Psychology of Freedom

  Maybe what has actually been missing from my phrase "Men take, women give, and it starts in bed" is its counterpoint.  So, let me try to explain.

I was just thinking of the current instantiation of love, in which a man strives madly to impress a woman, then takes her for granted or worse.  Today, it is still just a game of conquering.  Just like a witless animal would envision it.  Because the man has been constrained from returning the love with full fanfare.

I began to wonder if women thought the striving for their love would change if men learn to love.

If they think of it in that context of men learning to love, then they are probably not misled.  But, that seems unlikely to be the context taken.

If they think of it in terms of men's sexual prowess (or current lack thereof) becoming a dominating force, then they may be misled.  As I've said elsewhere, when every man is a Casanova, then no man is a Casanova.  They are just loving men.   We can quit the crazy obsessions regarding sex and love as separate entities and get to the real thing, intertwined with each other (love that D.E.).

Of course, men will still strive to love.  That is the point.  They will learn to love.  Part of the problem is that men fantasize about being good at sex because they are so terrible at it now.  It has become an obsession.  Once they all realize that they can learn to be good at coitus, it all changes.  The obsession with sex becomes the reality of love.  One leads to the other.  The obsession subsides to passion as the act of coitus becomes a loving act and leads to the fulfillment of love.  Finally.  The difference being that they will finally, after three millennia of futzing it all up, succeed at love as they learn to give in bed in the most natural way possible.

There's another point that's been bothering me.  The prevailing thought seems to be that real men must be assholes.  If they are not, they are deemed effeminate.  That is so screwed up (of course) that I don't know where to begin.  

The coupling of 'manhood' to an animal-like demeanor is deeply imprinted on the human race and it is so screwed up and so deeply ingrained in our history of men never overcoming the animal that it is difficult to counter.

Men do not need to act like animals.  That is the simplest description of the situation we face.  Men becoming seriously loving beings does not mean they become women.  That is so far off track that anyone should be ashamed to think it and, yet, that is the current thinking of nearly everyone.

Men becoming seriously loving beings means they will finally become human beings, like women.  When men have thrown off the shackles that continue to bind them to the animal by learning to love, we will see what a loving, sentient, human male is all about.  It will be nothing like a woman, except they will both be loving, mature human beings.  And, yes, expect the woman to change also as  she receives the same love that she has always offered (and been denied).  That sentence bothers me.  It says more than may be apparent.  Did you get that not only has she been denied the love but her offer has also been denied?

Some few men may make a good show of accepting the offer but, even so, the offer is seldom, if ever, accepted fully.  

Unless a man learns to love, how can it be otherwise? 

We have toyed around with the words love and making love for millennia but have never fulfilled their human aspects.  They remain an animal's perspective on what an animal can never understand.

        Men do not need to act like animals.  It is a question of inertia and internal forces that bend the male gender's mind.  Really, think of the gender, not this or that male.  The inertia to fail at loving began a billion years ago (okay, a few hundred million, at least).  It only became a problem with the sentient human.  The internal forces generated in a male sentient being force him to face the fact that he fails at loving.  The male gender has done its best to keep that realization buried in the stupour of the animal.  We call the stupour, the subconscious.  That, of course, cannot contain something that is repeated so often.  If you've read some of the rest of my work, then, maybe, you can link more of the points of interest.

        We can be human.