Patriarchy Has A Kill Switch (Part Three, The "Body Count" Edition)

This is the long-awaited Part Three of the trilogy, "Patriarchy Has A Kill Switch".  I strongly recommend reading Parts One and Two first, for context, clarity, and logical consistency.

For Part One, about the general concept and theory, see here.  (And see Rasa's excellent response here.)

For Part Two, about how this topic relates specifically to the incel community, see here.

Before we begin Part Three, I will clarify two things.  First, the term "body count" is the current internet vernacular referring to the total number of sexual partners that a person has had in one's lifetime thus far, and in this article, that is the definition that will be used.  Second, the "kill switch" to patriarchy that I refer to in this and previous articles is simply, to paraphrase the ever-insightful Yuri Zavarotny, for we as a society to stop telling Women when, where and with whom she is allowed to get involved romantically or sexually.  Her body, her choice. 

And now to the, um, meat (and two veg!) of the matter.  So read on, if you dare.  

There has been a lot of stuff online, both now and in the past, about Women with "high body counts", both pro and con.  Now, the definition of "high" is highly subjective, of course, but in 2025, generally almost everyone on the internet would consider anything in the double digits to be relatively high for a young person in their twenties.  On social media, especially Reddit, there is still much debate to this day.

First, I will note the hypocritical double standards that some people have in regards to gender.  Namely, that it is OK, even encouraged, for men to have high body counts, but not for Women, because reasons.  Or something.  Granted, it is much less than in the past, but some people still seem to hold such outdated and outmoded toxic malware in their minds for whatever reason.  And that can be very easily debunked as sexist BS.  (Ditto for anyone who believes in a reverse double standard as well, by the way.)  What's good for the goose is good for the gander.  Anything else is pharisaical hypocrisy.

Second, some people (usually men) still keep repeating time and again that tired, specious "old husband's tale" that Women (but not men) with high body counts somehow lose (or perhaps have always inherently lacked, depending on the source) the capacity to pair-bond, and thus are ruined and forever doomed to have less stable marriages in the future and/or are also more likely to engage in infidelity.  And they also claim that it inherently leads to worse mental health for Women in the long run as well.  Because reasons.  Or something.  And they of course then claim they have various studies to back it up, including ones from the of course totally unbiased and ever-objective Mark Regnerus, and also from the equally unbiased Brigham Young University with absolutely NO axe to grind whatsoever.  And if they believe that, well, I have a nice bridge I would like to sell them, LOL.

The main problems with such questionable studies like this are all various flavors of "correlation does not equal causation".  Any such observed correlations in that regard can basically be explained away as due to the following:

1) Selection bias, reporting bias, and reverse causation

2) Residual confounding

3) Leveraging from outliers (on both ends)

Basically, some people (regardless of gender) are simply "not the marrying kind", and some people (regardless of gender) are simply not quite monogamous by nature.  It is probably best to think of monogamy (or non-monogamy) as a spectrum rather than a binary, and most people falling somewhere in the middle between the two extremes.  And that's perfectly fine.  Same goes for "sociosexual orientation", that is, a person's willingness to engage in casual sexual activity.  That is also best thought of as a spectrum as well, and likely normally distributed throughout the population.  And of course, attempting to shoehorn relatively non-monogamous people into strict monogamy is almost certain to backfire, regardless of gender.  That alone is most of the selection bias and reverse causation right there.  

Also, these studies generally don't really distinguish between people (regardless of gender) who simply went through a relatively brief libertine phase in their youth ("sowing one's wild oats"), versus those who are simply like that by their very nature.  These are clearly two very different phenomema, and conflating the two will of course yield very specious inferences.  Rather than the total number of partners in one's lifetime, it is probably better and more accurately to distinguish how long such a youthful libertine phase lasted: was it a few weeks, a few months, a few years, or longer still?

(Those armchair philosophers hawking those specious studies are clearly not presenting a worldwide view of the topic in any case:  they seem to have never heard of, or conveniently ignore, the Kreung people of Cambodia and their famous "love hut" tradition, for example.  Notice their surprisingly low divorce rates as well, by the way.  It's almost like when young people, regardless of gender, are truly free to explore their sexuality without shame or punishment, they don't seem to exhibit the sort of "parade of horribles" that occurs in sexually repressed societies, and also in the partially-liberated, partially-repressed societies like the USA and most of the Anglosphere today, still stuck in the "culture wars" of sexual politics.  But hey, the ever-insightful Dr. James W. Prescott could have told you that!)

There is also reporting bias as well to these surveys, with Women tending to undercount their body counts and men tending to overcount theirs, for very obvious reasons.  And that is before we even begin delve into the definition of sex (what even really counts as "sex"?) being used as well:  there is clearly far more to sexuality than PIV penetration (though most studies take that as the gold standard).

