Woman wanted for sexual abuse after twerking on man in gas station.
By now, I'm sure you've seen that headline splattered across your timelines and news feeds with jokes to accompany the story. While many filled comment sections with LOL's, I, unfortunately, didn't find the incident funny at all.
Two women were caught on camera randomly twerking on a man they did not know at a gas station on October 7th. In the video, one of the women throws herself against Washington Tharpe, a middle school teacher as he attempts to pay for something at the register. As she gyrates on him, footage shows him slowly backing away, with the second woman aggressively approaching and proceeding to grope Tharpe, even after he uncomfortably moves away. Tharpe said he told the woman to stop after she began to inappropriately touch him. “It looks like I just had some girls twerking on me and I just called the police. That is not what happened at all.”
“I was going around in circles trying to maneuver myself away from them and they just keep continuing, continuing, continuing,” for a full 10 minutes, the man known as the “DC twerk victim” shares. The women follow him outside where they refuse to let him in his car and he believes he was being set up after seeing two men witnessing the event. It gets even creepier when he finally does get into his car and the women follow him into the car wash. It was then that Tharpe decided to call police.
I’ve read comments since the story found its way to the web and seen a lot of people take the situation as joke. There’s been a lot of questioning his masculinity and referring to him as a woman’s genitalia, just for calling the police and feeling uncomfortable. Of course, valid points have been made when he said that had he touched those women, he would’ve been apprehended and charged with sexual assault. It reminded me of an incident that happened at a party with one of my sons earlier this year.
During a party, the children in attendance were asked to participate in a dance contest. As one of these new school hype songs played, one girl, no older than seven, innocently decided to dance with my youngest. But things took a turn left when she decided to back up on my son, thus making the adults hype up the moment with “Ayeee” and “Go, go, go!” disregarding the discomfort on my son’s face. I immediately interjected and pulled my son away, asking him how he felt. He wasn’t having it. In removing my child from something that he didn’t take a liking to, I was faced with remarks from other parents who told me to leave him and reminded me that it “was all in fun,” and to “let him be a kid.” No one thought about the fact that my five-year-old didn’t want his space invaded because his uneasiness was someone else’s entertainment.
Of course, I was advised that not interacting with girls would result in him “turning gay” when he gets older. Preventing him from engaging with the girl through dance would mean that he would be Washington Tharpe in the future–a man who actually turns down the opportunity to have sex. The same people who thought it best to forewarn me weren’t the same ones telling him about sexual harassment being very real for boys and men either. While the statistics of sexual harassment against women are frightening and overshadow that of men, it doesn’t mean that it’s not real for males in the workplace or on the street.
The adverse reactions to Tharpe’s encounter in October sparked dialogue on the double standards that exist. Had the man touched the woman from the beginning of the recording, this article would’ve been on the continuance of our bodies being viewed as a man’s playground. Had he touched them in return, this wouldn’t have been news, period. But we need to talk about the reality of our young boys and men being sexually assaulted and having their sexuality interrogated. We need to talk about why the backlash on this particular incident is reflective of an over sexualized society that says men should be okay with being touched inappropriately because they're hyper sexual beings to begin with. I've been called an overprotective parent, but I cannot preach the importance of keeping our hands to ourselves to my sons, but allow someone to touch them in the same ways I deem wrong. Life has plenty of two-way street moments.
“It is not about me being afraid or not afraid or embarrassed or not embarrassed. I am speaking the truth. Maybe it will help someone else in the future,” the teacher says. With young boys becoming grown men who find suppressing their emotions as masculine behavior, I don’t believe Tharpe was wrong for calling the police or talking about the incident. He could have resorted to being physically violent against the women or stayed silent–something we suggest women of sexual assault to be vocal about. Since the video has gone viral, one of the two women have been arrested and charged with sexual abuse. If the shoe was on the other foot, I would’ve hoped the male was jailed immediately. The woman was wrong and doesn't get a pass because of who she is in my book. Maybe a small twerk “isn't that deep,” but when someone says stop it’s something that should be respected. We have been speaking out a lot about equality, haven’t we?
That man could be one of my sons, and discussing how to respond after being violated and touched without consent is a conversation that we should have with our girls and boys from young ages. I’m honest enough to say that I still struggle with teaching my child how to draw the line between playing and understanding that his body shouldn’t be touched if he doesn’t give permission. But that moment a few months ago opened a door where he is aware and knows the significance in no–even if society is blind to the reality of sexual abuse towards men.
RELATED
Let me start this off by saying that of course, to a certain extent, the answer is subjective because it’s mostly opinion-rather-than-fact driven. However, I personally think that sex is hella impactful, which is why I hope that my personal breakdown will at least cause you to want to think about what you do, who you do it with, and why, more than you may have in the past.
