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. 

Excellent Article By Celeste Davis

An excellent new article by the ever-insightful Celeste Davis is certainly worth a read.  Titled "Do you not like sex, or do you just not like patriarchal sex?", it explains well the crucial differences between male-defined sexuality versus female-defined sexuality.  Spoiler alert: male-defined sexuality is rather one-sided, and Women generally do not like it one-sided.  Female-defined sexuality, on the other hand, is mutually beneficial for both genders.  Thus it makes far more sense to center Women in sex than it does to center men.  

In other news, water is wet, and the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, of course.  But far too many people still don't seem to fully dig that.  And Davis explains it brilliantly.

Patriarchy Has A Kill Switch (Part Deux)

In a previous post a while ago, I had discussed how Women's sexual freedom would be the ultimate kill switch to end patriarchy.  But one aspect of this topic had been a bit neglected in that article, unfortunately. 

Basically, I have gotten into some online debates from time to time about the "incel" (involuntary celibacy) problem.  Many self-identified incels are of course misogynistic trolls with an entitlement complex, but not all of them are.  And even some genuine ones seem to think that the "permissiveness" resulting from the sexual revolution has made their situation worse, and give various "evolutionary psychology" arguments.  So here is my response to all of that:

First and foremost, equality of opportunity and equality of outcome are mutually exclusive, and trying to force equal outcomes on everyone by fiat has a way of backfiring hard, as many have learned the hard way throughout history.  That is true for economics as well as for sex and relationships.  So aim for equal opportunity as your North Star instead. 

And in any case, since there are really only two ways to attempt to force equal outcomes on everyone in terms of sex and relationships, either 1) treat all Women as "private property" of individual men, or 2) treat all Women as "public property" of all men collectively, that means that there is absolutely NO ethical way to do so whatsoever.  (The late Andrea Dworkin would have a field day with that!)  That is because Women are, you know, full human beings, NOT "property" in any sense of the word, period.  Capisce?

Any ethical solution must, at the very minimum, fight twice as hard for the right to say "no" as for the right to say "yes".  After all, rape culture with a smiley face is still rape culture. 

Furthermore, most "evolutionary psychology" is, in a word, BS.  With NO apologies to Jordan Peterson at all.

"Hypergamy" (dating or marrying "up") by Women is really NOT natural, but is rather a socially constructed effect of capitalism and a hangover of patriarchy, for obvious reasons.  Ditto for the bandied-about "80/20" rule, which itself is grossly exaggerated.  But to the extent that the sexual revolution has anything at all to do with it, it is basically the opposite of what the manosphere claims.  If anything, slut-shaming only makes Women that much MORE picky and/or superficial in regards to men than they would otherwise be, and thus MORE likely to prefer high-status men over low-status men, because if they are going to take such a risk, they might as well make it as "worth their while" as possible.  (After all, despite their actually higher sex drive overall, Women's demand for sex is far more "elastic" than men's is:  for Women, no sex is typically better than bad sex, for obvious reasons, whereas for men, it's typically the reverse.)

And since the sexual revolution in the Anglosphere, especially the USA, was half-assed and did NOT go to completion, thanks to the "culture wars", what has resulted is that our society is now JUST barely permissive enough for Women to go all-in with high-status men, but still NOT quite permissive enough yet for them to do the same with lower-status men, lest they get shamed for it.  And in parallel with that, when high-status or elite Women hook up with many male partners it is considered "classy", provided those men are also high-status, while many of those same Women hypocritically consider it "trashy" when lower-status Women follow in their footsteps, because reasons. (News flash: that is NOT what a sisterhood looks like, that is a CARTEL.) Thus, the real solution is NOT to roll back the sexual revolution, as that would only further deepen this quagmire, but rather to let it finally go to completion like it largely has in the Nordic countries, the Netherlands, and also Brazil to some extent. 

(Now, the Nordic countries are NOT perfect by a long shot, of course.  Three out of the five Nordic countries (Sweden, Norway, and Iceland) currently practice some flavor of the Entrapment Model for sex work, and one of those three (Iceland) even bans strip clubs.  And like all societies, they all have their own set of problems too.  But otherwise they seem to be the healthiest in terms of sexuality as well as economics, especially Denmark, the land that the temperance movement, and their ideological descendants, forgot.)

There are indeed lots and lots of otherwise very prosocial and community-minded Women out there who are unfortunately deterred from doing what they really want to do sexually, and would otherwise do largely for mutual pleasure in a sexually free society, due to all of the slut-shaming that still exists even in 2024, especially when also combined with the relative lack of a Nordic style social safety net in the USA as well.  This is yet another way that the patriarchy has a nasty habit of backfiring on men, and especially when it is combined with the brutal logic of capitalism and neoliberalism.

(That's simply "erotic plasticity" put another way, with no apologies to Roy Baumeister.)

As for the thinly-veiled misogynistic manosphere canard that when Women (but not men, because reasons) have many sex partners, they supposedly "lose their ability to pair-bond", kinda like how adhesive tape becomes progressively less sticky the more times it is re-used, well, that utterly specious claim of a causal link has never actually been proven.  The supposed observational evidence they cite can be very easily explained away by reverse causation, namely, those of either gender with a low capacity (or paradoxically, a very high capacity) to pair-bond to begin with are more likely to have many partners, NOT the other way around. And sometimes, you may simply need to "kiss a lot of frogs" to find the prince, as the saying goes.  Either way, we all need to stop slut-shaming, yesterday.  It serves NO valid purpose whatsoever. 

And we certainly do NOT need a "price floor" for sex.  Rather, what we need is a DIGNITY floor, where both genders treat each other as ends in themselves, not solely as means to an end, per Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative in general.  (Too bad he was so antisexual himself, otherwise he would have had a great model of sexual ethics too.)

There are also ecological benefits to sexual freedom as well.  Once the sexual revolution is fully complete, hypergamy has withered on the vine, and the "cost" of sex has thus been rightsized, maybe then the men of the sci-tech persuasion wouldn't feel the need (as much, at least) to keep raping the Earth to build more ever-larger phallus-extending "Towers of Babel" (i.e. frivolous, destructive, and/or inappropriate technologies) of mindless aggrandizement to impress Women just so they can get laid. (Even nerdy men tend to have one-track minds, lol.)  Maybe men of the warrior persuasion would be less likely to want to start wars or go to war, for the same reason.  And, God willing, maybe men in general in the rich countries would be far more willing to reduce their outsized "standard of living" (in terms of material and resource consumption) to one that the Earth can actually afford in the long run, and not one that requires multiple Earths worth of resources, for the same reason.  Conspicuous consumption as a thinly-veiled, plausibly-deniable mating ritual would thus be far more likely to desist.

