gender relations

In appealing to the intrigue of metaphysical opposites, as Nietzsche does in The Antichrist, he is no doubt expecting that these will be rooted in "instinct", in other words, in the experiences of the pre-Oedipal. My view is that one does not go deeper than this, and it is a mistake to presume, as perhaps Nietzsche himself did, and as many of those "Neechians" I've encountered on the Internet have, that their deepest instincts are not also thoroughly psychologically conditioned. The emerging sexuality and ego of the infant child can be helped or be left broken by the nature of parental nurturing during the first few years. This much is documented and self evident.

So, one goes back to the pre-Oedipal as the source of the individual's deepest instincts. In the child's apperception of its mother (and perhaps its father, too), one finds the source of the individual's entrenched aesthetic pertaining to relationships, sexuality and a deep sense of identity as a feeling of being situated in a particular way in relation to significant others. One encounters the beginnings of sexuality here, too, in what will become the stored memory of being nurtured and reflected in the caregiving parents' eyes.

Those whose early experiences do not involve great deprivation of love and attention will probably continue to develop a sexuality that is mutually inclusive and bonding. Alternatively, the tendency to see the lover as the hostile other in relation to oneself, could well be the result of negligent parenting. (One recreates this negative aesthetic of this earlier experience, "instinctively," expressing it as hatred of the other gender, usually women.)

So giving the green light to the game of metaphysical opposites, as features of deepest, buried instinct, is not necessarily redemptive in any way.

It could just cause those whose instincts are quite sick for any reason to become still sicker.