The woman then thinks of an image opposite her, attempts to please it, and does not become disabled in the case of either of their satisfaction. As for the relationship that they call normal, it makes no difference to the majority if the woman is satisfied or not. (That’s our society, I don’t blame anyone, because that’s what we’re in the habit of doing.) And because I have loved myself and my femininity to the point of narcissism, I have satisfied the other without an other; because I know that I am, sooner or later, going to possess what is possible, but it is difficult to possess myself through the other who is not like me. And for this reason the relationship would be deeper and more comprehensive if it was with the self through the other, who is of the same sex. And because I have loved myself, I have loved to know her. And knowing is not complete except through undergoing a relationship with the sex itself. I am infatuated with knowing myself and knowing the woman I stand before. I see the mutilations and I see the contradictions and I see the positive elements and I see what I love and what I hate without hatred, and I behave as though I would with myself. I do what I crave and crave what I do and I preform with the utmost liberty what I have been prohibited from performing with the male other, who has gotten used to being the maker of the decision. The difficulty is in challenging yourself, not in conquering the other and the difficulty is in knowing what we want and when we want it and where. On the other hand, there’s no difficulty in knowing what we don’t want. My philosophy in love is that you love yourself through the similar Other and you love the Like on the basis that he is of you and for you and that he is in your image, in the reality of the Other. In the Other reality there are no fears or failings and no wars in order to declare the winning team and where there is joint winning and complete giving, without the challenges of the strong to the weak and the male to the female. (page 176–177)