Epistemology of Love

heartFeminism needs to re-appropriate sexuality from hegemonic male conceptualization while questioning female nominal privileges inherent to sexism. (book – 88 chapters)

  1. Asymmetric Power Structure
  2. Approchement
  3. Feminist Love
  4. Feminist Etiquette
  5. Feminist Dating
  6. Psychology of Love
  7. Politics of Sexual Attraction
  8. Divine Love
  9. Psychopathology of Infatuation
  10. Ethics & Aesthetics of Pleasure
  11. Gender Politics of False Consciousness
  12. Sexual Pathology
  13. Beyond Parenthood
  14. Perfect Love
  15. Nature of Beauty
  16. Culture of Scopophilia
  17. The Pornographic Imagination
  18. Narratives of Love
  19. Nobleness
  20. Bureau of Love
  21. Healthy Infatuation
  22. Feminist Ethics of Aesthetics
  23. Sin Centers
  24. Lowly versus Sublime
  25. Empowered Flower
  26. Learning Functional Bisexuality
  27. Eschatology of Sameness
  28. Ontology of Embodiment
  29. Telos of Clothing
  30. Sexualities of Gender
  31. Shifting Paradigm in Feminism
  32. Structure of Sublimation
  33. Temples of Love
  34. Feminist Social Centers
  35. Feminist Courtship
  36. Designing Feminist Man
  37. Sexual Phallocentrism
  38. Agency of Ejaculation
  39. Arousal of Taboo
  40. Question of Infidelity
  41. Harlot Feminism
  42. Matter of Defloration
  43. Feminist Pickup
  44. Semiotics of Gendered Desire
  45. Sexy Feminism
  46. Feminist Religion
  47. Sexual Restraint of Gender
  48. Feminist Transtopia
  49. Science of Seduction
  50. Deconstructing the Nightclub
  51. Reversing Sexual Repression
  52. Epidemiology of Abjection
  53. Feminism and Sexual Repression
  54. Beyond Segregation
  55. Dismantling the Barrier of Gender
  56. Gender of Abjection
  57. Consent and Phonocentrism
  58. Art of Feminist Seduction
  59. Deconstructing Heterosexualism
  60. Prince of Dreams
  61. Raising the Feminist Subject
  62. Spine of Seduction
  63. Feminist Social Behavioral Training
  64. End of Man
  65. Feminist Cruising
  66. Futurology of Friendship
  67. Signifié, Signifiant and Significant Other
  68. Mathematics of Beauty
  69. Science of Pleasure
  70. Telos of Feminism
  71. Deontology of Prince of Dreams
  72. Makeup Feminism
  73. Eroticization of Ethics
  74. Arousal of Seduction
  75. Deferred Messianic Arrival
  76. Gender Discomfort
  77. Expressing Personhood
  78. Expressing Desire
  79. Friendship of Love
  80. Virgin meets Harlot
  81. Evidence of Love
  82. Optometry of Patriarchy
  83. Question of the Gift
  84. Politics of Affirmative Negation
  85. Choreography of Love
  86. Death of Heteroculture
  87. Establishing Panamorous Cultural Hegemony
  88. Establishing Polyamorous Cultural Hegemony

1. Asymmetric Power Structure

Human love is typically misunderstood in cultural and moralizing terms and is rarely understood as the diversely socially constructed zoological serial phenomena that it genuinely is. Human love is typically in Western culture misunderstood through the Para-Christian dichotomy of sexual love (as defined by males) and non-sexual love (as defined by females). Thus females determine the rules for romantic engagement while males determine the rules for sexual engagement. Males subject themselves to female rules in romantic interaction while females submit themselves to male rules in sexual interaction. Hence females collectively decide the rules of engagement only up to the point where the flirting turns into sex when subsequently the power structure is reversed and they submit themselves to hegemonic male rules of engagement.

Neither males nor females are prone to abandon their privileges of power and epistemology in these regards and may speak quite derogatively about fellow human beings who are regarded as deviating from the pre-determined asymmetric social rules of engagement. A female who deviates from the pre-determined rules of sexual conduct may be considered “a slut” while a male who deviates from the pre-determined rules of romantic conduct may similarly be considered “a sleaze”. However, a male “slut” is considered enviable while a female “sleaze” is considered flirty and even adventurous in an admirable sense.

This socially constructed asymmetric structure of power has rarely if ever been questioned in feminism which resolutely sticks to the female, asymmetric romantic privileges and generally will not challenge the male rules of engagement in what is culturally considered “consensual” sexual interaction. However, the “consensus” is not merely a nominal individual one between two persons but is rather a real consensus in society in determining heteronormative love as a gender-asymmetric hegemonic power structure indeed.

2. Approchement

Love in Western society takes place in two stages, the first being the conscious visual identification in deeming the other person “attractive” and the second being subconscious odor identification as subsequently confirming individual status as “attractive”. Fertile-age human females in Western society typically seek to manipulate this situation by endeavoring to look, sound and smell “better” through various cosmetic interventions, artificial tone of voice and manipulative clothing that visually “improve” the perceptual image in the eyes of others. Females do this by virtue of being in a power-wise nominally privileged situation of collectively determining the rules of pre-sexual conduct.

Yet, the rules of confirmation are in this context gender-reverse in that males initially determine visual identification while females ultimately decide the compatibility of mutual odor identification. Females however tend to manipulate the situation by distorting the entire process of identification of attractiveness. Fertile-age females thus typically try to disguise themselves with regard to visual impression, odor impression and voice impression and in this way deliberating endeavoring to socially deceive males. A male in turn is expected, indeed socially obliged to engage in societally accepted social aggression in approaching females he deems attractive. However, how can he know beforehand whether the approchement is wanted? If he is deemed attractive, then the approach may be cautiously welcomed, yet if he is deemed unattractive, then he may be derogatively referred to as being “a sleaze” due to age, weight, physical look, economic status, diagnosed functional variation, color of skin etc. Again, this is a power play.

While tactically women are thus endowed with seeming power over males, this is an illusion as the social purpose of the process is the sexual subjection of females. Indeed, most fertile-age females do desire sexual subjection and this is the main psychological reason why they subconsciously submit to this social process leading to sexual subjection in monogamous reproductive prostitution. The illusion of female power by means of socially accepted visual/odor/voice deception creates an impression that the entire process of sexual subjection of females is individually consensual when in fact it constitutes an informal social contract on the level of social norms determining the limits and acceptability of love.

Feminists tend to be intensely concerned with safeguarding female romantic privileges while only rarely if ever endeavoring to change the near exclusive male privilege with regard to defining the Western social construct of sexuality itself. Females are therefore expected to accept or decline this arrangement with regard to particular males, yet she is limited to individually accepting or declining as she and her sisters living under patriarchy are not supposed to be the ones who determine or question the very ground rules with regard to the male-defined sexual conduct itself.

3. Feminist Love

Feminism has long been torn apart by its civil war between pro-sex feminists and anti-sex feminists in offering an illusion of feminist consent whereby females can reject or accept male-defined hegemonic sexuality in encounters with individual males, yet are never socially permitted to renegotiate the very ground rules themselves. As in an approchement, a female in bed with a male is limited to her cunning in psychologically manipulating the male and her ability to manipulate her own image in the eyes of the male beholder. She may thus use perfume, makeup and lingerie to provoke male sexual arousal yet she is limited to play by the rules that define sexuality itself. Even if she takes on a male role in being dominant in bed, she is still merely reenacting the male rules defining the socially constructed purported “essence” of sexuality in simply iterating the male hegemonic sexual performance of so called “sexuality” itself without questioning the masculinist distortions inherent to that very social construction.

Few feminists would however despite the internal porn-wars in feminism question the problematic nature of pornography as it is currently socially constructed including its disturbing mechanization of sexuality in disguising and disfiguring female desire. Pornography in the age of the Internet has indeed become increasingly powerful in defining the social construction of sexuality to the point that the usually loveless pornography has become increasingly socially constructed as sexuality itself.

The question of feminist love is therefore one that needs to become absolutely central to feminism itself. Feminist love should emphasize friendship in declining the dichotomy between romantic infatuation and sexual mechanization. Feminist love ought to reject both the self-defeating female visual/odor/voice deception and the masculinist hegemony reducing female desire to choosing either side of the sexist and simplistic romance/sexuality dichotomy. Yet not only females engage in amorous deception as dating is essentially about lying and emotionally defrauding someone else as males too are partners in this purportedly “consensual” social fraud that is dating. Of course, abjection tends to supplant attraction when the male discovers the real image of the female partner as the marriage as based upon infatuation naturally falls apart once infatuation ends considering that the relationship was based upon mutual social fraud (i.e. hypocrisy) to begin with.

Romantic infatuation is in many cases precisely a temporary mental disorder whereby the subject person engages in the illusion of psychologically confusing another person with the safe and secure womb in which the subject person was once gestated. In pathological terms this typically involves becoming pathologically addicted to another person’s natural body odor without genuinely and truly appreciating the personhood of the idealized subject of pathological infatuation.

Salutogenic love is however built upon the stable basis of friendship without deception. Friendship is not only central to the conception of feminism but friendship is indeed both locus and telos of what feminism itself is supposed to be about. Feminism thus crucially seeks friendship not only among females but also between females and males. Such friendship need not be profound although it may well be, however it must be sincere without the power play of socially accepted, yet certainly ill-advised mutual deception. Indeed romantic relationships tend to fall apart when it turns out that there is no foundational friendship to begin with and only essentially temporary sexual attraction as premised upon mutual deception and distorted perception.

Just as pathological infatuation tends to constitute addiction to a mentally idealized perception and natural odor only, so is salutogenic love appreciative of most aspects of the person herself in her entirety. Indeed, pathological infatuation is based upon illusion, deception and wishful thinking while salutogenic love is in contrast committed to and based upon mutual and open-eyed friendship. Feminism therefore needs not only insist on new ground rules but should also question the hegemonic Western (i.e. Para-Christian) conception of sexuality itself. Indeed, awareness that love (including sexuality) needs to be based upon genuine mutual friendship tends to be rather quite widespread among Lesbian females, yet is peculiarly poorly understood in hegemonic heteronormative culture.

4. Feminist Etiquette

A transformative feminist approach would therefore both seek to equalize the rules for romantic approchement in making these rules gender-neutral while crucially also questioning the male monopoly over defining sexual conduct and indeed sexuality itself. What is needed is no less than a feminist etiquette, meaning a feminist social contract, indeed an innovative feminist code of conduct. Thus changing the ground rules requires understanding that this is not only about social constructions and that there is indeed zoological basis which indeed is that which is being socially constructed. Indeed there is something that is being socially constructed as social construction is of course an intrinsic part of human zoology itself as can be witnessed in the rich anthropological diversity worldwide.

Feminism must therefore not only perform critique but actively move to set new ground rules whereby sexual phallocentrism is supplanted by multilocus erogenity. Indeed, the phallus itself has been much maligned in feminist discourse and rather the task should be to rediscover the multi-functional usefulness of this remarkably erogenous joystick. The critique of phallocentrism tends indeed to confuse the obviously highly problematic phallocentrism with the phallus itself which in contrast needs to be re-appropriated in feminist sexuality. The bodily decentralization of sexual desire should thus be important, indeed absolutely central for the purpose of the feminist social reinvention of sexuality.

This will also crucially require cleaning up the porn industry and instituting feminist norms and feminist codes of conduct throughout the sex industry in sexually innovative ways that will make sexist pornography seem boring and disinteresting to most consumers. Political pornography is also something with much potential for questioning and changing unhelpful norms as once in revolutionary France until about 1830. The importance of explicitly feminist pornography in this process can thus hardly be overstated.

The beauty industry is certainly problematic also in the sense of it selling disguise and aiding deception inherent to heteronormative female social conduct, yet improved beauty certainly does not need to be deceptive and ethically wrong if it enhances the person in perceptualizing her personhood rather than disguising her. The feminist code of conduct should thus very much be concerned with the question of enhanced beauty as a matter of feminist ethics. Indeed males too should be educated in how they can ethically perceptualize their respective individual personhood by means of enhanced beauty. Personal beauty is certainly not a sin and it is even a virtue if it indeed enhances the perception and recognition of the individual personhood itself.

5. Feminist Dating

First it is important to once more point out that most feminists have no clue as to what women’s liberation means or how to reach there and are instead busy protecting female romantic privileges inherent to hegemonic sexism. Imagining what feminist dating would mean thus requires rethinking the very basic premises of dating.

