Sex is a social bargain, formed by Evolution. Men agree to behave in certain ways in order to have access to it. Women, who need fathers for their children, are prepared to give that access, as long as men behave in certain approved manners.
However, men’s need for sex is in their need to orgasm, as women have so often pointed out. If they can do that without women, then much of the need for dealing with them vanishes. This is because, while Evolution requires that we reproduce, for men, this is largely felt as a desire to have a lot of orgasms by penetration. Men do not have the visceral connection between the act of sex and the arrival of a baby that women do. For men, babies really could be delivered by the storks.
This unquestionably leads men to have a somewhat cavalier attitude towards sex — they’ll take it wherever they can get it — but it has also caused women to bolster the social bargain that keeps their behaviour moderate. Principally, this was through marriage, an arrangement whereby a woman only has sex with one man. In this way, he knows whom his own children are, something he otherwise could not. So the bargain becomes sexual exclusivity in exchange for heredity.
Men, typically, do not reach their ‘daddy panic moment’ until their mid to late thirties, at which time they are ready to settle with one woman and raise a family. In Greece, for example, men would typically marry around thirty-five and their wives would have been in their mid-teens. This was commonplace.
However, years of achieving sexual release in other ways– in Greece it would have been with younger males — may mean that such men cannot relate sexually to women, in order to become fathers, when the time comes for them to do so.
This was well documented in Sparta, where men were encouraged to take boys as lovers. They lived in communal barracks and one can only imaging the sexual shenanigans that were going on in these masculine pressure-cookers. The men only entered the city to perform their duty by impregnating their wives to make more babies — but this they were often incapable of doing, because they had been so conditioned to seek sexual reward with boys.
Release and Reward
All sexual reward has a conditioning element, for both men and women, though it seems less powerful for the latter. If men achieve sexual release in ways that do not involve women, and in addition, their pursuit of women becomes socially rejected, then they may well not pursue sex with women at all.
It is likely that, as they approach thirty-five, their natural biological clock will kick in, but with a history of not being able to pursue sex with women and adopting avoidant sexual practices, the chances of their success are reduced. Worse, perhaps, men might become disinterested and focus on life goals other than providing women with reliable fathers for their children.
In the medium term, this means the decline of the population, which, of course is exactly what we are seeing in the West, with reproduction rates at an all-time low and falling. This is catastrophic.
In the longer term, it becomes part of a selected-for genetic shift in which only the weaker, less powerful men will be allowed to reproduce, leading to a weaker society. This is a society vulnerable to being taken over by a more masculine one.
In the West, of course, this culture, waiting in the wings, is Islam. As long as Christendom was strong and assertive, masculine (relatively) and robust, it had nothing to fear from the cult of the moon god. But weakened and brought to its knees by feminism, it may fall victim.
The other possibility — one we have seen in Europe before — is the violent backlash.
The former Soviet States were under the heel of Marxism, which is closely related to radical feminism, for decades. Consider what happened in the former Yugoslavia when that nightmare was ended. The bloodshed. Think of Srebrenica.Do we want that again?
Women today may seriously desire to re-engineer society so that there are only 10% men and keep those in concentration camps, but that will not work. Who will be the armed guards ready to kill these men? All the men will already be inside. And if they do break out, then even 10% of angry men will totally destroy a society of women. Crush it absolutely. And backlash is where feminism is taking us.
Women today need to realise that feminism will lead to one of two ends: takeover by Islam, in which case all the freedoms that they have acquired will vanish, along with everything good that remains in Western society, or a violent, bloody backlash against their hegemony by angry, strong, armed men, who will go on a punishment spree that women could do nothing to prevent. The feminist Utopia, in which men are the docile, obedient poodles of women, will never happen.
Two sides of one coin
You think this is impossible? Although the truth is that matriarchy and patriarchy are two sides of the same social coin, in which society is divided into spaces where women have authority and spaces where men do, outside the home, the idea of a mythical, forgotten society in which women did rule over men has never quite died out.
This contemporary feminist matriarchy, in actuality a gynocracy for it has nothing to do with motherhood, of course, is entirely invented. It is the creature of a late 20th century perspective, just as the myth of patriarchy is, from the same standpoint. It was invented in the devious machinations feminist cult apologists like Gloria Steinem. It never existed in reality, and the reason is simple: men and women are different, innately, and there is only so much hectoring men will put up with, in order to get laid.
Society was always a bargain, one that balanced women’s spaces and authority and men’s. It is about the maintenance of discreet spheres of influence, something feminists are determined to destroy.
The role of women has always been to be mothers, with power over the home space, and men of warrior-protectors, with dominion over the Away space, the world of hunt, of warfare and of work, and of risk, pain and death. That is the bargain upon which human society is built.
It is only in the last hundred years, as women have sought to enter the Away space and so, since they innately think it terms of control, dominate it, that anyone thought twice about this.
On one hand, feminism acts to destroy any true matriarchy it encounters, by condemning, in the most insulting terms, any woman who admits that she would much rather stay at home with her kids than go out to work; and on the other hand it seeks to destroy all male spaces — ‘the patriarchy’ — by colonising them and forcing them to become feminised.