Culture Female sexuality and the necessity of Patriarchy

[Deleted member 88]

So here is another Invictus essay thread.

In modern times, we hear a lot about Patriarchy, about how it is an unjust system that oppresses women and seeks to control their bodies.

The animus against Patriarchy, is the core of feminism.

Feminists and sexual libertines will often say, “the patriarchy evolved to regulate or control female sexuality”.

This is not false, in fact is the essence of why patriarchy is necessary.

So what is this female sexual power? What does it entail that warrants a bridle to regulate it?

Well firstly, women are necessary for the making of life. Sons, children. Society can not endure without them having sex. Another matter is paternity. A woman. A woman may cheat on her husband and thus a child will be born that is not his. Women also forge bonds through sex that men do not.

So there are a few elements here.

-Firstly cuckoldry is strictly punished in any healthy society both for the maintenance of the building block of society. The marriage vow which ties society together at the smallest level. That is women must not cheat. Fidelity to one’s husband is the maintenance of the social and moral order reflected at the smallest scale. Infidelity leads to social disorder and decay. Also it renders men’s efforts useless. A man’s greatest desire at least of this world is to sire descendants who will carry on his legacy. King and farmer. If this doesn’t happen if a man can not trust that the children he has are his, he can not reasonably be said to have left any legacy and his contribution to civilization and the future is stolen from him.
-Secondly, women forge emotional bonds through sex. This is absolutely necessary to be maintained. For families, communities, and nations. When this bond is broken or the ability to do so is broken through promiscuity or other sexual behaviors, it produces a number of ill effects.

1. Firstly men are far more reluctant to marry a woman who is used goods. And will not likely be able to bond with him on a psychic level or be faithful.
2. Secondly female promiscuity leads to male immorality, as men indulge in unhealthy, risky, and animalistic behavior to get the attention of women who have hundreds of choices. PUA and “game” would not exist in a healthy patriarchal society.
3. Political turmoil. Women have to be regulated, they are easily led and emotional. In healthy times, a husband or father will hold power over them, and over their bodies. (This applies to young women under their father’s authority). Such women when not under control will vote for or push against healthy order, whether that be in modern movements or voting for things like gun control or refugees. Woman’s emotional impulses must be controlled. A woman’s sexual yearnings, must not be satisfied vicariously but only through marriage.

So what does a healthy patriarchal society look like?

Firstly-boys and men do not think about or worry about sex as much. The more promiscuous and unveiled women are, the less men focus on the higher things. Secondly, more social stability. No or much reduced subversive movements and political operations. Thirdly-greater happiness. Most women if they only submitted to male authority would actually be happy, as opposed to spending two decades as sluts and then being drunkards, depressed, and empty.

Female sexuality “in the wild”-actually is promiscuous, capricious, and entirely untrustworthy. This was understood for thousands of years-“if women are not controlled, if they are not regulated” then society will totter and fall.

So yes, women’s bodies must be controlled. They must be regulated, even if they object.

Basically female sexual power is too important to be left to females. To paraphrase Talleyrand.

A healthy society will channel and discipline the female urges, and will prosper for it.

To use a thought experiment-assuming all restraint was lifted, women would descend into a primal sensuousness, a wild trance that once started could not be stopped, that would lead to civilization burning amidst their erotic dances. Even in the most primitive societies, female sexuality. Albeit in such small groupings, some level of female infidelity can be tolerated-as everyone is basically related anyway. But in civilized societies above a level around 500 people, it can not be tolerated.

Which is why, in answer to feminists, yes female sexuality is important, it’s just too important for women to have lordship over.

Lord Invictus.

 

[LTR]

To use a thought experiment-assuming all restraint was lifted, women would descend into a primal sensuousness, a wild trance that once started could not be stopped, that would lead to civilization burning amidst their erotic dances.

*grunts*

I'll be in my bunk...

 

[ShieldWife]

I agree with a lot of what you say Lord Invictus, though the bit about women descending into a wild trance of erotic dancing is hilarious.

