I am on Patreon!

I have extended my social media presence to Patreon. You can give me the equivalent of different beverages per month, and I will continue to understand how good sex and happy non-monogamous relationship(s) work, and provide tools to achieve lasting happiness in your sex life, non-monogamous relationship, or non-monogamous marriage.

  • Juice Patron: 3 € / month
  • Coffee Patron: 9 € / month
  • Apéro Patron: 19 € / month
  • Honey Wine Patron: 49 € / month
  • Champagne Patron: 99 € / month
  • Château Lafite 1787 Patron: 999 € / month
Sacribas Blog auf Patreon

Let’s drink to the end of patriarchy!

New articles

The following list comprises the articles I have posted this year, so far. I have either written new articles, translated some that I wrote earlier in German, or updated older articles with new information and understanding:

Added: A fascinating TED Talk by the couples therapist Esther Perel on secret affairs, where she discusses why people in a closed relationship pursue secret sexual activities, and how affected couples have a chance to reunite after an uncovered affair.

Explained: More examples to explain the dynamics within a polycule that contains a secondary relationship.

Added: Many personal experiences to explain my conclusions from 2016, when I left the poly community. A reaction to the personal stories of the former poly activist Inês Rôlo and the separation of Franklin Veaux and Eve Rickert, the authors of the “poly bible” More Than Two, which seem to confirm many of my observations.

10.000 visitors!

Something’s happened…

My visitor’s counter went to a five-digit number for the first time! Thanks to my first 10.000 visitors and readers. I’m looking forward to your feedback, recommendation or citations (source included).

If you are on Facebook at least once in a while, and you would like to support me, please like my page!

On August 1st, 2017 I switched to a new counter. That’s why the numbers started at 1 again.

Greetings, sacriba

What is the patriarchy?

As already said, I claim that the biggest problem of social interactions of Eurocentric/Western society – including most of its alternative subcultures – is the confusion of sex and love. I have also already described how this confusion can be resolved in practise by a precise use of differentiating language. Next I will look at the system which intentionally maintains, promotes and uses this confusion: the patriarchy.

Patriarchy is defined in Wikipedia as follows:

“Patriarchy is a social system in which males hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege, and control of property. In the domain of the family, fathers (or father figures) hold authority over the women and children. Some patriarchal societies are also patrilinear, meaning that property and title are inherited by the male lineage and descent is reckoned exclusively through the male line, sometimes to the point where significantly more distant male relatives take precedence over female relatives.”

I complement this definition with a bit of background information: The social roles of “woman” and “man” are instilled into all individuals who grow up in patriarchal societies from birth. Every role contains certain behavioural patterns concerning gender identity and sexual attraction. As children learn mainly by example and imitation, not only of their parents, but the entire environment of a child (relatives, neighbours, education system, the economy, advertisements of all kinds, consumer behaviour, popular culture, media, etc.) influences their social role. The behavioural patterns learnt emerge when their sexuality awakens – and unconsciously influence the thoughts, attitudes and activities of all adult individuals.

It is common that the respective social roles are confused with biological sexes – the claim is that there are not two social roles, but rather two absolute genders – woman and man. This way of thinking is a patriarchal construct called the gender binary which erases other genders, such as intersex people. In reality, the two social roles are not a biological or genetic constant, but only a set of behaviours which is forced onto the specific sexes by education:

  • Individuals with a vulva are raised in the social role “woman”: It’s a girl!
  • and individuals with a penis are raised in the social role “man”: It’s a boy!

This is why the majority of adults with a vulva will take the social role “woman” while most of the adults with a penis will act on the social role “man” most of the time. Minorities such as transgender individuals and non-binary genders equally participate in patriarchal role allocations in exactly the same way: They, too, were once raised in a certain role, and they will unconsciously take either the social role “woman” or “man”. Who, however, begins to notice these conditioned patterns can – unconsciously or intentionally – change their role independently of their gender.

