One of the most influential and compelling readings I had the pleasure of enjoying was Sex and Character from Otto Weininger.

In his book, he rejects the strict biological definition of men and women but instead proposes that every individual is a mix of "male" and "female". It has to do with the traits displayed.

Men are rational, ethical, autonomous, oriented toward truth and universality.

Women are irrational, amoral, instinctual, bound to sexuality and particularity.

This is just a more innovative way of saying women will say Not All Women Are Like That (NAWALT), and men the opposite.

It becomes more interesting when he delves deeper into Sex and Character, stating that a person's "character" is determined by their particular combination of M and F elements. No one is purely male or purely female, but individuals can be closer to one pole.

When it comes to romantic and sexual love, it arises from the attraction between opposite sexual elements. Love is an attempt to complete oneself by uniting one's missing sexual complement.

In other words, if you have 80% of masculine traits as a man, you will go long-term with a woman who is around the same percentage level of feminine characteristics. The 20% of masculine traits she has will help both reach the 100%, and conversely, his 20% femininity within him will make her reach the 100%.

So it sounded all good and logical. Coming from an Austrian guy, you would not expect less. But I wanted to test it.

Fortunately, there was a test from a French Sociologist (in French) that I used, which would define one level of masculinity and femininity in someone. About 7 to 8 years ago, I asked three French Friends and one British Friend, whom I knew were in long-term relationships, to take the test and have their girlfriends take the test. I did so too with my long-term girlfriend at the time.

The results were compelling, as the masculinity-femininity equation from the book's hypothesis proved to be accurate for all of us, including myself.

Obviously, this is not a hard science, and it would raise eyebrows, but it confirmed my intuition on how it all made sense.

However, this is different to the bullshit you hear on social media "he put me in my masculine", "I am now in my feminine", implying these are tectonic plates that can completely shift from one end to the next, and that you become entirely masculine or feminine from micro behaviour. It is a whole and it is static.

As you can expect, and as Otto Weininger claimed in the book, women can't be the source of genius, and you can trust them to opportunistically misattribute the reasons as to why things happen the way they do to create a self-soothing narrative for themselves.

Nevertheless, it creates a perfect explanation why intrinsically masculine women repel masculine men and end up attracting feminine ones. This is based primarily on the metaphysical aspect, rather than solely on the social or genetic construct.

Men don't "go in their feminine or masculine"; they are either masculine or feminine, based on the aggregate behaviours they naturally adopt as part of their daily routine—the same way for women, but it goes beyond that to when personality comes into play.

When people of the opposite sex meet, they either gel or they don't. This is what people refer to as 'vibe' or 'chemistry.' They did not go into their feminine side; they just responded to the energy that was at the right level of the metaphysical gender spectrum. People are more immovable than they think. That is why some people have a strong feminine or masculine aura, and others don't.

Nobody went into their masculine or feminine meeting someone new; it is a natural game of Tetris happening in play.

To go into more personal details, when I looked at the preferences between one of my friends who is very very high on the masculinity spectrum (90%+), he much prefers church mouse type of girls, to the point that it is almost like he has to wipe their asses because they can't do shit for themselves, so feminine to the point of uselessness, let's call it passive x10. Compared to me, who prefers some level of autonomy on the female part in some very segmented aspects. I like some wit on her part; he prefers her quiet. However, we agree on the vast majority of attributes as to what makes a woman attractive or even feminine; we differ on minor ones.

To use that example, his girlfriend was around the 90% mark of femininity.

Would she have turned masculine if she were with me?

Yes and No. Yes, in her perception, because of the delta between my masculinity level and that of her current boyfriend (10-15%), but not in the grand scheme of things, she will have remained feminine in the macro. Still, in the micro, she will feel the need to take a higher burden of responsibility, which makes her "go into her masculine" to quote the saying.

But what happens when you have two metaphysically masculine people - a man and a woman? It will be like two magnets that cannot come close to one another because of the repelling forces, as both will behave in ways that are too familiar for there to be genuine long-term attraction, no matter how much feminine plastic is used to hide the underlying energy.

This is what women who become the man they want to date miss; it is not by mirroring the man that you will get with one similar. Do you attract what you are? Yes and No. She will likely attract other masculine women as part of her friend group. Still, the polarity distortion will only invite the feminine gap through a man who is more feminine than the average for it to be long-term sustainable. Some intelligent women are aware of that and accept, when not sometimes appreciate that dynamic, but not necessarily for the best reason from the man's perspective.

The reason why women complain that men have become more feminine is because gradually the polarity inversion was acted by the masculine shift, which displaced the burden of performance from men towards women, where men don't need to be as successful as much to get women in the short-term, which is what was driving men to become someone. Women have also become more competitive, slowly taking on the traits of men, whilst operating a ring-fencing of what was morally allowed and not allowed through the moniker of "Toxic Masculinity" that they have become the engineers coopting with weak men in power, the landscape they are currently living in.

Yet, because masculinity and femininity are not solely social constructs but also metaphysical ones, they, as a whole, are suffering from a cognitive dissonance between what their unconscious triggers dictate to them, and how they react, that they respond positively to what they consciously say they criticise in men, which makes their association with them all the more complicated in the long-term because they are constantly fighting contradictory forces. As one cannot live a certain way (independent working woman) whilst harbouring that femininity in the long run (SAHM), irrespective of the man they are with, unless they are working for him. This explains a lot of the affairs between married women and their bosses; it is what makes sense.

Essentially, women working for other men than their husband, from that logic, have outsourced their submission to the one in function of the payroll, using the married man as the emotional tampon who is there to support her endeavour, hindering the original masculine role he has. This is what they mean when they say "I want to be able to turn feminine when I get back home".

However, how you do one thing is how you do everything. Similarly, you can't be the boss at home when you are the underling in your corporate world, and women get a good understanding of the power dynamics, being in the workplace themselves too. But as not everyone can be the boss in real life, guys are switching to becoming contractors in their work life and in their love life, appreciating that the corporate world has become a massive hen party for women desperately seeking validation for the real boss, that they now can enjoy the autonomy of a sexually free being without having to give up long-term commitment to be mating with them.