And thus this whole silly game of "king of the hill" writ large will finally end, God willing.

Freud's Civilization And Its Discontents thesis has really long since jumped the shark!  It's not the 19th century anymore. 

(And to any angry incels reading this:  seriously, lose the entitlement attitude, yesterday.  It is really quite unbecoming.  Or to put in your very own lingo:  stop simping for Stacy, and give Becky a chance.  Let Stacy and Chad have each other.  And take a long, hard look in the mirror as well.  Think "internal locus of control, NOT external". Oh, and bonus points if you are fortunate enough to find an older Woman as a "mentor with benefits" willing to "show you the ropes".)

To reiterate from my previous article:

As Yuri Zavorotny himself says:

So here is our kill switch: we stop telling women when, where and with whom she is allowed to get involved romantically. Her body, her choice. And she is perfectly capable of making it a responsible choice, thank you very much.

And lest anyone misunderstand his words, read too much into it, or try to put words in his mouth:

NOTE: This is not to suggest that anyone should change their own behavior. We do whatever we are comfortable with. That, of course, includes staying monogamous, still a perfectly valid choice. But it can not be justified as a moral choice anymore -- rather, it is a personal preference.

Female sexuality (or more accurately, female-defined sexuality) is an extremely powerful force to be reckoned with, which is why the patriarchy has gone out of its way to suppress it (and/or supplant it with male-defined sexuality).  All the more reason to unleash it in like fashion, and put an end to the toxic "commodity model" of sexuality.

Until then, we will have 1) too many men chasing too few Women overall, AND simultaneously 2) too many Women chasing too few high-status men, with the latter having plenty of options and taking full advantage of such bargaining power.  And both low to average-status men, as well as Women in general, get screwed (and not in a good way!) in this stagflationary quagmire.  It's "musical chairs" both ways.  The song "Land of Confusion" by Genesis comes to mind.

So what are we waiting for?  Kill Switch Engage!  Let the planetary healing begin!

P.S.  If anyone still thinks that Jordan Peterson's idea of "enforced monogamy" is a real solution to the incel problem, well, I've got a nice bridge I'd like to sell you.  As for the jealousy problem, the best his "solution" can do is to "flatten the curve" of jealousy in the short run, while in the long run, that green-eyed monster will unfortunately still be there waiting to pop up and strike at any moment, and thus the area under the curve will be the same or even greater.  Better to deal with it head-on instead, and try one's best to sublimate it as much as possible into its antithesis, known as "compersion", or "frubbly" in the vernacular.  In other words, think "abundance mindset", not "scarcity mindset".  Liberty is like love:  the more you give, the more you get.  It's not pie.

And speaking of jealousy, for those Women who are worried about men choosing AI girlfriends and robots over them, worry not.  Remember, "it is the SPIRIT the quickens" (i.e. gives life), NOT the flesh.  And AI has neither.  Thus, any man who is even remotely worth your time and energy will not choose AI over you (unless you literally bring nothing at all to the table, but even then, they would choose another real-life Woman instead, not AI).  If anything, AI and robots would be good for keeping the misogynistic miscreant trolls happily occupied so they (hopefully) stay far away from real-life Women, and since they would be less likely to procreate, that problem is thus largely self-correcting in the long run.

Is The Sexual Double Standard Finally Dead?

At least in Norway, it sure seems to be.

A Norwegian study from 2023 basically found that the age-old sexual double standard (which I thoroughly oppose, for the record) is currently either dead or nearly so, and sometimes even a bit reversed, at least in Norway and some other countries.  Basically, most people think others will judge them far more harshly than they actually do, so the belief in such is only because others believe it, and so on.  And that is true for both genders, surprisingly.  It is now a ghost and hangover of patriarchal history that is sustained only through "pluralistic ignorance" currently.  Looks like, far from being "natural" per evolutionary psychology, the double standard was socially constructed all along.

(Note that the largely null results of this study in terms of how people judge one another also imply as a corollary that so-called "hookup culture" is NOT really the "collective action trap" or zero-sum game that some reactionaries seem to think it is, at least not in sexually liberal societies.)

Of course, this is clearly not true in every country in the world, nor in every social circle.  But generally, in the more socially and sexually liberal countries like the Nordic countries, and even perhaps some parts of the historically stuffy Anglosphere such as the USA and UK to some extent, it is indeed trending that way, and should be a cause for celebration.  Let the planetary healing begin!

Patriarchy Has A Kill Switch, And We Already Know What It Is (Updated Re-Post)

(Original version of this article from 2020 can be found here)

Author Yuri Zavorotny wrote a great article four years ago for Medium, in which he articulates something that we all intuitively know (but often don't want to say out loud) about the patriarchy and how to end it.  After first establishing that patriarchy is inherently evil (and thus cannot be redeemed), he then goes on about what holds it all together.  This thing that holds the entire construct all together is its sine qua non and thus is it's own Achilles' heel, and that thing is control of female sexuality, and the primary tool used to control that is slut-shaming.  That is, the shaming of Women for expressing their sexuality in the way they choose.  And thus the "kill switch" is to put an end to this utterly toxic and outmoded practice of slut-shaming.

Wait, what?  There is still slut-shaming in 2024?  Absolutely.  It has diminished somewhat since the (largely male-defined) "sexual revolution" half a century ago, to be sure, but it is still there.  The double standard still exists, and it has in fact become more of a double bind in which Women are expected to be "sexy" (as defined by males) but not sexual by their own definition.  And ending it is thus the unfinished business of both feminism and the real sexual revolution for Women.

(Most ironically, even today to some extent, some Women often still enforce it on each other as well--talk about being one's own worst enemy!  At best, that's NOT a sisterhood, that's a cartel, driven by an internalized misogynistic slave mentality.)

That's not the only double bind here, there is also the historical one in which Women are expected to both obey men as well as be the "gatekeepers" of sex, with no way to opt out of either contradictory requirement.

As Yuri Zavorotny himself says:

So here is our kill switch: we stop telling women when, where and with whom she is allowed to get involved romantically. Her body, her choice. And she is perfectly capable of making it a responsible choice, thank you very much.

And lest anyone misunderstand his words, read too much into it, or try to put words in his mouth:

NOTE: This is not to suggest that anyone should change their own behavior. We do whatever we are comfortable with. That, of course, includes staying monogamous, still a perfectly valid choice. But it can not be justified as a moral choice anymore -- rather, it is a personal preference.

