Found in a notebook from one of my more heightened periods of insomnia. Trying to figure out what the fuck I was talking about. I can’t decide if it’s even worth boiling into anything.
Sexuality in men and women. Two sides of an unequal barbell, two different shapes and sizes. Masculine: utilitarian, disgusting, a tool. Feminine: tainted by masculinity, chased, stolen, disgusting if given away. Femininity is the recipient. This is her work.
Masculine sexuality is easy, supposedly. It is a machine, a mechanical dog let loose in a certain direction, gnashing his teeth at anything that passes. It is up to the woman to mind her ankles.
The masculine is based on the creation of new systems, creating the new rooms for women to dominate. Not every man needs to be in a leadership role. They just need to find their place. The individualisation so common in the West pressures every man to seethe at their natural role.
The feminine is tribal, based on the conditions surrounding women in the society around them, for benefit or detriment. They are amplifiers of the moral conditions that surround them. In a just and moral society, women will be the most pious.
Both sexes balk at these ideas. Women refuse to believe that they could be influenced by others, and men can’t believe that they’d be satisfied anywhere but the top.
Why is it stereotyped that romance is a feminine idea? The man does the work. To the woman, bearing through this ritual is the work. Simply letting him have this delusion is likewise labor. Romance is a masculine dream, stereotypically portrayed the opposite. The modern woman views love through a theory of labour.
Sexuality is a friction point by design. It cannot be explained away. We cannot moralize it. We simply must step over it. Perhaps blackjack was more fun before people started counting cards. Which is more important for sustained pleasure: occasionally beating the house, or thinking you’re lucky?
The common argument from the male side is that the expanding divide between men and women is a direct result of some sort of moral failing within the souls of women en masse. Women have an immediate response: that any perceived “moral failure” is just the natural reaction to centuries of patriarchy.
In actuality there is a third position. Both beliefs are incomplete. It is the amplification that’s the issue. Not intentional, but the amplification done by women which amplifies men’s moral failures. Men the ever-mutating plague, women the stray fleas.
The rot men point to within women is actually their own. They bitch and moan about the delayed effect of their past cause.
Women have also captured a partial truth, but like their counterparts, they’re pointing their fingers in the wrong direction. How could the ultimate expression of femininity be to digest and disseminate a formerly masculine expression? It’s the conflation of mimicry and equalization. If a machine is programmed to disagree with or deny every request, and it does, is it really disagreeable?
As we figure out why the man is acting this way, the problem somehow worsens. The feminine now wears steel socks, more afraid than ever, even as the dog no longer gives chase.
How has the lessened threat become more terrifying?