As a consequence, all combinations of gender and social role are possible: Apart from women in the social role “woman” and men in the social role “man”, there are women in the social role “man” as well as men in the social role “woman”. Many transgender individuals experience a shift in their social role some time into transition, particularly when their social environment starts assuming the corrected gender (woman or man) and treats them in the associated social role (role “woman” or role “man”). Some, however, continue to assume the social role they were raised in, despite their transition to another gender.

Intersex individuals and non-binary genders either adopt the social role with which they grew up, or the social role pertaining to the binary gender to which they feel closer. Switching between social roles is also possible: While most adults unconsciously “prefer” one social role, some situations can trigger a temporary “switch”, causing the respective person – suddenly or gradually – to show behaviour that is typical for the other role.

Sexual orientation has nothing to do at all with the social role: Any lesbian woman can take up the social role of
„woman” in the same way as a heterosexual woman, only their erotic and romantic desires are addressed to different sexes. So, although rarely, a woman might adopt the social role „man” or a transgender man the social role „woman”, etc.

For all genders the patriarchy can be summed up by two simple denials:

  • Women do not want sex, only love.
  • Men do not want love, only sex.

That is the great patriarchal falsehood, which is packed into the social roles of „woman” and „man” in every patriarchal society (the Eurocentric and various others, also and specifically in Muslim society) as some truth of nature. This falsehood may, if it is formulated that bluntly, seem to be a well-known absurdity. Since it is, however, firmly embedded in most individuals’ unconscious mind, a lot of education will be necessary to remove this false and destructive idea.

How exactly does the patriarchal falsehood work?

Once activated, the patriarchal falsehood causes women to suppress their sexuality, since they are allegedly only
interested in love. Only during preparation or right in the middle of a romantic relationship are sexual impulses acted out. Any sexual attraction towards other people which only exists at the erotic level is rejected before oneself and others, in order to maintain the wrong idea that sex is exclusively wanted in combination with love. The erotic level, however, is the dedicated line to one’s own life energy. The suppression of this causes women to exhibit a certain social inertia when compared with men: On average women, more than men, tend to adapt to the values of others and maintain rigid and conservative systems; also, there are much fewer female artists than male ones.

Men manifest the patriarchal falsehood the other way around. They suppress their desire for empathy and love, in order to exhibit toxic masculinity with characteristics such as „indestructible, brave, emotionally distant, always ready sexually”, in order to fit into the social role „man”. They actively live the erotic level, but reject the romantic level before themselves and others in order to maintain their wrong picture of masculinity. As a consequence of the suppression of the romantic level, perceptions and activities related to topics that are not concerned with romantic relationships are also muted or missing completely. A typical example for that are men, who have suppressed their romantic level so much that they cannot even hug their best male friend in a way pertaining to the level friendship on the intimacy scale. The ability to feel and show empathy towards others suffers on all levels, from colleagues at work to going after or acting out a sexual interest.

A small reminder:

  • The romantic level includes the sexual level.
  • The sexual level, though, also exists independently without the romantic level.

For sex we need basic body hygiene, that everybody enjoys each other’s company, mutual consent and fairness towards one another. For a romantic relationship we need everything necessary for sex, plus being deeply acquainted with one another, mutual interests, trust, falling in love, and the desire to share as much as possible of one’s lives with one another. A romantic relationship thus has much more demanding prerequisites than casual sex. To find someone hot is rather simple in comparison to an honest attraction to the whole personality of a significant other that goes deep enough that falling in love and wishing for a romantic relationship becomes possible. Therefore the wish for activities at the romantic level occurs much more rarely than the wish for erotic activities – simply because, at the romantic level, much fewer individuals match than at the sexual level.

When the social roles of „woman” and „man” with their respective suppression mechanisms and wrong ideas encounter each other, their differences become obvious: Women seem to be more passive in the preparation of social contacts: Their wish for love, which may pass their internal censor unhindered, will simply find much fewer resonating individuals than their wish for sex, which is routinely repressed. Due to this suppression, individuals resonating on a sexual level are often not even noticed. Therefore, women have great difficulties to recognise individuals they are resonating with at a sexual level or, if such a resonance has managed to pass the unconscious censor, to take the initiative and get into contact with them. Sometimes, such a detection of an erotic wish takes a detour via the patriarchal falsehood: In this case, individuals resonating on the sexual level are falsely allocated as resonating at the romantic level (a „crush”).