Feminist dating should first of all not take place between two persons only. The person wishing to date a female should go out not only with her, but her female friends should come along as well. Dating should therefore not initially be about romance or sex but about friendship as friendship is the only real and lasting basis of romantic love and sexual intimacy.

A male wishing to engage in feminist dating must therefore either bring his female friends and/or meet with her female friends. If the person truly wishes to get to know her, then he must be ready to join sisterhood. They should all be doing things together and the male will need to discover whether he is ready to join sisterhood.

Sisterhood as the basis of friendship with a female human being is indeed the only good beginning for romance and intimacy. The male must therefore accept that his only acceptable social role in this regard is part of sisterhood. If he sincerely accepts being a sister then he may subsequently become admitted into the sisterhood. This means that he has to seek admittance and approval from her friends as well. Similarly must she seek approval from his female friends.

When he and the female human being decide to become intimate, then they should be joined by the female friends as well. When they thus enter sacred marriage by means of penetrative intimacy, then the female friends should join them in elaborate ceremonies including both being oiled and erotically massaged for hours while being bound up. Sacred marriage by ritual sex as performed by sisterhood should thus replace the social fraud that is the wedding which is virtually always a profound disappointment for the female in question who is thus being emotionally, socially and economically defrauded in the sleazy reproduction trade that is monogamous prostitution.

Feminist dating may involve activities at home such as cooking, gardening, watching movies in the home, but also activities associated with current dating such as cinemas and restaurants. However, there would always be two female friends joining them at any meetup as preparation for feminist sacred marriage must be regarded as sacred duty indeed.

One important purpose of feminist dating is to ensure that the potential spouses genuinely and truly like each other’s personalities. In order for there to be a good match, they should therefore admire each other’s strengths and adore each other’s weaknesses. In order to achieve such compatibility they should ideally match each other psychometrically, yet it is also possible to learn to respect and love the personality of another person even in the absence of psychometric compatibility. Indeed, most monogamous marriages are unhappy because the spouses do not truly and genuinely like and appreciate each other’s personalities in the broad non-clinical sense of the word.

6. Psychology of Love

Mutual love is telepathic in nature in that mutual love is the experience of feelings of others as one’s own feelings. Two persons in love thus telepathically experience each other’s feelings and confuse their own respective feelings with the feelings of the beloved person. Love however becomes pathological when it becomes painful.

Love is typically conceived as constituting distinctive categories between different “categories” of persons. Yet love is rather an emotional spectrum and love may be either pathological or salutogenic depending on the circumstances and whether or not it causes harm or suffering to anyone.

The Slovenian psychoanalyst Slavoj Žižek has suggested that love is simply evil and no doubt he has a point there, however it is pathological love that is evil as salutogenic love is certainly not considering that salutogenic love does not cause suffering, but only pleasure to each and every person directly involved. To distinguish salutogenic love from pathological love is thus not merely a clinical task but also very much a feminist one.

7. Politics of Sexual Attraction

There is still a deep chasm between female and male normative perceptions of sexual attractiveness in Western culture. Females in Western culture typically refer to sexual attractiveness as so called “beauty” while most males could not care less about beauty as long as a woman is not considered “sexy”. For virtually all males is sexiness beauty itself. If she is beautiful without being sexy then she is not particularly interesting or attractive in the eyes of most males while females are indoctrinated by forms of popular culture geared towards female teenagers to believe that males are attracted to beauty irrespective of sexiness which generally certainly of course is not the case.

Then who is right on this argument? The males are right simply because that is how most males genuinely and truly feel and there is essentially nothing wrong with that. Yet males are typically not necessarily transparent about this and instead play the female romantic game of pretending that they are attracted to beauty itself without sexiness which of course is rarely the case. The hegemonic female misunderstanding according to which males are attracted to beauty rather than by means of raw sexual desire is thus a form of false consciousness. Females as structurally misled by certain forms of popular culture therefore endeavor to convince themselves that males are attracted to beauty and that even sexiness itself is mere beauty. Males typically try to avoid pointing out to females what is an obvious fact to most males who have grown up in Western civilization. Saying so is considered inconsiderate and breaks the female romantic rules of the game leading to subjection in normative reproductive slavery and monogamous prostitution.

This very vast fraud is maintained by the beauty industry whose products are typically developed by systematically torturing enslaved non-Human Persons. Indeed, the beauty industry in its current form depends on this big lie and collective fraud indeed on the part of hypocritical patriarchy in modernity in simply playing along with female wishful thinking. This systemic, collective fraud is premised on the patently false presumption that there is such a thing as non-sexual love as supposedly non-sexual love is rather simply sexual sublimation and in this case premised on structural repression of female sexual desire and its distortion by patriarchy into something easily manipulated by sexism. Indeed, the emotionally fraudulent romantic process is premised on this very false notion as it is typically considered impolite for males to point out what is an obvious yet while females are present typically always unstated fact.

This is particularly absurd because females are not known to select males through some kind of informal beauty contest. Just as males choose females primarily on the basis of sexiness so do females also choose males on the basis of sexiness. It is most peculiar how often females who claim to believe that males choose females out of beauty irrespective of sexiness are themselves quite tolerant of significant aesthetic imperfections with respect to their own choice of males. The truth is that most females and males in Western culture will overlook significant imperfections with regard to beauty if the person is simply perceived as sexy enough. Indeed, males and females behave similarly in this regard although if there is difference, then it is females who tend care less about beauty in males while implausibly claiming to believe male choose beauty over sexiness.

This is quite peculiar indeed as females themselves in modernity are typically not overly concerned with male beauty and are strangely tolerant of considerable aesthetic imperfections in males that attractive females themselves would typically consider gross and repulsive when found in fellow females. They may even claim that looks in males is not really important which is rather insulting to the sexually attractive males in question. The structural repression of female desire by sexism thus distorts female carnal desire into an ideological fiction designed to quite effectively perpetuate the structural subjugation of females into monogamous, reproductive prostitution inherent to the mental pathology and ideological fiction that is heterosexualism.

This is facilitated by the female inherent zoological desire for sexual subjugation which is part of human reproductive psychology as this desire is inherent to most human females even prior to puberty and is an evolutionary factor that indirectly reproduces patriarchy indeed. Indeed, if a male sincerely tells a female that he has come to profoundly love her as a person initially because she is sexy and that he cares little about non-sexual beauty, then that would typically be perceived as extremely rude and inconsiderate by a sexually attractive female as if there was something wrong with sexuality itself. The reason she is offended is because female carnal desire is systemically repressed by patriarchy and indeed consistently reduced to male carnal desire. Females are thus typically socially constructed as either subjects or objects of hegemonic masculinist sexuality, meaning that females are typically socially reduced to the simplistic choice of either sexually express or sexually receive hegemonic masculinist sexuality.

This starts as is obvious in a psychoanalytic context with pre-pubescent female repression of sexual desire for her closest family; indeed sexual desire for her mother, her father, her sisters and her brothers. The beauty industry plays precisely on the rather obvious beauty lie as produced by this very repression of female pre-pubescent carnal desire. Females however are systemically brainwashed to convince themselves that men desire them primarily because they are beautiful irrespective of perceived sexiness. This hides the fundamental fact that males sexually essentially desire to be prostitutes in social terms while females desire to be slaves in sexual terms.

Males thus typically will not disclose to their girlfriends/wives that they constantly face strong sexual attraction to unknown females while walking in the streets of any city where females are not systematically veiled. Being constantly sexually strongly attracted to unknown unveiled females in the streets is typically experienced by males as annoying and frustrating to varying degrees while still yet being pleasant and unpleasant at the same time as even highly promiscuous males have sexual relations with only a fraction of those whom they are sexually attracted to.

Indeed, females are traditionally veiled by patriarchy in many cultures so as for males to avoid this very, quite real social nuisance. Reproductive-age females showcasing their potential reproductive capacity through pornographic, indeed exhibitionist clothes therefore convince themselves that their makeup, plastic surgeries and fashion clothes are about beauty when it is in fact structural sublimation of repressed female sexuality disguised as so called “beauty”. The exhibitionist younger females enjoy the attention and derive sexual pleasure from this performance of scopophila as almost any younger female can be made at least temporarily sexually attractive by the beauty industry. It is certainly most understandable that those younger females who are typically not considered sexually attractive without makeup will use makeup so as to be perceived as “attractive” by males, meaning in others words precisely sexy and nothing more than that.

The beauty industry is however increasingly producing a cultural reality whereby even females who are recognized as so called “natural beauties” by culture are not really considered sexually attractive unless they wear makeup. This social reality is not only misogynistic but also more generally profoundly ethically disturbing as it disguises and disfigures female carnal desire in precisely the same way as does public veiling of females in many cultures. This is done on purpose of course by the beauty industry in order to earn more revenues so that now virtually all younger females in modernity feel compelled to purchase themselves so called “beauty” in order so as to become perceived as attractive and interesting by males.

There is sort of structural prostitution in this whereby females are essentially supposed to purchase sexuality, both by gaining sexual attention of male scopophilia through exhibitionist styles and by tricking males into permanent relationships by means of makeup, pornographic clothes, psychological deception, girlish voices and perfume. They do this precisely by manufacturing sexual dependency in their own male partners and therefore typically appreciation for their manufactured exterior only. The male will typically remain with “his” female beyond the infatuation phase for both economic and sexual reasons while the fact is rather that he is typically in most cases a mere lousy parasite and despicable hypocrite who even in most cases does not appreciate and even less like her personality. Of course, in most cases she does not really appreciate his personality either but she has been brainwashed from early age to believe that males select females because of inherent so called “beauty” and that “her” male “loves her” because of her purported inherent, yet actually manufactured so called “beauty”. The structural, in fact despicable and absurd cynicism inherent to this sexist state of things in Western modernity can of course hardly be overstated.

The truth is that the hegemonic system of false consciousness that is heterosexualism is experienced as absolutely disgusting by most females, including by this very author. It is a social system that is despicable, extremely cynical and whose purpose is precisely manufacturing “consent” by females for themselves being defrauded emotionally, socially, psychologically and of course very importantly so economically so by both male “partners” and by the beauty industry. The truth is that not only socially Lesbian females but most purportedly so called “heterosexual” females are absolutely disgusted by the culture of heterosexualism although typically keeping up a “happy” façade of compliance with its social and ideological requirements.

Living as a female in the culture of heterosexualism involves constant structural humiliation to typically unwanted, yet barely socially disguised male sexuality that does not esteem females as persons but only accords them value in accordance with manufactured “sexiness” grotesquely masquerading as so called “beauty” which in the patriarchal system serves as a social mask for disguising and disfiguring her very inherent personhood. Of course there is ethically speaking absolutely nothing wrong with being extremely sexually attractive and even aesthetically exhibitionist, including by enhanced means, yet certainly not in a way that permanently disfigures and disguises her very personhood.

Yet merely complaining about this state of things leads precisely nowhere and so everyone must become a whore socially speaking whether sexually dominant (as usually wished by males) or sexually submissive (as usually wished by females). There is no other way and this should be on the top of the feminist agenda. Harlot Feminism should thus become the next stage in the trajectory of feminism as devoted to effective solutions IRL and not merely endless complaints as is so immensely popular in third-wave feminism.

8. Divine Love

Just as is it common knowledge, yet typically individually unacknowledged so that most teenagers irrespective of gender extensively use Internet pornography, so is it also an open, yet individually unacknowledged secret that most literate females in Western societies repeatedly read mass market so called romance novels.

The themes of such romance novels are typically similar with a Heroine meeting the Prince of her Dreams who is extremely nice yet exquisitely dominant. In fact, today in Western societies almost every pre-pubescent girl dream about becoming a princess and marrying the prince of her dreams. This is to some extent repressed upon entering puberty and is typically transformed into romantic dreams similar to those found in romance novels.

Yet, the fact is that traditional royal courts provide a suitable model for female sexual liberation. Younger persons increasingly expect more from their lives a females usually wish to not only be treated like princesses but indeed become ones. Is it really too much to ask for that every female is ensured free plastic surgery so that every female can be beautiful, is treated like a princess and that she is helped finding a prince of her dreams? Of course, most males are anything but behavioral princes, but why not at least educate boys generally to behave like princes, surely is not this too much ask for? In fact, adolescent boys in Western societies tend to behave in an unsophisticated manner towards adolescent girls precisely due to such absence of behavioral education. This is not to say that every boy is cognitively predisposed for developing royal behaviors even with the right training but at least should every boy be given the opportunity to develop such social skills.