"Residual confounding" includes confounding variables either not accounted/adjusted for or mismeasured.  Any number of these come to mind as well.  But the biggie that sticks out the most as being least likely to be accounted for in these studies is having a history of rape, sexual assault, and/or child abuse (sexual or otherwise).  I would thus hazard an educated guess that the traumas from such horrors, which we know now is a grossly underreported epidemic (nay, pandemic), would have at least some sort of adverse effect on one's ability to pair-bond in the future, adversely affect one's mental health, and would thus very likely skew the results of such studies at least somewhat.  And that confounding would have a larger effect on Women than it would on men, simply due to the far greater prevalence.

Leveraging from outliers refers to the fact that those at the extreme ends of the data range, or far outside most of the data range, would have an outsized influence on the statistical average, particularly if one uses the mean rather than the median as the average.

Oh, and the real kicker: some of the studies that these naysayers like to cite are inconsistent in regards to whether there are even any significant gender differences at all in the effects of "body count."

Thus, these specious studies are basically junk, and I will no longer dignify such garbage with a response going forward.  Consider it debunked, deboned, sliced, diced, julienned, and the remains having been completely laid waste for good.  You're welcome.

One should also note that sapphics (i.e. lesbian and bisexual Women) never really seem to care or worry or whine about anyone's "body count". Gee, I wonder why? Perhaps that is because they are far, far less likely to objectify Women than men tend to do?  That is, they are far more likely to relate to other Women as "I and Thou", not "I and It".  Men can really learn a LOT from such Women indeed!

And finally, in a Matriarchal society, how would Women with a so-called "high body count" be regarded?  It would be generally...unremarkable overall, much like it would be for men as well.  Sex would be seen as a mutual act, not a "commodity" that men "take" from Women, nor something that builds men up by tearing Women down.  It would no longer be seen as a zero-sum game (win-lose), but rather a positive-sum game (win-win) overall.  And the very idea of forcing, coercing, deceiving, and/or manipulating anyone (regardless of gender) into any sex act that they don't want to do for whatever reason would be seen as not only wrong, but also truly bizarre, perhaps even as unthinkable as cannibalism (hat tip to Jacklyn Friedman and Jessica Valenti for pointing out that general idea).

And in such a protopian society, Women with a "high body count" would probably be, and be seen as, the ones who are the most prosocial and community-minded of all.  After all, the literal Latin meaning of the word "community" is "free sharing of gifts" (hat tip to Carol Brouillet for pointing that out, albeit in a very different context). And they certainly would NOT be vilified or shamed for it!

(And of course, most people would simply mind their own damn business in such a society, as they would clearly have far better things to do than judge each other's sex lives like repressed busybodies.)

So what are we waiting for?  Kill Switch Engage!

Let the planetary healing begin!

"The Religion Of Sex!" by Rasa Von Werder and William Bond

 

We are ‘The Religion of Sex’!

 William Bond    March 15, 2025

 

HI Rasa 

I think if we are to start a new religion I think we have to be realistic about it. All successful religions are businesses, they are ways of making money or gaining political power. I know many religions like Christianity and Buddhism talk about living lives of poverty. But the people who rule these religions don’t think like this. We can see this with St. Francis of Assisi, he lived a life of poverty and was greatly revered because of this. But while he was doing this the Pope Cardinals and Bishops were living lives of luxury and privilege. No Pope or Cardinal has ever tried to live like St. Francis of Assisi.

 

          Rasa says: Good point. What a great difference between the Saints poverty & suffering, & the ease of most high-up prelates – day & night. Some of the Catholic dignitaries lived like Kings & were treated as such. Everyone looked up to them, even the Saints, who had to swear allegiance & obedience to them or get kicked out! And Priests, in general, were treated with respect – in the old days everyone kissed their hand! 

We see this all over the world, the leaders of any successful religion run it like a business and if the business model no longer works then the religion declines. I see this in England, the Church of England in the 19th century was a very rich and powerful religious sect. But then in the 20th century people couldn’t bother to go to church and give money, then the whole business model collapsed and the church is now surviving by selling off it’s churches and land. This means if we think of it like a business we have to think about what people want. 

          Rasa says: So it’s that bad over there? Good, Patriarchy is DYING & religion is one of their tools by which they oppress women – powerful tools, as they make people believe this or that. Like sin was introduced to the word by Eve. - That women must obey men, men are the head of the family. That women must be virtuous & get stoned to death if not – but men can be let go. Etc. A lot of rot is taught through patriarchal religions to hold women down, as we all know. 

 So I think what we have to think about; why would anyone want to join a matriarchal religion? It has become obvious to me that talking about, why God is a Woman or why would should rule the world, doesn’t attract a lot of interest. Because people are more interested in their basic instincts. I think you made the point some time ago Rasa, that on your Youtube videos you get more hits when you exposed more of your breasts. Like it or not, that is what people are like and if we are to attract a popular following we have to accept this.  

So why would ordinary people want to join a matriarchal religion? If we appeal to people’s basic instincts then we can offer something that patriarchy cannot give people and that is a safe place to have sex. The weakness of patriarchy is that it’s anti-sexual and it’s laws and custom restrict the sexual lives of ordinary people.