Female sexuality (or more accurately, female-defined sexuality) is an extremely powerful force to be reckoned with, which is why the patriarchy has gone out of its way to suppress it (and/or supplant it with male-defined sexuality).  As I have repeatedly noted before, the suppression of Women's sexuality was not entirely about maintaining control over the male bloodline (though that was originally a major part of it), but more generally about power and control over Women directly, as well as over other men indirectly via artificial scarcity.  Ditto for patriarchy's equally peculiar prohibitions against self-pleasuring and homosexuality as well.  Let that sink in for a moment. 

In a similar vein, patriarchy's favorite brainchild, capitalism, needs scarcity (whether real or artificial) to function.  That is how the oligarchs control the serfs.  And the kill switch of capitalism is thus to give it the one thing it cannot surivive--abundance.  The analogy should be apparent now.

Ending slut-shaming will not end patriarchy overnight, of course, but is nonetheless necessary for it to end sooner rather than later.  And if we wait until we return to full-blown Matriarchy before liberating Women's sexuality, we will never be ready, as Women's sexual liberation is a key step on the path to Matriarchy.  That is, if we make the perfect the enemy of the good, we ultimately end up with neither.

Furthermore, as I have noted in another article, any attempt at a reactionary "sexual counterrevolution" is of course doomed to backfire and ultimately fail to benefit Women on balance.  Ditto for any conservative, reactionary, neoliberal, anti-modernist, primitivist, or pseudo-feminist attempts to dismantle the social welfare state as well, by the way.

One thing needs to be crystal clear.  As hard as we fight for the right to say "yes" to sex, we must also fight at least twice as hard for the right to say "NO" as well.  The LAST thing we want is for sex of any kind to be perceived as mandatory in any way, so enthusiastic and mutual consent must be a precondition for all sexual acts, period.  And that is true for both Women and men, by the way.  Also, we must be careful not to fall in the trap of the "reverse double standard" that has become in vogue in some circles these days (Oprah and Dr. Phil, I'm looking at YOU!), in which men are the ones vilified for their sexuality while Women are ignored (if not celebrated) for doing the same exact things.  Doing so is a sure path to a sort of "reverse patriarchy", not the Matriarchy proper that we should be aiming for.  The same goes for a "reverse double bind" as well, which is also infantilizing to Women.

(Note that there is in fact NO proven precedent in all of recorded history where Women had sexual freedom but men did not, or at least not for long enough to ever be recorded, probably because doing so is mathematically impossible without creating a massive "black market" for sex per the iron laws of supply and demand.)

Put simply:  Women should have the absolute right to be as sexual--or not--as they themselves want to be, without the need for justification or apology to anyone, period.  To quote the legendary Guru Rasa Von Werder:

My associate Ajax the Great & I agree, sexual freedom is the KILL SWITCH FOR PATRIARCHY.  When Women do whatever they want sexually, & no longer fear men, men will have nothing to fight for.  Consider a ram with his harem. The harem runs off & mates with the other guys in the woods.  No more head banging, lol.  We will end war by being sexually free."

Liberty (sexual or otherwise) is NOT a zero-sum game.  In fact, liberty is like love:  the more you give, the more you get. 

So what are we waiting for?  Kill Switch Engage!  Let the planetary healing begin!

Why (Sexual) Capitalism Must Die, And How To Humanely Euthanize It (Updated Re-Post)

I have discussed before how that favorite evil brainchild of patriarchy, capitalism, is literally killing our Mother Earth as we speak, and is thus both ecocidal and ultimately suicidal since humanity is in fact part of Nature (despite frequent and stubborn protestations to the contrary).  And that the only way to humanely euthanize that vile system is to give it the one thing it cannot survive--ABUNDANCE--while harsh austerity measures of any kind (ecological or otherwise) will ultimately backfire in the end, leaving us permanently stuck in a very bad place while still ending up destroying ourselves along with our planet.  (That is, like futurist Walter Baltzley said, the best way to win a tug-of-war against a stronger opponent is to simply let go of the rope and let them fall down.)  But did you know that capitalism also has a sexual dimension as well?

Wait, what?  That's right--and it is one that would make Freud himself blush beet red.  So much so that capitalism should really be called "greed patriarchy", while patriarchy should really be called "lust capitalism" or "sexual capitalism".  Please allow me to explain:

• While financial rentier capitalism uses artificial scarcity of money, goods and services, etc. to control the masses, sexual capitalism uses artificial scarcity of sex (and sex substitutes) to do the same.
• Sexual capitalism, which is part and parcel of patriarchy, uses the "commodity model" of sexuality to make sex just artificially scarce enough for the conditions of the times to effect maximum control of the masses.
• In the commodity model of sexuality, sex (however defined) is seen as something of value (perhaps even a sort of "currency" at times) that men "take" from Women, but not the other way around, and is seen as a zero-sum game.  A Woman's worth is thus considered inversely proportional to her level of sexual experience, while the reverse is usually (though not always) true for men (i.e. the classic double standard, slut-shaming, etc.).
• Therefore, men have a vested interest to keep the "cost" of sex as low as possible, while Women have a vested interest in keeping the "cost" of sex as high as possible.  One can see how this does not exactly make for harmonious gender relations or mutuality, since the interests of Women and men are inherently opposed in this model.
• At the same time, the (mostly) male elites have a vested interest to keep the "cost" of sex as high as possible, or at least just high enough to control the masses.  This is typically done by punishing Women in one way or another for having too much and/or the wrong kind of sex (i.e. "giving it away" for free or cheap), imposing a very high cost on Women who then pass some of that cost onto men.  Or demanding for specious and spurious reasons that sex be only for procreation and claiming that sexual pleasure especially for its own sake is somehow "sinful".  Thus, they control Women in order to indirectly control men, while (in the days before modern birth control and DNA testing) also ensuring paternity certainty as well.
• That explains the patriarchy's arcane and archaic rules against not only "fornication" and adultery (note how usually only Women have historically been punished for these in practice), but also masturbation, homosexuality, non-monogamy, non-coital sexual activities, abortion, "artificial" birth control, divorce (albeit with some nuance), pornography (albeit with some nuance), and most ironically of all, prostitution (despite the fact that patriarchal marriage is often little more than long-term prostitution in practice).  It also explains why so many self-proclaimed "pro-lifers" have the GALL to oppose birth control despite the fact that it actually has the net effect of reducing the number of abortions due to fewer unwanted pregnancies.
• A high cost of sex (and its substitutes), ceteris paribus, leads to higher birthrates (Women are the brood mares in this system) and more work done by men (men are the work horses) in order to gain access to sex, which ultimately makes the rich richer going.  A low cost of sex (or its substitutes), especially sex for pleasure, leads to lower birthrates and theoretically less incentive for the serfs to work harder to make the rich richer.
• Thus, a relatively high cost of sex is seen as necessary for the oligarchs to keep the whole Ponzi scheme of growth for the sake of growth (i.e. the ideology of the cancer cell, which eventually kills its host) going to make them even richer.
• And the experience of physical pleasure, affection, and intimacy in general (not just sex, but overall) are restricted to one degree or another, so much so that people end up craving it even more through a narrow little keyhole called sex, particularly coitus.
• Not that such sexual strictures really make The System any more virtuous in any sense, of course.  A certain amount of male-defined prostitution, sex trafficking/slavery, rape, and even full-blown pedophilia and incest is virtually always tolerated or even tacitly encouraged (clandestinely or otherwise) to one degree or another in patriarchy provided it does not threaten The System or inadvertently give Women too much power.  And these ills tend to explode when sex in general is highly restricted and costly (see what happened in the Victorian era, for example).  It's all just "collateral damage" in the eyes of the patriarchy and the oligarchy, basically.
• And of course, Women primarily get blamed for "getting themselves raped", rather than the men who rape them, since under the commodity model, the onus falls on Women to be "gatekeepers" of the  "commodity" in question and keep it it from becoming "too cheap" in the "marketplace".  And the resulting fear of rape (and blame/shame for it) is used as a cudgel to keep Women "in their place".
• And much like in Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale, patriarchy relies on Women to police each other (enter slut-shaming, body-shaming, the "mommy wars", etc.), further enhancing the divide-and-conquer aspect of The System.
• And just like financial capitalism, sexual capitalism functionally sets itself up as a contest to see who cares the least, in more ways than one.  A contest that MEN, not coincidentally, nearly always win.