Men, however, seem to have no problem to occupy and hold social spaces: Their wish for sex may pass their internal censor unhindered, their wish for love, however, is suppressed. They can constantly detect and address individuals resonating with them at a sexual level. The number of resonating people is – compared to the apparent selection of women – much higher, because the sexual level contains many more possible candidates than the romantic level. Men, however, due to their suppression of the romantic level, have difficulties to recognise people resonating at that level, or to communicate their interest in an empathic way. In this system, men have higher chances of success to realise their sexual wishes if they interact with their potential sex partners through romantic activities like kissing, caressing or cuddling, thereby activating the romantic level. Because for the social role „woman”, the romantic level must have been switched to „on” to unlock the erotic level.

Thus, on the highscore list of the patriarchal falsehood, individuals who have taken on the social role „woman”,
generally get the short end of the stick: As a consequence, if a woman agrees to a sexual interaction, the man at least gets the fulfilment of his wish for sex. The woman gets neither one nor the other, since her focus lies on the fulfilment of her emotional wishes at the romantic level, which was never on the table, due to the “empty” activities of the man.

If we take a step back, however, both social roles lose:

  • Because of course, women desire love and sex.
  • And of course men desire sex and love.

In reality, both have wishes for a combined romantic and sexual level (= falling in love/romantic relationship), and for a purely erotic level (= casual sex). Played like this, in the end nobody gets what they wanted. And so the patriarchal falsehood chronifies itself.

The chronification of the patriarchal falsehood – part 1/2: In the mainstream or: Why do women fancy assholes?

In the heteronormative mainstream, many men are of the opinion that most women would fancy assholes. Unfortunately, they are correct; and the reason is the patriarchal falsehood of the role “woman”.

The patriarchal falsehood claims:

  • Women do not want sex, only love.
  • Men do not want love, only sex.

When the two social roles meet, there is a man who directly addresses his desire for sex to a woman – and a woman who angrily rejects, as sex should only happen at a romantic level – and that is not part of the package. That sets the following chain reaction into motion: Any initially honest communication between the sexes is cut off. In its place communication fills up with powergames, secondary motivations and mutual manipulation attempts – by both men and women.

In order to satisfy their wishes for sex, most men in this situation, when they have understood the dynamics of these interactions, intentionally start to deceive women by mimicking a romantic interest in order to arrive at a sexual encounter. Thereby he procures an advantage among all prospective men at the sexual level: Now his manipulation one-ups all men who honestly communicate their interest in a purely sexual level, since the desired woman will only respond sexually to those men who (seem to!) offer her the romantic level. Since the social role “man”, due to its suppression of the romantic level, mutes the ability to show empathy and respect towards other human beings, the deceptive trick to exhibit an artificial romantic level comes more easily to men who do not question the patriarchal construct of the social role “man” and thus their part of the patriarchal falsehood. Because, the less strong authentic impulses of their own romantic level disturb their deceptive display, the better for its success.

Since women repress their own sexual impulses, while men act them out, from the point of view of a woman the male world looks like an endless queue of sexual interessents: It seems that whenever one of them is told off, the next prospects are already waiting. This can easily be seen in any online forum, where women are firmly bombarded by messages from men, while they themselves hardly ever take the initiative to actively write to men. If women would not suppress their sexual desires, but admit them and, as a consequence, show initiative at the erotic level themselves, the number and frequency of interessents would be approximately the same for all sexes.