 

          Rasa says: You hit the NAIL ON THE HEAD. This is it, how we go. I’m going to change the name of my You Tube from “New Religion for Women” to “The Religion of Sex.” Because that is what makes US DIFFERENT than any other religion & that is what I have symbolized & that is what I’ve been preaching {that sex is not a sin.} But I did not think of calling or naming it or branding it this way – but there, you’ve DONE IT & it’s so appropriate it’s from the lips of God to my ears!

 

Patriarchy has put up many barriers for people to come together for sex. Like marriage laws and making prostitution illegal. So the common way people have sex is to get married or live with someone. But the problem with that is people will have sex a lot when they first live together but soon become sexually bored with each other. But they are not allowed to have sex with anyone else.

 

Rasa:  Yes, variety is the spice of life, & why should we be limited with our sex partners? Who said so? I don’t think it was that way in the ancient days of matriarchy. The way I see it, women were the leaders & had sex with any man they chose, however many different ones they wanted, & the paternity of the child didn’t matter as she held all the resources, etc.

 

  There is also prostitution which is illegal which makes it scary because in many cases it’s run by criminals. While only wealthy women can use male escorts. Then there is the fear of VD if anyone sleeps around. Also if women are willing to have sex with many different men she is insulted and called a whore, slut and other derisory names. Which puts women off wanting to do that. Although it’s far more acceptable for men to have sex with as many women as he likes. 

 

Rasa says: One of the greatest items for Female Empowerment would be the DECRIMINALIZATION OF PROSTITUTION. Think how our social order would change if it was legal for women to demand money for sex! - & they were not shamed or looked down on for it. I mean every horn dog that is chasing a woman she could give him a price, {the more revolting he is, the higher the price} & then most of them would beg off & seek another woman for free – that would get rid of a lot of harassment.

And secondarily, there would be hardly any women left in poverty, for themselves or their children, if they could charge without fear of punishment or jail. Women have to go to welfare when they are destitute, but if they could charge for sex, there would be little poverty for women, as even the ugliest women would be wanted by someone – the ugliest men who no one wants.

 

So to give people a safe place to have sex, we have to think about women being in charge, but forget about whips, dungeons and black catsuits. We can make the point that sex should be an act of love and not about dominance and submission. So people can have sex however they like and with different partners providing it’s consensual. We can be a bit like the hippies and have free love but ban drugs and alcohol. As men are more likely to be violent when drunk, while drug addicts are more likely to end up as criminals. We can make it a rule that everyone has to have a VD test first, so everyone is free of VD. All sexual acts have to be consensual and no one is allowed in under the age of consent. We can make it clear this is a religion of love so all sexual acts are love making.

 

           

          Rasa say: Priceless. Do you realize what you have done William? It could be St. Patrick’s Day is tomorrow & he is giving me this through your words – a great GIFT –{he always blesses me}!  This pulls together the whole magilla – Matriarchy – loving God – religion. As I said long ago “Put God back into sex & sex back into religion.” But still, in the New Religion I put God over here, & sex over there, God PERMITTING it, but did not put SEX into the title or banner, but here, you have done it & I see it is SO RIGHT! Because THINK – every other religion, which is patriarchal, running the world is AGAINST FREEDOM OF SEX & here we are, the one & only religion PRO COMPLETE SEXUAL FREEDOM FOR ALL, INCLUDING WOMEN. This brings the whole picture together into a valid form, a complete doctrine making sex our HEADLINE – after all – it’s how we part from the others.

 Along with this, we can have a theology about why God is a Woman and why we all would be better of if women rule the world. As well as religious ceremonies. But to be realistic that won’t be what attracts people to a matriarchal religion. They will be more concerned about having a safe place to have sex and being with kind and caring people.     William

 Rasa says:  Understood. We have a new banner, angle, POV, reference point, & this will be our Highway to success, not just a Jet Plane but a Satellite! – a Rocket Ship! It all MAKES SENSE now! I’m envigorated, calibrated, straightened out. I SEE THE LIGHT at the end of the tunnel! The way I had the New Religion was righteous it IS abut female safe space, being in charge, having their own zeitgeist, their separate beneficial word – all I’ve said is true. But how do we get everyone to agree to this/ To want to be in it – both women & men? It’s the SEXUAL FREEDOM.

          I have my walking papers now, my Passport, my Lighthouse of how to proceed. This is new, different & better. I shall work now toward this with you guys helping. I will get on Face Book this way, the You tube will be changed – the TITLE & how I speak. And sooner than later I’ll hire someone to work with me full time to keep a strong internet presence. And of course there will be a book. I am eager to proceed, thanks William, I think you didn’t realize what you have done, but you did something to get us where we need to go.

AJAX THE GREAT (PETE JACKSON) SAYS:  Very well said, Rasa and William! Excellent ideas, both of you.  This will really put the New Religion, and Matriarchy in general, on the map.  And have a very Happy Saint Patrick's Day as well 😊 🍀