And really it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how this model perpetuates the 7000 year battle of the sexes, promotes rape culture (much like how financial capitalism promotes crimes motivated by money and possessions), and even contributes to the destruction of Mother Earth in the process via overpopulation and ecological overshoot.  At best, it inherently centers men at the expense of Women, and to say that is actually being quite charitable.  Fortunately, the whole "commodity model" of sexuality is indeed currently dying as we speak, and that is a GOOD thing. Such an outmoded, outdated, toxic, and sexist paradigm is downright dehumanizing to both primary genders, and we would all better off without it. Sex is a mutual act, and it is time we started treating it as such. And marriage for economic reasons rather than love is becoming increasingly obsolete, as it should in an increasingly egalitarian society. And while marriage can be re-purposed for a post-patriarchal society, the idea that everybody must get married as the sine qua non of "real adulthood" is outmoded and no longer holds any real water in the 21st century.  Ditto for the whole "everybody must procreate" mentality as well, which is now downright maladaptive in a world of overpopulation and ecological overshoot. 

(Note that I while I condemn the commodity model, I do NOT intend to disparage any actual sex workers of any kind.  They are, after all, some of the most honest people on Earth when it comes to their intentions, and in any case are not the real problem here.  It is the "little man behind the curtain"--the system of patriarchy and capitalism--that is the real problem.)

This inherently capitalistic and patriarchal model should be regarded as obsolete and outmoded, and replaced yesterday with the "performance model" or "mutual pleasure model" of sexuality.  And thus sexual capitalism will also be humanely euthanized by giving it the one thing it cannot survive--ABUNDANCE.  So what are we waiting for?

Let the planetary healing begin! 

Who's Afraid Of An Aging (And Shrinking) Population? (Updated for 2024)

I had long wondered why so many men, especially the elites, are terrified that our overall population is (gasp!) aging. It is not just because they fear that their economic Ponzi scheme of necrotic growth for the sake of growth will unravel, though that is clearly part of it as well. No, I think that their real fear is that the Crones (i.e. Women over age 50 or so) will have an *unprecedented* level of power due to relative strength in numbers, and thus so will Women in general. That is because Women are living longer than ever before, as well as having fewer kids. And the men are getting scared.  Hence the recent push to whittle away Women's reproductive rights, eventually including most if not all birth control as well.

Additionally, with birthrates declining over time, and each new generation thus slightly smaller than then previous one, that effectively means that there will be fewer younger Women relative to slightly older men, giving younger Women that much more bargaining power in the dating market despite an overall surplus of Women in general.  Thus by the 2030s, Women will get the best of both worlds, and be even more empowered as a result of such demographic trends.

(Note that this also means that statistically more younger men will be "mentored" by older Women in that regard as per the laws of supply and demand, which would also help further accelerate the transition to Matriarchy as well.)

Ah, you say, but what about the supposedly legitimate economic fears of an aging (and eventually shrinking) population?  Well, a recent study came out that found that such fears are essentially overblown.  In fact, moderately low fertility (i.e. between 1.5-2.0 children per Woman) and a shrinking population would actually maximize living standards for the general population.  Another recent study found that there is essentially no robust correlation between population aging and economic growth, contrary to what many people seem to believe.  Not to say that an aging population will not pose some challenges, but on balance the benefits would outweigh such drawbacks.  And our Monetarily Sovereign federal government can easily absorb the fiscal costs of aging such as pensions and healthcare.

Oh, and by the way, there is that elephant in the room--make that the elephant in the Volkswagen--OVERPOPULATION.  Left unchecked, it will destroy the very planet that gives us life.  While technology (and Monetary Sovereignty) can largely solve the foreseeable economic challenges of aging and declining populations, the same cannot really be said of the intractable ecological problems of overpopulation.  And the only ethical way to do this is to voluntarily have fewer children, i.e. well below the "replacement rate" of 2.1 or so.  According to the best evidence, the best ways to accomplish this is 1) female empowerment and 2) poverty reduction, since after all, the number one cause of overpopulation is the MEN who force, coerce, deceive, and/or brainwash Women into having kids that they otherwise would not have (or much sooner and closer-spaced than otherwise).  Seriously. 

Sorry fellas, but the truth hurts.