Of course virtually all girls in Western societies dream about being kissed on the hand by a prince, being carried away by him without permission and riding away with him on a white horse in sunset. What is peculiar however is how feminism and feminist theory completely ignores those wonderful princess fantasies of young girls. Surely should educating boys and girls to behave like princes and princesses respectively become central to a new feminist etiquette in guiding the education of both boys and girls? Is it really too much to ask for that boys generally are raised with an exquisite royal etiquette and taught to treat girls like princesses? In fact are such behaviors extremely pleasant and tranquil for both boys and girls. This is indeed how almost every girl in Western modernity fervently wishes to be treated as it provides exquisite social parameters for both romantic engagement of girls and romantic seduction of girls.

Of course the feminist of rules engagement should be gender-neutral, yet this certainly does not preclude teaching gendered royal social behaviors to both boys and girls. While the romantic/sexual rules of engagement certainly ought to be gender-neutral, this does not preclude teaching exquisitely royal gendered behaviors. In fact, a romantic prince is precisely a male equipped with female romantic privileges. A prince is completely permitted to be feminine as this signals exquisite refinement indeed. A princess in turn is a romantic harlot who gives away all her female romantic privileges to the prince of her dreams. The young prince does not ask for permission or consent from the young princess as he knows he knows how to fulfil her intimate dreams in the most exquisite manner possible. Being royal means being educated to behave selflessly, indeed behave divinely.

The sexuality of the prince is selfless as is the sexuality of the princess. The prince thinks solely about her emotional needs & sexual desires and the princess does not decline his desires & requests because she is all his in therefore likewise being completely sexually selfless. Romantic and subsequently sexual engagement between a romantic prince and romantic princess is precisely selfless divine love. Proper royal sexuality means forgetting yourself in exquisitely devoting oneself to an adored other. This means completely forgetting one’s own satisfaction and devoting oneself to completely giving oneself away to a beloved other. This is not mere mutually semiotically agreed mere paltry exchange of sex work as in normative sexuality in Western modernity but precisely sublime, serene, exquisite, indeed most profoundly refined divine love.

Divine love is therefore characterized by utter selflessness, indeed forgetting oneself in both romantic and subsequently sexual engagement. The divine lover does not only forget himself but sees only her and is completely devoted to her most intimate needs and desires. The divine lover is a sort of romantic sex worker as solely, completely and exclusively devoted to the spiritual elevation of her mind and body. The divine lover relates to her Person as a Goddess of Love and her body as Temple of Love. The divine lover forgets his own personhood and utterly and most profoundly so embraces hers. The Divine Lover does not deflower his Divine Girl during their first night together and deflowering is not performed through coitus but rather through cunnilingus indeed. The first act of coitus is not performed immediately after deflowering but rather at least one day later.

Indeed, it is an open secret that the first instance of coitus tends to be quite painful, indeed sort of akin to otherwise non-violent rape and such deflowering therefore becomes a most painful memory indeed for the girl. This is not how girls wish to be deflowered and it is certainly not how girls ought to be deflowered. Indeed, deflowering by means of coitus should be criminalized as a type of completely illegal, indeed most despicable act of rape that sadly is the norm in virtually all human societies. Boys behave in this despicable, rape-like manner towards girls precisely because they sadly receive no social training with respect to how to behave towards girls. Most girls have in contrast to varying degrees a kind of spiritual refinement that in part is imbued in them as part of normative gender roles in Western modernity. It is indeed this very spiritual refinement that certainly needs to be taught to boys as well. Girls are typically taught to love and be desirable and boys need to be educated in precisely the same exquisite manner.

Divine love is indeed both selfless and trusting. The boy treats the girl like a princess and the girl who behaves like a princess is  completely and utterly sexually submissive to every ethical sexual initiative of his. The girl who behaves like a princess does not ever say no when he desires her and the boy who behaves like a prince pays careful attention to her carnal desires and psychological sensitivities as semiotically expressed in her spoken language, her facial language and her body language indeed. This asymmetric, yet no doubt ethically and aesthetically highly appropriate romantic & sexual engagement produces precisely profound, indeed emotionally tranquil mutual trust between the boy who behaves like a prince and his adored girl who behaves like a princess.

It is of course extremely common that boys and girls engage in sexual intimacy long before puberty. In fact, pre-pubescent boys are bizarrely kept in the dark about the simple biological fact that boys are capable of producing sexual erection and therefore engaging in penetrative sex long before puberty. Waiting with sexual intimacy until puberty typically causes severe emotional confusion and even psychological and behavioral dysfunction which sadly often becomes life-long indeed. While defloration should indeed initiate feminist Sacred Marriage should other ethical sex acts certainly be performed long before Sacred Marriage is initiated by deflowering and later consummated by penetrative sex first orally, then vaginally and concluding anally so as well, although oral and anal penetration should be performed in the life of children long before that. Indeed, children should be helped falling asleep by being masturbated by their parents and even older siblings indeed as there is no basis whatsoever for the myth claiming that inter-generational love is intrinsically harmful and inherently traumatizing which it certainly is not. It is rather the repression of the sexuality of children that harms and traumatizes them.

Divine Love is about Personhood, indeed complete and utterly profound devotion to the very sacredness of the Adored Personhood and Adored Idiosyncrasies of the Adored Other. Divine Love is therefore mutually selfless love for the other with no pain and only grace and pleasure. Divine Love means admiring the beloved other for her personal strengths while adoring her personal weaknesses. Divine Love recognizes the physical beauty as the language of Personhood and it is precisely as such divine lovers admire and revere each other’s carnal embodiments.

9. Psychopathology of Infatuation

Pathological infatuation is essentially a form of zoological parasitism whereby one person convinces herself that she is somehow supposed and even somehow mystically destined to parasitically attach herself to another person. Of course there is a parasitical relationship between the embryo/fetus and the womb in which the embryo/fetus lives and so the infatuator convinces herself that the time has come to return to the womb. Human natural reproduction obviously in a sense is about the return by proxy to the womb.

Pathological infatuation is essentially psychotic in the sense that an alternative, imaginary reality is created whereby the object of infatuation becomes falsely idealized by means of systemic delusion. Pathological infatuation is therefore essentially selfish and even evil because it is not based upon selfless affection & respect for idiosyncratic personhood but is rather possessive, controlling and parasitical indeed.

Pathological infatuation is also psychologically founded in psychological insecurity whereby the infatuator essentially does not think of herself as psychologically self-sufficient. This is rooted in human zoology as humans are Herd Animals in that humans typically in a primitive manner profoundly desire to be part symbiotic groups with unquestioned identities. There is thus a primordial longing in humans to symbiotically attach themselves to others.

Romantic infatuation need not however be pathological but should rather be based on selfless affection. Yet this requires clear-eyed understanding and certainly awareness of the vital importance of avoidance of emergence & development of pathological thought patterns. Salutogenic romantic infatuation therefore is not possessive or controlling but rather based upon profound affection & respect not only for a person’s strong sides but also for her weak sides as well.

10. Ethics & Aesthetics of Pleasure

Goyim Naches (literally “international pleasures”) is a harshly critical term in Yiddish referring to the structural celebration of evil as pleasure in Euro-Christian culture. Goyim Naches includes celebration of Christian sins such as greed, gluttony and the abuse of alcohol but also unethical activities prohibited to Rabbinic Jews under Jewish religious law such as hunting to murder non-human persons.

There is a sense in post-Christian Western culture that is intensely uncritical of pleasure. Sexuality is present everywhere in nature and is known as “beauty” as natural beauty in organisms exist in order to ensure reproduction, e.g. a flower is a sexual reproductive organ of a plant yet this is typically disregarded in human cultures in flowers being considered as expression of “beauty” only. Beauty is thus a kind of insidious eroticism. When a human being experiences the beauty of flowers in a field, then she is actually sexually attracted to plants. When a human person describes Cat Persons as “cute” and shares “cute” pictures of Cat persons on social media, then clearly is this expressive of sublimated zoophilia. The same is true of the human person who describes Human children as “cute” and shares “cute” pictures of Human children on social media as this is clearly expressive of sublimated pedophilia.

Yet these pleasures are far from virtuous as this constitutes evil celebration of the very denial of the intrinsic personhood of so called “animals” and “children” respectively. Indeed pleasure itself is not necessarily virtuous. The Talmud teaches that one shall not celebrate the defeat of one’s enemies and clearly the rabbis considered this as expressive of evil pleasure in the sense of taking pleasure in the pain of others and that was therefore religiously outlawed. Christmas is essentially a macabre festival of celebration of different Christian sins and all denominations of Rabbinic Judaism from the most liberal to the most strictly observant therefore completely forbid Jewish participation in the celebration of this very tasteless and indeed farcical annual event. For a holiday to be virtuous it must be ethically relevant just as an identity is only virtuous if it is ethically relevant indeed. A holiday is an occasion of focused emotion and so is pleasure; however pleasure must be ethical in order to be virtuous.

Beauty as sublimated sexuality is always something perceived in the eyes of the beholder yet an also very much real expression of organism. There are therefore two main forms beauty, namely innate sexual radiation in organism (traditionally known as the “soul”) as well as the projective sense of experiencing beauty. Non-living matter such as a bare mountain or a painting may therefore provoke a sense of experience of projective beauty although not being present in these objects in a purely biological sense of beauty. This is so as the person who experiences beauty essentially projects her own zoologically innate cognitive beauty onto external phenomena such as plants, non-human persons, human animals and non-living matter.

Then what is cognitive beauty? Well compare for example a beautiful human person with that person’s state of being dead. Most humans would no doubt admit that the innate cognitive beauty is gone and that the remaining corpse is mere residue of what was once radiant personhood. The same comparison applies with regard to the distinction between a living radiant flower and a withered one.

Emotions are present in all organisms with nerves. Trees and flowers have nerves and therefore emotions, yet there is no cognitive agency in the tree or the flower in the sense that there is no cognitive center that experiences personhood and so there is neurological emotion without experience of cognitive emotion. Nerves as a neurological defense mechanism meant to protect the organism from harm in Animal persons arises from this protective neurological mechanism that is present in non-animal organisms as well. Thus when an Animal person such as a Human Animal does something actually or potentially detrimental to her own body then the nervous system typically reacts in a protective way that neurologically produces a sense suffering as biologically intended to inhibit actually or potentially self-destructive behaviors. When a human person walks in a forest and typically experiences profound relief, then she actually self-experiences the emotions of the trees, plants and non-Human persons in the forest. Similarly is mutual love the experience of the affection felt by the other person as one’s own emotions.

Empathy works similarly in that the protective mechanism against self-harm is projectively extended in defense of yet others. The distinction between selfless love and evil love can therefore be seen in the example of enjoying a living flower in a field or picking and killing it as a clearly destructive possessive experience. Similarly is there a distinction in the Selfless Act of Love that is deflowering by tongue & fingers as opposed to phallic defloration that is typically extremely painful and essentially constitutes a form of rape and torture indeed. The boy who tries to deflower the girl with his phallus thinks only about his own pleasure while the boy who deflowers by means of tongue & fingers practices selfless Divine Love in acting solely out of Respect & Affection and essentially forgets about acquiring pleasure for himself.

The difference between Divine Love and Goyim Naches is therefore that the former is based on Respect & Affection for the Absolute Other (French tout autre) as far as is reasonably possible while Goyim Naches is the very celebration of destruction and/or suffering. Thus a human person who eats body parts from murdered non-Human persons who while alive were enslaved in the Animal Industry of Evil are participants in systemic mass acts of evil against billions of cruelly enslaved non-Human persons thus denied their intrinsic and inherent biological personhood.

The difference between feminist pornography and sexist pornography (although both are usually very tasteless) is that feminist pornography celebrates personhood while sexist pornography semiotically endeavors to discursively, symbolically and aesthetically erase personhood by means of sexual mechanization. Ethical pornography however does not only celebrate personhood as in feminist pornography but produces beauty and artistic value as well, for beauty is a mere extension of sexuality as sexuality in the absence of beauty, respect and affection is essentially pure evil. The experience of beauty is however not only visual but generally sensorial in the sense of being neurological, cognitive, tactile, audial as well as of course visual. However, a visually or audially limited person may therefore be limited in her sensorial perception of beauty, yet still functionally experiences yet other sensorial dimensions of beauty.

11. Gender Politics of False Consciousness

It is most tragic how girls and women in contemporary Western culture are swept into romantic fallacies by commercial popular culture which takes advantage of repressed female sexualities in fomenting patently false myths about current social & sexual behaviors of boys and men. Indeed, most boys & men, even most contemporary male royals behave in an emotionally brutish manner towards female human beings.

