Even though I have written many theoretical articles, I am a practical man. In this respect, too, I like to follow the advice of the man who said that it's not important to just explain the world; we also must change it.
Therefore, in this article, I will summarize some very practical ideas on how we can create a society that allows a higher degree of sexual freedom, not just personal freedom, to both man and women.
It appears that in matters of sexual desire, there is a biological disproportion between the males and females of the human species.
Healthy males who are not socially threatened are genetically not determined to be monogamous. Even if they are committed to a monogamous relationship (because it may be a requirement of the society they live in), they can easily be aroused by other females, provided these other females possess sexual attributes in accordance with the taste of the man in question.
I say "healthy males who are not socially threatened" because males who have health problems and those who are socially threatened may have other requirements and will be more inclined towards a genuinely monogamous relationship.
Females, even when they are healthy and not socially threatened, are more inclined to be genuinely in favor of a monogamous sexual relationship, as this probably matches their genetic disposition more than it fits the genetic disposition of males. This doesn't mean that females would not be capable of enjoying the thrill of sexual variety. It's just that the variety-seeking tendency isn't as pronounced as it is in men.
And while men and women may be different in many aspects, and may have different sexual strategies, and may commonly find optimal fulfillment in different sexual settings, in one way, women are exactly the same as men: sexual satisfaction is the only real purpose in life, and orgasms are the principle sense-providing, metaphysical events.
There is an obvious reason why the females of our species are genetically more (though not entirely) in favor of monogamy, and men more (though not entirely) in favor of polygamy. It comes down to the word "risk".
For as long as humans have realized the connection between sexual intercourse and childbirth, women have rightly considered a sexual encounter as more risky than did men.
"Sleep with the wrong man, and pay for it by having to raise his child for the rest of a (traditionally short) life."
"Sleep with the wrong man, give birth to his child, and be far less attractive to potentially better men."
There has always been less risk for men.
"Sleep with a beautiful girl today, and with another beautiful girl tomorrow, and again another one the next day; and if one has a child, oh well, that's primarily her problem."
But it's not just that the comparatively new awareness of the fact that sexual encounters are more risky for women make them more inclined to monogamy.
I assume that there even is a genetic basis. Natural selection, even from times before humans realized the connection between sexual intercourse and childbirth, would have favored women with a more careful mating strategy.
On the other hand, natural selection would likely have favored men who pursued sexual intercourse with many women, and would thus have sired more offspring than they would have been able to support (there are some other factors, such as offspring survival, which would have been in favor of monogamous men, but these factors probably did not set off the procreative advantages of promiscuous men).
My political agenda is the pursuit of a society of greater sexual freedom. Designing such a society requires practical steps which are to be outlined as policies.
An overriding concern must be that such a society of greater sexual freedom is not disadvantageous for women. Therefore, while I am indeed convinced that there is a biological conflict between the sexual strategies of men and women, I am more than willing (this would be: determined) to contribute to the social bridging of these biological differences.
Thus, in order to compensate women for the inherently greater risk sexual conduct means for them, I support, in general, policies that are favorable to women: more favorable to women than to men.
First policy - general safety
An unsafe society is detrimental for the sexual freedom of both men and women, but for women even more so than for men. If we have to fear physical violence on the street, armed break-ins into our homes, weapons-bearing lunatics, and mafia gangs ruling neighborhoods, the normal impulse of everybody, especially women, is to seek steady partnerships, simply for protection. Thus, a strong state is a requisite for sexual freedom, especially the sexual freedom of women.
Second policy - no religious enforcement whatsoever
Unfortunately, we live in a world in which religions have not yet entirely been discarded. A strong state that guards the personal and sexual freedom of its citizens ought to stringently protect everybody from the imposition of whatever religious mandates that may exist in a geographic region. Again, this is more important for women than for men.
Third policy - risk preemption for sexual pleasure, especially for women
Free availability of all methods that disengage love-making from pregnancy and childbirth. Free contraception; easily available or free abortions. No social stigmatization or discrimination against women who are not in a monogamous relationship with a man, or who raise a child or children without a present father or substitute father. A comparatively high degree of economic security for women, especially when they have given birth to children. Economic support for women who are pregnant or have given birth by compelling biological fathers to pay up. In case this does not materialize, economic support by the state.