So what about countries like Japan, Italy, Greece, Spain, etc. with so-called "lowest-low" total fertility rates below 1.5?  Yes, it is likely that they will hit a sort of short-to-medium-term "pothole" on the road to sustainability if they stay below 1.5 for too long.  Their populations' aging and decline will be significantly more rapid than for countries with TFRs between 1.5-2.0, and may be more difficult to adjust to from an economic perspective.  Well, the answer to that, again, is increased Female empowerment.  We see that European countries with greater Female empowerment and more generous social safety nets for Mothers and children tend to have higher fertility than those with less female empowerment and stingier safety nets such as Spain, Italy, and Greece.  Even though all of those countries have TFRs below replacement, Northern and Western Europe are generally around 1.6-2.0 while Southern and Eastern Europe are generally significantly below 1.5 children per Woman.  

And now the USA, thanks in part to the pandemic and the lockdowns, and likely the jabs as well, birthrates have REALLY crashed through the basement.  The estimated TFR for the USA in 2020 is as low as 1.64, a record low.  And no sign of reversal anytime soon.

The proof is clearly in the pudding.

(Recently, there was a reactionary right-wing article that actually said the quiet part out loud about what the right-wing reactionaries and sexual counterrevolutionaries really want to do, if you have the stomach to read such disgusting verbal defecation. TL;DR version:  when Women are forced or coerced to mate in captivity, and/or otherwise forced or coerced to be utterly dependent on men, their birthrates are way higher than when they are not, go figure.  In other news, water is wet and the sun rises in the east.)

Make no mistake, if Women were to take over the world tomorrow, the global TFR would plummet to 1.5 or lower almost overnight.  But it would not stay below 1.5 for very long, as it would gradually rise back up to around 1.5-1.9 where it will remain for at least a generation or two, and eventually rise to around the replacement rate of 2.1 after the population shrinks significantly over time.  And honestly, it can't happen soon enough.  I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  We must leave room for Nature, lest Nature not leave room for us.  We have been warned, decades ago in fact. 

As the great Marianne Williamson once said, at this juncture of history we are now at the "menopause" of humanity, in which what we really need is fewer babies, and more wisdom.

In other words, VIVE LA FEMME!  Let the planetary healing begin!

Why Full Decriminalization Of Sex Work Is The Only Just And Rational Policy

A few years ago, I wrote an article titled "Prostitution: The Oldest Profession or The Oldest Oppression?" that looked at the issue of sex work from various angles, and ultimately came to the conclusion that full decriminalization was the only just and rational policy in that regard.  That is the same conclusion that such diverse voices as Amnesty International, the ACLU, the WHO, UNAIDS, Human Rights Campaign, and so many others have come to in recent years.  And the legendary Guru Rasa Von Werder has also long supported decriminalization as well.

New Zealand is probably the best example of full decriminalization, which has prevailed for the past two decades.  A few other places in the world have or have had some flavor of this policy as well, including some parts of Australia, and formerly in the US state of  Rhode Island from 2003-2009.  Ditto for Denmark, the only Nordic country where the so-called "Nordic Model" never really caught on.  And while not a panacea, it is clearly the least-worst policy.

This is to be clearly distinguished from "legalization", where sex work is confined to a narrow and tightly regulated framework but otherwise criminalized outside that framework.  Basically, the state becomes the pimp in practice, if not also in theory.  And it is a half-assed solution at best.  Nevada, the Netherlands, and Germany are classic examples of such.

As for the so-called "Nordic Model" or "Equality Model", which should really be called the "Entrapment Model", we see that after over two decades of it in Sweden, and several years in several other countries that tried it, it fails miserably.  (As of 2023, the only US state to adopt it is Maine, and they did so earlier this year.)  While it is arguably a step up from full criminalization, that's a pitifully low bar to clear.

And of course, not even Mao Zedong and all of his brutality was ever able to truly eradicate prostitution, and it wasn't for lack of trying.  Sex work has existed in practically every culture in history, except for a tiny few outliers here and there.  Matriarchal societies would mostly likely have significantly less of it for reasons of both supply and demand, but it would likely still exist regardless (e.g. Sacred Harlots).

Ideally, the adult trade should be controlled entirely by Women, as when men control it they inevitably ruin it horribly.  Thus, banning men from acting as pimps and brothel owners would likely be a good idea.  Otherwise, putting restrictions on the adult trade generally does more harm than good.

Thus, we still ought to endorse full decriminalization.  The case in favor has only gotten stronger over time.

QED

Excellent Article Debunking The New Sexual Counterrevolutionaries

The highly astute Joanna Williams at Spiked Online has written an excellent article debunking the new sexual counterrevolutionaries, particularly the self-proclaimed "reactionary feminists" like Mary Harrington and Louise Perry.  She does not mince words about why it would be a bad idea to attempt to roll back the sexual revolution, particularly for Women, and why blaming all or most of the modern world's real or supposed social ills on The Pill (let alone doing away with it) is foolish at best. Women's freedom, sexual or otherwise, is NOT the problem.  And she notes how it really does Women no favors the way the reactionaries essentially rob them of agency and autonomy, infantilizing them.  And the real kicker is that she actually does so from a somewhat conservative perspective (keep in mind that "reactionary" is politically well to the right of "conservative", properly understood).

And one need not agree 100% with every word of her article to conclude that she is nonetheless correct overall.  Contrary to what some may believe, one cannot simply roll back Women's sexual freedom to 1950s (or earlier) levels without also (deliberately or inadvertently) rolling back Women's political and economic freedom as well.

Last year I had written an article about the follies of the sexual reactionaries, and why "reactionary feminism" will backfire on any Women who embrace it.  And a while back, I also wrote another article about how sexual freedom for Women is essentially the "kill switch" of patriarchy. 

(In case you were wondering, one should note that there has never been a society where Women had sexual freedom but men did not, not even in the most Matriarchal societies past or present.  The reverse has unfortunately been true under patriarchy, but even that has often backfired on men as well.)

In contrast, attempting to roll back the half-finished (at best) sexual revolution is to accomplish nothing but to get stuck in a quagmire of perpetual limbo at this point.  We would be wise to reject the bluster of those who seek to do so.

To quote the legendary Guru Rasa Von Werder:

My associate Ajax the Great & I agree, sexual freedom is the KILL SWITCH FOR PATRIARCHY.  When Women do whatever they want sexually, & no longer fear men, men will have nothing to fight for.  Consider a ram with his harem. The harem runs off & mates with the other guys in the woods.  No more head banging, lol.  We will end war by being sexually free."

Liberty (sexual or otherwise) is NOT a zero-sum game.  In fact, liberty like love:  the more you give, the more you get.  Let the planetary healing begin!

UPDATE:  The independent and largely conservative news site The Free Press recently hosted a live debate on September 13, 2023 on "Has the Sexual Revolution Failed?"  Given the conspicuous lack of gloating from either side afterwards, it's pretty clear that the right-wing reactionary side (i.e. against the sexual revolution) largely lost the debate.