Any man who has learnt how to invest all his energy into the deceptive display of an artificial romantic level in order to arrive at sexual encounters therefore stands out from this almost endless queue of interessents. The trick is to fake the romantic level so perfectly that, compared with interessents who authentically show their whole personality with all of its attendant flaws, only an artificial person can be seen instead, apparently without any flaws and marketing himself to be “Prince Charming”. And that is precisely the definition of an asshole. Interestingly, the mask of such a “Prince Charming” is not a carefully enacted new personality, it is even the complete absence of one – basically an empty canvas, on which a woman projects and then mistakenly believes to see the possible fulfilment of the desires she craves most: An empathic, respectful man who will fulfill her romantic desire, and, simultanously, a wild, interesting man who will seduce and satisfy her – “At last, a truly interesting man!”

Against the artificial personality of “Prince Charming” not only honest interessents at the sexual level, even honest men interested in an actual romantic relationship compare unfavourably, at least at first view, because they exhibit, like all real people, all kinds of flaws, while “Prince Charming” has worked on his talent as an actor to show a slick and polished surface without blemish. That dynamic creates the impression that women would fancy and even favor assholes, sexually and even amorously: These are much “better” at getting into sexual encounters and even romantic relationships with women than men who communicate honestly.

Now the chain reaction accelerates exponentially: As more and more men who understand this dynamic resignate and assume that only assholes have success with women, many of them learn to behave like assholes in order to cheat their way into sexual encounters.

Why do I call people in the social role “man” who exhibit such behaviour “an asshole”? That is because we will always find one, behind the slick and polished mask of “Prince Charming”. Beneath the mask there is a man who has been so frustrated by the constant refusal of his honest attempts at communication at the sexual or the romantic level, that he now tries to realise his sexual wishes with a due portion of misogyny and a deeply-felt “give it up already, you slut”. When the asshole dons his “Prince Charming”- mask, we see a man who seems to promise romantic and sexual fulfilment. In reality, however, he is simply faking the exact words and activities which the addressed woman wanted to hear. After consenting to a sexual act by the woman who has been the target of this whole ruse, she will not get what she wanted of course. She does not even get an inkling of fulfilment at the romantic level (which was, from the beginning onwards, never included). In addition, there will usually also be no fulfilment at the sexual level – because no asshole cares to give anything meaningful to a targeted woman, or to waste a lot of empathy on her erotic satisfaction. The asshole actually despises the seduced woman – representative for all women who rejected or did not even notice him in former interactions, when he still attempted honest communication – because an (other) asshole outshone him. People in the social role “woman”, who fall for these asshole tactics of people in the social role “man”, assemble lots of negative emotional and sexual experiences – and suppress their own sexual wishes even more afterwards, since their realisation always ends badly. That drives off further men who are attempting to communicate honestly, who become the next assholes, who manipulate further women, etc. etc.

And thus we have arrived at the emergence of Rape Culture.

The chronification of the patriarchal falsehood – part 2/2: In the queer community or: The patriarchy is dead. Long live the patriarchy!

Globally, various alternative scenes, for example parts of the political left or the queer community, like to claim that they successfully fight the patriarchy within their communities. While a few promising concepts actually exist that are at least weakening some patriarchal introjects, I have to add that the idea that the patriarchy is held at bay within any of these subcultures is only wishful thinking. The social roles of “woman” and “man” are exactly the same as in the heteronormative mainstream. One’s sexual orientation also has nothing to do with the social role, at all: A lesbian woman can assume the exact same social role of “woman” as a straight woman; only the erotic and romantic wishes are addressed to a different sex.

In the queer community, the social role “woman” is usually taken by lesbian (= homoromantic) or biromantic women. Bi-transgender men, lesbian transgender women or panromantic individuals of a non-binary gender can all adopt the exact same social role “woman”, too. In the social role “woman”, all these people suppress their erotic desires, as sex is only permitted in combination with the romantic level. The sexual level, however, is a direct connection to one’s own life-force. The suppression of these erotic impulses therefore produces LGBT spaces which are frequented by many passive women without a lot of meaningful social interaction. A handful of couples who satisfy their erotic desires – at least amongst themselves – make up exceptions to the rule, due to them the sexual level and thus, life-force and creativity, is not entirely gone from such spaces. The result is: The women usually also don’t have casual sex with each other, just like straight women with men in the heteronormative mainstream. As a consequence, a typical subconscious behaviour pattern has evolved in most of the lesbian communities of the Eurocentric/Western society: Since the social role “woman” permits having sex only in combination with a crush or romantic relationship – and with two women, this happens on both sides! – secondarily motivated lesbian crushes are so common among women and individuals of a non-binary gender in the queer community that the amount and frequency of short-term romantic relationships, serial monogamy and the following emotional drama has become a real-life cliché in lesbian communities. Moreover, people who are familiar with the trope and are using it for jokes are recognized as “part of the tribe”.