Dating however typically involves behaving in an extra-polite manner during dates and sometimes during the infatuation phase generally. The question is therefore why not hyper-politeness is maintained beyond the infatuation phase? The answer of course is that pathological infatuation creates social expectations that are only rarely realized and the immense disappointment is typically followed by mutual rudeness and generally socially inappropriate behaviors on the part of both females and males.

Pathological infatuation involves inventing symbiosis with an illusory image that does not actually exist; indeed much like a toddler may invent an imaginary, invisible friend for herself. The partner of pathological infatuation is thus an imaginary friend that does not really exist. Of course pathological infatuation serves the zoological purpose of ensuring human reproduction no matter the social consequences. However, this also crucially serves power structures that perpetuate patriarchy indeed.

Mutual infatuation while psychologically experienced as truly wonderful indeed, needs and must take place between real persons and not between false images of idealization. In other words, infatuation needs to take place between real friends and not merely between lose acquaintances who mutually project repressed infantile sexual images of fathers and mothers from childhood. Infatuation therefore needs to be both intelligent and based on true friendship and genuine mutual appreciation of personhood with respect to both strong sides and weak sides of an adored person.

Indeed, friendship is about genuine mutual appreciation unlike pathological infatuation which is based on turning acquaintances into imaginary false friends. Therefore, romantic infatuation without genuine friendship is pure evil and is a form of psychopathology indeed. However, it is a mental disease that is not only socially accepted & socially condoned but even socially encouraged to the point of being considered socially obligatory for girls and women. Pathological infatuation therefore needs to be medically recognized as a medical condition indeed and timely treatment is absolutely necessary. Popular culture needs to be shamed into cease promoting pathological infatuation as a social ideal. Persons who experience pathological infatuation certainly require help from psychologists, including through sex therapy.

Therefore, exquisite politeness must not be limited to the infatuation phase but must become obligatory for social behaviors generally in human societies. Girls tends to be highly spiritual beings who in their encounters with sexist society are socially and sexually, cruelly brutalized in becoming what are known as so called “women” who are actually in most cases simply girls who have become socially and sexually brutalized by sexist society.

Indeed, the entertainment industry must clean up its act and cease projecting false, evil images and social messages that most tragically contribute to the social brutalization of female human beings and tragically destroy their self-images. Social training in handling infatuation appropriately, ethically and intelligently is also absolutely needed for all and especially so obviously for chronologically young persons.

Feminist Love & Feminist Sexuality including Ethical Feminist Pornography need to embrace the tremendous healing power of diversity in human female beauty. It is furthermore peculiar indeed how feminism views itself as promoting the interests of so called “women” (i.e. brutalized girls) to the near exclusion of the interests of girls yet to be destroyed as feminism is indeed peculiarly known as the “women’s movement”. Feminism too therefore needs to clean up its act and endeavor for the eventual social phasing out of not only what is known “men” but also for the eventual social phasing out of what is known as “women” as well. What is ethico-politically needed in the still distant future therefore is a Girl Society where remaining males become feminist sex workers whether active as Princes of Courts of Conception or otherwise working as feminist sex workers devoted to the elevation of female sexuality. Neither men nor women should be the social norm and Girl Society will ultimately need to be established as based on Exquisite Politeness, Divine Love and Feminist Sex indeed.

12. Sexual Psychopathology

The Masculinist view of sexuality is that it is purely instrumental and therefore primordial and “natural” as if phantasmatically existing prior to social construction. Of course from the perspective of phallocentric patriarchal sexuality is sexuality only a means towards insemination and therefore reproduction.

However, in determining which behaviors are pathological, we need to consider consequences of particular sexual behaviors. A sexual paraphilia can therefore only be considered pathological to the extent that it causes harm and suffering as certainly virtually always does pathological infatuation.

All cultural forms of socio-sexual bonding between males and females in human ethnic cultures are based on human trafficking. The global LGBTQI subculture is an exception of course as Lesbians practice non-pathological romance and Gays practice non-pathological sexuality. It is therefore the purported “normal” culture of heterosexualism that is sick and evil and should therefore be diagnostically classified as pathological indeed.

All ethnically normative forms of socio-sexual bonding are based on suppression of female sexuality and these forms of socio-sexual bonding are therefore profoundly harmful indeed to girls and women. Indeed ethnically normative suppression of female sexuality is pure evil and must therefore clearly be classified as pathological indeed.

13. Beyond Parenthood

The subsectors of the Industry of Beauty include not only the Fashion Industry, the Cosmetics Industry and the Plastic Surgery Industry but the Romance Industry (including Hollywood) and the Pornography Industry as well. The Beauty Industry is however typically premised upon disguise of Personhood rather than its idiosyncratic expression.

The female porn star has in recent decades increasingly become constructed as the socio-sexual ideal for human females in Western culture. This is due to the fact that Internet use has become pervasive and so has online Internet pornographic film largely replaced printed pornography. Female porn models are therefore no longer merely represented as printed visual objects of carnal desire but nowadays as behavioral role models as well.
Sexual repression and sexual unhappiness is so pervasive in Western culture that porn surfing has indeed become universally socially pervasive behavior among frequent Internet users.

Research in Israel has shown that the more religiously teenagers are raised the more online pornography do they use, thus Haredi (“Ultra-Orthodox”) Jewish teenagers consume the most pornography and the secular Jewish teenagers consume the least pornography with the Modern Orthodox Jewish teenagers falling somewhere in between on the spectrum of Israeli majority society. Use of pornography is thus palliative treatment for the pervasive inherent unhappiness produced by culturally normative sexual repression by heterosexualism and the psychological loneliness caused by the interestingly and peculiarly named so called ‘monogamy’, indeed literally “lonely marriage”. The greater the extent of culturally enforced sexual repression therefore also the greater the psychological need for palliative pornography.

What is needed of course is mass social change to break down undue culturally enforced sexual repression, meaning repression of non-pathological sexual emotions. This requires both mass Social Behavioral Training and crucially the abolition of the family for the purpose of imprisoning children and its replacement by youth villages for the purpose of raising children to become socially free and psychologically self-sufficient. Indeed, the collective raising of children as traditionally in Israeli Kibbutzim (anarcho-communist Israeli collective villages) was particularly successfull in this regard as the Kibbutzim during that period produced Israel’s political, military, scientific and artistic elites, yet ceased doing so after the collective raising of children unfortunately ended in most Kibbutzim.

14. Perfect Love

Same-sex love is a mirror, heterosexualism is a mutually manipulative farce, maternal love is controlling, a boy’s love toward his mother is possessive, a girl’s love towards her mother is jealous, a boy’s love towards his father constitutes a distorted masculinist perception and children’s love towards parents is inherently selfish. Therefore the perfect love is the love of the father towards his daughter and mutallly the daughter’s love of her father because this love tends to find the perfect balance between intense sexual attraction and selfless emotional affection while recognizing each other’s respective personhoods.

Virtually every daughter dreams of making love with her father and virtually every father dreams of making love with her daughter or at least so as long as they are both at least relatively sexually attractive. Of course the love between the daughter and her father may become destructive in the daughter attempting to control her father by psychologically manipulating him and the father may similarly attempt to control her daughter by psychologically manipulating her as indeed patriarchy is about males inventing social excuses for controlling female sexuality. The psychological origin of patriarchy can thus be found in the sexist distortion of the perfect love between the daughter and her father.

Feminist love therefore needs to embrace the divine love between the daughter and her father which is typically perfect both socially and sexually. The irrational incest taboo of course is the social subordination of sexuality to reproduction which is a real fallacy as human sexualities although originating in the drive for reproduction are certainly not in any way reducible to reproduction and this is true for other large animals as well. Sexuality is excess, diversity and richness and although its origin lies in reproduction is it so much more than that including essentially sexual phenomena such as love, beauty and care for the other.

It is certainly not a coincidence that human females tend to desire somewhat older human males who in turn reversibly mutually desire somewhat younger females as this is a sublimation of the Divine & Perfect Love between the Daughter and her Father. Perfect & Pure Love therefore is the love between a Girl and a Man; indeed this is what most Human Females Most Intensely and Fervently so Intimately Desire or at least so as long as the father is relatively sexually attractive. The perfect human male therefore treats human females like beloved daughters. The perfect human female in turn treats him like a Most Profoundly Adored & Intimately Desired Father.

Thus Perfect Love is not socially limited to that between a daughter and her father; but the erotically intense, yet profoundly mutually respectful love between daughter and father can certainly be socially practiced in intimate relationships generally. This certainly is even more appropriate in a polygynous society where the proportion of male births is first reduced to a male/female ratio of 5/95 and decades later reduced even further where almost all remaining males are either feminist sex workers or Princes of Courts of Conception as devoted to ethically perfect lives. A Prince of a Court of Conception must therefore treat his Adored Consorts like Intensely Beloved Daughters and should also for eugenic reasons marry daughters in multiple generations. Feminist sex workers in a eugenically feminist society should similarly treat clients like the most Respected & Desired Daughters possible and should only accept clients whom they themselves Truly Carnally & Spiritually Desire.

Indeed, this path of Perfect Love as modeled on the Love between the Intensely Adored Daughter and her Profoundly Admired Father is the Most Intimate Longing of most Girls & Women and that is Inevitably the nature of genuinely feminist sexual utopia.

15. Nature of Beauty

The question of what constitutes beauty and how to attain it is something that increasingly preoccupies girls and women in societies under the influence of American pop culture. Vast amounts of time and money are invested in the pursuit of beauty, including of course in front of the mirror.

This is a question that has a simple answer. The body is the mirror of the soul and beauty is therefore the reflection of the soul. Pursuit of beauty is therefore about finding the perfect expression of the soul. Imitating someone else’s soul is therefore insufficient as beauty is profoundly idiosyncratic indeed. Beauty is therefore not a mask but a genuine, usually multisensorial sensorial expression of Personhood. A cosmetic mask is therefore not true beauty but only imitation of genuine beauty unless the mask of course is truly expressive of the idiosyncratic soul of inherent Personhood.

Salutogenic love is therefore genuine appreciation of Idiosyncratic Personhood and patological “love” is in contrast the absence of full appreciation of Idiosyncratic Personhood.

16. Culture of Scopophilia

Western sexuality is increasingly modeled on that of pornography. Sigmund Freund observed that human males tend to derive pleasure from viewing human females who in turn tend to derive pleasure from being viewed by human males. There is much truth to that of course and many Muslim societies infamously attempt to inhibit scopophilia by means of socially enforced veiling.

Western sexuality is increasingly colored by pornography as pornography is indeed increasingly socially constructed as sexuality itself and pornography is of course precisely a form of scopophilia. The Western culture of scopophilia involves a peculiar social construction whereby the degree of individual self-esteem of girls & women is typically determined by the amount of scopophilic attention they receive from both human males and fellow human females in public space.

The degree of self-esteem of human males in Western culture in contrast tends to be determined by “how much sex that they get”. The sex worker (both the provider of sexual intercourse and the pornstar) is thus increasingly becoming the normative ideal for socio-sexual normative behavior in Western society. Males thus endeavor to become non-commercial prostitutes and females strive to aesthetically become non-commercial pornstars of public space IRL.

However, this social phenomenon is profoundly unhappy as scopophilia typically serves as a substitute for genuinely mutually appreciative emotional intimacy. Girls & Women in Western culture therefore try to attract the envisioned idealized “prince of dreams” by means of enhanced individual beauty in the hope that he will eventually turn up and seduce her. Of course Girls & Women wish to be sexual subjects and proactive agents of sexuality but most simply dare not initiate contact by their own initiative. Training for humans generally is therefore very much needed in expression of socio-sexual agency, including appropriate etiquette for such expression.

Of course, the male who seduces her eventually in most cases turns out to be a sexist monster of some kind and her dreams are crushed as she ages and becomes obese. The dream turned out to be a nightmare of reproductive prostitution where she becomes enslaved to domestic labor, including having much more coitus than she genuinely desires. Vaginas are destroyed by childbirth and so there is in many cases little joy left in coitus even for the male and a huge proportion of young females become permanently incontinent due to the essentially brutish nature of childbirth.

Female self-esteem in Western culture is thus typically socially premised on gaining socio-sexual attention in public space while male self-esteem is premised on having as much coitus as possible. Of course this condition is essentially unhappy for both males and females. Having one’s sense of self-worth based on the amount of scopophilic attention one receives in public space is essentially social torture as is having one’s sense self-worth being based on how much coitus one engages in. Of course this social condition is essentially pathological in every way.