Patriarchy Has A Kill Switch, And We Already Know What It Is

(Original version of this article from 2020 can be found here)

Author Yuri Zavorotny wrote a great article four years ago for Medium, in which he articulates something that we all intuitively know (but often don't want to say out loud) about the patriarchy and how to end it.  After first establishing that patriarchy is inherently evil (and thus cannot be redeemed), he then goes on about what holds it all together.  This thing that holds the entire construct all together is its sine qua non and thus is it's own Achilles' heel, and that thing is control of female sexuality, and the primary tool used to control that is slut-shaming.  That is, the shaming of Women for expressing their sexuality in the way they choose.  And thus the "kill switch" is to put an end to this utterly toxic and outmoded practice of slut-shaming.

Wait, what?  There is still slut-shaming in 2023?  Absolutely.  It has diminished somewhat since the (largely male-defined) "sexual revolution" half a century ago, to be sure, but it is still there. The double standard still exists, and it has in fact become more of a double bind in which Women are expected to be "sexy" (as defined by males) but not sexual by their own definition.  And ending it is thus the unfinished business of both feminism and the real sexual revolution for Women.

(That's not the only double bind here, there is also the historical one in which Women are expected to both obey men as well as be the "gatekeepers" of sex, with no way to opt out of either contradictory requirement.)

As Yuri Zavorotny himself says:

So here is our kill switch: we stop telling women when, where and with whom she is allowed to get involved romantically. Her body, her choice. And she is perfectly capable of making it a responsible choice, thank you very much.

And lest anyone misunderstand his words, read too much into it, or try to put words in his mouth:

NOTE: This is not to suggest that anyone should change their own behavior. We do whatever we are comfortable with. That, of course, includes staying monogamous, still a perfectly valid choice. But it can not be justified as a moral choice anymore -- rather, it is a personal preference.

Female sexuality (or more accurately, female-defined sexuality) is an extremely powerful force to be reckoned with, which is why the patriarchy has gone out of its way to suppress it (and/or supplant it with male-defined sexuality).  As I have noted before, the suppression of Women's sexuality was not entirely about maintaining control over the male bloodline (though that was originally a major part of it), but more generally about power and control over Women directly, as well as over other men indirectly via artificial scarcity.  Let that sink in for a moment. 

In a similar vein, patriarchy's favorite brainchild, capitalism, needs scarcity (whether real or artificial) to function.  That is how the oligarchs control the serfs.  And the kill switch of capitalism is thus to give it the one thing it cannot surivive--abundance.  The analogy should be apparent now.

Ending slut-shaming will not end patriarchy overnight, of course, but is nonetheless necessary for it to end sooner rather than later.  And if we wait until we return to full-blown Matriarchy before liberating Women's sexuality, we will never be ready, as Women's sexual liberation is a key step on the path to Matriarchy.  That is, if we make the perfect the enemy of the good, we ultimately end up with neither.

Furthermore, as I have noted in another article, any attempt at a reactionary "sexual counterrevolution" is of course doomed to backfire and ultimately fail to benefit Women on balance.

One thing needs to be clear.  As hard as we fight for the right to say "yes" to sex, we must also fight twice as hard for the right to say "NO" as well.  The LAST thing we want is for sex of any kind to be perceived as mandatory, so enthusiastic and mutual consent must be a precondition for all sexual acts, period. And that is true for both Women and men, by the way.  Also, we must be careful not to fall in the trap of the "reverse double standard" that has become in vogue in some circles these days (Oprah and Dr. Phil, I'm looking at YOU!), in which men are the ones vilified for their sexuality while Women are ignored (if not celebrated) for doing the same exact things.  Doing so is a sure path to a sort of "reverse patriarchy", not the Matriarchy proper that we should be aiming for.  The same goes for a "reverse double bind" as well.

Put simply:  Women should have the absolute right to be as sexual--or not--as they themselves want to be, without the need for justification or apology to anyone, period.

So what are we waiting for?  Kill Switch Engage!  Let the planetary healing begin!

Viva La....Counterrevolution? Why "Reactionary Feminism" Is An Anachronistic Oxymoron That Will NOT Help Women

Some on the interwebs are recently claiming that a "sexual counterrevolution" is afoot, one that is ostensibly led by Women on both sides of the Atlantic (USA and UK) who are fed up with the sexual revolution as it were.  From Mary Harrington (who apparently coined the term, as well as the term "reactionary feminism" with which she herself identifies) to Louise Perry to Christine Emba to Katherine Dee to Evie Magazine to a few others, including some men as well, there does appear to be a trend back towards sex-negativity, or at least against the perceived excesses of sexual liberation.

The sexual revolution, like the industrial revolution, was a mixed bag overall.  Contrary to what some believe, it was neither an unalloyed good nor an unmitigated evil.  But overall, it was on balance a good thing I think.  Yes, even for Women too.  If anything, it is still unfinished to this day.  It is not a simple case of "men won and Women lost", just like the industrial revolution was not merely a simple case of "bourgeoisie (capitalist class) won and proletariat (working class) lost".  Sexual liberation does NOT need to be a zero-sum game at all.  Only the male-defined sexuality of patriarchy is truly a zero-sum game, which has existed long before the sexual revolution.  Female-defined sexuality is not.

As for the idea that there should be some sort of counterrevolution, as author Louise Perry advocates in The Case Against The Sexual Revolution, well, some good rebuttals from many different angles can be found here, here, and here.  Even Christine Emba's new book, Rethinking Sex: A Provocation (the thesis of which is neither  new nor particularly provocative) can be criticized here, here, and here as well.  These rebuttals for both, all written by Women, are far, far better than anything I could ever write.  And while these two authors occasionally make some decent points here and there, they are both quite heavy on problems and light on solutions.  Emba's solutions are far too vague and anodyne, while Perry's are far too retro (if not extremely non-starters as well), to even be considered solutions.  

But truly the only real solution is the one that these authors don't seem to consider:  MATRIARCHY.  It's like they are afraid to even utter the word, or something.  Not surprising, of course, given how utterly infantilizing and agency-denying some of their arguments are to Women in general.

It is true what they say that mere consent should be the floor, not the ceiling, of sexual ethics.  No argument from me there.  Even most sex-positive feminists would agree as well.  What Emba in particular calls "radical empathy" is also crucial, as well as respect, honesty, and basic human decency/dignity, of course.  But beyond that, their arguments really start to coast into confusion if not utter incoherence overall.  And the relatively short shrift they give to non-heterosexual folks (both Women and men), who they barely even acknowledge at all, also does the reader a serious disservice as well.