In the heteronormative mainstream, this absence of erotic seduction and interaction is usually filled by straight men in the social role “man”, which is, of course, missing in a lesbian/biromantic space. As a result, a few women shift into the social role “man”. A classic example are dykes or butches, who, compared to the rest of the lesbian community, initiate erotic contact in a very active way. Since these women have assumed the social role “man”, they suppress their own romantic level. That mutes their ability to empathise with their fellow women and their feelings which makes it easier to don the slick and polished mask of “Prince(ss) Charming”: By faking interest in the romantic level they “unlock” the suppression of sexual desires of their targets, which have usually assumed the social role “woman”, and thereby arrive at sexual encounters with them. Exactly like the male version, a female Prince(ss) Charming simply says what her target wants to hear. Often she does nothing at all, simply not negating any wishes directed at her. After a sexual encounter – which has been the goal of the whole ruse – her target will find out that she did not want to realise any of these wishes, but simply allowed events to take their course as long as she got an advantage out of that.

Certainly, not all dykes or butches use the social role “man” like that. But the tendency to behave in this way is much higher with dykes or butches than with femmes who usually assume the social role “woman”. In case of individuals whose attribution to “femme” or “butch” is difficult due to their ambiguous appearance and/or behaviour, the social roles that can be expected from them are much more difficult to predict.

If the assumption of both social roles happens often enough to set an exponential social chain reaction into motion, forms of Rape Culture with abusive behaviours up to sexual assault will also happen in LGBT “safe” spaces.

In the gay community, however, a contrary picture emerges. Here, the social role “man” is usually taken by gay (= homoromantic) or biromantic men. Biromantic transgender men or panromantic individuals of a non-binary gender can also adopt the exact same social role “man”. These individuals will then experience their sexual desires without repression – their needs for empathy in general, and love at the romantic level, however, will be repressed before themselves and others. That creates a sexually open space in which reports about one-night-stands, seduction, allusions or jokes with genital content are standard components of small talk. If the majority of the group reaches a certain level of intoxication that behaviour is amplified even further. People living in romantic relationships, however, often react with distance and scepticism to this bold display of sexual openness and promiscuity. If they are in such a gay group as a couple, they will consciously hold their distance and be more focussed on themselves than on the community. Meanwhile, the singles bemoan that it is so difficult to find a suitable partner for a romantic relationship and to hold long-term romantic relationships stable. Including joint browsing of online dating sites and discussion of the respective (failed) past romantic relationship experiences. Those are direct consequences of the suppression of the romantic level: If, in a romantic relationship, both sides repress their romantic level, there are no empathic connections deep enough for a successful romantic relationship. Since empathic connections are not only needed to stabilize a romantic relationship, but also to hold a social group together, some gays or biromantic men shift towards the social role “woman”. They then exhibit very “womanlike” personalities and dismiss the sexual allusions of their fellow gays in a displeased way.

This triggers negative attention from certain individuals in the social role “man” who have stunted empathy and respect for their fellow men. They treat men with feminine appearance and/or behaviour as “killjoys”, and fail to recognise the sort of nonverbal signals which would have marked the line between seduction and transgression – or even intentionally ignore the boundary such signals would have communicated. In this way, forms of Rape Culture with abusive behaviours up to sexual assault will also happen in gay “safe” spaces.

