52 10 18 Saturday 16:15
A man without a woman fulfills some of her functions within himself. The more of them he fulfills the farther away is he from procuring a woman, and the less he fulfills the easier is it for him to treat woman as they wish. Just as it is true that children are sexually nondistinct [sic] and as they grow separate so they need the other sex more to keep them as they were, or so they seem to need what they have lost, and must find it outside of them where before it was in them. For they too became different and grew more distant from what they were, as what they grow to need grows distant from them.
A man with a woman is made sure of being a man, and can concentrate on manly things while his beloved takes care of what he needs that is womanly. Is it not true that men who most lack woman‘s ways are most attractive to them, being sure that those men will have and give most of what they, the woman, need; and also more that they themselves will be allowed and asked to give and thereby be most what they are and have grown according with Nature? And is it not true that men who possess woman’s ways show less need for them?