What is needed therefore is a very different normative construction of sexuality whereby tactile contact is de-dramatized. There is far too little hugging in society. In fact, hugging is a wonderful way of indicating affection and initiating mutually appreciative intimacy.

17. The Pornographic Imagination

The hegemony of the pornographic imagination means that human beings in Western modernity increasingly confuse their own individual carnal desires with the distorted vision of ideologically hegemonic sexist pornography. Sexist pornography therefore now serves to disguise and disfigure individual carnal desire.

The pornographic imagination was long seen as a liberating alternative to the austerity of religious sexual repression. However, sexist pornography has established a new ideological hegemony that is anything but liberating but rather is a new form of sexual repression whereby carnal love is ideologically supplanted by austere sexual mechanization.

It is highly peculiar indeed how feminism with few exceptions has largely refrained from intervening in the porn industry. Similarly are most active feminists peculiarly silent with regard to the very real concerns and legitimate demands of sex workers of many different kinds. There should be formal professional training of sex workers such as academic degrees in sex work, to the inclusion of martial arts for self-defense. Sex work must become an explicitly feminist profession as devoted to societal transformation.

Yet, the hegemonic pornographic imagination of the sex industry is essentially evil in its tasteless distortion of carnal love. The basic business concept behind sexist pornography is to produce an ejaculation as rapid as possible, meaning creating a near instant turn on. Shortening the period of masturbation thus makes it more likely that the male consumer will once more consume porn from that company and thus create social addiction. Indeed, social addiction to sexist pornography is how the pornographic imagination is increasingly reproduced as ideological hegemony, indeed a new form of sexual repression.

What is needed therefore is a revolution in the sex industry whereby sex work is recognized and a sex worker is seen as a person with her own agency. In fact, feminists hostile to sex workers in fact represent the malign ideological hegemony of the insidious false consciousness that is monogamism. Sex workers create competition with monogamism as prostitutes compete for the attention and money of husbands and this is the genealogical origin of the intrinsic hostility of some feminists towards sex workers.

Yet, the Anti-Sex feminists are certainly right about the profoundly malign influence of hegemonically sexist pornography on society and on self-esteem and self-images of girls & women. Rather the essential feminist task is to transform the sex industry (including the porn industry) just as feminism endeavors to transform all other sectors of society. In fact; ethical, aesthetic, transformative feminist pornography can be both commercial & appealing not only to females but crucially to males as well. Feminist pornography needs indeed to endeavor to supplant the sexist hegemony in the sex industry by bringing Love & Respect into the commercial subculture of the porn industry. This in turn will help undermine sexism as sexist pornography is the guiding ideology behind virtually all contemporary secular sexism.

What is furthermore needed is a fusion between the arts and pornography. Ending the ideological and functional separation between the arts and pornography will indeed bring sexuality out in the open from the hegemonic closet of the sexist porn industry. Just as Playboy Magazine used to fuse journalism with relatively female-friendly pornography so should pornography be ethically fused with many different forms formal expression in society.

Indeed there is a peculiar dichotomy in contemporary Western culture in females tending to have socially softcore fantasies and sexually hardcore fantasies with males reversely tending to have socially hardcore fantasies and sexually softcore fantasies. This highly peculiar social logocentrism needs to be very substantially deconstructed as certainly needs the dichotomy between social and sexual fantasies. Indeed, human beings need help in learning to understand what they truly desire and distinguish that from the sexual mass repression on the part of pornography and religion.

18. Narratives of Love

Many things with regard to love including carnal love are determined by semi-unconscious narratives. There are thus various presumptions and expectations as based on unwritten rules that no one is actually taught but everyone is expected to understand. Sexual harassment is an interesting case in point where the harassers like everyone else have not been taught an appropriate etiquette for socio-sexual behaviors. The existence of sexual harassment on the part of more psychopathic males against females has increasingly led to a situation where less psychopathic males desist from establishing contact with females out of the fear that the attempt to establish connection will be experienced as unwanted indeed. Of course this produces intense unhappiness for the very females who wish to be contacted and indeed make every effort to make themselves contactable by means up makeup, perfume, fashion clothes etc. Thus the absence of appropriate feminist etiquette causes immense unhappiness for both females and males.

What are needed therefore are special forms of greetings for different situations. For example kissing hand and hugging are excellent ways of expressing interest in or initiating an intimate relationship. However, in a feminist etiquette should kissing hand & hugging have different meanings to distinguish different semiotic messages. Kissing hand should therefore express sexual interest while hugging should express socio-romantic interest. Initiating socio-sexual contact will indeed become very nice and uncomplicated once there is a feminist etiquette in place and tactile contact is de-dramatized. Many females are fearful of tactile contact due to near pervasive fear of rape in Western society. However what’s really wrong with friends expressing affection by touching the intimate parts of a beloved friend? Social behavioral training will be needed so that especially females will be more comfortable with touching in accordance with feminist etiquette.

Narratives do guide and determine problematic social phenomena such as dating, courtship and infatuation and these narratives need to be critically examined and deconstructed indeed. If there are ethically feminist codes in place – then can inappropriate situations be avoided and females will no longer fear initiating contact. In fact the reason why most females dare not initiate socio-sexual intimacy is precisely subconscious fear of offending a male whom they wish to contact. Shyness is actually a very polite and indeed noble expression of affection; meaning that the shy girl is afraid of offending the boy whom she fervently carnally & socially desires.

19. Nobleness

Royal courts and classes of nobility are eugenic phenomena of human evolutionary biology that are known to have existed in countries around the world. Nobility is essentially about genetically breeding for and socially reproducing noble social behaviors.

Feminist etiquette should therefore be based on collecting & assembling noble behaviors and noble customs from around the world and not just from royal courts but from all kinds of human cultures and subcultures. For example, the Asian custom of greeting by means of holding fingers of the two hands together is clearly preferable to the hygienically clearly inappropriate practice of handshakes. Feminist etiquette should therefore be universal in reach yet embrace ethically appropriate customs, practices and greetings from human peoples all over the world.

Feminism therefore needs to endeavor to spread noble behaviors to all of humanity, indeed feminism is the sole political movement in existence that is primarily devoted to the promotion of nobleness. Not only is feminist etiquette needed but it should become legislated as Universal Etiquette and should become international law indeed.

Certain behaviors ought to be carried out collectively and thus more ceremonially. For example a female wishing to court a male should bring along her female friends. Most females dare not initiate contact with a male out of subconscious fear of offending him, yet bringing along her friends virtually makes sure that he will certainly not take offense but will rather be most happy & flattered which of course is what she wants as her noble shyness is indeed an expression of care & affection. Indeed, curtsey (a polite way of spreading the legs) was historically a way for females to express respect & affection for someone despite social distance. Curtsey while either kissing hand or being kissed on the hand is certainly still a most wonderful gesture of affection and sensual submission indeed.

20. Bureau of Love

Just as human beings may allow themselves to be socially & culturally falsely convinced that pathological infatuation is the path to lifelong happiness, so is it precisely possible to psychologically, socially and culturally think, behave, live and love in a completely different manner.

Pathological infatuation is a form of subclinical psychosis and it may entirely by statistical coincidence seem to lead to lifelong marital compatibility and when it only rarely does it is not because of the pathological infatuation but simply because there is random, statistically preexisting psychometric compatibility.

Just like a patient suffering from clinical psychosis may recover and become happy afterwards so may a person suffering from subclinical psychosis also recover and become happy afterwards. But happy recovery from psychosis of course is not due to the psychosis itself but rather happens in spite of psychosis. The same of course is true of subclinical psychosis such as pathological infatuation as an entirely statistically random happy lifelong outcome of subclinical psychosis is not a consequence of psychosis but rather happens in spite of the subclinical psychosis. Just as health is not a result of pathology so is lifelong happiness not a result of pathological infatuation although there is sometimes entirely coincidental random psychometric compatibility. Just as health must not be confused with pathology so is it certainly inadvisable to confuse correlation with causality.

The famous Slovenian psychoanalyst Slavoj Žižek has suggested that love is simply pure evil and that is of course true of pathological infatuation which certainly fits any definition of pure evil. Pathological infatuation is thus a mass psychological tool of patriarchy intended simply to perpetuate patriarchy itself which of course is about the evil repression of female sexuality and its sublimation into suffering. It should be most clear that pathological infatuation in most cases simply is a path to hell, unhappiness, suffering and crushed dreams; indeed all in the service of patriarchy. Pathological infatuation is selfish & tragic, indeed infantile and self-defeating in every way.

Just as one may allow oneself to be drawn into the infantile fantasies & wishful thinking that psychologically facilitate pathological infatuation so is it possible to simply think very differently. Indeed, virtually all progressive social change starts with thinking differently than previously so.

Human minds (and certainly those of many non-human persons) are essentially about psychological compartmentalization much like intelligence agencies which are typically divided into many discreet cells that are supposed to be entirely separate from each other in terms of sharing information. Indeed, trauma itself is facilitated by mental compartmentalization just as it is possible to have more than one identity.

Almost any human person may thus due to the inherent mental ability for compartmentalization construct a cognitive Bureau of Love in her mind that allows her to indeed selflessly love any number of persons. Just as a psychoanalysist may have any number of patients without engaging in pathological infatuation so may almost any human engage in similar compartmentalization with regard to love. It is simply not more complex or difficult to achieve than that. Just as a parent may selflessly love more than one child and a human person may love more than just one Cat person so may any almost any human person selflessly intimately love several persons as this is indeed purely a matter of rationally directing sexual desire in simply rationally manage her own sublimation of sexuality.

However, pathological infatuation begins with evil precisely as it sublimates selfishness into pathology as pathological infatuation is not about affection but rather parasitical possession. The person desiring pathological infatuation simply expresses psychological immaturity and sublimated selfish infantile sexuality, indeed simply lack of psychological self-sufficiency. Of course forms of false consciousness socially persist precisely due to being considered socially normative in being falsely socially accepted as truth.

Human minds are indeed already bureaus and it is precisely up to us to use this very inherent cognitive ability for compartmentalization to engage in compartmentalized selfless love as this indeed is the golden path to lifelong happiness. Humans are Herd Animals and therefore desire attachment to yet other persons and this may of course as often happens develop into evolutionary parasitism such as pathological infatuation and the patriarchal practice of monogamism more generally.

The spiritual pursuit of meaning in human life is exactly found in selfless love for others precisely because we are Herd Animals desiring community, love and reproduction. How do we achieve that? We simply provide others with the very emotional goods what we ourselves desire. Indeed, most female human beings in Western societies tend to confuse their inherent desire for sexually giving others selfless love with the false consciousness of the ideology of pathological infatuation. Indeed, false consciousness generally is intrinsically malicious and inherently insidious and this is of course true of the social ideological construct of pathological infatuation as well.

We are already Bureaus of Love just as the wheel of course was physically possible long before it was invented for the first time. Humans are socially very similar to our closest taxonomic relatives, namely Bonobo persons, also known as Gracile Chimpanzees. The main zoological difference is that while Bonobo persons use sexuality for promoting community and reconciliation so do humans use sexuality for the purpose of sublimating sexuality into social evils such as war and patriarchy. In fact, pathological infatuation is precisely the evil sublimation of selfless love, the destruction of intimate relationships, the destruction of mutual Respect & Appreciation and indeed the destruction of selfless love itself.

21. Healthy Infatuation

Healthy infatuation is founded on mutual selfless love, profound friendship and mutual appreciation for idiosyncratic personhood without any parasitical emotions whatsoever. Healthy infatuation involves mutual symbiosis as based on profound respect for individual otherness. Healthy infatuation seeks spiritual elevation of the revered symbiotic other. Healthy infatuation is not jealous because it is not exclusive. Healthy infatuation is healthy precisely because it does not lead to pain or parasitism but rather mutual personal growth. Healthy infatuation is trusting as it is not based on exclusivity. Healthy mutual infatuation may even take place mutually within a group of persons and must not necessary involve only solely two persons. Healthy infatuation is the Pathway to Paradise on Earth just as pathological infatuation is the Pathway to Hell on Earth. Just as pathological infatuation is essentially egoistic so is healthy infatuation altruistic only. In fact, healthy infatuation need not and should not be monogamous but polyamorous indeed.

Leading a life as surrounded by as many intimate relationships of perpetual healthy infatuation as possible is the road to lifelong happiness. The more intimate relationships of healthy infatuation one has in parallel the happier becomes life. However, in order for a relationship of healthy infatuation to last, there must be extensive mutual familiarity with and profound appreciation for idiosyncratic personhood. It must not be based on lies, deception, emotional fraud or emotional extortion.