But back to Mary Harrington.  Her brand of "reactionary feminism" takes it a step further and apparently wants to roll back not only the sexual revolution, but also the industrial revolution as well, and possibly even the Enlightenment too.  The 1950s is apparently not traditional enough for her, as she quite literally seems to prefer....the 1450s.  (Riddle me this:  If that time period was so great, then why all the peasant revolts, in which revolutionary Women, eventually persecuted as "witches", played an outsized role?)  She is really quite the anti-modernist, it seems, and the title of her upcoming book, Feminism Against Progress, kinda says it all.  She comes dangerously close to sounding just like the Neoreactionary movement at times.  Oh, and she also denies that patriarchy ever even existed either.  Thus, her vague "solutions" would essentially preclude the only real solution of Matriarchy as well.  And yet she calls herself a feminist, go figure!

(To be fair, Harrington is not the first person to ever criticize the notion of "progress" either.  Christopher Ryan, co-author of Sex at Dawn, also wrote a sort-of sequel, Civilized to Death:  The Price of Progress, in which he also criticizes the unquestioned notion of progress, albeit from a different and clearly sex-positive angle, and with VERY different solutions compared to the reactionaries.  I triple-dog dare Harrington to debate him, lol.  But much like Lynn Saxon, author of an unconvincing rebuttal titled Sex at Dusk, she would probably just resort to cad-shaming and other ad hominem attacks.)

Oh, and finally, one of her most ridiculous articles ever is literally titled, "Middle Aged Women Don't Want Sex", and presumably that applies to Crones as well.  Somehow that sounds a bit like projection perhaps?  And besides, the legendary Guru Rasa Von Werder has clearly and famously debunked this utterly specious notion to be not only inaccurate, but almost a full 180 degrees wrong as well.

Thus, so-called reactionary feminism occupies that awkward space between where extreme sex-negative radical feminism and extreme sex-negative anti-feminism meet per Horseshoe Theory.  Much like how the far left and far right become dangerously close to each other as well.  It is essentially the worst of both extreme worlds, and its pied pipers should really be avoided like the plague and not discussed further.  Except insofar as sunlight is the best disinfectant, of course.

UPDATE:  Oh, and about those revolutionary Women of the 15th century, eventually persecuted as "witches", did you know that many of them believed in and practiced communal living and even (gasp) free love?  You know, the same things that are absolutely anathema to those self-proclaimed "reactionary feminists" discussed above?  According to the actual feminist Sylvia Federici, they apparently did.  So far from being the granddaughters of the "witches" they couldn't burn, today's reactionaries are more like the granddaughters, or at least ideological descendants, of the sellout Women who collaborated with the witch-hunters and threw their sisters under the bus.  That is true not just for these reactionaries, but also for all slut-shamers, SWERFs, forced-birthers, victim-blamers, and rape apologists as well--all of which being just a very short walk away from one another.

In fact, I decided to name this new-but-not-really-new virulent strain of reactionary pseudo-feminism "Serena Joy Syndrome", after the rather infamous character from Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale.  It fits perfectly. 

UPDATE 2:  New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg has a good response (if anodyne) to the sexual counterrevolutionaries.  Even if it is still not well-received by some of the counterrevolutionaries and reactionaries themselves, of course.

Patriarchy Has A Kill Switch, And We Already Know What It Is

Author Yuri Alexandrovich wrote a great article recently for Medium, in which he articulates something that we all intuitively know (but often don't want to say out loud) about the patriarchy and how to end it.  After first establishing that patriarchy is inherently evil (and thus cannot be redeemed), he then goes on about what holds it all together.  This thing that holds the entire construct all together is its sine qua non and thus is it's own Achilles' heel, and that thing is control of female sexuality, and the primary tool used to control that is slut-shaming.  That is, the shaming of Women for expressing their sexuality in the way they choose.  And thus the "kill switch" is to put an end to the practice of slut-shaming.

Wait, what?  There is still slut-shaming in 2020?  Absolutely.  It has diminished somewhat since the (largely male-defined) "sexual revolution" half a century ago, to be sure, but it is still there. The double standard still exists, and it has in fact become more of a double bind in which Women are expected to be "sexy" (as defined by males) but not sexual by their own definition.  And ending it is thus the unfinished business of both feminism and the real sexual revolution for Women.

(That's not the only double bind here, there is also the historical one in which Women are expected to both obey men as well as be the "gatekeepers" of sex, with no way to opt out of either contradictory requirement.)

As Yuri Alexandrovich himself says:

So here is our kill switch: we stop telling women when, where and with whom she is allowed to get involved romantically. Her body, her choice. And she is perfectly capable of making it a responsible choice, thank you very much.

And lest anyone misunderstand his words, read too much into it, or try to put words in his mouth:

NOTE: This is not to suggest that anyone should change their own behavior. We do whatever we are comfortable with. That, of course, includes staying monogamous, still a perfectly valid choice. But it can not be justified as a moral choice anymore -- rather, it is a personal preference.

Female sexuality (or more accurately, female-defined sexuality) is an extremely powerful force to be reckoned with, which is why the patriarchy has gone out of its way to suppress it (and/or supplant it with male-defined sexuality).  As I have noted before, the suppression of Women's sexuality was not entirely about maintaining control over the male bloodline (though that was originally a major part of it), but more generally about power and control over Women directly, as well as over other men indirectly via artificial scarcity.

In a similar vein, patriarchy's favorite brainchild, capitalism, needs scarcity (whether real or artificial) to function.  That is how the oligarchs control the serfs.  And the kill switch of capitalism is thus to give it the one thing it cannot surivive--abundance.  The analogy should be apparent now.

Ending slut-shaming will not end patriarchy overnight, of course, but is nonetheless necessary for it to end sooner rather than later.  And if we wait until we return to full-blown Matriarchy before liberating Women's sexuality, we will never be ready, as Women's sexual liberation is a key step on the path to Matriarchy.  That is, if we make the perfect the enemy of the good, we ultimately end up with neither.

One thing needs to be clear.  As hard as we fight for the right to say "yes" to sex, we must also fight twice as hard for the right to say "NO" as well.  The LAST thing we want is for sex of any kind to be perceived as mandatory, so enthusiastic and mutual consent must be a precondition for all sexual acts, period. And that is true for both Women and men, by the way.  Also, we must be careful not to fall in the trap of the "reverse double standard" that has become in vogue in some circles these days (Oprah and Dr. Phil, I'm looking at YOU!), in which men are the ones vilified for their sexuality while Women are ignored (if not celebrated) for doing the same exact things.  Doing so is a sure path to a sort of "reverse patriarchy", not the Matriarchy proper that we should be aiming for.  The same goes for a "reverse double bind" as well.

