clarity is the thing both sides are avoiding | musing no. 69
why both sides confuse fear with protection — and call it strategy
new to cuffed? start here.
this musing has a wireframe (premium) posted for red room readers,
and a companion podcast episode where we pull this apart in real time.
if you want to see how the ideas connect—and hear the parts that don’t make it to the page—start there.
there’s a quiet standoff happening in modern intimacy.
women are afraid a man will get what he wants
and leave.
men are afraid a woman will see all of them
and leave.
so both sides play defense.
both call it protection.
both call it standards.
both call it self-respect.
but what it really is—
is fear dressed up as strategy.
women withhold their bodies
hoping to secure safety.
men withhold their truth
hoping to avoid rejection.
she guards access.
he guards exposure.
and both think they’re being careful,
when they’re actually delaying clarity.
i won’t pretend these fears aren’t real.
for women, sex is internal.
a man enters her body.
that vulnerability carries weight.
for men, intimacy is exposure.
being fully seen—desires, flaws, uncertainty—
is where the real risk lives.
different fears.
same game.
but here’s the part neither side wants to admit:
withholding doesn’t create commitment.
it just slows down the moment where reality shows up.
if a man has sex with you and leaves,
he didn’t take something from you.
he revealed himself.
that wasn’t loss.
that was data.
and if a woman sees the real you and walks away,
she didn’t betray you.
she clarified something you needed to know.
clarity is brutal.
but it’s clean.
sex doesn’t make a good man leave.
truth doesn’t make the right woman disappear.
what leaves was never staying.
what stays was never afraid of seeing—or being seen.
the games aren’t protection.
they’re just a way to avoid finding out.
clarity cuts through all of it.
and it gives you everything you need.
— author
if this felt uncomfortably accurate,
that’s the point.
we go deeper where clarity actually costs something.