In conclusion, the queer community – compared to the heteronormative mainstream – is not a place where the patriarchy is less at work; it is more akin to a particularly precise filter. This happens by the stronger segregation of genders than in the heteronormative mainstream and gives a good view of the application of the patriarchal falsehood: The lesbian community reinforces the behaviours of the social role “woman” ad absurdum, while the gay community does the same with the behaviours of the social role “man”.

An interesting case in point for that are the recommendations regarding the LGBT culture of Vienna of a Viennese tourism organisation. For lesbians and biromantic women, a list of cafés and clubbings is offered. Their typical activities are: Smalltalk, networking for the queer community, reading (if the café has books) and dancing at clubbings. For gays and biromantic men, however, there is a list of gay saunas. Their typical activities are: Swinging (= casual sex) and bathing in the nude. A gay man told me once: “If you are looking for a woman for casual sex in such a sauna, you will have to bring her along with you for that!”

Why are there no “lesbian saunas” where women and non-binary individuals with a pussy can enjoy casual sex with one another, exclusively? And no nice book cafés just for gays, where they can sit in peace, smalltalk, network, and read, exclusively? Exactly: Because the patriarchal falsehood is active. Women only want friendship and love and men want only sex – right?

Rape Culture – Part 1/3: What exactly is Rape Culture?

Rape Culture is an integral part of the patriarchal falsehood.

The Wikipedia definition is as follows:

Rape Culture is a term for social environments or societies in which sexual violence and rape are common and even tolerated to a large extent.” Rape Culture transfers the responsibility for taking precautions against and prevention of rape to the victims (victim blaming): Women are advised to be careful about their choice of clothes, where they go, and the kind of undertakings and contacts they engage in. That is accompanied by a belittling of rape and the reduction of potential victims to sex objects.

In its manifestation, Rape Culture means that individuals in the social role “woman” are seen and addressed as sex objects without a will of their own by individuals in the social role “man”. Self-determination over one’s own body, a human right, is questioned or blatantly ignored. As this is about social roles again, a man can harass a woman (the most frequent case), just as a lesbian woman in the social role “man” might stalk a biromantic transgender man in the social role “woman”, etc. The behaviours which express Rape Culture range from an insulting initiation of contact up to the creation of threatening situations such as being pursued on the street, or the victim being groped against their will, or being grappled. The worst form of Rape Culture is forced sexual contact in whatever form, in other words rape itself. All genders who live the patriarchal falsehood are equally involved in the emergence of Rape Culture: Those, which take on the social role “woman” as well as those which take on the social role “man”.

When the “Prince Charming” mask becomes too wearisome for an asshole in the social role “man”, he simply drops it. A deeply misogynistic person who is openly living their women-despising personality parts remains. These people are offensive and disrespectful individuals, who will not accept a “no” or “stop” from women, regard sexual compulsion as normal social behaviour and who will, in the worst case, even resort to rape. Such misogynist and disrespectful behaviours of men (“give it up already, you slut!”) teaches women to suspect any attempt at seduction by a man as a hostile action: “Fuck off, you rapist!” In a situation like this, the following thoughts will emerge in the potential victim:

  • How do I know that he stops, if I say stop?
  • How far do I have to escalate the situation until he listens (and stops)?
  • Where is the nearest escape route?
  • Do friends of mine know where I am?
  • In case of emergency, what could I use as weapon?
  • Can I defend myself?

Should the person in the social role “man” who asked for sex be an offensive, disrespectful asshole who continues unwanted activities after a “no” or “stop” it is a good idea to have these options ready, pre-emptively! Should, however, the man who asked for sex be a consent-respecting, respectful and friendly person, who would immediately accept a “no”, he will still receive an overly aggressive “No!!” as answer to his polite request, perhaps in combination with emotional violence (slut shaming) or even a physical attack (giving him a push or a slap) – in lieu of all offending men who have treated the addressed woman disrespectfully in the past. With the latter reaction the addressed woman has contributed her portion to the emergence of Rape Culture – a friendly and respectful interessent has been turned away with unearned aggression, who has experienced another disappointment of the sort which can contribute to him becoming an asshole with or without a mask over time.