Put simply:  Women should have the absolute right to be as sexual--or not--as they themselves want to be, without the need for justification or apology to anyone, period.

So what are we waiting for?  Kill Switch Engage!  Let the planetary healing begin!

Why Sex Has To Be Expensive And Hard To Get (For Men, From Women) Under Patriarchy

(And how this ultimately serves and maintains the patriarchy)

One thing that not everybody fully appreciates is just how many levels and layers the patriarchy really has.  Like peeling an onion, when you dig in you just keep finding more and more layers.  And nothing about patriarchy has more levels and layers related to it than the topic of sexuality, which under patriarchy is quite a complex topic to say the least.

Patriarchy has had a very long history of repressing Women's sexuality.  And such sexual repression has been proven to do more harm than good, and essentially all of patriarchy's archaic and repressive rules about sex were designed to control Women. That was originally done so men could be at least somewhat certain of paternity, as descent was reckoned (and inheritances were passed) through the male bloodline, though with the advent of modern birth control and paternity testing such a reason has basically become obsolete.  Note the double standard of patriarchy in which Women are far more likely to be punished for sexual transgressions, and how men who sleep around are considered "studs" and "legends" while women who do so are considered "sluts" and "whores".  In contrast, Matriarchal societies have historically been far more sexually free in general, since knowledge of paternity was basically a non-issue as descent was reckoned through the female bloodline.

Additionally, patriarchy's rules against masturbation, homosexuality, and birth control are really a result of the fact that patriarchy is one big Ponzi scheme (and protection racket) that requires very high birth rates to keep it afloat.  Thus, anything that frustrates that goal is deemed sinful.  Patriarchy considers Women to be the brood mares, while men are the work horses.  And in today's overpopulated world, such rules are also obsolete as well.   In Matriarchal societies, on the other hand, overpopulation would never even have occurred in the first place as Women would have complete sexual and reproductive freedom, and thus not have pregnancies forced upon them by men.

But wait, that is only the very first layer of this massive onion.  Read on for more.

Of course, less often appreciated is how such outmoded rules also have the purpose and effect of indirectly controlling (non-alpha and non-elite) males as well, by keeping the "cost" of sex artificially and arbitrarily high as well.  But on balance, the effects are far worse for Women, making patriarchy a negative-sum game overall even if a few come out ahead.  This is basically the "commodity model" of sexuality, in which sex is something that men "take" from Women, as opposed to being a mutually beneficial and pleasurable act in itself.  And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how this model inevitably leads to rape culture.

So how does the commodity model ultimately benefit the patriarchy?   It keeps non-alpha, non-elite males subject to the oligarchs at the top by working harder and harder to get sex, basically.  And under patriarchy, that work is generally of the sort that serves to make the rich even richer, in the hopes of "earning" the "prize" of sex at the end of the rainbow.  And it also makes men that much more aggressive, which patriarchy loves.  But again, it is a massive Ponzi and pyramid scheme.  Meanwhile, Women end up enforcing their own oppression by slut-shaming each other to artificially prop up the "cost" of sex in the "sexual marketplace", which undermines any attempt at a sisterhood which would be the greatest bulwark against the patriarchy.  Divide and conquer, basically--both men against Women, and Women against Women.  And the oligarchs just sit back and laugh.

(See a pattern here?  This is the same sort of "artificial scarcity" that the patriarchy and oligarchy create with money, goods, and services in general.  To them, sex is just another commodity or currency with which to control the masses.)

Too many layers yet?  Well, we're still just barely scratching the surface here.  Additionally, Women in general can gain power and psychological influence over men via their sexuality, and patriarchy would logically do everything they can to keep this from happening.  Thus, Women's sexuality needs to be repressed even further.  This is particularly true when older Women date or hook up with younger men, which is of course extremely taboo under patriarchy for primarily that very reason.  A young man with an older Woman as a sort of "mentor with benefits" would seriously undermine the patriarchal agenda in so many ways.

The next layer is sexuality between Women themselves, i.e. lesbianism and bisexuality.  A majority of Women, if not nearly all of them, have some sort of capacity in this regard to one degree or another.  And as we see with the bonobos, what better way to encourage a strong sisterhood than through bonding sexually with one another?  Of course, patriarchy would HATE that!

Still another layer, and probably the most complex and puzzling at first glance, is patriarchy's perennial love-hate relationship with sex work (i.e. prostitution, pornography, stripping, and stuff like that).  On the one hand, patriarchs absolutely love to objectify and exploit Women sexually, both directly and in terms of profiting from it all, while on the other hand, they also fear the potential for Women gaining any sort of power through this avenue.  So they tolerate it, but only insofar as men can totally control the trade, not Women.  And they use the law as a cudgel in one way or another to do so.  For porn specifically, those who control the propaganda essentially control the agenda.  Additionally, this is also related to the patriarchy's love-hate relationship (you can see a pattern of ambivalence here) with nudity as well.  They make it naughty and illicit, and hypersexualize it, because otherwise people would be desensitized to it, and would probably be a lot saner too.  Can't have that, of course!

And still another layer to all of this is the fact that male-defined sexuality is the only kind of sexuality that patriarchy promotes, prioritizing male pleasure and conquest and rendering Female pleasure and well-being irrelevant.  It is essentially men using Women as masturbation machines, and plays right into the hands of the patriarchy.  Female-defined sexuality, the sort that prioritizes Female pleasure and perspective, of course, is what really throws a monkey wrench in the works of the patriarchy.  And patriarchy will be damned if they ever let men learn about that.

Thus, we see how keeping the "cost" of sex artificially high ultimately serves and maintains the patriarchy, regardless of whether some individual Women may benefit from it.  It's a Faustian bargain, and one that can never lead to a real Matriarchy in practice.  (If it could, it would have already.)

And when Women finally reclaim their rightful position as the new leaders of the free world, I believe that our society will become truly sexually free once again, albeit with some concessions to modern times of course.  In the meantime, we all need to stop slut-shaming Women yesterday.  A "sexual cartel" is no substitute for a genuine sisterhood.

Let the planetary healing begin!

2022 UPDATE:  Two new articles on PsyPost really seem to dovetail nicely with this thesis.