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!

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.

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.

There Is No "Back Door" To Matriarchy

Those who are familiar with The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood would recall that it depicts the fictional Republic of Gilead as a misogynistic and theocratic dystopia, not a utopia.  And in it, Women were often their own worst enemies in that they enforced such repression and oppresion on other Women.  That was primarily the role of the group of Women known as the Aunts, led by Serena Joy (who was loosely based on Phyllis Schlafly, Mary Pride, and most likely a bit of Tammy Faye Bakker thrown in for good measure).  They apparently wanted to create a Matriarchal society through a sort of back door, by controlling Women in order to indirectly control men (by keeping the "cost" of sex artificially and arbitrarily high), and that of course backfired mightily on Women collectively as a class (even if a few individuals like Serena initially benefited at their expense).

The Handmaid's Tale is a work of fiction, of course, but the real-life wannabe Serena Joys do exist nonetheless, in that awkward space between the far left and far right, between fascism and communism, between extreme radical feminism and the Religious Right, and thus between extreme patriarchy and reverse patriarchy that is the hallmark of Horseshoe Theory (where ideological extremes are fat more alike than they are different).  Phyllis Schlafly and Mary Pride were infamous historical examples, but there are plenty of others as well such as Beverly LaHaye and her followers.

So what does this strategy supposedly look like?  It is NOT limited to just banning porn and prostitution, as that is just the start.  It also involves banning or severely restricting birth control, abortion, homosexuality, and Women's sexuality in general, particularly that of younger Women (but ultimately all Women).  The control of Women's sexuality and reproduction is crucial to their agenda, and they basically seek to restore rigid, "traditional" gender roles in which Women are mere brood mares and men are the work horses, but of course only when it's convenient for the powers that be.  In other words, it is basically the same old-school patriarchy with some Women taking the place of the men in charge, albeit behind the scenes.  No one is really free when others are oppressed.  Thus, is it really any wonder that this strategy has NEVER brought about any sort of actual Matriarchy in practice?

Clearly the back door does NOT work.  Thus, Women need to charge through the front door instead.  Yesterday.

So let this be a warning, NOT a newspaper!  The master's tools will NOT dismantle the master's house, and you really can't stop coercion by coercing.  Liberty is NOT a zero-sum game at all.  In fact, liberty is like love:  the more you give, the more you get.  So what are we waiting for?

Let the planetary healing begin!

What "Liberated" Gets Right--And Wrong At The Same Time

The new documentary, Liberated: The New Sexual Revolution, is a textbook example of how one can be both very right and still very wrong at the same time, to the point where the latter utterly vitiates the former.  The film, produced by the Christian anti-trafficking group Exodus Cry teaming up with Netflix, is a profoundly disturbing look at the intersection between "hookup culture", rape culture, and pop culture among young Millennials, particularly college students.

First, let's discuss the things they get right.  There should be no doubt amymore that rape culture exists, and not only among college students or young people either.  So much of it is exposed on display in this film, in ways that are both shocking and banal at the same time.  And it is very pervasive indeed, infecting the general culture as well, while fueling and being fueled by pop culture in the process.  That much is certainly true, no argument from me there.

That said, the film (and its commentaries) really starts to coast--scratch that, takes a nosedive--when the filmmakers' apparently conservative Christian and neo-Victorian biases rear their ugly heads in the following ways:

• This cherry-picked sample of a few groups of Spring Breakers in a rather notorious location is hardly a representative sample of an entire generation or culture.
• It is questionable whether "hookup culture" even exists, since Millennials are actually having LESS sex with fewer partners than the most recent previous generations (Baby Boomers and Gen X).  That is true for both students and non-students as well.
• The idea that casual sex of any kind somehow must be inherently objectifying, exploitative, and otherwise linked to rape culture is fallacious, says a lot about the people saying it, and only goes to show that when one looks upon sexuality with evil eyes, that can artificially turn it into something evil.  (This creates a self-fulfilling prophecy by then blatantly misunderstanding and misusing sexual energy as a result of such beliefs.)
• The concept of consent is unfortunately effectively relegated to secondary at best in this film, which is both agency-denying and victim-blaming at the same time in its zeal to conflate rape culture with "hookup culture".  Thus, it ends up being demeaning and infantilizing to Women as a result.
• If you torture the data enough, they will confess to anything.  Especially when all you have is anecdotal evidence.  The plural of "anecdote" is NOT "data".
• And finally, the idea that "hookup culture" somehow acts as a "gateway" to human trafficking is really, really reaching here, and reeks of a desperate attempt by Exodus Cry to link two unrelated agendas.  Nevermind that during the actual Victorian era proper, human trafficking was rife despite (or perhaps because of) the priggish sexual mores then.