Because although, at the end of the day, the physical aspects of making love, having sex, and f-cking are very similar, you’d be amazed by how drastically different they are in other ways…at the very same time.
Making Love
GiphyBack when I wrote my first book, I wasn’t even 30 at the time and still, one of the things that I said in it is, I pretty much can’t stand the term “make love.” Way back then, I stated that sex between two people who truly love each other and are committed for the long haul, when it comes to what they do in the bedroom, it’s so much more about CELEBRATING love than MAKING it. To make means “to produce” or “to bring into existence;” to celebrate means “to commemorate,” “to perform” or “to have or participate in a party, drinking spree, or uninhibited good time.”
The act of sex, standing alone? It can’t make love happen and honestly, believing otherwise is how a lot of people find themselves getting…got.
What do I mean? Tell me how in the world, you meet a guy, talk to him for a few weeks, don’t even know his middle name or where he was born and yet somehow, you choose to call the first time you have sex with him (under those conditions) “making love.” You don’t love him. You don’t know him well enough to love him. He doesn’t love you either (for the same reason). And yet you’re making love? How sway? Oh, but let that sex be bomb and those oxytocin highs might have you tempted to think that’s what’s happening — and that is emotionally dangerous. And yes, I mean, literally.
If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a thousand times before, that one of the reasons why I like that the Bible defines sex between a husband and his wife is by using the word “know” (Genesis 4:1) is because, well, I think that is what celebrating love is all about — we know each other well enough to know that we love each other, we know each other well enough to know that we aren’t going anywhere, and that knowing is what makes us want to celebrate that union by getting as close to one another and bringing as much physical pleasure to each other as we possibly can…as often as absolutely possible.
To me, that is what the peak of physical intimacy is all about — and the people who choose to use the term “make love,” it should be seen through this type of lens. When this type of mental and emotional bond comes together via each other’s bodies, they are amplifying love, enjoying love, embracing love.
Making it, though? Chile, the love has already been made. Sex is just the icing on the cake.
Having Sex
GiphyA few nights ago, I found myself rewatching this movie called Four of Hearts (which you can currently view on yep, you guessed it: Tubi). It’s about two married couples — one that is in an open marriage and another that isn’t although they somehow thought that sharing a night with the other couple would be a good idea (chile). Anyway, as one of the partners found themselves getting low-key sprung, the one they fell for said in one of the scenes, “It wasn’t a connection. It was just sex.” JUST. SEX.
Listen, when you decide to let a man put an entire part of his body inside of you at the risk of potentially getting an STI/STD or pregnant (because no form of birth control is 100 percent except for abstinence), it can never be “just sex” (somebody really needed to hear that too). At the same time, though, I got the character’s point because, if one or both people do not love each other or even deeply care for one another and/or sex is treated as an activity more than an act to establish a worthwhile connection and/or you and the person you are sleeping with have not really discussed what you are expecting from sex besides the act itself — you’re definitely not making/celebrating love.
Not by a long shot. What can make things get a bit complicated, though, is you’re doing the same act that “love makers” do without the same mental and emotional ties…or (sometimes) expectations.
You know, back when I decided to put all of my business out there via the piece “14 Lessons I've Learned From 14 Sex Partners,” now more than ever, I am quite clear that most of those guys fell into the “having sex” category. I wasn’t in the type of relationship with them where “making love” even made sense; however, because I was friends with most of them, we weren’t exactly f-cking (which I will get to in just a moment) either. We had a connection of some sort for the bedroom yet not enough to be together in the other rooms of the house.
We were really attracted and curious, so we decided to act on that. Oftentimes, the sex was good and so we rationalized that “having sex” was enough because if the friendship was, eh, “sound enough”, that we could justify the physical pleasure.
And y’all, that’s kind of what having sex is — it’s the limbo (or purgatory, depending on your situation) between making love and f-cking. The thing about limbo ish is it’s a lot like something being lukewarm: it’s not really one thing or another which means that it can completely blindside you, if you’re not careful (and totally honest with yourself as well as your partner(s)).
So, if you are contemplating having sex, I really — REALLY — recommend that you figure out how you feel, what you want (outside of the act itself) and if you are prepared for what “not quites” can bring. My mother used to say that the consequences of sex don’t change just because the circumstances do — and there is some solid “wow” to that, if you really stop to think about it.
GiphyAnd finally, f-ck. Although most experts on the word (and yes, there are some) agree that its origin is rooted somewhere within the German language (although some say that it might’ve come from Middle English words like fyke or fike which mean “to move about restlessly” or the Norwegian word fukka which means “to copulate”), you might have also heard that it is an acronym that once stood for “Fornication Under Consent of the King”; and there is actually some data that is connected to that as well.
