there’s a whole bunch of women who aren’t getting any even though they’re gagging for it, while the women who are less than enthusiastic about sex are having it because they feel they are obligated to (so he doesn’t go to these women for satisfaction).

Women have been told, over and over to a) not be easy b) that men don’t want “bad” women or at least won’t love them and c) they are not worth having, and a bonus d) they will give men the permission to assume sex would be readily available for them, while the other type of women want to make men “pay” for it, one way or another. “Why would he buy the cow if he can get the milk for free?” A sexually passive woman would think the analogy isn’t quite fair, after all, there are emotions, there is love, there is desire, all of that being personal, not “milk from a cow”.

How to tell?

One way to find out if she is like this (or allows herself to be) is to openly cob an eye-full if you know what I mean. If she doesn’t shriek, slap you, or remind you of the location of her eyes, she’s most likely the right type. If a small smile rises to her lips, that’s pretty much a signal to do whatever you like. Proceed with a level of care – not all women think this is an actual sexual advance, but think they’ve got you by the balls now and can take advantage, hence the smile. Beware. The advantage-taker, who can also be a lot of fun, will easily start bartering on what you can give her in return for the sexual favors. A sexually passive woman will not. She will expect you to move forward and take her as you please. They are also very aware that they may not excite all men because they are completely passive, but they are also not interested in chasing men, they want their men to fall into their lap completely without coercion. Their idea is somewhat simply this: “I don’t want to do anything for you, and I don’t want you to do anything for me, either. I simply want you to show me who you truly are, the beast.” The sexual attraction is enough, the lust is enough, all else belongs to other areas of their brain; such as love relationships, that can get really complicated with them for several reasons.

Passive or scared?

The other problem is that a fear reaction of a non-sexual woman or a sexually oppressed woman is often exactly the same as a passive woman’s excitement. Imagine a man pushing her against the wall, imagine held back excitement and desire and compare that to held back fear and disgust. There is almost no way of telling which it is, so one way to make sure is to ask her: “Are you waiting for me to continue, or are you afraid of me?” You can’t ask “are you afraid of me” because without the asking the opposite, she is likely to nod anyway, because being A LITTLE afraid is also a turn on, and she’d want you to know. Another way to ask is this: “Do you want me to stop?” She will quietly shake her head if she’s cool with you. A man who would go this far should never be accused of a sexual assault or anything related because this is the exact way a lot of women react to a VERY welcome sexual advance: complete passiveness. (These same women HATE having to encourage a man to keep going or to take the initiative; it ruins the game for her completely, but what she is likely to not have understood is the very real fear of being accused of rape or a sexual assault if he reads the signs wrong.)

Also, thinking of poor Donald Trump, he would have had tons and tons of women welcome his advances the same exact way as he has been rejected. For instance, pushing his hand between a girl’s legs would initially cause the same exact reaction; Her pressing her knees together in a slight shock. A fearful woman would expect to be raped brutally if she says no or pushes him away, so she will not say anything or do anything, but a woman who wants him to go on, will not say or do anything to give him a permission to keep going. If she wants him, she would part her legs gradually, while the fearful woman would eventually start fighting or never get over the state of freeze. (Most men would stop if she doesn’t warm up, and again, it would be completely unfair to punish a man for misreading the signals so far.)

Then again, some women fight in order to turn him on further, so it is absolutely freaking impossible to tell sometimes whether the rejection is real or not, and it is, therefore, an AWFUL practise to judge men for rapes when they simply misread the signals, and it is soul-destroying that the rest of us cannot enjoy sex freely, because there is such a fear of rape in this society… and even that shouldn’t exist as strongly as it does, but that is another subject matter entirely. (Shortly; sexual purity is a virtue that is held to a female-objectifying standard, and when the purity is lost, shame takes its place. Inflicting shame for sexual impurity on a woman who takes pride in being chaste creates a weapon a man can use against a woman who believes she is “spoiled” if someone penetrates her, especially without her approval, which makes her also accountable for her gender-characteristic physical strength that is less than that of an average 14-year old boy most likely. We should talk about the psychology of rape and sexual assault a lot more in order for us all to understand the complexities that go into it, and what drives men to actual sexual offense with the intent of shaming, hurting, and destroying her.)

(Mind you, when I was in my 20’s, I said publically that if I was raped, I would want my rapist to kill me, too, because I wouldn’t be able to go on after that. At the time, I thought of it as the ultimate insult, and I must apologize for not being quite able to reconnect to that way of thinking anymore.)

The true fear factor

The trouble is, that some women fight in order to turn the man on. Obviously, these women don’t get a whole lot of satisfying sex, either. Even further, some women tell men they want him to overpower her, only to later turn around and accuse him of rape or domestic abuse, and considering how unconditional the condemnation of men is, she can say nearly anything and he will be powerless to defend himself. So what happens when everyone reads everyone wrong, while part of the sexual allure to this is that you do not tell him what you want, but he needs to figure it out? If he is used to play-fighters, and one of his women actually mean it seriously, can he be blamed for misreading her signals?