Of course, the biggest flaw of all is the most glaring omission:  PATRIARCHY.  That evil system is the real root of rape culture, human trafficking, and so many other social ills for thousands of years, yet the makers of this film seem to ignore its overarching role.  Perhaps that is because they are steeped in, I dunno, a patriarchal religion?

What really exists within patriarchy--which still exists by the way--is not really a "hookup culture", but rather a persistent culture of negativity around sex and relationships generally, as Amanda Hess notes.  And neither abstinence nor the protection racket of patriarchy is the solution.  The only real solution here is respect.  And the only solution to rape culture is the eradication of patriarchy, period.

For a better documentary about rape culture itself, I would recommend The Hunting Ground instead.  Don't waste your time with this film though.

Why (Sexual) Capitalism Must Die, and How to Humanely Euthanize it

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.  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 a something of value 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 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 Maragaret 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.  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! 

"No Nation Is Lecherous, Where Sex Is Abundant"

Thomas Jefferson once famously said, "No nation is drunken where wine is cheap".  That quote is often misinterpreted rather literally, as a call for very low or no taxes on alcoholic beverages in general.  And such contextomy also ignores the very next clause of the same sentence in which it is uttered: "...and none sober where the dearness of wine substitutes ardent spirits [i.e. hard liquor] as the common beverage."  Yes, wine was actually more expensive than whiskey in early 19th century America.  Of course, we know now that alcohol is alcohol is alcohol, period, and that reams upon reams of research evidence have proven time and again that, all else being equal, higher alcohol prices (regardless of beverage type) generally lead to fewer alcohol-related deaths, injuires, diseases, crimes, and problems in general, along with less overall consumption of such beverages.  So much so that the new saying nowadays is, "Alcohol is no ordinary commodity".

But what about the "cost" of sex?  Fraught as that issue clearly is, many armchair pundits have indeed attempted to answer that question.  Indeed, one of my previous articles, "What Is the Ideal Sex Ratio", attempted to answer that very question.  As we know, all else being equal, the relative "cost" of sex (from the perspective of men) is inversely proportional to the relative abundance of Women in a given population, due to the laws of supply and demand.  Such an idea formed the basis of the book "Date-onomics" by Jon Birger.  And many research papers have also been written about the various pros and cons of high and low sex ratios, many of which can be browsed from the links on my previous article from several months ago.

My general thesis is that a low sex ratio (i.e. a high number of Women relative to men) is overall the most mutually beneficial for everyone on balance.  And I also tend to argue against any sort of artificial scarcity of sexuality (with the notable exception of a Lysistrata-style sex strike, which is a short-term tactic, not a long-term strategy).  We all saw what happened in the Victorian era, after all.  An entire social movement was spearheaded to make sex as "costly" as possible for both men and Women in spite of there being a surplus of Women.  The result?  Prostitution and human trafficking, including of children, exploded--to the point where a whopping one in twenty Women was involved in prostitution at any given time back then (versus less than one in 300 today).  And the notoriously lecherous Ancient Romans had quite a relative scarcity of Women, need I say more?

That would seem to be saying, "No nation is lecherous, where sex is cheap" (or rather  "abundant", since "cheap" can have a pejorative connotation especially in reference to sex) idea whose sentiment apparently underlies the recent iconoclastic book "Sex at Dawn" by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha.  And the books detractors will predictably, well, detract.  But there is a major nuance that unfortunately gets glossed over by both sides of the debate.  That is, the fundamental difference between male-defined sexuality versus female-defined sexuality is all too often overlooked.

Under patriarchy, male-defined sexuality is the gold standard of sexuality, to the point where most men and even most Women are unaware that there is any alternative.  Most sex, both commercial and non-commercial, follows this paradigm, often unconsciously, to the point where it is downright banal.  Even when completely consensual, the taint of this paradigm is very difficult to remove.  And in an obliquely similar fashion to Jefferson's quote, regardless of the overall "cost" of sex in general, patriarchy has managed to make female-defined sexuality that much more costly (and rare) relative to male-defined sexuality.  And artificial scarcity has a flip side of artificial abundance, a kind that conveniently benefits men at the expense of Women.  From slut-shaming to the virgin-whore dichotomy to sexual violence to victim-blaming to double standards, this evil system has essentially left us all with the worst of all worlds.  A truly negative-sum game.

