To love a woman

hold her warmly

nourishing the roots of her security

To love a man

touch him sexily

affirming the fires of his passion

Then, paradoxically, in time

her security may evolve into passion

and his passion into commitment

She may become a vixen in bed

while he learns to keep his bed roll

stashed behind her couch, permanently

As both abandon the quest for love

in favor of the delights

of loving each other



Generally speaking,

in our quests for genetic immortality

all we male's must have

is a warm passage toward a lurking ovum

while our gender counterparts

need much more than a stiff prick

guiding hoards of willing sperm,

such as, a man with a slow hand

if not a soft but firm tongue

unhindered by shame and unhurried

by fear of lack of love



I have concluded that relative independence in two major arenas of human capacity is a pre-requisite for successful living well with females--that is, for responding creatively to woman's wiles. Only to the degree that such independence is achieved by a man can he hope to move beyond female determination in other than outward ways. Both selfing and sexual independence are critical in exercising male ploys--or, since all is relative, the extent of each will pre-determine the degree to which a man may come to live well in female company.

But just what does independence mean?  First, the opposite of dependence is implied. To be selfing/sexually independent means, negatively, to not be dependent on woman (either specific females or femininity-in-general) for "mothering" or sexual affirmation.

It means to be firmly rooted on one's own symbolic "green spot" insofar as "taking care of oneself (selfing independence)" and existing sexually as a natural male is concerned. This is in contrast with "needing woman" to complete a man personally (as in, "better half" in marriage), or to give him permission and occasion to embrace and activate masculine sexual drives.

It may also be seen as "emotional," "spiritual," or "psychological" independence. To be independent, as I view this pre-requisite for effecting male ploys, means to be emotionally intact--that is, comfortably contained as an emotional being, without requiring female support. It means to be spiritually whole without the necessity of woman to "make me whole." Or, in mental terms, it means to be psychologically "mature" in the sense of fully capable of healthy living apart from female "companionship" and/or support.

But these windows on independence are only contrasting sides of dependence and say little about the actual state itself, especially the practical issues of living in proximity with women. In practice, since we do in fact always exist in the presence of females--some closer, others farther away, but always in a society populated by females, understanding independence requires more.

Insofar as mutual togetherness is concerned, the type of independence I am affirming here is more like "inter-dependence" than literal separateness. The separateness of independence is better seen as inward rather than outward, that is, more related to emotions, spirit and psychological matters, than to daily contacts and mutual activities.

Pragmatically and inevitably we "live together"--either in society, marriage, or a host of other male/female relationships. This means that we share many concerns (especially, children) and hence have innumerable contacts and outward connections with each other.

But the essential distinction I seek to clarify here is the difference between outward "inter-dependence" and inward separation (independence). One can be intimately related to females, both closely at hand and in many other "working" relationships, yet at the same time spiritually independent of them. This latter stance is what I am trying to understand better. It may also be seen as being with without "leaning on" or otherwise needing woman's affirmation or approval to exist as a fully conscious masculine creature.

Summary: To live well with women, to successfully exercise male ploys, requires, I think, spiritual independence from them in two overlapping human arenas: selfingness and sexuality. I must first "be myself"--including my masculinity, apart or separate from females, and then be able to function emotionally independent while in their presence, that is, "not needing woman's approval" in order to fully be who I am.


I begin with selfing independence. The best general description of selfing dependence, the opposite of what I am trying to see more clearly, is "in need of mothering," either consciously or unconsciously. To be independent as oneself means to have cut the emotional cord to "mother" and all those other females who later come to symbolically represent her, just as completely as was the umbilical cord cut at birth. In practice this means to be able to live well on one's own, without "needing to be taken care of" in any regards--such as, food preparation, bodily tending, house/home provision and management, clothing needs, social relationships, decision making, and personal happiness in general.

Such selfing independence is also to be distinguished from "rebelling against women" which may appear as true independence, yet remains defined and determined by female values, even if in direct opposition to them. An independent selfing male neither "has to have a woman to take care of him and make him happy" nor does he fear/hate women and exist in constant need of rebelling against or fighting them.

He can, that is, live with or live without women in his life and yet do quite well independently of them. If they (or one) are present he takes care of himself with them; if there are no females at hand, he takes care of himself equally well without them--without longing, wishing for, or denial of repressed dependencies.

