I’ve decided to stop using the terms ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ or ‘divine masculine/feminine’ to describe qualities or attributes (other than relating specifically to gender) because I don’t believe them to be useful constructs. I’d postulate that a non-gender-derived differentiation, like ‘yin/yang’, would be more apt and beneficial.
Non-Dual Shaiva Tantra expresses no interest in gender-essentialism - there is no energetic division between Masculine and Feminine; these are merely societal archetypal constructs - useful labels imposed upon us that, as a result, create division and unconscious conformity.
Divine Consciousness is non-dual, so consists of all qualities irrespective of gender-based labels. Gender is merely the manifest expression of specific existing polarities, and no energetic quality is inherently masculine or feminine (eg strength is neither inherently masculine or feminine - just because it’s (stereotypically) a quality exhibited more by men, that doesn’t make it a masculine quality). All qualities can be expressed in a way that is either healthy or unhealthy. A healthy divine being has the capacity to embody any and all qualities along the spectrum created by the polarities.
The challenge in a conscious relationship is for both parties to know where along the spectrum they are residing when, as well as the other, and have a mutual understanding and appreciation of knowing when to reside in a particular polarity respectively.
A relationship that plays into gender-based polarity is possibly more simplistic, as each party can play into the archetypes and so knows their respective roles. These relationships whilst typical and, in some ways, perhaps easier and advantageous, don’t necessarily/likely facilitate mutual growth towards healthy balanced individuals.
A conscious relationship is considerably more nuanced due to the continual individual growth and polarity switching. A typical relationship is born of attachment to ego constructs by both parties, whereas the challenge with conscious relationships is that the ego constructs aren’t over-simplified and are constantly evolving, so there isn’t the same opportunity to attach to them.
It’s possible that a healthy conscious relationship is the connection between two transcendent consciousnesses enjoying the mutual exploration and evolution of ego constructs from a place of non-attachment, as opposed to the attachment to, and unhealthy indulgence in, ego constructs. This is most successfully navigated through awareness and constructive, conscious communication.