Vive La Difference! : planet

Patriarchy Has a Kill Switch Part III – “The Body Count”

By Ajax the Great (Pete Jackson)

(Originally posted on the Vive La Difference! blog)

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.

{Rasa says: All that Pete Jackson writes is excellent & this is one of my favorite series of his He’s a genius.}

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.

{Very good. In the New Religion & Order we will stress the importance of this. As far as ourselves it is our business, no one else’s, what we choose to do with our bodies short of any kind of abuse. No one need interfere with our choices or activities. Looking backward we will state concerning great Saints & Avatars like Jesus & Mary – their sex lives, if any were irrelevant. If Mary had sex with Joseph after Jesus {although Jesus was parthenogenesis} & bore other children it does not in any way diminish her status or Holiness. If Jesus was married to St. Mary Magdalene or blessed other women with children, it does not diminish His Greatness or Holiness. Sexual activity is by no means dirty or sinful unless it is abusive & one can easily be Saintly & have a sex life at the same time.}

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.

{Rasa says: People in general are still afraid to state how man sexual partners they have had, as if it’s some sort of disease to have many & of course this curse falls on women much more. Men consider it ‘notches on their belt’ {when they don’t tell it’s because they want the next woman they pursue to think she’s special, - until they get to her, then it doesn’t matter}, but women sink lower & lower into mental gutters the more partners they have. That is why I brag about my cougar conquest far & wide, to soften & destigmatise this issue for women. Get used to it – we will have more & more partners in the future & no one will have anything to say when we are in control of society.}

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.

{Rasa says: Oh what nonsense men have spewed & continue to do so. Remember foot binding? How about women cannot go out without their heads covered, or even their arms covered until past the Edwardian Era. And women had to wear dresses until 1930 or so. All those old standards have gone out the window as ridiculous & these other studies by men will also be trashed.}

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 phenomena, 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!)

{Rasa says: I urge people to look up Dr. James W. Prescott & his Origins of Violence on the internet. He is another world to behold, a brilliant perspective from factual research.}

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.

{Rasa says: Let’s face it, Patriarchy doing most of the studies & observations will disregard their own abuses & concentrate on putting taboos on women, for any reasons whatsoever, however illogical they may be. There are few studies on how male abuse has affected people’s future lives. Few studies on what Dr. Prescott teaches: the pandemic of ATTACHMENT DISORDER, the disorder coming from LACK OF MOTHERHOOD – Motherhood being the nurturing, unconditional love women give. Why not much study of that? Almost everyone in our Patriarchal society has some form of attachment disorder because this kind of Love / nurturing is taken from us by Patriarchs.}

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).

{Rasa says: I look forward to the day, for women, when they control the family & the world. Men will be for the most part interchangeable. They can have sex with as many women as they want – women will not keep them chained to houses, cooking, cleaning, waiting for wifey to come home. They can be out doing hard work {put their size & mucles to good use} but not making decisions that affect humanity – political decisions, human rights decisions education & welfare decisions – the judicial justice system will be taken over by women – ending the laws & culture against them. Men can make decisions on their own businesses like let’s say construction, delivery systems, sanitation, restaurant chains. But if any of their businesses impact the ecology, land management & water, animal rights – all that will be overseen by women. They cannot log all the timber off a mountain or cut down the entire forest – women will allow only some of the timber to be taken, parts of old growth must always remain. Ditto women will supervise mining & minerals to make sure the land & water are not polluted. Women will also manage any type of nuclear plants – if any remain a thousand years from now. And religion – oh the importance of that - St. Paul & his nonsense will be illegal, lol. All the big religions wil be Priestesses, ministers, deacons, the entire nut will be cracked by women - & children, both male & female, can tend the altars but the message will be 180 degrees turned. {The male religions will shrink down to cults & the mainstream will laugh at the dodos who follow them.}

Men can do what they like as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone – women will supervise that. Women will control most of the money. Men have gotten rich by robbing women with discrimination & unjust laws. It won’t be illegal for men to be rich, but it will be far more difficult for them to get that way when new laws are enforced & all the rights for women are in place.

As far as families the paternity will not be crucial. If you want to know who Dad is, fine. If you don’t know doesn’t matter. The family money in most cases will be held by Mom – your future depends on her. Let him be a spare tire if he’s around.

Pete here mentions sexual coercion & crimes. This will diminish to almost nothing when women are in charge. Not zero – but 99% gone; women are not predators like men with their sacks of billions of sperms & the lack of ability to control their impulses. And men will have noting to do with children – will not be permitted alone with them, always under supervision or in groups where women are present. That’s a keystone of matriarchy – similar to the Bonobos where women are in groups, not facing one man in a nuclear family who will browbeat her, intimidate & exploit. No more free ride for men where they get to use up all the energy of women with drudgery – child care & house chores - while they fly high with their harems of secretaries, dental ‘assistants’, office back room shags, pole dancers & etc. The adult trade will change from women being featured to men. Women from offices going in groups or alone, having fun choosing which toy boys they want to have sex with. It won’t be sneaky or evil, doing it behind the back of the spouse because the marriage system will be different – monogamy will not be expected or enforced. Women will be FREE.}

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!