Let me, though, help you out a little and reframe your argument in a more palatable way. Female sexuality needs to be controlled, but then again so too does male sexuality. If men were allowed to act upon even their most base sexual desires without legal or social limits, then it would be ruinous for civilization. Likewise, if women are allowed to act upon their most base sexual desires without legal or social limits, then it would be ruinous for civilization. Of course, the way such behavior undermines civilization is much different for males and females. The only issue in modern Western civilization is that women are far closer to being able to act out sexually without consequences than men.

In a very real sense, feminism was not about seeking equality between the sexes, but rather to remove the traditional negative consequences that were associated with abusing female social power - which is largely sexual.

So yes, the basic thrust of this thread is true, female sexuality must be controlled. The flip side, which would actually make the argument more widely accepted, is that for civilization to function, many human desires (including male sexuality) must be reigned in as well.

 

[Fleiur]

That's a good start. Like I said in my thread, men and women should stop engaging in sex outside of marriage.

There is even a study about it: (Benefits in Delaying Sex Until Marriage) which some people in the thread disputed.

Also, there is this scientific explanation of JasonSanjo:

One thing to keep in mind - perhaps more so in regards to hooking up and relationships than the institution of marriage - is how pair bonding works on a neurological level.

Pair bonding is a (fairly) well-understood phenomenon in terms of human neurology. Primarily through sexual intercourse (but also through other actions, such as affectionate physical touching) both male and female brains release certain chemicals - primarily dopamine and vasopressin in the case of men, and dopamine and oxytocin in the case of women.

Dopamine is the "reward" or "feel-good" chemical. It's what makes people enjoy sex so much, and is the cause of the "afterglow" effect many people report after successful intercourse. In people with a penchant for hormonal addiction (e.g., compulsive gamblers, sex addicts) it can lead to addiction. Simple enough.

Vasopressin and oxytocin, meanwhile, are the primary chemicals that create the "pair bonding" effect - what you might call long-term love and affection, and a desire to stay with a particular partner. However, they do so in rather different ways, which means the whole pair bonding phenomenon works out differently for men and women.

The basic function is the same - vasopressin and oxytocin both bond with certain receptors in the brain which, when stimulated, create the pair bonding effect. However, oxytocin creates a "strong" bond, whereas vasopressin creates a "weak" bond. The receptors are the same, however, so the "maximum" pair bonding remains the same between sexes - it is simply getting to the point of maximum pair bonding that works out differently. Long story short, men require more acts of sexual intercourse with a particular partner in order to begin, and "max out", pair bonding when compared to women.

So what does this all mean? Well, when taken in conjunction with empirical research done on people's pair bonding ability over time and with multiple partners, some interesting facts come to light. First, I'll start with the stuff that's the same for both men and women.

The pair bonding receptors are not unlimited in either number or function. In other words, humans are neurologically limited in terms of overall pair bonding ability. That is, how many times they are able to pair bond, and how strong those bonds are, though the exact limits vary from individual to individual. Researchers have studied this and come up with the following numbers (again, there being some variation between individuals):

At somewhere around 3-5 pair bondings, the pair bonding ability starts to noticeably degrade. That is, each subsequent pair bonding is weaker than the one previous.

At somewhere around 10-12 pair bondings, the pair bonding ability becomes unnoticeable to the point of being virtually non-existent. At this stage, pair bondings are effectively no longer possible, though previous pair bondings remain, if somewhat weakened with time when lacking regular sexual intercourse with the bonded partner.

(Regular sexual intercourse with a bonded partner keeps the bond strong and keeps it from degrading.)

Now, here's where it gets different for men and women:

Because female brains release oxytocin, and male brains release vasopressin, men and women form pair bondings at different rates.

For women: 1-2 acts of sexual intercourse with one partner is normally enough to begin pair bonding.

For men: Anywhere between 2 and 5 acts of sexual intercourse with one partner are required to begin pair bonding.

So what does this difference mean in practice? Well, in simple terms, it means that men's pair bonding ability is less detrimentally affected by hooking up with many different partners when compared to women's, as long as the men only hook up once, or perhaps twice, with the same partner. For women, however, more often than not a single act of sexual intercourse is enough to begin pair bonding. This, in turn, means that women will reach the "limit" of their pair bonding ability much more quickly than men when they both engage in hook-up culture.

