This reply offers clarification of the author's thesis. What was originally a reciprocal, pleasurable experience for each sex of mutual interpenetration with the preoedipal mother devolves into a split, gendered polarity. The specific form this takes for a boy—repudiation of identification with the mother and with maternal qualities—is seen to be detrimental to male development. I theorize a culturally normative, gender-specific neurosis caused not by maternal care but by the difficulty in male development of continuing to incorporate the surplus pleasures of maternal penetration given a problematic model of masculinity. My aim in “Unlawful Entry” is not to reverse gendered power relations but to forward their elimination.