Clitoral arrogance

A TRUTH so trite as long ago to have become a cliché is that behind the rise – and fall – of any man is a woman.
The Bible as well as history is replete with exemplary evidence.
Eve caused Adam to eat the forbidden fruit so they got expelled from Eden and all mankind fell from grace.
Delilah seduced Samson, sheared his locks, and Israel lost one righteous, courageous and the strongest of its judges, paving the way of its devastation by its neighbors.
Jezebel so mesmerized Ahab that he deserted Yahweh for Baal and had him slaughter all the prophets of Israel save for Elijah who escaped to the desert, surviving on food delivered by birds and the nourishment of a poor widow.
Then there was Bathsheba that drove David to adultery, provoking divine retribution not only on the king but on all his kingdom.
Queen Marie Antoinette’s prescription of cake for the starving Parisian masses caused her and husband Louis XVI to lose their heads, most literally.
Alexandra’s dalliance with Rasputin, acquiesced by the weakling Tsar Nicholas II, so infuriated both Russian nobles and mobs that a series of revolutions in shades of white, then red engulfed the country, ending with the supremacy of Bolshevism and the coronation of Lenin.
Do not cry for Evita, weep for Argentina, scarred up to the present time by her conjugal rule with her beloved Don Juan Peron from the mid ‘40s to the mid ‘50s yet.
Conjugal rulers too were Nicolai and Elena Ceausescu of Romania which final liberation came on a Christmas Day in the ‘80s with their execution.
And then, there is our very own Imelda. Of whom the less said, the better.
All these are proof positive that women are not by any measure the weaker sex. Men are, having been too often reduced to pliable putty in the caressing hands of women.
Balls – that which have long stood as metaphor for courage and audacity, that which have long provided the very definition to patriarchal societies – have been castrated of these very meanings. Machismo be damned!
For all its overtones, this piece is by no means a sophomoric sexist chauvinistic treatise. It comes with a brief historical scan to try to find some instant rhyme or ready reason to contemporary events, political ones most specifically.
Consider: If one woman’s domineering influence over one man can be so devastating, how much more two women’s? Along this wise, think not the conjugal dictatorships of the past. Think the ménage a trois – that’s threesome to you, dummy – in some political administration of the here and now.
No, there’s nothing sexually perverse there. It’s purely politics we are still talking about. The sexual tone I find just too good, too apt to pass. Though, perhaps, a little too graphic for the too prudish.
Hymenal purity as the pronounced core value of a dispensation best defined by clitoral arrogance. Thus, dare I see the warped sense of morality, the sheer hypocrisy of our chosen alternative to the evil scourges we were told to cast off.
No scandal, as yet, but a deepening mystery. What’s really with this putative celibate’s uxorious attachment to two viragos? Unmarried but not un-henpecked? That’s more of a contradiction than an oxymoron.
There, surely, are no balls – no matter how shriveled and small – to find in there.