Legend has it that way back in the day, in order to keep reproduction rates where a particular king wanted them to be, he would instruct his residents to have sex with each other — whether they were married or not (hence, the word “fornication” being in the acronym). However, because sex outside of marriage was taken far more seriously at the time, residents had to apply for a permit to participate so that the king could determine if things like their occupation and lineage would prove to be beneficial for the kingdom overall. F-ck: no love; just necessity. And although some believe this to be more myth than fact, what is certain is it was only over time that f-ck was seen as a profane/swear/cuss word — a word that was perceived to be so offensive, in fact, that between the years 1795-1965, it didn’t even appear in dictionaries.
Personally, when I think of this four-letter word, the first thing that actually comes to my mind is animals. Take a dog being in heat, for instance. That’s basically when a female dog is ovulating and wants to have sex the most. It’s not because they are “in love” with another dog; they are simply doing what instinctively comes to them — and since animals do not reason or feel at the same capacity that humans do, although they science says that many of them do experience pleasure when they engage in their version of sexual activity, it’s not nearly as layered or even profound as what we experience.
Let’s keep going. Another reason why f-cking makes me think of animals is due to the doggy style position. Hear me out. Ain’t it wild how, most of us pretty much know that the term comes from how dogs have sex, even though most animals have sex that same way — and think about it: Doggy style doesn’t consist of making eye contact or kissing while having intercourse. It’s “hitting from behind” without much emotional energy or effort at all. Just how animals do it. And so, yeah, f-cking does seem to be more about pure animal — or in our case, mammal — instinct. I don’t need to feel anything for someone, so long as the sexual desire is there. Hmph.
Something else that I find to be interesting about f-cking is how dictionaries choose to define it. Many of them are going to provide you with two definitions: “to have sexual intercourse with” and “to treat unfairly or harshly (usually followed by over)” and that definitely makes me think of another term — casual sex and words that define casual like apathetic, careless and without serious or definite intention. So, the dictionary says that while f-cking is about having sexual intercourse — just like making love and having sex is — it goes a step further and says that it can include being treated unfairly or harshly.
And although that can make you think of assault on the surface, for sure — sometimes being treated unfairly or harshly is simply feeling like someone had sex AT you and not really WITH you; instinct (i.e., getting off) and that’s about it. Yeah, the way this puzzle is coming together, f-cking seems to be more about lust and self and not much else.
Now That You Know the Difference, What to Keep in Mind
Y’all, this is definitely the kind of topic that I could expound on until each and every cow comes home. That said, here’s hoping that I provided enough perspective on each act to close this out by encouraging you to keep the following three things to keep in mind:
1. Before you engage in copulation, be honest with yourself about what you’re ACTUALLY doing — and that your partner agrees with you. You know, they say that our brain is our biggest sex organ and honestly, breaking down the differences between making love, having sex and f-cking helps to prove that fact. I say that because, although the sex act itself is pretty much the same across the board, you and your partner’s mindset can make the experience completely different. That said, if you think that you are making love and they think y’all are just having sex — stuff can get pretty dicey. Bottom line: communicate in the bedroom before attempting to connect outside of it. It’s always worth it when you do.
2. Yes, you can feel one way and do something else. I can just about guess what some of y’all are on: Shellie, we can love our partner and still just want to f-ck. If what you are saying is you can emotionally love someone and physically lust them and want to act sometimes on the lust without really factoring in the love — yes, I agree. Doggy style continues to be a favorite sex position for people, in general, and I’m more than confident that many of the participants polled are in a serious relationship. However, having lust-filled sex with someone who you know loves you is vastly different than doing it with someone who you have no clue what they think about you or you barely know at all. Y’all, please just make sure that you know…what you should know. Sex is too amazing to have a lot of regret after it.
3. Have realistic expectations about sex. Listen, so much of my life consists of writing and talking about sex that I will be the first one to say that it deserves a ton of props for what it is able to do, in a wonderful way, for people mentally, emotionally and physically. Yet again, I’m not a fan of “make love” because something that feels really good doesn’t always mean that it is good for you. Meaning, you’ve got to be real about what sex with someone will do to your mind and spirit — not just what it will do for your body. An author by the name of Gabriel García Márquez once said, “Sex is the consolation you have when you can't have love.” For no one, should this be a constant norm. Feel me? I hope you do.
____
One act. Three very different experiences.
It’s kind of wild that sex has the ability to create that — and yet, clearly, it does.
Please just make sure that you know which experience you’re signing up for.
So that you’re having sex (you know, in general) instead of sex having you. Real talk.
Let’s make things inbox official! Sign up for the xoNecole newsletter for love, wellness, career, and exclusive content delivered straight to your inbox.
Featured image by Giphy