Harridan

–noun
a scolding, vicious woman; hag; shrew.

~~~~~~~

5.

People we don’t yet understand and knowledge we haven’t yet gained is scarcely reasonable to fear in an intelligent, self-reflecting being, barring due cause (I’m not saying fear nothing—just have a thoughtful reason).

This is the genius that Freud began—tracing humans back to their origins, and finding a new and richer explanation for why they act the way they do. Undoubtedly most of us have felt uneasy around things that were unfamiliar, feared finding something we could not expect, and even, as Freud got correctly, felt strongly drawn to procreate and felt that influence many, many of our decisions (even if it’s wrapped up and inseparable from the need for love as well).

What I think Freud missed was the natural disposition more important—the need for security. The need for physical security is usually solved, but the need for emotional security is usually a very leaky pipe, and the solution for most of us is little more than scotch tape. We are all volatile bundles of both subconscious and conscious insecurity, often blanketed more than enough to allow the individual to function, but far from fulfilled.

Which is why, I think, many feel a sense of completeness in finding true love—the sharing of insecurity, the vulnerability, the altruism, the uncompromising compassion—these things amalgamate to solve, or at least, persistently and richly stave that leak. This is why the idea of Freud’s pansexuality is complicated—because security is juxtaposed with and among the need to procreate—for many conscious beings (humans, of course, perhaps other conscious beings would not do the same), love and sex are very closely related, as is relationship and child. The divide between love, procreation, personal security and natural inclination is small in modern society. Freud was wrong, in many cases, to draw behavior back to natural sexual disposition, but in many ways, I understand why he went wrong.