The basic philosophical insight is the same for women and men.
Our individual lives will have irreversibly passed once we have died.
We cannot benefit after our death from anything we do before it. Thus,
all rewards will have to be in this life, and not an imagined afterlife.
This is the same for women and men. And for women and men, this simple
assertion completely disqualifies religions from the competition of
sense-giving explanations.
Do we live to have offspring?
The idea that we live to procreate is at least based on our genetic
program.
But I and my genes are not the same thing. Sure, biologically, my genes
use me to procreate themselves. And because each of us is the result of
the procreation of his or her genes, and because, furthermore, each of
us is the product of genes that were better than other genes in
reproducing themselves, and thus us, the idea of living to procreate indeed is
firmly rooted in our existence.
However, this concept of nature is totally shattered with the advent of
self-cognition. A major aspect of self-cognition is the awareness of
each of our individual deaths. Self-cognition enables me to recognize
that my individual interests can be quite different, and even the
opposite, of the interests of my genes.
My own interest is to be sexually satisfied (because this is the
ultimate pleasure), and not to suffer, and to die a gentle death. The
interest of my genes is to replicate themselves, and, for the purpose of
procreation, even live through the worst of torture. Suffering is the
negation of my interests; but the negation of the interests of my genes would
be not to replicate.
Self-cognition allows us to dissociate ourselves from our genes, and
for this reason alone, self-cognition quite possibly is a dead-end
mutation. We just haven’t reached our own termination point yet.
Logically, based on our ability of self-cognition, we do not live to
have offspring. This again is the same for men and women.
Logically, for both women and men, only ultimate sexual satisfaction,
and after that, a gentle death, are values that are in tune with our
interests, not the interests of our genes.
And ultimate sexual satisfaction for both women and men means: to live
time and again through those phases of sexual relationships that are
the most rewarding from a perspective only of sexual satisfaction.
I know what this means for men: Usually, it is sexually most exciting
to enter new sexual relationships. In most of my love affairs, I get the
most sexual satisfaction in the beginning.
“In the beginning” doesn’t necessarily mean “during the first physical
contact”. Actually, if during the first sexual contact, only kissing
happens, and during the second, only breast touching, and during the
third, genital touching above clothes, and the fourth, genital touching
inside clothes, and so on…, I can spread raising sexual excitement over a
good number of encounters. However, sooner or later, I will reach a
phase when there is nothing new in subsequent events of love-making, and
from that time on, the sexual satisfaction value of being with this
person declines, unless there are incidents which potentate sexual
excitement, for example jealousy. But even the power of jealousy diminishes,
and we even get used to the unfaithfulness of a partner.
Now, quite possibly, the rising curve for women is more prolonged.
Quite possibly, a certain number of repeats of the same kind of sexual
incidents with the same partner still translates into raising sexual
excitement. Maybe. I am not a woman, I cannot feel the manner in which female
brains are wired as well as I feel the manner in which male brains are
wired.
I guess that young and inexperienced women get more satisfaction
mileage from being in a monogamous relationship for some time than do older
women. I do know a good number of women, mostly above 30, who have an
enormous sexual appetite for new and younger men. It is quite obvious to
me that for them, pursuing sexual satisfaction in a highly polygamous
fashion must be much more satisfying than being with an older man with
whom they have been for decades.
Therefore, I reckon that female liberation basically is the same as
male liberation: the victory over both biological and social limitations
to the pursuit of optimal sexual satisfaction.
I do recognize, however, that the hurdles, both biological (genetic)
and social, to female liberation are higher than those for male
liberation. Which is why female liberation requires an additional step over
general liberation (which liberates males).
Because males can sire a multitude of offspring by having different sex
partners every day, a behavior that guarantees a maximum number of
offspring is closer to a strategy of optimal sexual satisfaction for men
than it is for women. Compared to men, women can have only a very limited
number of offspring, and they are genetically primed to be more
concerned about the wellbeing and survival of each individual offspring than
are men.
Which is why we can rightfully assume that mother’s love is stronger
than father’s love.
However, women are genetically more primed to feel attracted to a man
who appears to have excellent genes, while men are primed to spread
genes more indiscriminately.
But precisely because women have a smaller margin of error in partner
choice for propagating their genes, they must be genetically primed to
seek children from men with apparently good genes, and from more than
one, if the opportunity exists, as this greatly reduces the risk of
extermination in case the genes of an initial man just aren’t a good match.
Thus, the preference of many women in current, philosophically
antiquated, societies for monogamous relationships can only partially be
biological (genetic). The explanation would run like this: in insecure social
climates, women are genetically primed to retreat into monogamous
relationships faster than men.
The following three scenarios explain this theory:
1. A society of unfavorable natural and social conditions, paired with
a low level of self-cognition: The natural environment is marked by a
high risk of famine, a multitude of natural dangers in the pursuit of
survival. The social environment is characterized by poverty and a high
level of violence, in the form of both crime and war. People have some
awareness, but no scientific knowledge of death, and thus are
susceptible to lunatic religious ideas. In such an environment, both men and
women will display a tendency to stable one-on-one sexual relationships.
2. A society of intermediate natural and social conditions, paired with
an intermediate level of self-cognition: Just think of the present-day
US society. The danger of internal war is limited, but crime is
rampant. There is intermediate self-cognition by those who are capable of
accepting their own death as the total individual cessation of life, but
many people are not mentally prepared or capable to accept this truth.
Thus, you have science and religions existing side by side. In such an
environment, men are much more likely to liberate themselves sexually
than are women. Thus, there seems to be a discrepancy between the
polygamous inclinations of men and those of women, with men having to resort to
“cheating” and the leverage afforded by a high individual wealth gap to
get what they need. The “sexual opportunities” section of my website
addresses men in a world of such intermediate natural and social
conditions.
3. A society of favorable natural and social conditions, paired with a
high level of self-cognition: Such a society would feature a very low
incidence of crime, especially violent crime, and basic necessities of
food and shelter would be very easy to meet indeed. Both men and women
have a very high awareness and acceptance of the individual cessation of
their lives, and the teachings of religious lunatics have very little
influence. In such a society, in which the pursuit of optimal sexual
experience, followed by a gentle death, are universally accepted basic
values, both men and women will show pronounced tendencies towards
multiple sexual relationships, and by and large, an equilibrium is
established. I do not think that the first human societies along this line will be
established in America (too much violence, too many religious
lunatics), and not even in Europe (too much sexual pathogenicity of Christian
tradition). Rather, my bet for the first type 3 human societies would be
on East Asia, not only because these societies already have low levels
of internal violence, but also because it’s the corner of the world
where religious lunatics have had the least influence.
Genuine feminism will have to deal with the female liberation, which
will be necessary to proceed to type 3 societies. And while there has
been a period of genuine feminist activism in the 1960s and 1970s, this
line of feminism has greatly been muffled.
By contrast, the current feminist trend, spearheaded by man-hating
feminazis, is to wind back male sexual liberation and to mentally cripple
men again into being largely monogamous, as they were in type 1
societies, characterized by material misery and constant fear, not only of the
violence of other humans, but also of committing sins for which one
would suffer, as imagined by Dante, eternally in hell.