Corresponding sexual independence is more difficult both to understand and to practice because of fierce social restraints against so many aspects of natural masculinity. Whereas male "growing up," "cutting the apron strings," and learning to "take care of ourselves"--that is, becoming independent individuals, is viewed as socially favorable, and at least consciously desired by females, no such corresponding sexual independence is socially fostered. Indeed, sexual dependence on one legal mate is deeply at the heart of major social structures as well as the basis of many "stable" monogamous marriages.

Selfing independence may be socially affirmed, but corresponding sexual independence is far from becoming a social virtue, and is, in fact, suppressed even as an idea, let alone as a practice. "Good husbands" are expected to be sexually dependent on their wives for any activation of their sexual selves. Even if sexual independence were espoused as a theoretical virtue, strong legal and social structures exist to hinder any effective practice of such a spiritual state.

For clarification, I first amplify the principle of sexual independence; then, its practice. In principle, sexual independence is the same as selfing independence--that is, existing as a self-contained and self-responsible person in each regard. Just as selfing independence means "not needing mothering" in order to live well as one's individual self, so sexual independence means "not needing a woman (wife or lover)" in order to live well as one's masculine self (with all natural sexual drives accepted, embraced, and activated).

To be sexually independent means to be sexually unrepressed--that is, to exist with natural instincts related to replication consciously accepted, entertained-without-judgment, contained in awareness, and activated responsibly--either expressed or concealed, in harmony with social circumstances.

In this ideal male state, masculine sexuality, being unrepressed, is hence not projected onto females who then become responsible for its blessing, permission, and/or activation. Instead, it is recognized as existing and arising within one's own self, not as caused or brought into being by females who "turn us on"--and/or "off," and are then "in charge of" and finally responsible for our sexual actions.

Surely females may attract and we may respond; but, and this is the critical issue here, our sexual powers are not determined either by our attractions or by their responses--at least to the degree that we are sexually independent. We are as passionate or cold as our own genetic structures incline us, often in the presence of females with genetically attractive attributes; but the force of these drives is generated within and remains both from and of our male selves.

To the degree that a male is thusly independent, his sexuality is as surely his own as is his selfingness. It may be activated (expressed or concealed) with a woman, but it is never of or from a female. Such independent masculine sexuality does not need female blessing, and/or approval for its fulfilled existence as a male attribute; nor is its responsible activation dependent on female permission (even presence) for its translation into forms of behavior in the world.

This said (understood in principle), what does it mean in practice? How is being sexually independent translated into forms of action in the world? What are the "shapes" of this existential state described above?

Natural male sexuality may be seen in two parts: 1) Internal passions recognized as outward attractions, and 2) External actions which express (or conceal) inward urges. Because masculine sexuality, after unrepression and re-achieving degrees of sexual independence, is recognized and accepted as a part of oneself, it may be carefully separated from any outside actions.

Indeed, it must be, before a male can be sexually responsible in society. Passions are one thing; actions are another. Sexual urges are given; they arise naturally within, without choice, in accord with genetic wisdom. But sexual behavior is, when a male is independent, always chosen--that is, carefully considered in consciousness before any revelation is made, and certainly before any action is taken with another person.

The ideal is: be as naturally sexual as you are--that is, consciously "feel" all passions which arise within; but at the same time, act as responsibly as social knowledge allows. Just as all "feelings" are responsibly entertained without judgment, so all behaviors are effected with sharp discernment. "Be as sexy as you are; but act as smart as you are," may be a good summary.

Natural masculine passions arise spontaneously along with testicular sperm production, and become most readily conscious in "gene eye" attractions--which are themselves signs of conceive-ability, summarized as "female beauty." Unfortunately, many--indeed most, of these natural urges are socially unacceptable, legally punishable, and religiously condemned.

If "acted out"--that is, translated into their most direct forms of behavior, they may be socially seen as: incest, masturbation, "scoping girls," pornography, "feeling up" females, bestiality, homosexuality, molestation, pedophilia, perversions, sexual harassment, prostitution, fornication, adultery, marital sex, and affairs ("unfaithfulness").  Obviously, all but marital sex--which, I think, only represents a minor element in natural masculine sexuality, are carefully and diligently suppressed in society.

