Introduction – The problem of Female Sexuality and Two Solutions
I am no evolutionary psychologist, however, what is being discussed here are the moral issues and the men’s rights issues obtaining from something that is patently the case – that the female desire for monogamy stems from conditions that obtained in our evolutionary past (that sex was likely to result in massive female investment consequences for the female, i.e. pregnancy and child rearing) that no longer obtain now (with easy access to effective contraception, safe and legal abortion, a welfare state, decline of value of ‘honour’ and ‘virgin status’ etc).
An evolutionary behaviour or predisposition is maladaptive if it has no benefit in the environment in which it is displayed. In other words, if a trait was useful 100,000 years ago in the environment in which it evolved in through natural selection, but no longer is in the modern environment, it is maladaptive. Strictly speaking, it is maladaptive if it no longer has survival benefits, but today we could more loosely describe any evolutionary trait which causes more harm than good (either for the person displaying it, or through its effect upon others) to be maladaptive.
Female sexuality is maladaptive. It lies at the heart of all our problems regarding the feminist assault upon male sexual freedoms, and the increasingly vicious efforts to deny the mass of men easy access to sex. Male Sexualists realize very well that sex is an essential resource needed by men in order to be happy, yet women guard this resource like a pussy cartel, because of ancestral environmental necessities regarding pregnancy, that no longer exist. Because female sexuality is maladaptive, selfish, illogical, and cannot lead to happiness in the modern world, the cult of feminism has arisen from the swirling maelstrom of the brood mare animal collective consciousness in order to bludgeon society into making it adaptive again. Real anti-feminists should strive to do the opposite. Whereas feminists seek to shape society through force to fit maladaptive cavewoman sexual needs, the goal of anti-feminists should be to use 21st century technology to shape women into adapting to the sexual realities and utopian opportunities of 21st century life. In such a world, both men and women would be much happier and sexually content. Men will soon have two options in order to shape women into sexually liberal horny sex goddesses, only too willing to share their sexual resources with us. This can be done through market incentives and technologies ranging from ‘female viagras’ to changing female sexual nature through gene editing (again, hopefully voluntarily through market incentives and pressures). The other option, less desirable, but inevitable if the first option fails, is for men to simply to bypass real women alltogether, and create their sex robot substitutes (or even create a new version of biological women ‘from scratch’ in the lab).
Sexual Utopia through the Changing of Female Sexual Pyschology
The first question we need to ask, is there something inherently wrong in the idea of a ‘maladaptive’ trait, and that the world, including those who posess the trait, might be better off if it were ‘fixed’?
Maladaptive traits can be both physical or psychological, and in fact are usually found in both forms together. For example, a common example of a physical maladaptive trait is the human bodies capacity to store excess glucose as fat. This was a good idea, or rather reproductively beneficial, for most of human history when sugary foods were hard to obtain. However, in today’s world, it simply leads to obesity. Would it be wrong to try to fix this maladaptive trait?
At some point in the future, we could either fix the physical aspect, so that consuming sugar does not raise insulin levels to the point where we quickly become fat, or we could eliminate the psychological craving for sugary foods. Both would involve manipulating our genetic makeup.
I would suggest that most of society would not have a problem with at least giving some people (for example overweight people) the means to improve their physical health, either through changing the way their bodies store fat, or even by altering their very psychologies in order to no longer crave sweet foods.
The only moral issue should involve which route to take, and this should depend only on which would have a happier and more valuable outcome. If both options were available, should we take the physical or psychological route? The answer should be clear. Eating sweet foods is delicious. It’s a good thing in itself, that most people enjoy and value. If we could desire and consume sweet foods with no bad consequences, then eating sweet things becomes unproblematically a good thing.
The central dilemma in the never ending sex war between men and women, is the conflict of interest in male and female reproductive strategies. To put it very simply, men can profitably pursue a low investment strategy (i.e. fuck as many women as possible), whereas women are constrained by their biology (9 months pregnant, physically weaker) into pursuing a high investment strategy (mate with one man and secure him as protection for the length of pregnancy and until the child can fend for him or herself).