Now… Even a sexually passive woman would show an incredible force of “no” should someone try touching her when she really doesn’t want it. If she is also liberated, she would normally not take this approach as a personal insult, but she would still drive the message home that the approach was not welcomed… FROM HER, PERSONALLY. This will, of course, often mean that this man is sexually spoiled and that NO WOMAN would want him – making it possible that he would revenge this on another woman and turn into a real rapist in order to prove he is not controlled by women. In this case, especially if repeatedly rejected, he may start hating women for the “untouchability” and treating him like he was “dirty”, so he will start thinking it just the same; if he is already rotten, he might as well take what he wants. Again, of course women need to know how to say a strong no, but he also needs to know that signs get misread all the time, and that he’s not a monster nor an idiot for having made that mistake.

How does a sexually passive woman think

It would be an error to think that a sexually passive woman would be sexually oppressed, fearful, or traumatized. She experiences more oppression and trauma through women’s support groups than from any man because the women of today require her to be an active partner in the sexual act, while pacifying the male to such extent that he is no longer free to follow his instincts with her, leading her men assume that she wants an active role because she’s a woman. Just from my own personal experience, the “girl on top” thing… Ach. If I am on top because he’s too lazy and he needs me to get him off, I’m all good with that, will come like a lightning, but if he lays down to let me have my way, expecting me to take the active role for me wanting to pleasure myself on him… I don’t even know where the heck I would find the interest or energy! Although I love men, I love the way they look, every throbbing part of body they have, if they lose their interest in me, I will instantly lose it for them. I get excited when I can read it in a man’s eyes that he is thinking of doing things to me, and all I want to know is what is it that he’s planning… I do not wish to make a decision for him.

I have tried to express these needs to my boyfriends. The usual reaction is bewilderment of some degree. “You can’t possibly mean that…” “Well, I don’t want to be the only active one!” “You just want things to happen to you (with disgust).” The result; a lifelong sexual frustration and disillusionment with the whole idea of masculinity. The idea of never finding a man who would make sex very simple for me is a very, very depressing one, but then again, so often simply giving a man the permission to enjoy himself or to express his sexual feelings freely is enough to send him through the roof… So often a man pays you a compliment and then proceeds to apologize for it, because he is so afraid he’s going to offend, and that, to a sexually passive female is both difficult to understand and also heartbreaking; they rarely understand why the men are so insecure and afraid, or simply laughing internally about how easy other women make it for them to make a guy completely ecstatic.

The sexually passive guy

Just to visit this side of the coin – not all men, clearly, naturally take the active role in sex. Some LOVE a dominant female, they love to leave the decisions to women, and to be taken – just like a passive female would. The identifying feature is that they do not object to a woman’s wishes. It may be difficult for a woman to get an idea of what they want – because they don’t really want anything, and they simply want the woman to give them the paradigms of the relationship, or at least be the initiator for sexual contact 99% of the time. This makes him feel attractive and wanted, but it is also very likely that he might not be very loyal – depends on the guy – someone who is always sexually passive will find it hard to keep it in his pants if another woman wants him; and the same is true for the sexually passive woman as well. (There is a variation that will automatically block everyone else out; complete control, but it depends on the person/couple.)

It is also important to notice that a Savants* can be sexually passive – and that alignment doesn’t change by the popular opinion like that of the Normal Person*’s would. A Normal Person* female will be whatever the society dictates as the expectation, the same as the Normal Person* male will. An Savant* will adjust to the expectation as much as they can, but they will never TRULY be as expected, and their dissatisfaction and frustration will keep growing even if they were outwardly perfectly capable of doing as expected… They simply will always feel unfulfilled, unlike the Normal Person* whose fulfillment comes from filling the expectations of the society at large, even if it was about his or her sexual behavior. A Normal Person* feels good about “being the right way” and that also directs his or her sexuality in a way that makes them afraid that if gay marriage is made legal, they will be forced to “turn gay” if that becomes a cultural expectation.

Signals

We need to find a way to subtly signal consent to bold sexual advances, and the understanding of this type of sexuality. In Victorian times, it would have been enough to let him see her ankle to tell him she was not a good girl, and I love that idea. I wish there was a way to dress to signal my sexual alignment to men, without necessarily tweaking everyone to it at the same time! Currently, it would be condemnable for a guy to consider it a consent if a woman walks down the street naked screaming “someone please fuck me!” because she would be considered unfit to give conscent, and that her behaviour would be irrational.

There has to be a way for women to give a signal of “non-prudishness” and for men to use this as defence in court if he saw a signal such as that, and women need to know not to give that signal; the signal should be obvious enough to not accidentally give it – then again, people wear those mustaches famously without knowing what the original meaning of them was, which is a dangerous the Normal Person* trait; getting onboard a trend with no idea what the philosophy linked to it is about. Another similar example; once upon a time gay men would carry a hankerchief in their back pocket in a special way to signal them being homosexual, and depending on the pocket he had it in, would signal “in a relationship” or “single”. Some trend setters spotted it, stole the idea again not knowing what it stood for and made it a useless signal that then died out – I think.

Subscribe to get a Daily Message