Society, as we all know, only supports hetero--not homo or bi--sexuality, and only this under the confines of legal marriage. But natural masculinity, as best I can tell, might better be recognized as omni-sexual--that is, including, but certainly not limited by these three recognized forms of expression.

Since most of these forms of sexual activity are socially condemned and come with varying degrees of social and/or legal punishment, reason requires unrepressed males to choose carefully among them. Even though all may be genetically acceptable, obviously many of them pose extreme memetic dangers (witness, pedophilia in the priesthood just now). Safest choices begin with marital sex and masturbation (if kept completely private), then, with increasing risks: fornication, affairs, sex with prostitutes, adultery, etc.

Given these dangers in society, I conclude that only marriage, masturbation, and affairs offer any reasonable options for male sexual expression. The latter, though common, also include escalated dangers, especially to marital relationships which are safest of all. Of course some of the noted forms of male sexual expression, such as, scoping girls and pornography, are, since not overtly sexual, socially allowed if discretely exercised. When so, they may be forms of

masculine expression alongside the others.

These observations aside, now I consider the three most common forms of male sexual practice: marriage, masturbation, and affairs.


First, the principle: sexual independence, as amplified before, requires that a husband's sexuality be carefully kept as his own passion and responsibility--never projected into his wife's control. Certainly a wife should be equally responsible for her own sexuality, including its exercise with her husband. I dismiss older modes of "wifely duty" to relics of the past. I do not think that a wife "owes" sex to her husband or that a husband "has the right" to sex on demand. Independence, as a pre-requisite for successful ploys, is a two way street. Until spouses move past older theories of "rights" and "dues," a healthy marriage is, I conclude, impossible.

But to the degree that spouses move into stances of mutual independence together, each becomes responsible for the giving and receiving of sex out of other considerations (hopefully love, along with replication), rather than rights and duties.


In regard to principle, the major male issue in marital sex is: being (and remaining) one's natural sexual self without repressing and projecting instinctive forces onto a wife, thereby empowering her most effective of all wiles. The wifely pussy power wile, I conclude, is about 95% fueled by husbandly repressions.

The principle of sexual independence (essential for a spiritually healthy marriage) is a reversal of this common situation. When a husband is being himself sexually, his sexual eggs, as it were, are in his own basket--not in his wife's. He is not dependent on his wife for experiencing natural passions–for "feeling" his masculine instincts whenever and however they arise within himself, for being "turned on (sexually excited)."

He is, of course, responsible for reasonable expression or concealment of his passions--that is, "what he does" about "how he feels." But, and this is the crucial issued of principle: he is independent of need for her blessing or permission to be his inherited masculine self. When its activation involves or effects her, certainly her own feelings, interests, and values are crucially important and carefully taken into account.

Yet the moving power and choices about expression remain firmly within himself. She may or may not be involved in acting sexual with him, but she remains relatively incidental to his being his sexual self. Her seemingly inherent "turn on" and "turn off" capacities are near zero. Certainly she may be perceived as attractive, even sexually tempting (or not), but still the primary powers for his being passionate remain firmly rooted within himself. Sexually independent, he abides on his sexual green spot, even as with other aspects of his non-sexual personhood.

How is this stance of masculine independence in which a husband's being sexual in some 95% operative in his own gender inheritance, rather than projected into his wife's keeping--that is, when his sexual eggs (sperm) are in his own basket (testicles) rather than in his wife's basket (womb and mind), to be wisely effected?

How, that is, is masculine sexuality to be smartly expressed in a monogamous marriage in which a husband loves his wife--desires to respect and affirm her as a female person rather than use her as a sexual and mothering slave?

The situation is complicated by the additional facts that: a) Masculine sexuality (pure fucking interests) may be 90% greater than female sexual interests. Natural males, I estimate, "want to have sex" vastly more often than equally natural females whose primary concerns are related to her own pregnancy only; and b) Marriage vows commit males to sexual fidelity to a wife--in practical terms, to placing all his sexual sperm, if placed at all, in his wife's vagina, or not at all.