In short, modern hook-up culture is far more detrimental, on a neurological and emotional level, for women than it is for men. By the time the typical woman has moved on from casual flings and decides she wants to settle down and have a family, more often than not she has long-since lost the ability to pair bond, making any long-term relationship one of emotional and sexual dissatisfaction, which in turn leads to infidelity and/or the ending of the relationship.

This phenomenon goes a long way to explaining why there are so many single mothers these days, doesn't it? Of course, the state effectively enabling it via social welfare programs and forced child support doesn't exactly help.

Now, in theory - given how other neural receptors have been shown to work - it should be possible for prolonged abstinence from sexual intercourse to (very slowly) restore the pair bonding ability. However, to the best of my knowledge, no empirical studies have been carried out on the subject, given both a general lack of parties interested in funding it and researchers' difficulty in finding enough people who've had 10+ pair bondings and were also willing to spend years without engaging in sexual intercourse (feel free to direct me to such studies if you know of any).

Really makes you think, doesn't it?

For most women, it really takes connection and trust to do intimate things. Unless, you're the type that got abused as a child and/or were exploited. Which is also happening and has a factor.
Note: Often, women are manipulated and trafficked by older men who understand how women think.


Lastly, yes, women should control their carnal needs and so should men.

 

[Harlock]

Which is why, in answer to feminists, yes female sexuality is important, it’s just too important for women to have lordship over.

Lord Invictus.

For the love of God will you stop trying to take away people's freedom? If you want to bring a positive change use positive methods such as education or rewards for certain behaviours.

You cannot build a better world by taking things away, especially basic things like freedom, something that literally millions of people have died to give us.

Stop being such a blatant edgelord saying crazy things to try and buff your notoriety. It will not end well.

 

[LifeisTiresome]

For the love of God will you stop trying to take away people's freedom? If you want to bring a positive change use positive methods such as education or rewards for certain behaviours.

You cannot build a better world by taking things away, especially basic things like freedom, something that literally millions of people have died to give us.

Stop being such a blatant edgelord saying crazy things to try and buff your notoriety. It will not end well.

They fought for the freedom of feminism to destroy Male spaces, to destroy the family unit, to turn boys into drag kids and trans kids?

Then those stories you hear of nurses in old people homes killing old whites is ironic.

As for education? Education is ruled by the left and I doubt women if educated about things will stop doing it. Feminists on average are well educated, they don't care. So no hope there but then again, maybe I'm just being too cynical.

 

[Harlock]

They fought for the freedom of feminism to destroy Male spaces, to destroy the family unit, to turn boys into drag kids and trans kids?

Then those stories you hear of nurses in old people homes killing old whites is ironic.

As for education? Education is ruled by the left and I doubt women if educated about things will stop doing it. Feminists on average are well educated, they don't care. So no hope there.

Stop being so ridiculously over dramatic. DESTROY THE MALE SPECIES! KILL THE WHITES! THEY'RE EVERYWHERE!

Thats what you sound like. Stop taking fringe incidents that account for a vanishingly small percentage of people and assume all 3.5 billion women share those exact same ideas like some sort of hive mind. Stop assuming radical nutjobs are the majority.

Use the wit you were given, go out into the real world, not the internet where you get bombarded with lurid stories designed to outrage, and go meet real women, real people, then decide if they want you dead.

 

[LifeisTiresome]

Stop being so ridiculously over dramatic. DESTROY THE MALE SPECIES! KILL THE WHITES! THEY'RE EVERYWHERE!

Thats what you sound like. Stop taking fringe incidents that account for a vanishingly small percentage of people and assume all 3.5 billion women share those exact same ideas like some sort of hive mind. Stop assuming radical nutjobs are the majority.

Use the wit you were given, go out into the real world, not the internet where you get bombarded with lurid stories designed to outrage, and go meet real women, real people, then decide if they want you dead.

Aka I don't care what Feminism actually teaches in their doctrines, I don't care what Leftism says and pushes for. I will just ignore it all. It doesn't happen, its all illusions.

So you don't have anything of import to say.

