As much as I am against feminazism (cheap anti-male and anti-sexual feminism), I am in favor of genuine female emancipation (for women and girls, the same right and access to the most important aspect in life: sexual satisfaction).

Matters of female emancipation are often discussed from a primarily economic, not a sexual perspective. This is misleading.

Activists who fight for female emancipation point at the injustice embodied in a social system in which women as a whole largely depend on men as a whole.

The perspective is wrong, because not economic affairs are the most important matter in life, but sexual satisfaction.

A society in which women depend less on men than in a previous society doesn't mean that the subsequent society is more supportive of the sexual satisfaction of women. It may, but just as well, it may not.

The economic emancipation as it has been implemented in Europe and America over the past 20, 30 years has been counterproductive to genuine female emancipation (the same right and access to sexual satisfaction), or, on broader, more important terms: it has been counterproductive to female, and male, sexual happiness.

This is the case because some very basic social conventions haven't been reformed along with the economic conditions that gave more economic independence for women.

In earlier times in Europe and the Americas, and in current societies in which females depended, or depend, to a larger extent economically on males, economic necessities have been, or are, an ideal pretext for females to agree to a sexual relationship. Thus, females married, or marry, early (presumably for economic reasons), and it used to be, or is, a common understanding that every woman needs a male partner (and if a previous man was lost, a new one was, or is, needed, and found).

The net effect is that girls and women usually were, or are, in sexual relationships throughout their lives, and from youth on... which, of course, is the basis for sexual satisfaction.

From the perspective of female sexual satisfaction, the economic emancipation of the past 20, 30 years has, in most rich countries, been counterproductive.

Because the economic pretext for entering sexual relationships has been removed, many girls and women don't have a viable excuse any longer for entering sexual relationships.

One obvious effect has been the desexualisation of adolescent females. They marry many years later than their mothers did. Their girlfriend-boyfriend relationships are far less sexual than they were at times when boyfriends could bribe girlfriends into letting things happen in exchange for obtaining material benefits (a setting that has now been specifically outlawed in many countries).

The way the economic emancipation of females was twisted over the past 20 / 30 years was actually a victory for the prudish Protestant Christian values of limiting sexuality through establishing moral restrictions. These restrictions include: no commercial interests connected to sexuality, only entering sexual relationships if both partners are "serious" (very serious).

Some people point out that the world today is much more defined by sexuality in the media than were previous worlds, and they claim this to be proof that today's societies are more sexual. However, the apparent sexualisation of current Western societies is based on the fact that sexual associations have become an important tool in the marketing of products. For this to work, sexual deprivation, rather than sexualisation is a prerequisite.