When these two facts are combined, the typical result is a husband with: a) Far more natural interests in being overtly sexual ("doing it") than his wife, and, b) Once she is impregnated, continual natural interests in having sex with other potentially conceive-able females (fucking many others), which, unfortunately for him, he is both legally and personally committed not to do so.

If love is added to a pragmatic relationship--as ideally is so, complications increase. Since love both accepts, respects, and affirms another as-she-is, rather than simply as a man might wish-she-were, husbands who love face the additional challenge of being true to our own genetic sexuality while at the same time honoring a wife who has truly different sexual concerns, including our faithfulness to her.

Whereas a gene-directed husband who marries only for "getting a woman" to use (both biologically and psychologically) is freed to "demand sex" as his "right," and to otherwise seek sex elsewhere, a caring husband is without these options. His sexual activities with his wife will always regard her honest presence as a person, never just "her pussy" alone.

Also, his personal commitments to her (as voiced in the marriage ceremony)--that is, his word as true and dependable, will be honored in love, along with his careful attention to legal contracts and the consequences of breaking them.

Furthermore, predictable consequences of many other forms of extra-marital sexual activity which may be genetically natural and personally desirable (e.g., adultery, fornication, sex-with-minors, homosexuality, etc.) will also be reasonably considered. Among these dangers are: risks of AIDS, venereal diseases, personal guilt, criminal punishments, logistical challenges (like keeping a lover secret, or pulling off a charade of only loving one woman).

In an ideal society (which is, of course, a present fantasy) perhaps prostitution would be legalized and become a respectable profession which allowed husbands to express natural masculine sexuality without threat to legal marriages and/or a loving relationship. But so much for fantasy.

In the real and present world these or other possible sexual arrangements which might more nearly correlate natural male desires with available opportunities, simply so not yet exist. "Meanwhile, back here at the ranch" where all males presently live, the noted dilemmas must be resolved in the context of socially and religiously sacred marriage--where at least limited male replication may safely occur, or else outside these established relational barriers where no such protections are assured.

The end result of these and other factors is that the only reasonable options I have found for a caring husband include: a) Making love (literally) with his wife (as contrasted with periodic fucking only); b) Artful sensuality and masturbation; and c) Extremely discrete affairs. In actual practice, only the first two make much reasonable sense to me, since the odds of truly successful affairs during a healthy marriage must be immensely slim.

Not that they are inherently wrong or evil in genetic perspectives (only in terms of memes), but that pragmatic challenges are apt to far outweigh potential sexual rewards. In other words, they are apt "to be more trouble than they are worth"--at least past immediate thrills of successfully meeting the inherent social challenges ("pulling off" an affair while remaining in a healthy marriage--or truly loving more than one woman at a time).


Love and sex are intimately connected for woman but basically at odds for man.

Sex without love is naturally unthinkable for woman, except as a means of wielding power in quest of love, which means far more to her than sexual intercourse itself. "Making love" and "being loving" go hand in hand for woman; indeed the two expressions are almost synonymous. A woman may or may not choose to have sex with a man she doesn't love, but her true sexual passions are unlikely unless she does love a man. The more she loves a man, the more likely she is to feel personally sexual with him.

In sharp contrast, for males love is more of a liability than an asset to good sex. A man may often find it far easier to be his natural sexual self with a women he does not love than with one he does love. The threats of entanglement which love evokes, including unconscious resurrection of negative, anti-sexual, psychic forces of the ancient, universal incest taboo, may easily undercut a male's personal passions.

Paradoxically, men may come closer to embracing their full sexual potential, to being as sexually passionate as they naturally are, including enjoying sex more, with prostitutes or females they don't care for, than with those they love deeply.

Conversely, a man is more likely to feel loving with a women he is not sexual with than with one who is freely sexual with him. "Sex," we might say, "is a turn on to man," while "love is a turn off." But the exact opposite is more likely to be true for a woman --that is, "Love is a turn on for a woman," but sex, especially without obvious evidences of love, or at least its promise, is typically "a turn off."

In summary, whereas a man is naturally more sexual with an attractive woman he does not love, a woman is unlikely to feel naturally sexual with a man she does not also love. Consequently, a woman may use sex to get love, while a man more predictably tries to use love to get sex. A man may honestly think (and sometimes say), "If you really loved me, you would have sex with me," while a woman's more natural response (either silently or verbal) is, "If you really loved me, you wouldn't ask (at least until we are married)."

