Women

We're born between piss and shit said an ancient saint. And we come out covered in blood and slime. Shouting to cover our mother's shouting. Results of a sticky sour substance meant to survive in the wet darkness of a female interior, released with a grunt and a scream. This time a manly, animal one. All the above is true but takes all the miracle and the pleasure out if it, doesn't it? Well, that's the whole purpose.

In order to prevent themselves from nasty thoughts medieval monks were encouraged to see the woman for what she was: a bag of skin filled with slimy organs, blood and filth. "Is this what you would like to lose your soul and eternal life for?" was the general question asked. No, of course not. They were hoping for much more. As we all do. Thus the question is more whether women can really satisfy those expectations that are worth risking a man's soul.

In " The Name of the Rose" a young monk loses his virginity to a woman who was satisfying monks for food. A prostitute. She doesn't charge him anything cause he's young, innocent and good looking, unlike the old fat perverts she was used to. The monk's master clearly states these reasons for which he was gratified with free service. It is implied here that a woman is providing either for her interests, either for physical attraction. There is no mention of love or any other feeling than self-preservation and animal instinct. This might not be so flattery to women, but it's most likely true...

In a world where men used to carry the weapons and handle the money women learned to survive, adapt and manipulate them. In the world of gender equality, women have learned to control and humiliate men. When the scale of the balance will turn to the female side, what will happen to men? 

I read once a joke which said that if men would be able one day to understand women they wouldn't be able to believe it anyway. I'm not laughing anymore...

I come from a world of ideals. Probably spent too much time with books instead of people, thus reality proved to be more shocking and too different from what i've expected. But the fact remains that i got served enough disappointments to question the female honesty, feelings and reasons. Enough to shake any a priori trust or expectations. I look now at women with the same concern and susceptibility that the medieval man had. They were scared of the fact that they couldn't understand her anatomy and sexuality. Things are more complicated now when we do understand these issues. The result is all the same.

The saddest thing of all is that the majority of men and women are brought together by mere sexual need, reproduction or economic reasons. It's an opportunistic pact which leaves out a higher degree of loyalty than the one required by a modern time contract. The good faith principle is resumed in a simple rule: don't get caught! Should one be surprised that the fashion of pre-nup contracts has reached Europe and found way in modern Civil Codes?! Legislators and civil institutions tell us clearly, by law, that if we are to expect anything good from a marriage then we should get a God damn good lawyer!

The Roman world was very different than ours. Had rules, hierarchy. And also no false impressions. Free women - matronas - had one single purpose: make sure that the offspring belonged to the husband. That was their duty given the fact that Roman lawyers came quick to realize that mater certa, pater incertus. They had no illusions though. Beside this loyalty was not to be expected. One famous matrona actually expressed publicly the way she did it so that she was enjoying her life while still in line with her duty: "i only take passengers on board when the ship is already full". Got to admit that metaphor says it all...