When Women are truly liberated, both sexually and otherwise, female-defined sexuality will be the norm (and thus abundant), while male-defined sexuality will in turn become scarce (as few Women would want to participate).  And the best thing about it is that the whole toxic and outmoded "commodity model" of sexuality--in which sex is seen as something that men "take" from Women and for which Women must be "gatekeepers" lest their value as human beings be diminished--will be jettisoned under a feminine paradigm of sexuality.  And that is really the only way to resolve the inherent contradictions of Date-onomics.

Thus, one can paraphrase Jefferson yet again as such, and make the case that female-defined sexuality is, in truth, the only antidote to the bane of male-defined sexuality.   So what does female-defined sexuality actually look like in practice?  As a man, I obviously cannot define it--but I know it when I see it.  Let the planetary healing begin!

UPDATE:  I see that the notoriously controversial (and previously debunked) social conservative culture-warrior, Mark Regnerus, is at it yet again with a brand new book, literally titled "Cheap Sex", which is basically Date-onomics on steroids and laced with a certain misogyny that he barely even tries to disguise with what amounts to patronizing and paternalistic "concern" trolling in book form.   And his specious thesis can be readily demolished, as it is in this article by William K. Black.  Jennifer Wright also does a good takedown of Regnerus' thesis from a different angle as well.  Interestingly, even some conservatives also disagree with him.

What the "Nordic Model" Gets Wrong

There has been a lot of controversy lately about the so-called "Nordic Model" of in terms of sex work.  For those who don't know, the Nordic Model refers to the policy in Sweden, Norway, and Iceland (and now Canada and France as well) of decriminalizing the sex workers themselves but criminalizing the buyers.  Having been on the proverbial back-burner for years, the issue has recently been the subject of much political discourse after Amnesty International controversially came out in favor of full decriminalization (for both buyers and sellers) of sex work in 2015.  Two recent op-eds, both of which in favor of the Nordic Model (and thus against Amnesty's new stance), have been written about the policy, one by former President Jimmy Carter and one by author and prostitution survivor Rachel Moran.  And truth be told, both authors make some very good and insightful points that are very difficult to dismiss or ignore outright, especially when looking at international and before-and-after comparisons under various policy changes.

While the Nordic Model is clearly a step-up from the worst-of-both-worlds American Model (i.e. criminalize everyone involved, often going easier on the buyers than the sex workers themselves), one should note that it still leaves an awful lot to be desired.  While it gets some things right, it also gets some things wrong--the biggie being something that practically all sides of the debate also get wrong.  And no, it's not just that it's supposed success has been recently called into question--though that is also true.  Nor is it the idea that it is relatively agency-denying to Women--though that is also true.  Nor is it the idea that the Nordic Model can sometimes hurt those it is supposed to help--though that is also true. Nope, it's something far more fundamental about the nature of sex and sex work--so what is it?

Basically, there is a set of fundamental truths that have always existed and always will:  1) As Guru Rasa von Werder has repeatedly noted, prostitution is but one of many forms of "selling sex"--in fact, the most common form generally goes by the name of "marriage", 2) Sex work has existed even when Women used to rule the world, and will continue after Women reclaim their rightful position as the new leaders of the free world once again, 3) When Women are in charge of the profession, it becomes radically different than it is with men in charge, 4) Beggar-thy-neighbour policies to artificially inflate the relative "cost" of sex for men are notorious for backfiring, 5) There has never been a society in which Women had sexual freedom but men did not.  The reverse has been true, of course, and there have been many societies where both or neither were sexually free, but trying to do the former would not last long since a black market for sex (paid or otherwise) would quickly develop.  That's the grain of truth to the otherwise-bogus "race to the bottom" argument, and 6) Punishing anyone for sex between consenting adults, paid or otherwise, is really a backwards and illiberal idea when you think about it.