Rape Culture – Part 2/3: The difference between victim blaming and toxic femininity

Individuals in the social role “woman” often get into a victim role in Rape Culture. A familiar reaction is to declare these individuals guilty for offences committed against them (instead of their perpetrator). This behaviour is called victim blaming, and is a crucial characteristic of Rape Culture.

A typical form of victim blaming is the alleged relationship between a woman’s skirt length and her sexual availability.

All expressions deny women self-determination over their bodies. “Asking for it” in the sense of “provoking an attack” justifies violence when the woman wears “too little” clothes, while expressions like “prudish” indicate that she wears “too much” clothes. Both claims can be exposed as an excuse for an assault by a simple question: “Too little” or “too much” for whom or what?

While the length of her skirt might be a hint whether a woman is feeling more or less sexy that day, it does not constitute any form of “sexual availability”. A thing can be “available”, because it cannot conceive whether it is being used or not. A person, on the other hand, can never be available, because they have a will of their own. A distinction between both situations is only possible by consent in all human activities that involve more than one person (i.e. also in sex). If there is no consent among all individuals involved, the person who ignores or breaks consent automatically commits a violent act, i.e. a criminal offence!


A woman walks alone, at night, and in a mini skirt, through the streets of a large city. Time and again, police officers have issued warnings to not exhibit this behaviour as a woman and to dress less revealing. This advice is, however, quite the double-edged sword:

  • From a purely ethical point of view this advice is wrong: Because no matter how a woman dresses, self- determination over one’s own body is a basic human right. The responsibility for any form of assault always lies with the perpetrator, never with the victim. To blame the behaviour of a woman as a reason for a transgression against her is always an excuse of an offender, nothing else.
  • From a purely pragmatic view this advice is correct: Because in a patriarchal society women, who dress revealingly, are harassed more often than a women who dresses modestly. A woman who, due to such a warning, choses to wear modest clothing reduces the danger of unfair treatment and sexual assault.

The last point amplifies why I am of course not arguing that all people would suddenly become good and play fair, if only women would unblock their sexuality. Mankind will always contain stupid people and assholes. That is, for example, deducible from the fact that 80% of all crimes are committed by 20% of the population (repeat offenders). People can already be part of the 20% when their sexuality awakens, or become assholes due to frustration with the asshole dynamic over the course of their lives. As soon as people have become assholes, however, their personal history is ethically irrelevant, because all individuals, as soon as they are of age, are 100% responsible to honor consent and fairness with their fellow human beings and thus do their part to create an ethical society that supports everyone in need.

Assholes, no matter how they became one, will become offenders if and when an occasion presents itself. An occasion is any situation with one or more vulnerable individuals in range. This is true for all psychological and physical acts of violence.

Typical for offences of Rape Culture, however, is that if no vulnerable individuals are present, offenders tend to project the social role “woman” on everything which they cannot clearly identify as the social role “man”. This is why abusers often prey on “ladylike” women (easy to recognise: role “woman”), or people who don’t dress or act “appropriately” such as feminine men (they don’t know what “it” is, but definitely not role “man”). That projection can also affect people who have never assumed the social role “woman” (but look like one) or are intentionally working against the patriarchal falsehood.

If most women fully lived their sexuality with all suitable, consent-adhering and fair people they find attractive, there would still be enough assholes, psychopaths and rapists in the world. And it would still be absolutely necessary for women to reject them, bring charges against them, or act in self-defense. It might be possible, however, to break the vicious cycle which produces new assholes from originally consent-honoring and fair people by disappointment. In the long term, the population would settle down on a constant percentage of assholes (probably the 20% plus standard deviation), whose offences would still have to be monitored by the constitutional state.

Why do women in the patriarchy get the bad end of the deal?

