But the Woman that God gave him, every fibre of her frame
Proves her launched for one sole issue, armed and engined for the same,
And to serve that single issue, lest the generations fail,
The female of the species must be deadlier than the male.
When a man enjoys anal sex with a woman, certain things are true. These truths might be known consciously or not, but I would argue they will be known at some level within both the man and the woman. What are some of these truths? The woman will know that it is not only she who has an anus. She will know every other woman has an anus, so the man could, conceivably, be enjoying the same sensations with any other woman. This is not a truth which should be too problematic for most women because the same is true of vaginas. However, the woman will also know that men don’t have vaginas, but they do have anuses. So what else is true? It is true that the woman knows, when her man is enjoying anal sex with her, he is enjoying sensations which he could enjoy with anyone, including any man. So what else is true? It means his enjoyment is not because of something specific to her; in fact his enjoyment isn’t down to women at all. The woman doesn’t take any credit for the man’s enjoyment. This means she is being denied to right to give. This could be more damaging to a relationship than the man selfishly denying the woman orgasms.
What is this likely to do to the woman’s view of herself within the relationship? Hardly will she feel special in terms of what goes on in the bedroom. None of the enjoyment the man wants is down to her. It isn’t even down to women. Could anal sex make women feel insecure? In addition, if it does make women feel insecure – and if this kind of sex is asked for or demanded enough – then might a woman begin to feel worthless? If sex is the centre of the relationship, the core where the love and respect which support the union are fashioned in heat and grind from sweat and tears, then she is worthless in the relationship because she causes nothing at the core of it.
For how long can the illusion be sustained by the woman that she is causing the man’s enjoyment by allowing him to butt-fuck her? His pleasure is not caused by something she does it is caused by something she has. This distinction, obviously, needs to be defended in respect to vaginas. To fuck the vagina is to fuck the woman; the woman is a woman so at least the man fucks her by acknowledging she is female. When her cunt is fucked the woman might still have the insecurity that the man is thinking about a different one, but his pleasure will be caused by something specific to her because it is specific to women. Her identity is, in a vague way, accepted. She remains a factor in the equation. This can’t be said for her anus because it is not specific to women.
If it is more pleasant to give than to receive then this might be a form of selfishness disguised as kindness if the pleasantness comes from the good-feelings we derive from seeing our recipient being happy or satisfied. It would mean we do something to feel good, not to make the receiver feel good. So if the man butt-fucks the woman enough is he denying her the ability to feel good by denying her right to be selfish? The genuinely selfless woman, in matters of sex, should have no problem with being butt-fucked because she doesn’t need to be the cause of the man’s enjoyment; it’s the insecure woman – insecure to a greater or lesser degree – who will either have or develop an opposition to her butt being fucked. All this might say something about why the man might want to have anal sex with the woman to begin with.
A man cannot cock-whip a woman in the same way she can pussy-whip him. She can withhold cunt privileges if displeased with the man; the man – if the woman is exceptional in bed – can be pussy-whipped into obedience. All men know this. Women have what men want. Women know they have it and they know men want it. That is the proper meaning of the term but there is another more general meaning to the term “pussy-whipped”. It’s another way of saying “nagged.” If the sex isn’t exceptional but instead mundane and routine, then the man cannot be controlled by it so another method is used. (Women should pay attention to the idea that the worst nags are the worst shags.) Both methods are to keep the man subservient until he is no longer required. The desire to do this might come from a need for security and protection – not the same thing at all.
The woman takes control of the relationship early on when she finally forces the young man to realise he is destined for a life of “being normal” when he gives up his boyish desires to be a footballer or a rock-guitarist or whatever fantasy future he has in mind and offers the thing men usually need to have nagged out of them: commitment. Men hate that word because of what it implies. Women like to say men hate it because it implies “growing up” but men hate it because it implies “giving up.”
From that point – when the hated “commitment” is secured – the woman is in control. (Obviously not all relationships are the same – sometimes the evolutionary software doesn’t run properly – but, all things being general, these appear to be the facts of the matter.)
All that is left for the man is to neutralise the power the woman has over him by taking from her the ability to feel good by stopping her claiming credit for his sexual pleasure.