Healthy infatuation is the epitome of selfless love and multiple, parallel intimate relationships of polyamorous healthy infatuation is indeed the epitome of infatuation itself. Healthy infatuation is precisely based on boundless love, affection and care for the wellbeing of the adored other. Healthy infatuation is not a power play or game of love as it is not exclusive but is rather the state of utmost profound spiritual elevation. Just as pathological infatuation is base, so is healthy infatuation refined. Just as pathological infatuation is essentially infantile so is healthy infatuation emotionally elevated. Just as pathological infatuation is possessive so is healthy infatuation completely & utterly open to polyamory.

Healthy infatuation is not only the epitome of altruism but healthy infatuation is the epitome of love itself. Healthy infatuation is the state of caring for the other to the point of forgetting oneself. Indeed, true love is precisely the state of forgetting oneself. Healthy infatuation seeks the advancement of the adored other in every respect as healthy infatuation is indeed utterly and completely selfless. Healthy infatuation is pleasure without pain and love without jealousy. Healthy infatuation is the state of emotional perfection just as pathological infatuation is the state of emotional parasitism. Healthy infatuation is precisely that utterly wonderful infatuation which virtually every girl dreams about yet this pure vision is ideologically distorted by the emotional dystopia of pathological infatuation specifically and the ideological and social hell of sexism generally.

22. Feminist Ethics of Aesthetics

The question of enhanced beauty is rarely discussed in feminist thought. This is in part due to the structural disregard for girls in feminist thought. Enhanced beauty by cosmetics/painting appears in many different human cultures and males are often painted and especially (as females in secular/modern culture) in preparation for collective/communal/ceremonial dance.

The question of enhanced beauty is not really helpfully reduced to a matter of condoning or opposing cosmetics. Rather, the question of enhanced beauty is in contrast rather similar to the question of the Muslim veil, i.e. it’s all about social function and social context. Three main types of cosmetic painting can however be functionally identified in secular/modern culture:

1. Helping put emphasis on particular beautiful facial features by means of selective cosmetic painting. This is not only legitimate and very nice for everyone around the person but in fact similar to how a hijab of particular form and color may aesthetically emphasize and highlight particular facial features.

2. Creating an entirely different look in emphasizing a social role such as dragking/dragqueen, sex worker or being overtly aesthetically transgender. This is similar to middle class niqab women making a personal choice in electing to disguise their faces in a social role in therefore avoiding involuntary public sexualization. It should be added of course that niqab is not a free choice for most females worldwide wearing the niqab but is rather typically unilaterally decided for them by male family members.

3. Disguising the face out of shame. Many younger females in secular/modern culture feel ashamed of how they look in typically not being considered attractive by themselves and/or by others and therefore feel socially compelled to heavily disguise their faces by means of cosmetics so as avoid being mistreated and/or socially ignored. This is partially similar to how most females indeed wearing the Islamist veil indeed feel socially compelled to do so.

The question of enhanced beauty cannot any longer be left to the beauty industry as feminists must indeed begin to tackle issues of beauty/sexiness. Females in secular/modern culture have since the mid 20th century been able to use what was once considered exclusively “male” clothes such as trousers. Males excepting to some degree the LGBTQ community are however still peculiarly not socially allowed to use what are still socially considered exclusively “female” clothes. Contemporary females in secular/modern society can choose from a wide array of styles while most males remain socially consigned to a very, very limited spectrum of clothing.

Also, many males are not particularly good-looking and could really need some cosmetic improvement. Why so one might ask? Well, a nice face spreads happiness to those around the person and so beauty and fashion should be about sharing delight and happiness. Many females do this, so why should not more males also do this more? Feminism therefore needs to endeavor to help make it socially acceptable for males to use so called “female” fashion as well as using more cosmetic applications. Of course, one should irrespective of gender not use cosmetics tested through torment of experimentation on captive non-human persons or containing ingredients derived from exploitation of non-human persons.

The Danish Jewish psychoanalyst Erik Erikson famously pointed out that significant overlap between one’s perception of oneself and how other others perceive oneself is typically vital indeed for one’s psychological well-being. Enhanced beauty is therefore perceptually ethical if it manifests, enhances and expresses idiosyncratic personhood as opposed to disguising and/or disfiguring one’s own very idiosyncratic personhood.

23. Sin Centers

Christianity emerged as a Judeo-Greek-Roman Mediterranean religion that dominated all shores of the Mediterranean Sea constituting the Roman Empire. In Medieval times however with the spread of Islam south and east of the Mediterranean Sea did Christianity become increasingly isolated to the European subcontinent north of the Mediterranean Sea.

Medieval European Christian was intensely concerned with the question of sin and Christian sins became fetishized in the wider Christian culture known as Christendom. Therefore centers of sin known as ‘taverns’ emerged where the practice and celebration of Christian sins were spatially concentrated throughout Europe.

There, guests practiced abuse of alcohol, gambling, sexual infidelity, prostitution, violent behaviors, bragging, wrath, spreading rumors, envy, fornication, greed, hubris, indifference, lust for forbidden sexual relations, overconsumption of food and generally behaviors otherwise considered inappropriate and sinful in European Christendom and Christianity. The Catholic Church classified these into seven deadly sins; namely lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride.

These centers of Para-Christian sin, now known as discos, pubs, night clubs, casinos, clubs, brothels etc. have persistently continued to capture the vivid imagination of Para-Christian culture as the locus of Para-Christian pleasure. Indeed, for the Para-Christian imagination is pleasure the performance of Christian sins and European sexuality is therefore intensely fixated with Para-Christian iconoclasm in the sense of deriving pleasure from “breaking” taboos, more specifically performing Christian sins.

Yiddish-speaking Ashkenazi Jewry in Europe highly derogatively referred to these macabre practices as goyim naches, meaning “international pleasures”, more aptly translated as “evil pleasures”, specifically evil masquerading as pleasure. Indeed, Yiddish-speaking Jewry in Europe often looked with scorn and disgust at the lowly performance of goyim naches among gentile Europeans. Yiddish-speaking Jewry therefore often considered European Christians as lowly barbarians whose souls were barely human. Ashkenazi rabbis at the time in contrast held Muslims in high esteem but tended to regard European Christians as idol-worshipers and Christianity generally as idol worship.

Centers of sin came about in a sense as the very opposite of cloisters/monasteries which were at least intended as centers of virtue. Centers of sin were and are still reminiscent of the Christian conception of inferno. Centers of sin therefore simply stage-managed “hell”. What is intensely peculiar is how this bizarre Para-Christian institution has persisted in such a central way in secular/modern (i.e. Para-Christian) culture.

Centers of sin still define the secular/modern (Para-Christian) conception of sexuality and pleasure generally as Para-Christian pleasure is precisely centered on the celebration of evil as pleasure.

Centers of sin are socially brutish institutions where males are socially expected to behave impolitely and inappropriately towards females while abusing alcohol. Disrespect for females is in fact at the very center of the celebration of evil as pleasure in Para-Christian Centers of sin.

Princely, Royal and Imperial courts in the European subcontinent in contrast to this depraved lowliness developed into sexually liberated social centers of refinement, virtue and exquisite respect for females. What is needed therefore is a certain feminist rediscovery, indeed feminist reappropriation of the accomplished refinement of historical European courts whose sophistication reached its highest levels at Versaille. This is after all what most younger females in Western culture truly long for in their hearts.

What importantly are needed therefore are feminist centers of social intercourse where all participants would be expected to behave in accordance with the Versaille etiquette which importantly empowers females both socially and sexually. Scientific chavruta, the discursive method of Plato’s academy as universally practiced in yeshivot, Talmudic academies should become an important element in feminist centers of social intercourse whereby the minds of female humans and male humans alike are cherished and esteemed. Feminist centers of social intercourse would very strongly avoid the lowly and cherish the refined, noble and virtuous. Feminist social centers would therefore become sexually liberated centers of virtue.

24. Lowly versus Sublime

Different cultures define what is considered feminine and masculine differently. Irrespective are human beings social mixtures of these semiotic markers known as feminine and masculine respectively. In secular/modern (Para-Christian) culture is however masculinity associated with brusqueness. Refinement is typically considered feminine in females and gender-neutral or feminine in males.

Femininity and masculinity in secular/modern culture have travelled in quite opposite directions since the advent of industrialization. While males generally embraced the muscular culture of peasants have females tended to retain and further develop the refinement that once reigned high at princely, royal and imperial courts of Europe. Contemporary females are thus far more behaviorally refined than were once pre-industrial peasant females while males generally irrespective of social stature are essentially expected to behave like peasant males, yet without the elaborate etiquette of peasant society.

Contemporary males thus have expectations of peasants while contemporary females have expectations of princesses. Of course this usually leads to a crash of expectation that is profoundly disappointing to females trained in aesthetic and behavioral refinement by girls’ magazines since at least having learned to read. Heteronormal love in secular/modern culture is thus about the behavioral princess meeting the behavioral peasant. Notions of femininity and masculinity in secular/modern culture are thus about the erotization of pre-modern semiotic class difference.

Feminine behavior in secular/modern culture is overwhelmingly associated with refinement and politeness while male behavior is overwhelmingly associated with brusque lack of behavioral refinement. The American/Socialist tradition in feminism and which wish for the eradication of gender difference have therefore simply got it all wrong in this regard. It is mostly male behaviors that need to change and to a much lesser degree female behaviors.

It is peculiar how feminist public personalities that rightly never cease complaining about inappropriate male behaviors literally do nothing to educate males how to behave towards females. These feminist public personalities do not even educate their own sons in appropriate behavior towards females, let alone their own male readers who follow their newspaper columns.

Male misbehaviors are thus a matter of education and upbringing that can be corrected through education and social behavioral training (SBT). Let’s be clear, most masculine behaviors in secular/modern culture are either lowly or merely unsophisticated. Most of these masculine behaviors were simply considered outright rude at the princely, royal and imperial courts of Europe and were in no way socially tolerated.

Let’s be clear, most masculine behaviors of secular/modern culture are rude, lowly and/or simply unsophisticated. Males are certainly the ones who are wrong but they are not the only ones to blame as females consistently refrain from teaching males how to behave towards females as they do not even educate their own sons in this regard. Schools provide so called “sex education” in a typically highly technical manner but offer no hint as to socially and ethically appropriate behaviors for males towards females. Feminism is not even taught in schools, let alone appropriate male behavior towards females.

While females are becoming ever-more sophisticated in gender relations to the point of increasingly imitating sex workers do males remain stuck in utter behavioral stupidity. The question at hand is therefore not merely educating and training males in appropriate gendered behavior but more specifically how to do this.

Most females and males find it utterly uncomfortable to visit a nightclub without being or becoming intoxicated by alcohol. For males is this alcoholic intoxication about finding the courage to rudely approach females and for females is this alcoholic intoxication about being open to such rude approchement. This is similar to a brothel whereby the male picks the sex worker or prostitute of his choice.

Agents of seduction have become popularized by numerous James Bond movies. Agents of seduction do however exist and are informally known in the intelligence world as 008s and 007s. These two types of agents were modeled on royal behavioral roles at the courts of Europe. Most 008s are female decoys who make themselves sexually available in some ways similar to the role of females once at the courts of Europe. The very rare 007s are in contrast typically still sophisticated gentlemen with courtly behaviors and are in contrast really, really much less common. (Gentleman literally means “kind male”.) Contemporary 008s and 007s use cocaine while on missions as a matter of operational routine and secret agents of seduction in fact did so throughout the 20th century.  

The educational challenge is thus from an early age to train both boys and girls into becoming 007s in private life without any need for cocaine, alcohol or any other drugs whatsoever. An empowered female or male should thus be early educated in how to extremely politely and extremely nicely indeed approach, converse and intimately befriend literally anyone whom s/he desires without need for intoxication by alcohol, cocaine or any other drugs. Every girl and boy therefore deserves being given the chance to become a fully privately empowered 007 without alcohol, cocaine or any other drugs whatsoever. Both girls and boys need also to be trained in defensive martial arts so as to help them develop feminist confidence in themselves and their bodies.

25. Empowered Flower

Being a human female in the heteronormative matrix means of secular/modern culture essentially means playing the role of a sexual decoy of heteronormative sexuality or to put it otherwise, being a structurally embodied flower trying to attract the bees, the latter role played by human males.

