Naomi Woolf, Vagina. a quick question.

[TheEnthusiasticTroll]

I am just reading this and have been quite gripped asnd inspired this evening, however I have reached around page 54 and Im wondering now what the message is so far.

It was very much that your vagina is conected to your brain etc etc. But I am now a little deflated that the message is becomeing, if you are having bad sex or no sex then you are unfulfilled, depressed and lack creativity organisation etc due to lack of orgasme.

This has just made me close the book. Im a single parent currently studying and having no sex, no orgasme (by self or otherwise), have had no sex for a very long time yet I feel that I am at my most enlightened, intelegent and creative chapter of my life.

Am I reading this wrong do I need to read on. I wopuld like to read on and thing there is a but, however Im worried it will make me feel a little shit due to my lack of sex and doom.

Hi OP you might like to read the webchat and the other NW thread on FWR. I'm pretty sure both will make you feel better!

ha ha just found the web chat. hmm that did not go to well.

I think I will read on, even if my inspiration towrads my vagina and my brain conections diminishes I will at least be able to take a critical view.

I dont read enough feminism, I would like to be more intuned and informed hence reading the book, so thanks Thedoc I will take a look at the other thread.

Hiya

"wifework" or "delusions of gender" might be good reads, if you haven't already? There is a feminist book club section which I think has a couple of threads on "gentle introductions"

thanks will take a look.

Oh, I think SGM had a list of good books for starter feminists. Will point her in your direction.

Naomi Wolf's book is becoming like the Exorcist. I've never seen either, but have heard so much about both that I am beginning to feel I have seen them.

I think the issue is that her experiences are true for her, but she feels the need (like many, many people before her) to validate her experiences by claiming through pseudo science and mysticism that they should also be the correct sexuality for everyone else.

I think basically her sexual preferences are a variation on pillow princess. And there is nothing wrong with that; it has always been a popular choice for some people. But it doesn't mean we all have to do it.

what's a pillow princess?

thanks for the list SGM.

Im thinking a pilllow princes is someone who lays on thier backs during sex, not doing a greaty deal of the work themselfs.

ah, thanks Troll.

Its pretty vile yes. i just googled it and it seems to be a trem used mostly within a lesbian context.

Yeah, I thought that it was mostly a lesbian term too. In the context I've heard it I don't think it was a harsh term - maybe more like lazybones in level of harshness. It may be used differently by some, of course.

I certainly wasn't meaning it to be a harsh term and didn't mean to imply it was to do with laziness. I apologise to people who find it offensive.

If it isn't considered to be an acceptable kind of sexuality, then perhaps it does need a new name (like Wolf's 'goddess array') and perhaps her book and Fifty Shades of Grey (with the term 'inner goddess') did need to be written and are a way of advancing that kind of sexuality for people who enjoy it.

I've never heard of this. Is it really a kind of sexuality to lie there and be done to without lifting a finger in return? How does it relate to goddess stuff? Is it linked to d/s? Genuinely curious.

I had never thought that much about it before, until these two books came out fairly close together and Ariel Levy linked the two in her NewYorker podcast.

I've read Fifty Shades of Grey, and (while it is a terribly written book) I think that it is being talked about as a BDSM book when there are very few occasions in it when they actually have any kind of BDSM sex (although they discuss it a lot). It is largely about him paying a huge amount of attention to her body and her feeling very worshipped - there's lots of hair stroking, caressing of the body etc. She uses the term 'inner goddess' about a trillion times.

And the Naomi Wolf book seems to be covering similar ground - with this thing about the guy seeing a vision of the Virgin Mary in a vagina, and various kinds of (what I assume) is foreplay which she terms the 'goddess array.' She is trying to find a way of reaching Goddess space, she has said.

And perhaps that is a thing that some women want. I don't think it is passive or submissive - their actions aren't active but in Wolf's case she is active in getting what she wants ; it is more about adoration or at least a lot of attention. But again, I've not read the book - just interviews with her and reviews. I think the issue lies in saying this is the one way to have sex, and every woman should want that. But that goes for every kind of sexuality. There can't just be one way.

Is it sexuality or inexperience, confidemce or preference.

in terms of pillow princess, I suppose relating it to oral sex, im my youngth I would be very apprehensive and uncomfertable giving oral sexbut would gain alot of pleasure out of reciveing oral sex. Now slightly older i still do not gain a sence of arousal over giving oral sex, but I have learned my way around a mans anotomy to be able to confidently please a male partner and without recivening sexual arousal my self.

I have read on in the book and Im finding it maybe anatomically correct, I think it is a romantisised that naomi hiolds over her own sexuality she is attempting to sell. i myself have yet to really find what she is saying true to me right now or ever if Im honest.

but then it would not have filled the pages of her own book, i suppose it is worth remembering that it is a biography. The idea of a conection between brain and vagina, I find is overlaping a sence of self spirituality that many women do not hold, Im now reading it with a different mind set and remembering this what it is like for her.

im not sure what naomi appears to be discussing is that of "pillow princess" I think she would describe her experiences as tantric.

I don't a lot about tantric sex, but the impression I get is that many people who are involved with it are very actively involved in both partners. Naomi Wolf has said that her 'advisor on all things yoni (the tantric vagina)' is Mike Lousada, and what he describes is putting the woman as the focus of goddess attention, while the role for men is very different. And while she probably does think it is tantric, it is a particular type of tantric sex and other kinds exist. She could equally describe it as vanilla, but that isn't very specific. And perhaps her 'goddess array' is a good, specific term for it.

Ariel Levy's podcast here:

www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/podcasts

Mike Lousada's sex therapy, as experienced by journalist in the Flail:

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1310321/He-tickles-feeds-strawberries-I-think-children--tantric-sex-guru-rekindle-middle-aged-libido.html

Mike Lousada's website here, with blog:

www.mikelousada.com/

And I don't intend to be critical of the book. There will no doubt be women who read this book who feel that it is describing their experiences fully, and find it really helpful. And that is great if that material hasn't been covered elsewhere.

I think I'd just like a book that had chapters describing a variety of different kinds of sexuality written by a number of different women, so that we didn't all end up back in this situation of 'all women like XYZ.'

just read the 'pillow princess' definition on urba dictionary. Urgh! more women bashing!

Is there an equivalent term for such a man? or are they just called 'men'?

I was Mike Lousada "patient" for six months and I'll tell you what my experience was: a waste of money that could have been much better spent on a Seychelle holiday! Problem is it was my first therapist and I was very naive. I'm in therapy again but this time with a real psychiatrist (Uni degree, medical background etc..) and the difference is absolutely ABISMAL. I'm actually very happy and doing a lot of progress.

During the first months with Mike all he wanted was too "massage me". "No thanks, I didn't really come here for a man to grope me" I thought to myself "I already have enough of that out there". Problem is Mike had very little interest in my problems but was more interested in running his hands all over me. However he kept repeating like a mantra "Don't worry you're in a safe space" (yeah, right! ).

I found this person to be incredibly unprofessional, academically unprepared and with little actual knowledge of the human psychiatry and how the brain works. All disguised under a cloth of new agey-neo tantra-tree-hugging phylosophy.

2,560 GBP to the rubbish, and all because I had read Naomi Harris book and believed the hype.

I felt so stupid to have wasted my time and hard earned :-(