However, the world has moved on. The conditions that applied for early all of our evolutionary history are suddenly no longer there. Thanks to a welfare state she no longer has to be dependent on the protection of a man (the same man who feels a genetic tie to her child). Thanks to access to safe and legal abortion she is no longer even required to invest in the child of a man she regrets mating with. Thanks to easy and ubiquitous access to contraception, she no longer even has to produce a baby after sex. In fact, thanks to the decline of traditional moral values, the ‘slut walk’ society, and the near complete collapse of value in ‘virginity’ or ‘female sexual honour’, it is fair to say that sex has been completely divorced from reproduction.
There is absolutely no longer any reason for female psychological desire for sexual monogomy, or for the related ‘choosiness’ regarding a sexual partner.
Furthermore, the fact that these female psychological factors persist in a free sexual market is largely the reason for the false rape epedemic, as well as contributing to the the pressure for a high age of consent together with draconian laws on child porn, where ‘looking’ at pictures is treated sometimes even worse than actual sex.
Persisting in wishing to preserve a psychological feature that results in so much harm, and which arose in environmentally conditions that are irrelevant today, is not only irrational, but it seems to me downright evil.
That these psychological flaws result in harm for men is obvious, and as this is a men’s rights site, I make no apologies for addressing the issue from this perspective. But do these maladaptive psychological factors limit and harm women as well?
The answer is yes and no, but in the near future, the answer will be less ambigous. It will be a resounding yes.
Feeling ‘slutty’ after having casual sex, makes no sense in terms of the things that I have mentioned above,for example in the thought that you have been impregnated and that much of your future life has been determined by the preceeding sexual act which you gave in ‘too easily’ to. This is completely irrational in the 21st century. However, the feelings persist in the maladaptive female mind, and in a way it does serve a purpose.
And this is to rationalise the paeolithic female mating strategy which still has value for aging women (just as many beta male conservatives claim that traditional monogomy is good for them and the only way they could hope to obtain sex).
In the 21st century secular free sexual market, left to their own devices, men would seek out attractive teenage girls or women in their very early twenties. Although attractive teenage girls make up a small percentage of the female population in western societies today, if teenage girls were able and willing to pursue a strategy of casual sex with numerous partners, then there would probably be ‘more than enough to go around’.
I admit that I am making an assumption that most men would be happy with having sex with a dozen or so extremely attractive young girls each year, more happy than being ‘monogamous’ with an ordinary looking woman.
However two limiting factors prevent this, both originating from the selfish sexual needs of older females (who include women even in their mid-twenties, or even less attractive teenage girls) – paedohysteria/inflation of age of consent laws, and female on female slut shaming and promotion of female sexual monogomy as a value.
Thus it is still rational for women to promote female mogogamay as an end in itself, and to increasingly oppose casual sex on moral grounds as she gets older and her sexual market value plummets. Together with the very real maladaptive hardwired feelings of being ‘abused’ and of being a ‘slut’ she may feel after regretted casual sex, and the outcome is certainly an unhappy one for thousands or even millions of men. At least the woman can translate those maladaptive feelings into a rationalisation of an ethical sexual code she will still benefit from, the more so as she ages and loses her attractiveness.
But what happens when aging is conquered, and aging even reversed, as is likely to happen at some point this century if not our own lifetimes, so that a female’s SMV no longer declines as she ages, and that therefore the last remaining ‘reason’ to ‘keep’ hold of one man in a free sexual market vanishes?
In such a world, there will be absolutely no further reason for the female desire for monogomy or sexual choosiness. Desiring to keep a man for life, maintaining exclusive sexual rights over him will make no more sense than the selfish desire to have one friend only for life.
Sex is a good, the denial of sexual happiness is bad. Maladaptive traits that cause such unhappiness and suffering for everybody ought to be removed. This is a true and radical manifesto for the sexual rights of both men and women.