True, the sex industry is notorious for great evils, especially human trafficking.  No argument from me there.  But we need to get to the root causes of such evils--and those root causes are (surprise, surprise) capitalism and patriarchy.  From the desperation that Women and children are driven to as a result of such systems, to the fact that men dominate the industry (and world), these are the real issues, and the evils of the industry are simply symptoms of such wholesale and systemic evil.

I personally believe that consenting-adult sex work should be completely decriminalized if not legalized, provided that only Women control it.  Men have utterly ruined the "oldest profession" when they took it over.  Otherwise, contrary to those who oppose it, sex work is not inherently evil or toxic to society.  In fact, it can be quite healing and beneficial to society.  So let the planetary healing begin!

The Power of Sisterhood

While our chimpanzee cousins have been well-known to us modern humans since practically forever, there is also another closely-related species that many people have probably never even heard of:  bonobos.  These apes, who are genetically just as close to us as chimps are, have only been discovered fairly recently.  And to those who know about them, they are famous for two things:  female dominance and free love.

You read that right.  Bonobos, unlike chimps, are female-dominated, and the differences between them and chimps (which are male-dominated) are like day and night.  While chimps are quite violent, aggressive, and hierarchical, bonobos are peaceful, loving, and at least relatively egalitarian.  Bonobos take the phrase "make love, not war" literally, even going so far as to use sex to resolve conflicts.  Female-female sex is particularly common, leading to greater bonding between females apparently. And to the extent that bonobos even have hierarchies, females are clearly in charge, and the older they get, the more powerful they are.  It is very likely that humans started out much more like bonobos than chimps in that regard, and remained as such for the first million or so years of our existence.  But after men took over about 7000 years ago, they started to behave like WORSE than chimps, and as they say the rest is history.  Until Women reclaim their rightful place as the new leaders of the free world, that is.

(Read Sex at Dawn by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha for more on how early and modern humans have evolved in that regard.)

So how do the female bonobos manage to keep the rogue males at bay despite the fact that the males tend to be bigger and stronger?  (Yes, even bonobos have a few rogue males here and there.)  Well, the answer is rather simple:  the females form coalitions with each other against any males that dare to harass or act aggressively towards them, and they win through strength in numbers.  It's the power of sisterhood, essentially, and it occurs even among unrelated females as well.

Now contrast that to how humans have historically lived under patriarchy.  One thing that the patriarchy has been very, very successful at is turning Women against each other, effectively breaking up any potential sisterhood.  Divide-and-conquer, basically. We saw that during the Burning Times (aka the Women's Holocaust), which was primarily waged by men against Women but also had plenty of Women pointing the finger at each other.  Legend has it that it got so bad that King James of England even had to call a brief moratorium on the "witch trials" due to so many Women attempting to settle personal scores with one another.  And by that point (the 17th century), the sisterhood had basically been destroyed.  Keep in mind that this was all by design, as the real reason why the Burning Times happened was to prevent Women from taking over again.  In the centuries leading up to it, Women were gradually gaining more and more power, and what started as what the history books call the "Peasant Revolts" was actually a long revolution by Women against the patriarchy.  Thus, the Burning Times was basically a counterrevolution in that regard.

Even today, the result of patriarchal brainwashing of Women is still evident, albeit to a somewhat lesser extent. We see it when some Women still think it is okay to slut-shame, body-shame, mom-shame, and/or childfree-shame other Women.  We see it in the perennial "mommy wars" of various sorts on the interwebs and IRL as well.  We see it when some Women think it is okay to pull each other under just to save themselves.  We see it in various forms of "patriarchal bargaining" and "beggar-thy-neighbour" policies.  And while individual Women may indeed benefit from it all, Women as a group end up worse off as a result.

In keeping with the overall theme of this article, I would say that slut-shaming and erotophobia in general deserve special consideration in terms of divide-and-conquer.  This erotophobia is basically internalized patriarchy and self-hating misogyny (especially on the right), as well as (especially on the left) a fear that sexual freedom will lead to a "race to the bottom" for Women much like so-called "free trade" and "free enterprise" does for the broader working class. The former can be debunked as effed up on its face, while the latter can be debunked by noting that while men are naturally hard-wired to worship Women, employers are not naturally hard-wired to worship their employees (would that it were true!), so that analogy can only go so far in practice.  Furthermore, the interests of capital and labor have always been opposed and always will be (unless capital and labor become one and the same), while the interests of men and Women are not inherently opposed (and did not become opposed until the advent of patriarchy).  We should in fact be natural allies, but we fellas messed that up big time, and as they say the rest is history.  And regardless, since the so-called "sexual revolution" of the 1960s-1970s, as much of a mixed bag as it were, Women have gained more far more power (relative to men) than they lost as a result of increased sexual freedom overall.   