Eminent French feminist theorist Luce Irigaray famously pointed out that female humans have sexual organs all over their bodies. Another way of putting that profound insight is that the human female intimate anatomy is a sort of flower and that human females not only have flowers all over their bodies but are indeed themselves highly embodied flowers. Of course flowers are an ancient symbol of the intimate human female anatomy and was so already in ancient Sumer and this of course is why human males extend roses and other flowers to human females as a barely hidden sign of intimate devotion.

The challenge is therefore to deconstruct the human socially gendered bee/flower binary so that males can become social flowers to female bees and all humans can become both flowers and bees in social terms.

Female use of makeup largely serves the purpose of attaining the favored social status of being considered a beautiful fertile flower not only to males but importantly also in the eyes of fellow females. Indeed very few non-psychopathic females dare approach males alone with intimate/romantic intentions without using cocaine or other illegal drugs. Her almost only chance of attracting an attractive male is thus entirely dependent on how successful she is at marketing herself in the flower market. This typically requires makeup, yet fashion can also serve to boast flower social status.

However, sex workers and prostitutes typically learn an offensive jargon that is intelligible to buyers of sexual services. Indeed, a sex worker or prostitute (prostitute = a relatively or entirely involuntary sex worker) is a professional flower. One may also question how voluntary ordinary “flowerhood” really is for adolescent females in Western society? Indeed, even advocates of workers’ rights for sex workers do not distinguish between voluntary sex workers and relatively or entirely involuntary sex workers, i.e. prostitutes.

First it should be pointed out that being a human flower is certainly not a bad thing as some would presume and that boys too should be taught how to turn themselves into human flowers by means of beauty and fashion. Indeed, what human person in his/her right mind wouldn’t want to be a human flower? Second, a human flower may also become an empowered 007 in private life. Indeed, the more admired by others the typically the easier to become a sexual subject in one’s own right with the appropriate training. Third, gay society looks at boys as embodied flowers and indeed rightly so, indeed why should they not recognize the flowerhood of boys? A person who remains happy and healthy in life may remain a radiant flower even when reaching relatively advanced ageing.

Being an embodied human flower is the state of being both psychologically vibrant and being recognized as such by human others. Yes, this may be enhanced by adding layers to the skin such as colors and textiles, but being an embodied flower is fundamentally about being alive and vibrantly so. The semi-visible radiance is known as the “bubble” in autistic persons, as “charisma” in political leaders and as “stardom” in many famous persons in pop culture, especially ones known as megastars.

However, being flower only means being a social object of the social subjects or the “bees”, i.e. human males in scopophilic culture. Being flower only means being a sort of sex worker who works for free sometimes subsequent to being approached but never dares approach males for intimate/romantic purposes. Becoming fully sexually empowered as a human being therefore requires being both subject and object and being able to freely transition between more active and more passive socio-sexual modes as well as between different gendered roles more generally.

Sexual liberation is thus not merely about feeling free from unwanted religious social constraints, but also crucially feeling free to be both flower and bee at the same time without having to resort to the use of alcohol or illegal drugs. This crucially means transgender modes of fashion and beauty literally becoming the norm as the gendered binary in fashion is precisely a distinction between female flowers (sexual objects) and male bees (sexual subjects). Of course this is a fiction as few males are independent subjects in these regards without either using alcohol/illegal drugs or resorting to social mechanisms such as swapping or buying brides that are utilized in many cultures worldwide. In fact, males in secular/modern culture typically find it easier to purchase sexual services from females than simply socio-intimately approach females.

However, many females and many males feel socio-sexually empowered by performing approchement in group, typically known as a “youth gang”. Indeed, training in group-supported approchement should become part of the 007 education for human beings of all ages and genders.

Indeed, being a radiant flower and being empowered as such constitutes no contradiction whatsoever as embodied human flowers must indeed become socially empowered. There is really nothing intrinsically wrong with being a voluntarily embodied flower whether privately or professionally so. The problem of course is when someone is considered or treated as an embodied flower without wanting this. This is so both for females who experience unwanted sexual objectification and for prostitutes, i.e. relatively or entirely involuntary sex workers.

The societal challenge therefore is to turn both males and females into socio-sexually empowered flowers. This means that many basic forms of cosmetic surgery ought to be free of charge as part of the free basket of health care services and it also means giving every child and every human person generally free 007 training.

26. Learning Functional Bisexuality

Learning functional bisexuality has always been a fundamental part of the training of secret agents of seduction, whether 007s or 008s. Indeed, humans everywhere learning functional bisexuality is an important, indeed vital part of the permanent feminist revolution.

It is important to understand that both heterosexuality and homosexuality are essentially psychological disorders if imagined to be completely exclusive and typically cause a lot of psychological suffering for those afflicted. Those with pathological heterosexuality or pathological homosexuality therefore need genetic treatment.

However, everyone can learn functional bisexuality as healthy hetosexuality and healthy homosexuality are simply general, yet non-exclusive orientations. Western females of fertile age tend to be completely open to functional bisexuality in the non-romantic contexts of swinging, couples meeting, threesomes, female friendship, sex clubs and so on and homophobia as a psychological disorder is mostly present among males in the Western cultural setting.

It is however little known today that functional bisexuality was the social and subcultural norm at princely, royal and imperial courts not only in Europe but indeed around the world. As 007s and 008s were based on male and female gender roles respectively at European royal courts (and especially so Buckingham Palace) was it completely normal even for the first generation of secret agents of seduction to be functionally bisexual indeed as they themselves had spent time at Buckingham Palace and other princely, royal and imperial courts.

Alfred Kinsey who created the Kinsey scale to measure gynephilia and androphilia on a bisexual scale was certainly right in the sense that gynephilia and androphilia are part of a bisexual spectrum of degree of differentiation in desire.

Declaring oneself heterosexual or homosexual is however a performative speech (i.e. neither true nor false) and indeed an exercise in pure futility as such general orientations of carnal desire can change during life and quite substantially so. We simply do not control whom we carnally desire. A person declaring himself/herself heterosexual may find herself sexually attracted to a person of the so called same anatomic sex even as early as the following day and hence the utter futility in this very speech act.

Also a person cannot know for sure that s/he has not been attracted by a transgender person or Intersex person with a different intimate anatomy than the one indicated by the exterior of that person such as in terms of makeup, fashion and hairstyle. It is therefore impossible to ascertain whether such a speech act is true or not since it simply cannot be known unless always living in a society where everyone walks completely nude at all times. Also to add to the futility do females and males constitute anatomical and cognitive spectrums and are simply not two distinctive categories as there are e.g. Intersex persons whose native intimate anatomy cannot be clearly classified as being either female or male.

Attraction is also a matter of degree. At least three degrees of attraction may be identified, these are 1) social attraction, 2) physical attraction and 3) sexual attraction. The bisexual spectrum can also be affected by other spectrums of attraction such as those of taxon, age and beauty. This writer is transgender lesbian in general orientation for most human taxa but is socially, physically but rarely sexually attracted to many younger males from the Arabophonie and Iran, including male Mizrahi Jews in Israel and elsewhere. However, no general sexual orientation precludes learning to become functionally bisexual just as it is possible to learn to appreciate different types of food by means of simply pleasant experience.

Most human males who do not live a gay lifestyle suffer from severe sexual deprivation which is sublimated in varying cultural phenomena both destructive (e.g. war) and non-destructive ones (e.g. art). Since most human males can easily on a regular basis satisfy 20 or more same-age female spouses, boys need to be early taught the pleasures of functional bisexuality.

Teenage boys generally should be encouraged to work as sex workers for both female customers and male customers. Most teenage boys suffer very painful sexual deprivation and sex work is highly suitable provided of course that sex workers are first granted full legal rights as workers in safe work environments. In particular will teenage boys learn a lot about appropriately respecting human females.

Most Western teenage girls are well aware of course by bitter experience how tragically uninformed teenage boys are in this regard. It is also obviously important that young persons as early as suitable learn to enjoy the immense pleasures of homoeroticism and indeed to learn to enjoy many, many different forms of sexuality. There is simply no sense to legally and socially compel legal minors to live in sexual deprivation and sexual ignorance.

Learning functional bisexuality is not only an important remedy to completely unnecessary human male sexual deprivation worldwide but is also an important, indeed vital element in the permanent feminist revolution in culturally deconstructing the sexually gendered, socially constructed semiotic binary between female so called “flowers” and male so called “bees”.

27. Eschatology of Sameness

The Para-Christian political ideologies of the so called “Enlightenment” (itself a distinctly Para-Christian notion) are invariably premised on Para-Christian love of notions of actually illusory human “sameness”. Enlightenment ideologies assume that this presumed, but not actual “sameness” is “natural” and so seek to “recreate” an imaginary primordial condition of love that never actually existed. Of course, humans are herd animals zoologically speaking and therefore also psychologically so and to long for communal love in small herds is a most natural thing for humans who for historical reasons of technological innovation and economic history have become part of far larger collectives. Enlightenment ideologies therefore simultaneously economically create ever larger identity collectives while at the same time exploiting human longing for return to tribal love in small herds as in pre-agricultural human societies.

Enlightenment ideologies base themselves on notions of sameness of class, nation, race, gender, species, age, citizenship and so on. The eschatological delivery is presumed to exist precisely in pursuing common interests of a thus defined group which is falsely defined as somehow internally homogenous and therefore naturally internally “equal”. Feminism therefore too is one of those movements premising itself on a “secular” eschatology of love of illusory sameness, in the case of feminism legally adult females of a particular ethnic formation who are citizens of a particular nation state. It is a fact that most feminists are subconsciously extremely nationalistic and as feminists show care only for the interests of legally adult females in their own countries and usually only for legally adult females of their own ethnic group.

Several notions of love of illusory “sameness” is implicit in feminism. The illusory sameness of “humans” generally, the illusory sameness of “women” (legally adult human females) generally, the illusory sameness of citizens (i.e. members of the same tribe) generally and the illusory sameness of a particular ethnic formation (nation, people, ethnicity, race, ethno-religious group etc.) within which “equality” is also sought. The demand for “equality” is thus premised on the claim to “return” to a non-existent, presumed primordial “metaphysical” condition of illusory “sameness”. The demand is invariably founded in class jealousy, namely that the privileges of one class of persons ought to be extended to yet another class of persons such as that privileges of certain males ought to be extended to certain females. Irrespective is it the metaphysics of privilege that is discursively foundational for extending those pre-existing privileges to yet other classes of persons.

Feminism as it developed during the 20th century has two main streams, 1) the French stream was founded by Simone de Beauvoir and essentially maps socio-psychological difference of gender in seeking to articulate human female “sameness”. 2) the American stream is inspired by the Frankfurt school and endeavors to articulate human “sameness” irrespective of gender and sexual anatomy. Of course, both are premised on illusory notions of “sameness” (e.g. class, gender, nation, ethnicity, sexuality, age etc.) that are simply mere collectives fantasies. This is not to say that such social groups necessarily do not exist but rather that the presumed “sameness” does not exist and what exists is some narrow common denominator. Therefore when feminists demand privileges of men for women, they are quite uncritical of those very privileges themselves such as the Humanist racial supremacism typically underpinning those very political demands. Even Communism (commonism = sameism = love of sameness) was articulated as a purportedly “radical” version of male liberalism itself.

What is largely missing in feminism is future vision beyond demands for inclusion in the White male project of liberty, equality and of course fraternity! That the discursive standard for the demand for inclusion in “fraternity” was articulated by white male racial supremacists in the 18th century does not seem bother most feminists. Many feminist females simply wish to live like men and should of course do so. However, the metaphysics of sameness of extended sexist racial supremacism remains unchallenged and most feminists simply do not care about females who are legal minors, females who belong to non-human taxa, females who are legally abortable embryos/fetuses or females who live as citizens in another nation state. Indeed, virtually all demands for equality are for “equality” within a “nation state” that is typically the outcome of a long series of historical coincidences.

Feminism therefore need to move from mere legitimate complaining and demanding inclusion in male racial supremacist projects. Feminism needs to articulate the real problems and solve them ethically yet in an effective manner. 1) Human males tend to produce too much testosterone which severely distorts social and sexual behaviors and so this production must be reduced by means of hormonal treatment. 2) There is a surplus of human males, indeed much fewer are needed to satisfy female sexual and social needs and so the proportion of male births need to drastically decrease and initially so to 5/95. 3) Natural human reproduction is an atrocity to most females carrying fetuses and giving birth and so this needs to be supplanted through the development of artificial uteri that should be made universally available free of charge. New forms of familial association need to be created for feminist society in which the few human males would be exceptional in their exquisite behavior toward females. Innovative forms of  familial association should not be premised on some illusory male sameness but should rather be expressive of innovative feminist sexual liberation where the mediocre White Man is no longer the discursively privileged locus of eschatological sameness.