And the overdramatic one is you screaming about edgelords and ranting like a crazy person. Take your own advice as after all, all I'm doing according to you spewing outrage and you are getting outraged right here.

 

[Harlock]

I live in the real world, guess what I've never seen in nearly 40 years of being in it. Any of that stuff, anywhere.
I met some feminists in college, they were loud and sometimes aggressive, none of them wanted to exterminate men. I've met members of parliament from the Labour party, none of them wanted any of the craziness the left is said to demand.

You jump to the extreme, and thats just not going to happen. The Left does not want you dead, it doesn't want you sterile, it doesn't want your children to be gay. The sooner you stop raging at ghosts the sooner you can direct your energy to something actually productive

 

[LifeisTiresome]

I live in the real world, guess what I've never seen in nearly 40 years of being in it. Any of that stuff, anywhere.
I met some feminists in college, they were loud and sometimes aggressive, none of them wanted to exterminate men. I've met members of parliament from the Labour party, none of them wanted any of the craziness the left is said to demand.

You jump to the extreme, and thats just not going to happen. The Left does not want you dead, it doesn't want you sterile, it doesn't want your children to be gay. The sooner you stop raging at ghosts the sooner you can direct your energy to something actually productive

And yet here you are getting outraged again.

Why should we take anything you say as meaning anything rather then what the left have themselves said and done?

The Left one would personally meet long ago said that they were all for free speech but in policies now, they really aren't.

 

[LifeisTiresome]

@Harlock

BTW, in the UK, apparently this is happening:

https://www.the-sietch.com/index.php?threads/university-to-remove-world-war-ii-murals-because-they-show-too-many-white-people.3539/page-4#post-127257

Wales identifies 200 statues, roads and buildings with 'links to the slave trade' - including three streets named after Sir Francis Drake - and condemns monuments for depicting 'heroes'

If true? My telling what the left were going to do proves even more true but hey, I'm just a crazy person.

 

[Harlock]

Tell you what, if we're all limp wristed slaves to feminazis in thirty years I'll give you an apology.

Until then just keep making this site look like a bunch of fucking hate filled crazies and drive away all the actual normal people.

 

[LifeisTiresome]

Tell you what, if we're all limp wristed slaves to feminazis in thirty years I'll give you an apology.

Until then just keep making this site look like a bunch of fucking hate filled crazies and drive away all the actual normal people.

The normal people by which you mean Normies that allow whats going on in this post:

@Harlock

BTW, in the UK, apparently this is happening:

https://www.the-sietch.com/index.php?threads/university-to-remove-world-war-ii-murals-because-they-show-too-many-white-people.3539/page-4#post-127257

Wales identifies 200 statues, roads and buildings with 'links to the slave trade' - including three streets named after Sir Francis Drake - and condemns monuments for depicting 'heroes'

If true? My telling what the left were going to do proves even more true but hey, I'm just a crazy person.

The normies who happily swallow up the bastardization of everything classic by Hollywood and the rest of media cause muh inclusivity?

 

[Harlock]

The normal people by which you mean Normies that allow whats going on in this post:


The normies who happily swallow up the bastardization of everything classic by Hollywood and the rest of media cause muh inclusivity?

But they don't though do they? Again you are generalising several billion people like they are a hive mind. They aren't and they don't. You can't generalise such a massive thing based on just your observations, on the things you've read because it isn't balanced.

Let me at least offer this perspective, when I was young my government was infiltrated by actual KGB agents, real genuine communists working to destroy democracy from within. Yet it didn't work.
If actual highly trained foreign agents can't destroy democracy a dozen people with mad hair making suggestions nobody is ever going to take seriously is not going to do it either.

 

[LifeisTiresome]

But they don't though do they? Again you are generalising several billion people like they are a hive mind. They aren't and they don't. You can't generalise such a massive thing based on just your observations, on the things you've read because it isn't balanced.

Why shouldn't I? Cause you say so? You are generalizing right here by saying that the left aren't all like that and we should listen to you cause you say so.

The Left love generalizing and people are fine with that but oh no! Don't generalize the left.

i will grant you that majority of people aren't raving lunatic leftists but thats irrelevant cause they don't oppose the leftists. Infact they will support what the leftists do or turn a blind eye to it until what the leftists want becomes reality and is fully accepted and the leftists push for something even more radical.