And again, we come back to bonobos once more, from whom we can learn a great deal.  Clearly for them, far from it diminishing female power in a "race to the bottom", sexual freedom actually seems to enhance it.   That makes sense, because any attempt to quash sexual freedom by acting as the veritable OPEC of sex in a (generally futile) attempt to control males would act at cross-purposes with the goal of sisterhood in the long run.  That's not to say that Pat Ravasio's (from Buckyworld) idea of going a global sex strike would be fruitless in the goal of overthrowing the patriarchy.  It would most likely have at least some positive effect even with less than 100% participation.  But that is clearly a short-term solution for taking power, not a long-term solution for maintaining power.  Just like how the working class can't remain on strike forever--eventually the workers have to win and fundamentally change the system so future strikes are unnecessary.

Clearly, the sisterhood needs to be revived if Women are to successfully take over, Goddess willing.

In Defense of Sexual Freedom

One issue that has long divided humanity since time immemorial--or more accurately, since the advent of patriarchy about 7000 years ago--has been sexuality in general, especially as regards to Women's sexual freedom or lack thereof.  While patriarchy's rather peculiar restrictions were primarily if not entirely designed by men to control Women, even many self-proclaimed feminists have also had their reservations about removing them.  In the 1970s and 1980s, the "Feminist Sex Wars" were a classic example of such division.  And to this day, there is still much controversy about just how sex-positive feminism ought to be.

Like most of us in the Matriarchy movement, I believe in a sexually free society overall as far as consenting adults of all ages are concerned, regardless of gender or sexual orientation.  Sexual repression has been proven to do more harm than good on balance, 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.  And when Women finally reclaim their rightful position as the new leaders of the free world, I believe that our society will become 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.

Unfortunately, though, the biggest slut-shamers these days tend to be female, and these prudish modern-day Pharisees come in all ages, generations, and all political leanings ranging from reich-wing fundies to sex-negative radfems. This erotophobia is basically internalized patriarchy and self-hating misogyny (especially on the right), as well as (especially on the left) a fear that sexual freedom will lead to a "race to the bottom" for Women much like so-called "free trade" and "free enterprise" does for the broader working class. The former can be debunked as effed up on its face, while the latter can be debunked by noting that while men are naturally hard-wired to worship Women, employers are not naturally hard-wired to worship their employees (would that it were true!), so that analogy can only go so far in practice.  Furthermore, the interests of capital and labor have always been opposed and always will be (unless capital and labor become one and the same), while the interests of men and Women are not inherently opposed (and did not become opposed until the advent of patriarchy).   We should in fact be natural allies, but we fellas messed that up big time, and as they say the rest is history.  And regardless, since the so-called "sexual revolution" of the 1960s-1970s, as much of a mixed bag as it were, Women have gained more far more power (relative to men) than they lost as a result of increased sexual freedom overall.  

Additionally, patriarchy's repressive 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 (except for the ruling 1%, of course, who reaps all the benefits).  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 had pregnancies forced upon them by men.  Let that sink in for a moment.

I personally believe that there are two important rules for ethical sexual behavior in general.  The first one is enthusiastic consent (not mere grudging or reluctant "consent") for all parties involved, period.  Otherwise there is a name for it, and it is called RAPE.  The second one is, "whoever has the yoni makes the rules", as the primary goal for the man should be to please the woman rather than merely pleasing himself.  And aside from general ethical principles such as "do not harm others" that also are true for non-sexual matters, those are basically the only rules for sex that we really need, that we may all enjoy mutual benefit and protection.

Speaking of protection, it should also go without saying that in 2016, condoms should generally be considered SOP (standard operating procedure) by default.   The world is on fire, both in terms of the dire consequences of overpopulation as well as some people's STDs these days.  But the point cannot be stressed enough.

For an excellent website for the fellas about sexuality, please check out Guru Rasa von Werder's site "Embodiment of God".  Food for thought indeed.  As Guru Rasa notes, sex is sacred, not sinful.  It's time we started treating it accordingly.