Is Ethical Heterosexual Sex Possible Under (Late) Patriarchy?

NOTE:  This article is written primarily for a male audience.

One of the common "straw feminist" arguments often weaponized by anti-feminist and "manosphere" types to try to discredit feminism in general is one that only the most truly extreme fringe ultra-radical feminists (a vanishingly tiny few, nearly all from the second wave in the 1970s and early 1980s) have ever actually put forth with a straight face:  some flavor of "under patriarchy, all (heterosexual) sex is rape".  That statement is, of course, quite easy to refute, as it completely denies Women any agency at all over their own bodies and minds, and is thus infantilizing and demeaning to Women.  And I don't go anywhere near arguments like that, so you will never hear anything like that from me.

Such patronizing and paternalistic nonsense really serves only to discredit feminism and Women in general, trivialize rape, throw out the baby with the bathwater, and put men in a reverse double bind (i.e. a duty to refuse sex, but no right to refuse)* as well, thus it has no place in the 21st century. 

But what if there were a kernel of truth to such an extreme and absolutist argument?  That is, not that it is necessarily rape, which a truly egregious violation of a Woman's bodily integrity and a desecration of the Sacred Feminine, but more like there is "no ethical heterosexual sex under patriarchy", much like the argument that there is "no ethical consumption under capitalism" (which is true, but obviously doesn't stop either gender from going shopping).  Could a more nuanced case be made in that regard?

Well, I hate to be a buzzkill, fellas, but just like consumption under capitalism, heterosexual sex can never be perfectly ethical as long as patriarchy still exists.  Sorry.  The problem is systemic, and goes very, very deep.  And unfortunately, just like we are living under "late capitalism", we are still living under some flavor of "late patriarchy", even in the most progressive, social democratic, and (relatively) gender-equal countries.  (And certainly still in the USA!)  But again, that doesn't stop either gender from going shopping, so is it possible for men to have sexual relations with Women while maintaining a (relatively) clear conscience?

The good news is it's a qualified yes, albeit imperfectly, provided that certain rules are followed.  ("Wait, what?  There's rules?  I thought we dispensed with such stuffiness like so much bric-a-brac decades ago!  Boooooo!")  Relax, fellas.  These rules are hardly oppressive, and actually tend to make sex better for both Women and men.  Such rules may reduce the quantity and frequency of sex, but will more than make up for that in terms of the quality of sex.  Plus, you actually get to LIVE with yourself, sleep well at night, and not have to constantly worry that you are literally playing Russian Roulette with your soul (!) in that regard.  Here they are:

1. First and foremost, be sure to obtain enthusiastic consent before proceeding, each and every time, and at each stage of escalation or changing to a different act.  When in doubt, check in and make sure.  In other words, if it's not a "HELL YEAH!", it's a "HELL NO!"  Period.
2. Always take NO for an answer.  Period.  Do NOT force, coerce, pressure, or manipulate anyone into sex.
3. Do NOT objectify or degrade Women (or men).  Always think in terms of "I and Thou", never "I and It".  Or as Immanuel Kant would say, "Always treat humanity as an end in itself, never solely as a means to an end".  (Contrary to the antisexual Kant, though, attraction per se does NOT automatically imply objectification.)
4. Avoid anything one-sided or "selfish in bed," as it should always be mutual.  After all, Women are human beings, NOT sex dolls or masturbation machines.
5. Whoever has the yoni makes the rules.  She is taking way more of a risk than you are, thus she is extending to you a much larger grace than you are to her.  Look up to her, not down on her.  Be sure to prioritize her pleasure!
6. No cruelty, violence, or abuse of any kind.  That should go without saying, before, during, and after.
7. Do not be a deceiver.  Honesty is always the best policy.
8. Practice radical empathy.  Try to actually see things from her perspective for a change. 
9. As Gabrielle Blair would say, "Ejaculate Responsibly".  If you feel you must have penetrative intercourse, USE A CONDOM as "standard operating procedure", with any exception requiring serious justification. 
10. And above all, DO NOT abuse, violate, or desecrate children in any way, shape, or form!  There is a special place in the Lake of Fire for those who do.  Same goes for those who abuse animals in any way as well.

Otherwise, have fun, fellas!  

(Mic drop)

(*Bonus points for anyone who recognized that statement with an asterisk as simply the mirror image of the double bind that Women have been forced into for millennia.)

P.S.  Contrary to what Maoists (and reactionaries, in an example of Horseshoe Theory) tend to claim, marriage is NOT necessarily "the least oppressive form of sexuality under [patriarchal] imperialism" for Women.  It is still, at base, a patriarchal institution, regardless of any attempts (with varying degrees of success) to re-purpose it for a post-patriarchal world to come, and is still all too often rigged in men's favor.  Thus, at a minimum, the same ethical sex rules listed above should still apply whether married or not.

And it should also go without saying, on the other side of the coin, that the same rules apply even if, or rather especially if, the sexual activity in question falls under the category of "casual".  Remember, "casual" in that regard simply means uncommitted or intended to be short-term.  It does NOT mean meaningless, disrespectful, or treat your partner like garbage.  The human dignity floor of mutual respect must still remain in place regardless of how the sex is labeled. 

Against Moral Relativism

One thing I have noticed among various schools of thought, both inside and out of the Matriarchy movement, is the concept of moral relativism (also known as ethical relativism or cultural relativism).  That is, the idea that there is no objective truth in morality, period.  And while on the surface it may sound enlightened and progressive, please be advised that it is actually a very dangerous slippery slope towards egoism, amorality and moral nihilism.  And the logical conclusion to such a dubious moral theory turns out to be anything but enlightened and progressive.

In his famous essay, "The Challenge of Cultural Relativism", the late secular progressive philosopher James Rachels does an excellent job thoroughly debunking the specious arguments that underlie moral relativism.  Scratch that, he debones, slices, dices, and juliennes such arguments, and then fully lays waste to their remains.  And most notably of all, he does it all from a secular progressive perspective.

In a nutshell, the conclusion that there is no objective truth in morality at all (itself an absolute statement, ironically) does NOT follow logically from the premise that there are differences in moral codes between various cultures and time periods.  And if one were to attempt to make a valid argument justifying such a specious conclusion, we would also have to essentially tolerate not only various horrific evils because "culture", but also intolerance itself as well.  Nothing at all enlightened or progressive about that.  So much for relativism being a philosophy of tolerance and kindness.

In another chapter of his book, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, having already debunked moral relativism, he also then debunks the closely related idea of moral subjectivism in similar fashion.  This idea basically says that morality (right vs. wrong, good vs. evil) is merely a matter of opinion, again not objective.  And in essentially the same way that relativism fails as a moral theory, so too does subjectivism as well.

This is not to say that moral absolutism (such as the views of Immanuel Kant) is necessarily correct either.  We know that numerous gray areas do exist, of course, and both relativism/subjectivism and absolutism can thus be seen as two sides of the same fundamentally flawed coin.   Thus objectivism (with a lowercase "o", to distinguish it from the egoistic philosophy of Ayn Rand) is essentially the way to go.

So all progressives, leftists, feminists and/or matriarchists reading this, take note.  You really do NOT want to cede the moral high ground to the opposition, lest you fall into quicksand and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.