Myth → Reframe

I've spent forty years in rooms where people carry stories they didn't write — stories about what sex should look like, how bodies should respond, what desire says about their worth. The myth-reframe isn't a teaching trick. It's how I meet someone who's been told their body is broken because it doesn't perform like a porn scene, or that wanting something 'weird' makes them dangerous, or that freezing during touch means they're frigid. First, I name the story: "You've been told that arousal looks like instant, loud, performative yes." Then I honor why it stuck: "Of course you believed it — it's the only script you were handed." Only then do I offer what real bodies show me: "Here's what I've seen in four decades of hands-on work: arousal is slow, quiet, nonlinear. It lives in the breath, not the performance." This isn't debunking — it's witnessing. The shame-unlearning happens when someone realizes their 'dysfunction' was actually a reasonable response to unreasonable expectations. The unpracticed body isn't broken; it's just never been met with curiosity instead of correction. I witness the relief when a person hears: "Your body didn't fail you. The story failed your body." That's the reframe. Not a new script — a return to what's true underneath the noise. And it always starts with: "Want to hear a truer one?"