Let me at least offer this perspective, when I was young my government was infiltrated by actual KGB agents, real genuine communists working to destroy democracy from within. Yet it didn't work.
If actual highly trained foreign agents can't destroy democracy a dozen people with mad hair making suggestions nobody is ever going to take seriously is not going to do it either.

Aka I will ignore that all of education is filled with leftists and marxists.

Why are you here if all we are are raving lunatics who cause outrage who scare way the so called decent people?

 

[Harlock]

Why shouldn't I? Cause you say so? You are generalizing right here by saying that the left aren't all like that and we should listen to you cause you say so.

The Left love generalizing and people are fine with that but oh no! Don't generalize the left.

i will grant you that majority of people aren't raving lunatic leftists but thats irrelevant cause they don't oppose the leftists. Infact they will support what the leftists do or turn a blind eye to it until what the leftists want becomes reality and is fully accepted and the leftists push for something even more radical.

Maybe its because there's nothing to oppose? Because these fringe groups who are so vocal on the internet never make it into the real world where the normies live? And when they do, like say a bunch of protesters start toppling statues public opinion goes massively against them.
When they defaced Churchills statue the mainstream was firmly against it. When Extinction rebellion tried to shut down transport by climbing on trains the normies threw them off train roofs.
You can't generalise because you are easily proven wrong, and if you keep getting proven wrong then nobody will listen to you when you do in fact have something worthwhile to say.

Aka I will ignore that all of education is filled with leftists and marxists.

Again, massive generalisation. Sure a bunch are, but that doesn't mean the majority are. I never met one, why?

Why are you here if all we are are raving lunatics who cause outrage who scare way the so called decent people?

Because I owe a friend and that is literally the only damn thing

 

[LifeisTiresome]

Maybe its because there's nothing to oppose?Because these fringe groups who are so vocal on the internet never make it into the real world where the normies live? And when they do, like say a bunch of protesters start toppling statues public opinion goes massively against them.
When they defaced Churchills statue the mainstream was firmly against it. When Extinction rebellion tried to shut down transport by climbing on trains the normies threw them off train roofs.
You can't generalise because you are easily proven wrong, and if you keep getting proven wrong then nobody will listen to you when you do in fact have something worthwhile to say.

The statues still went down, the normies didn't do anything significant which means they consent to it or don't care. The Leftists are fine with both.

And there is nothing to oppose despite boys being made into trans or drag? Fuck off.

See whats going on with Wales, see what the universities are doing. You act as if the normies reality is the ultimate reality when in truth, it isn't.

And yet you did generalize, so you are wrong by your own logic and we shouldn't listen to you.

Again, massive generalisation. Sure a bunch are, but that doesn't mean the majority are. I never met one, why?

Ah yes, cause you never met them that means they don't exist or are infinitesimally rare cause you believe so.

I have already said that the majority of the populace is liberal and liberals don't oppose the left at all. They eventually accept whatever new leftism is pushed, it just takes time.

Because I owe a friend and that is literally the only damn thing

And why bother with us outragers if you don't care then?

 

[LifeisTiresome]

@Harlock

Your own position is basically, islamic extremism in Europe? Nonsense! The muslims I met aren't like that. So it never happened.

 

[Harlock]

ironically I think I did meet an Islamic extremist, more than one

Nah fuck it. Just do me one favour, once a day every day ask yourself in perfect seriousness 'Am I wrong?' Just that but do it properly, don't fudge it, genuinely examine and ask whether what you think could in fact be wrong.

 

[ShieldWife]

Leftists have already largely destroyed the family though haven’t they? Over half of children in the West are raised without an intact family - either because of out of wedlock birth or divorce - and a lot of people aren’t even having kids at all.

Feminism is like a giant shit-test which western men are failing. I mean seriously, look at this woman:

She is basically alright with rape as long as the rapists aren’t white. Contrast that with the feminists who basically think that a guy looking at them wrong is rape.

If you don’t think that the extreme left is a dominant force in our society, it’s because you’ve already accepted aspects of their agenda as being normal.