The less economic pressure is on women to emphasize the monogamous tendencies in their character, the more likely they are to give in to own promiscuous inclinations. This can be a substantial enrichment of their lives, and apart from that, is supportive of a sexually free society (which needs sexually active women as well as sexually active men).
Fourth policy -sexual health
While sexual conduct, and the motivations for it, should not be policed, tight policing of sexual health is imperative if we want to build a society of greater sexual freedom (this is just another aspect of why freedom needs a strong state, which nevertheless is based on an ideology of granting its citizens optimal freedom). Sexually transmitted diseases are one of the most important metaphysical negations of sexual satisfaction for all.
Apart from preventing violence among the members of a society, the state has an important function in safeguarding public sexual health. Not only should the state provide regular, free sexual health check-ups for all members of society who have reached sexual maturity.
Treatment should also be free, and the occurrence of sexually transmitted diseases should be closely monitored. Infecting another person with a sexually transmitted disease should be defined as crime, and should be punished.
Fifth policy - no age discrimination
In as much as cosmetic surgery advances, a youthful appearance is in reach for much of a woman's and man's life. This effect of sexual attractiveness ought not to be diminished by the necessity to show a recorded age in passports or other documents. A strong state should be capable to establish a person's identity solely from his genetic fingerprint. In order to preempt discrimination on grounds of age, no birthdates shall be recorded of citizens (just as a citizen's race no longer is recorded).
Sixth policy - no artificial age barriers
There is nothing wrong and nothing unnatural for people having sexual contact bridging one or two generations. This must not be demonized. Just as older men can derive enormous pleasure from sexual contact with substantially younger women, older women can have great enjoyment with substantially younger men. It may even be that the sexual potency of older women and younger men match more closely than the sexual potency of older men and older women, just as the sexual patience of older men and the sexual reservations of younger women match more closely than the impatience of younger men and the lack of experience of younger women. That a large age gap in any way is unnatural is a myth circulated by anti-sexual religious lunatics and feminazis (the usual anti-sex coalition).
Seventh policy - exchange of sexual and material gratifications
Just as a large age gap between sexual partners is demonized, so is the exchange of sexual for material gratifications. Because the exchange of material and sexual gratifications happens all the time, and because it has happened all the time throughout history, the demonizing of this exchange is actually a rather new attempt of brainwashing by those who want to moralize as much sexuality out of the human life as ever possible.
Even in a society that bridges the differences between male and female mating strategies, men will probably display a stronger polygamous sex drive than women. Superficially, this seems to put a limitation on the engineering of a human society that allows optimal sexual satisfaction for men as the polygamous willingness of women would be limited even when the differences in mating strategies are bridged. The reason for this is genetic imparity.
However, there is a biological basis for females of our species to grant sexual favors to males in exchange for protection and economic favors. I say that the basis for this deal-making is biological because it predates any form of sophisticated human society.
By all indications, even when our early human ancestors still roamed African grasslands as hunters and gatherers, or as scavengers, there was a trade-off in which males obtained sexual gratifications and females, in exchange, obtained protection and access to food. This kind of arrangement has persisted throughout history.
I do not believe that this is unnatural, and I don't even think that it is immoral per se. It's an aspect that helps to establish a sexual balance between males and females. It could probably even be proven that nature reduced the sex drive of females in order to put them in a better position to calculate granting sexual favors for economic ones (a necessity for their survival).
Extensive studies of arranged marriages have come to the conclusion that sexual partnerships that are entered into for practical reasons (to provide a sexual outlet for a man with a strong sex drive, and to provide economic security for a women with a yet not very developed sex drive) are just as likely to result in a working love relationship as are partnerships that start out with being in love. Love probably isn't as metaphysical as modern Western romanticism wants to make us believe. Treating each other well in a family-supported environment, and having an intimate relationship at the same time, historically goes a long way in establishing love.
While this historical model is inappropriate in today's world for a variety of reasons, it is nevertheless an indication that some economic interests on the part of the women when entering a sexual relationship is not preemptive for love, but can well be a supportive element.