In order to answer this question we need a little human history: Because mankind went through an agrarian revolution approximately ten thousand years ago – the social transformation from nomadic hunter-gatherer cultures to resident agrarian cultures. From the nomadic hunter- gatherer cultures still in existence which survived in solitary places on earth until a few decades ago, social anthropology could deduce how the majority of mankind might have lived before the agrarian revolution. The following facts can be safely assumed to be characteristic of typical nomadic hunter-gatherer cultures:

  • Individuals living in groups of several dozen individuals at most
  • Hierarchies in the group were relatively flat: All adults individuals could – in an emergency – survive alone in the wilderness
  • Children and seniors were supported by the whole group

Then the agrarian revolution came. The organised cultivation of staple foods at a fixed place made more food available than before. That enabled population growth and a faster rate of innovations as far as progress of technologies and tools was concerned. In order to guaranty the new food supply people needed a stricter social system with several (also new) hierarchical levels, in order to be able to manage the tasks required for agricultural food production.

The classical characteristics of an agrarian culture are:

  • It consists of individuals in groups of several dozen or more; but population size can be de facto open-ended
  • Steep hierarchies: Each social class delivers some tasks which the other classes could not – or not adequately – manage (e.g. farmers, officials, leaders).
  • Only a few adults individuals could – in an emergency – survive alone in the wilderness.
  • Children and seniors are only supported by the respective social class from which they originate.

Today, mainstream societies are still following this principle. A few substantial changes, e.g. universal health and/or old age insurances only entered some Eurocentric/Western societies’ mainstreams in the second half of the 20th Century. However, there is something very few people know about the agrarian revolution: It led to an extreme change in the way human sexuality was lived. In nomadic hunter-gatherer cultures, all the resources necessary for survival belonged to the whole group – and were inherited by the entire group after the death of one of its members. In an agrarian society, however, fair re-distribution to all members of the group was impossible due to the grown group size, and with less resources-per-person than in the old hunter-gatherer situation. Therefore the distribution system changed. Possessions necessary for survival were now passed on within the smallest unit of the group – the family. The big question became: Who gets the farm? Now possessions were handed down from the father to the children: “patrilinear” inheritance. A farm might belong to a couple – a woman and a man – at the same time, who shared the leading position with equal standing. As far as the inheritance was concerned, however, the children still had to be direct descendants from this specific man.

In hunter- gatherer cultures, it was a negligible criterion who the biological father of the children was. For an agrarian society, however, who fathered which children became essential information for the question of their inheritance. The price for that, however, was the total repression of female sexuality: Because in a time without reliable methods of contraception, abortion or paternity tests there was only one secure possibility of determining one’s paternity without doubt: The biological mother of the child must have, without any exceptions whatsoever, only ever had sex with the biological father of the child. Originally, the concept of inheritance simply replaced the old survival strategy of passing on the resources necessary for survival, and just transferred the old strategy to the family unit. When the inheritance cycle had repeated often enough, however, the inherited possessions obtained an extent far beyond that needed for mere survival. That way, dynasties with enormous properties and wealth and, as a consequence, unproportional political power and influence developed automatically. These elites have no interest to lose that special status again, of course. This is why it becomes extremely important for the members of such a dynasty that their possessions remain within the family and that the family is holding together. Now the criterion who fathered which children becomes even more important. The issue is no longer just survival; now the issue is to stay in power. Now it is no longer enough to control the sexuality of the women within the dominant elite; the women of any competing or even lower social class must also be controlled. Because the people of the lower classes must be kept from achieving a foundational social solidarity via a healthy realisation of their sexuality; otherwise, they might attempt to overthrow the dominant elite and redistribute those parts of their wealth not nescessary for survival amongst the public. The women of that elite must exemplify the suppression of sexuality through their own lives (at least seemingly), so that the women from the lower social classes, which are needed to enable the high status of the elites, do not develop any ideas “above their station”. These processes evolved, over the course of millenia, into a perfidious system spread by the dominant elite via religion, propaganda, legislation, and national institutions. Meanwhile, this system has been internalised and is passed on from generation to generation by education. In this way, most individuals – who never question, let alone remove these patriarchal introjects – subconsciously collaborate to keep the respective elites in power and themselves – quite literally – impotent.

1 2 3 4