To Make Her

Too often men, when discussing sexuality, talk about what they can "make" a woman's body do.

"I made her cum."
"I can make women orgasm like you wouldn't believe."
"I can make a girl squirt."
"I made her scream last night."

And so on and so forth...

I do not like this way of speaking.  The agency is these sentences, and seemingly in the minds of the men speaking them, is entirely dedicated to the male speaker.  The woman is simply an object, a thing that is "made" to do something by the omnipotent power of the male.  It is not that the woman orgasms, it is that she is made to orgasm.  Her agency, her desire, her consent is lacking entirely from the statements.

This kind of advertisement, common on porn sites, is exactly what I'm talking about

It would much be my preference that we eliminate this kind of object-oriented, coercive, forceful language and replace it with something more cooperative.  Perhaps something such as, "I like to help my partner(s) orgasm" and "I love when my partner really screams during an orgasm."  The language here is much more rooted in the cooperation of a sex act, in the playfulness of sexuality; in sexuality as play, a kind of interconnected, cooperative engagement between people (however many there may be).

The exception to this may be certain Dom/sub relationships in which the sub begs to be allowed to cum, to be made to cum by the Dom, to be forced to cum at the Dom's will.  This, though, is necessarily pre-negotiated in any healthy D/s relationship.  In fact, the language of force and begging in this case is rooted in the desire to be assisted in achieving one's sexualized goals; it is rooted in consent, previously stated and with the possibility of withdrawal.  Even when engaged in what may appear to the uninitiated outsider as an act of force or violence, the D/s relationship is rooted in consent.  In effect, if not literally, prior to the D/s scene, the sub has said something like, "i desire for You to join me, to take control, to be in control.  i desire and consent to this.  Please, i wish to beg, i wish to plead and, when You ask, i wish to cum for You, for Us."  Here, the sub is not an object in the literal sense, but is being objected as a consequence of the sub's own desire, previously stated.  Contrary to being an object, the "sub" is being placed as a "subject" alongside the Dominant; putting the "sub" in "subject."

You want to know what she wants?  This is what she wants.

But too often this is not what men mean in statements like those above.  The woman is a kind of currency being exchanged in the conversations of men, with the product being male prestige and power; submission to patriarchy, first and foremost.  The woman in the conversation is hardly a subject, but simply the object of the male's supposed sexual powers, then an object of his exchange with other men through storytelling, and via that, an object of other men as well.  She here is never the subject of her pleasure, never the subject of her sexuality, never becoming through her pleasure, her orgasm; always only that which is made, made through male power, and thus unequal, thus inferior, thus below, thus owned by him; owned by men in general; an object for exchange on the market of male sexuality, which is to say, patriarchy.

She cums, and she may allow you to participate in this, just as a man may allow her to do so with him.  The language of "making" though just reeks of coercion, force, and denies the woman's agency.  So give it up, and I expect you'll find that it's not hard to change and that, in fact, with the shift toward cooperative language there will come a paradigm shift in your thinking that will also produce a better sex life on the whole, as the language above is also quite clearly egocentric and implies that the speaker is only concerned with himself.  I guarantee that sex in which everyone is concerned with everyone else will be far greater.