I surmise that these diametrically opposite gender views of the relationship between sex and love are genetically rooted. While both genders are, I conclude, biologically geared below levels of conscious thought to seek maximum replication of personal genes through the medium of sex, male odds of success escalate by having sex with as many different females as possible, as often as possible.

But in sharp contrast, female odds of self-replication success are far greater with the potential security to be found with a male who loves her (and only her) than with a man who is only interested in sex and will predictably be unfaithful to her--that is, "want to have sex" without also loving her exclusively at the same time.

The pragmatic ramifications of these genetic differences in cross-gender relationships (if I am correct in my speculations) are immense, perhaps impossible to over-estimate. Predictably problematic and all too common conflicts are often evident in these arenas:

-- Unconscious drives toward monogamous marriage, resulting in contrasting views of "marriage as sacred" in female eyes, and "marriage as bondage" in male thinking--that is, girls who dream of and can't wait to get married, and boys who resist marriage and "giving up their freedom."

-- Marital conflicts between spouses in which wives strive to keep husbands faithful to them only, and husbands who strive to get wives to be sexual with them--since with marriage vows each promise to restrict themselves accordingly.

-- Females feeling morally virtuous when they are only being true to their genetic heritage, while males may feel equally guilty if they risk being true to their own corresponding but contrasting biological bents.


Seek to become sexually independent, to be sexual with a woman, but not to be sexually dependent on her--that is, to be limited to her desires and permissions for your own sexuality.

On faithfulness

Be physically faithful to a woman you love, but remain mentally honest about natural male desires in deference to social mores (as voiced in traditional wedding vows) and female needs for security. Respect powerful memes for sexual faithfulness and even more powerful genes for maximizing replication ("fooling around"). A man must deal with negative social, religious, and feminine views, but he need not fall for them or take them as his own directives.

Embrace masculine genetics for pervasive lusting (See my essay, Jocasta Complex) while fully respecting memes and female desires for "only having eyes for you." This will often call for skills in artful deception (fooling her), while remaining scrupulously honest with yourself about your own passions (never fooling you).

Reasons: 1) Greatest source of male power is inherent in lust-ability (urge to replicate our own genes); 2) A man can't become his fuller self if he negates (represses) this essential part of who he is as a male-type person.


A psychiatrist administering a Rorschach test found that a man gave a sexy interpretation to every ink blot. Finally he asked: "Why do you see sex in every symbol I show you?" The man replied: "Why do you keep showing me all those sexy pictures?"

Natural humans, unhindered by personal repression, easily move between sensual delights and sexual passions as appropriate with circumstances at the time. Males, biologically aimed at genetic immortality via our evolved role of sperm-spreading, naturally focus on sexual passions which culminate in orgasm and dispersing sperm, while females with the same goal but with their radically different role of baby-making, focus on sensual awareness as critical in discerning hidden times of conception as well as the immense responsibilities of motherhood.

But with the advent of repression, as is so often feasible in essential family and social acceptance long before times of possible replication, males traditionally split ourselves, severing the natural tie between sensual presence and sexual desires, leaving ourselves sensually dull and blindly dictated by innate sexual drives. Easily then, we draw lines between these two aspects of natural capacities, often becoming determined by the second while ignoring the first.

Females likewise, with their own repressions in service of the same goals, often form wide chasms between their ingrained focus on sensual awareness and less essential concern with overt sexuality. All too easily sex-hungry males will be more than attentive to the essential but relatively minor matter of initiating conception.

Then the common consequence, so familiar today, becomes: males blindly compulsive and determined by sexual passions severed from sensuality, and females caught up in lessor delights of sense satisfaction, but deeply fearful of repressed capacities for sexual passions.

Before wholeness and the potential happiness of becoming and being our fuller selves, males must un-repress ourselves, erasing illusionary lines drawn between sensual and sexy, with . total dedication to the second and relative ignorance of the first. Females, likewise, may need to undo their own repressions which often leave them with a wide chasm between sensual and sexy, and embrace expansive capacities for the second along with the first.

Then, ideally, when faith allows, we will learn to responsibly activate both intertwined capacities and wisely express and/or conceal each as is appropriate to time and circumstances.