On The Nature Of Sexuality


Diesel, I used to think the same about women at one point. But I cannot walk away from a riddle. And what better riddle is there but woman? It ended up blossoming into studying sexuality itself, and how it transcends the sex act itself. You will find it in art, business, politics, society in general.

Oddly, I could never define woman. Nothing was there. Was Weineger correct? The more time progressed, the more it became clear to me that I was trying to define a mirror. In my mind, it seemed I posted an article on femininity but it ends up being on masculinity instead! The more I looked into the core of woman, the more I saw the spirit of man.

Women seem more like a touchstone, who streaks men and see if they are gold or not. How many men had their lives transformed by not obtaining the love of a woman they wanted? And they were transformed not in the sexual way, but into something more. Almost every biography I've seen of world changing men always contain the fact that they fell in love with a woman and did not get her. Washington, Adams, Dante (he turns Beautrice into heaven in his immortal epic), Beethoven, practically all poets, practically all famous generals, etc. It is as if these guys saw their own wimpish worthless reflections in the women they sought, and changed their ways. I believe it was Kierkegaard who says, "It is true that behind every great man there is a woman. But it is always the woman he DID NOT marry."

A theme of Shakespeare is that when his characters condemn, they condemn themselves. If you look for this in real life, it becomes quite fun. It is amazing how many people condemn themselves! A poster on this board who rages relentlessly against AFCs... probably still is an AFC at heart. The anti-social hermit who says, "Those people clowning around do not understand life" condemns himself.

If you combine these two, you will get reflections of people. The Nice Guy who sees the woman as angelic and pure, he himself is innocent and 'angelic'. The guy that sees women as machiavelli creatures is often himself a machiavelli creature. The guy that sees women as b*tches is himself acting like one. The guy who sees woman as a playtoy is, himself, merely a playtoy. And the guy who sees women as only things to screw is, himself, merely a thing whose purpose is to screw. It's fascinating (to me) to see this everywhere. One thing that seems more clear: man and woman are not two but one. Perhaps there is more truth than we realize in the ancient phrase of 'the two as one flesh' (rather than the modern view of two atomized individuals in a legal contract).

In the end, the joke is probably on us. We're trying post/rationalize what should be natural. This site (including its sister ones) seem more and more ridiculous to me. Guys who think they are 'men' because they get women (which are insanely easy to get anyway) are like Don Quixotes who think they are knights because they caught windmills.

Women are emotional not because they are stupid but because they play Nature's role. Imagine if we men gave birth! Why, in delivery we would bite our lip, think that we ought to 'be a man', and not scream (which is a shame since screaming assists in the birth). A man knows that it is right for him to shoulder and conquer pain, not unleash it on others. If Man was pregnant, he would kill the child through his own being. The woman screams, talks, blabblers, unleashes her feelings, which is necessary for her to carry the child to and through delivery. It is also noticable that children gather around the mother, they seem to relate to her better. But when the children turn to adults, they gather around the man (as he shows the example to live by).

Continue reading here: Quote

Was this article helpful?

0 0