Positivity vis-à-vis Negativity in Sensuality and Sensibility. Anyone who reads my mature aphoristic philosophy, which is to say texts written during the past few years, will know that I distinguish between female and male on the basis of free soma/bound psyche in sensuality and free psyche/bound soma in sensibility, so that the genders are forever at loggerheads as somatic/psychic antitheses in which either soma triumphs over psyche, as with sensuality, or psyche triumphs over soma, as with sensibility.  And this happens on both phenomenal and noumenal, corporeal and ethereal, terms, as between the planes of volume and mass for physics and chemistry, not to mention antichemistry and antiphysics, and the planes of space and time for metachemistry and metaphysics, not to mention antimetaphysics and antimetachemistry.  Hence the genders present us with an axial compass, as it were, which either descends/counter-ascends from metachemistry and antimetaphysics to physics and antichemistry or, conversely, ascends/counter-descends from chemistry and antiphysics to metaphysics and antimetachemistry, taking the first elemental term in each pairing as hegemonic irrespective of gender and of the modifying effects of inter-axial relativity across the noumenal/phenomenal 'class' divide.  The axes are a good deal more complicated than this, but I have gone into that often enough in my mature philosophical works and need not elaborate on them here.  Suffice it to say that if, when free, females are basically about free soma and bound psyche, free body and bound mind, and males, by contrast, about free psyche and bound soma, free mind and bound body, then females will be naturally more disposed to external, or somatic, calmness and males, by contrast, to internal, or psychic, calmness - at least when they are free to be either sensually hegemonic, as in the female case, or sensibly hegemonic, as in the male case.  For the converse of such antithetical hegemonies will of course be subservience or subordination to the prevailing gender, be it female or male (as in the case, for example, of antiphysics to chemistry at the southwest point of the axial compass or, indeed, of antichemistry to physics at its southeast point), and in those cases we can expect males to demonstrate more external aggression and females more internal aggression, since the converse of male psychic calmness, or passivity, will be male somatic aggression, while the converse of female somatic passivity will be female psychic aggression.  Hence while females are generally more externally calm than males they become, under male hegemonic pressure in sensibility, internally, or psychically, more aggressive, whereas males, though generally more internally calm than females, become, under female hegemonic pressure in sensuality, externally, or somatically, more aggressive.  Think of the sexual act.  Coitus is generally a context in which the female is sexually passive and the male sexually aggressive, and this is consonant with a female hegemony in sensuality in which somatic passivity is triumphant over somatic aggression, or activity.  Cheerleaders presiding at or, rather, over a male sporting context of a certain sensually-biased stamp are also indicative of this kind of sensual situation in which comparative female passivity is juxtaposed (hegemonically) with male activity of a somatically aggressive nature.  On the other hand, females are likely to become more internally, or psychically, aggressive under male hegemonic pressures in sensibility, since mental calmness in the male excites the female to psychic aggression and often serves to facilitate her maternal interests in respect of offspring.  The 'nagging wife' syndrome is significant here, and this is the other side of the matrimonial coin, if I can put it like that, which rather contrasts with coitus and male somatic aggression generally.  Females, in sum, are more mentally aggressive in sensibility than males but this, paradoxically, is due to male hegemonic pressure in sync with their gender reality of psyche preceding and preponderating over soma in such fashion than psychic calmness is the norm.  Males, on the other hand, are more somatically aggressive in sensuality than females, and this, paradoxically, is due to female hegemonic pressure in sync with their gender reality of soma preceding and predominating over psyche in such fashion that somatic calmness is the norm.  The psychically aggressive female is no more representative of female gender freedom than is the somatically aggressive male of male gender freedom.  Each alike are at cross-purposes with their respective gender realities, but that is only because of hegemonic pressures stemming from the opposite gender.  Verily, life is a gender tug-of-war between class and/or axial manifestations of sensuality and sensibility, soma and psyche.