The permanent feminist revolution must therefore be based on a sexual revolution not merely against the social hegemony of religious sexual prejudice but against normative male sexuality more generally. The Hebrew Bible famously contains a list of “forbidden relations” and Western sexology in the 19th century in Para-Christian manner made its own list of “forbidden relations” known as “paraphilia” which similarly were considered as somehow “subnormal” and similarly as in ancient Israelite culture even deserving of legal punishment. Para-Christian sexuality therefore is based on the fetishization of sexual taboos whereby sexual satisfaction is premised on the performance of sexual iconoclasm. The sexual subversion of the normal/subnormal binary is therefore the very basis of Para-Christian sexuality in the early 21st century.

Feminist sexuality in future feminist society with far fewer human males ought in contrast focus on feminist ritual mass sex as part of innovative feminist religion which would return to the Sumerian gynocentric origin of most forms of religion worldwide and which importantly would not be premised on things that cannot be proven but rather on the permanent feminist revolution. The question of sexual liberation would no longer be one of that redundant dichotomy between norm and aberration, but would rather focus on engineering innovatively feminist ritual sex. Feminist eugenics would ensure that the few human males born have exceptional personal qualities and therefore certainly fit into the feminist project of sexual liberation. Feminism therefore must focus on 1) revolutionizing human reproduction, 2) hormonally treating most human males and 3) implement feminist revolution through sexual revolution rather than merely somehow once more ideologically refit females into the Para-Christian Humanist racial supremacist matrix of White Man.

Equality is rather individually contextual in the sense that persons should be treated in particular social contexts in accordance with the relevant cognitive ability, meaning cognitive equality. This means respecting individual personhood and treating persons in accordance with what is actually relevant in a particular context. Equality therefore is individual and should hence apply irrespective of physionomistic categories and other forms of group classification of persons. Persons are neither equal within classes of persons considering the vast cognitive diversity within such classes of persons, nor for the same reason between classes of persons due to the simple fact that cognitive equality is individual and idiosyncratic indeed. Every person should simply be ethically treated in accordance with what is individually relevant in a particular situational context irrespective of ascribed or actual group membership.

28. Ontology of Embodiment

Expressing prejudice in the name of anti-prejudice is probably the most effective form of expressing socially accepted prejudice in a social context where prejudice is considered negative and harmful. This is so because expressing prejudice in the name of an epistemology of an oppressed class of persons allows for the privileging of prejudice in the name of anti-prejudice. E.g. is contemporary Anti-Jewish prejudice typically expressed in the name of purported anti-prejudice.

The question of love and sexuality is one that feminism has always been ambiguous towards. There is a long history of sexual moralism in feminism, particularly a condescending attitude towards sex workers by choice. Many feminists also take a negative view towards female gender roles and especially so if perceived as sexualized as if the problem was with females, female sexualities and feminine behaviors.  

Misogynists take a negative view towards females, their genders and sexualities. Misogyny in feminism is reality and is considered socially accepted precisely because it is expressed in the name of anti-prejudice. Many feminists will look down on hyper-feminine females and females spending much time on making themselves attractive through fashion and enhanced beauty. Virtually no feminist would however complain about males making themselves attractive through fashion and enhanced beauty.

After all what is wrong with practically caring for others in one’s own home? Of course males ought also to do that to the same extent but blaming female gender roles for sexism is simply misogyny. The notion in the American stream of feminism that gender ought to be eliminated altogether similarly expresses misogyny towards feminine females who are victimized by sexism and masculinism (derogation towards the feminine) just like other human females. How really can it after all be convincingly claimed that it is good for males to be feminine but bad for females to be feminine?

Then what about sexual objectification? Is it really inherently bad and harmful for females to engage in self-objectification? There is of course in principle nothing wrong with that unless of course it negatively impacts her psychological health which it may certainly do. The problem is not with electing to on at least some days socially play the role of sexual object but rather that she needs to be socially empowered into become a sexual subject in her own right whenever she so pleases, i.e. becoming a 007 in private life.

The problem is certainly not human females spending too much time on fashion and enhanced beauty but rather instead that human males tend to spend too little time on fashion and enhanced beauty. There is little wrong with being feminine, but there is much wrong with being masculine. Indeed most masculine behaviors are simply wrong and inappropriate and indeed so irrespective of being practiced by males or by females. There are indeed many females practicing offensive masculine behaviors and it is just as rude as when males practice offensive masculine behaviors.

Masculinism (i.e. structural derogation of feminine semiotic markers) is therefore very much a problem within the American tradition of feminism (as opposed to the French tradition of feminism) whereby females are stigmatized  by socialist feminism for complicity in sexism. Indeed there is nothing wrong with self-objectification, the problem being the stupidly sexist reactions of males towards female self-objectification. The problem with masculinity is simply that is usually either rude and/or otherwise inappropriate and it is so irrespective of the intimate anatomy of those performing masculinity. The problem with males is their antisocial behaviors towards females and these antisocial behaviors are just as bad when performed by females. Domestic abuse is just as bad irrespective of whether the person performing domestic abuse is male or female. Indeed are most forms of masculinity in secular/modern culture simply abusive and therefore intolerable irrespective of  the intimate anatomy of the abuser.

However, those clearly inappropriate masculine behaviors will probably not go away through critique specifically or complaints generally. Human males therefore need to be brought up to behave appropriately and adult human males need to be educated and trained through social behavioral training (SBT) about appropriate social behaviors and especially so towards human females.

Males and inappropriate masculine behaviors are the problem as the problem is not females and feminine behaviors to any significant extent. Let’s therefore be clear about where the problem lies and don’t blame feminine females and feminine males. Feminine females ought not be blamed for being victimized by sexism and by feminist masculinism just as feminine males certainly are not to blame for inappropriate masculine behaviors by other males. If you are rude then you are rude irrespective of whether you are a masculinist male or a feminist female. Being feminine in secular/modern culture is about being refined, sublime and attentive towards others and that is clearly mostly laudable indeed, including obviously for males as well.

Let’s be clear about what the problems are and then find effective and ethical solutions to those very problems rather than merely producing more discourse. All human males are not to blame just as most females are not to blame as inappropriate masculine behavior is inappropriate irrespective of the intimate anatomy of those who exhibit rude masculine behaviors. Feminism would become far more effective as a global political movement if it did not merely produce discourse but actually articulated the real problems and then found and innovated effective and ethical solutions thereto.

29. Telos of Clothing

Clothes may obviously seem as in a sense basic elements of those human cultures using clothes. Yet, feminists rarely discuss the question of clothes. How do we use clothes, why and what meaning do we wherewith transmit?

One basic question concerns the redundancy of clothes. Why for instance are clothes used in climates and weathers where clothing clearly are not needed? The 14th century Moroccan traveller Muhammad Ibn Battuta in his famous writings complained that Muslims in Timbuktu including the Sultan’s daughters went naked in public. Obviously, this state of things was not only provocative to Ibn Battuta personally but apparently challenged his own very conceptions of what it meant to be a Muslim.

It is an historical fact that many pre-colonial human cultures did not use clothes and many other pre-colonial cultures used almost no clothes such as typically only a penis sheath and many human cultures still do. Of course the uninvited Western missionaries made every effort to convince these peoples to use clothes along with destroying their traditional ceremonial and belief systems.

Clothes in warm weather and warm climates fill however no practical purpose but rather fill political purposes and especially so of semiotically marking females as separate from males and domesticating sexual behaviors and of course especially so male society controlling female sexualities. It is common in many Muslim cultures to argue that “Muslim” clothes as designed for females in those cultures are meant to protect them from male sexuality while apparently this is about males controlling females, including their sexualities.

While many Westerners are no doubt ready to instantly condemn veiling in Muslim cultures, they themselves are typically unaware of how clothes in secular/modern culture is likewise used to semiotically mark and socially control females, including female sexualities. What is after all the difference between panties and hijab as both are used to hide typically hairy parts of the female body?

Those experienced in nudism are well aware of how ordinary beaches are typically sexualized by the use of swimwear while nudist camps tend to be distinctly desexualized. Feminism needs to question the very use of clothes, both as semiotic markers and as socio-political tools. First, gendered clothes segregate females. Even though it has become socially accepted for females in secular/modern culture to use “male” clothes is it still typically not really considered socially acceptable for males to use “female” clothes. Second, clothes are semiotic markers that communicate gender, age, class, status, ethnicity and often sexuality.

What are therefore the semiotic systems transmitted by particular sets of clothes? Indeed this is a vital question for feminism to continually disentangle and decypher. What really are the social purposes of clothes when in terms of weather/climate there is no real need for clothes other than perhaps preventing penises and breasts from swinging like pendulums while walking?

While this is no doubt an issue for the Muslim world, this is a real issue in most human cultures. Clothes remain unquestioned by feminism and human society at large other than perhaps through LGBTQI Pride Parades and critique of civilization with regard to Islamdom. Therefore, if clothes fill no reasonable purpose one ought simply walk naked. Protection against cold weather/climate is indeed a legitimate purpose and clearly not the only one. However, these other purposes need to be closely questioned as these are not necessarily as legitimate as one may presume at first glance.

Desiring to become sexualized in the eyes of others may for instance be a legitimate purpose in wearing clothing. It was once common for urban European males to use long white stockings together with closely fitting short white trousers. The tightness of the white trousers meant that a female could easily detect an erection in a male with whom she conversed. Of course this was an important reason why urban males used tightly fitting short white trousers.

However, most reasons for wearing clothes are no reasons at all and are simply pure prejudice. Imagine for example how religious patriarchy, including male control over female sexualities would collapse in say Jordanian society if the unnecessary use of clothes was outlawed by the Jordanian monarchy? Indeed, for most of the year wearing clothes in Jordan serves few other practical purposes other than of course maintaining religious patriarchy. Protective clothes may for instance be useful while working in certain professions. Also body painting may be effective for semiotic purposes in sending particular semiotic messages such as wishing to be sexualized in the eyes of others.

Therefore unthinking routine use of clothes with no ethically legitimate purpose need to become comprehensively scandalized and indeed discredited by feminism. When there is no ethically legitimate purpose for wearing clothes one should simply not wear clothes. Thinking clothes may however mean finding new legitimate purposes for wearing clothes, including sending political messages in novel, innovative ways as well as idiosyncratically expressing one’s intrinsic and inherent personhood. Therefore, the importance of the issue of decriminalization of public nudity can hardly be overstated for the permanent feminist revolution, including the global sexual revolution.

30. Sexualities of Gender

The notion of ‘gender’ as the ‘socially constructed sex’ and binary “opposite” of anatomical sex was introduced in the 1970’s in the United States. But is that really what gender “is”? A far more plausible interpretation of gender would be that genders are particular forms of sexuality.

Indeed, human sexualities can be measured on a large number of scales of desire and gender is merely one of those scales. Secular/modern culture socially and discursively privileges gender over other forms of sexuality and this is peculiar indeed as every sexually matured human being in secular/modern society is socially expected to identify as either heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual, yet is not socially obliged to identify with the many other scales measuring human sexualities such as consensual/non-consensual, private/public, egoistic/altruistic, white/black etc.

Genders are therefore merely one of many scales of sexuality and there are also many genders and some humans have multiple genders. Indeed it is possible to live many genders by choice as one may pick and choose varyingly gendered social roles in and from different social and cultural contexts as one pleases.

Understanding that genders are sexualities also means understanding that genders are certainly not somehow the opposite or the social side of anatomical sex although of course all forms of sexuality are somehow associated with, yet not determined by anatomical sex. It has also been presumed that there are only two genders because it is similarly socio-cultural assumed that the continuum that is the spectrum of human anatomical sex is somehow a binary rather than a spectrum with Intersexual intimate anatomies at its very center. However, different ages, different ethnicities, different social classes, religious communities and different subcultures have different and multiple genders and the total number of human genders in human societies is therefore literally gargantuan. Gender is in fact not more closely connected with anatomical sex than are age, ethnicity, social class, religious community and subculture considering that the transgender community is at the very center of the gender spectrum.

This understanding is as crucial as it is revolutionary as this allows discursively disconnecting gender from sex which it of course already is separate from as any person familiar with the transgender visual spectrum is aware. Indeed, feminist theorists have long with limited success sought to disentangle gender from from sex in not realizing that the two are separate in constituting no binary whatsoever.

Gender, age, ethnicity, social class , religious community and subculture are special in the sense that these tend to openly express sexuality in a sense that e.g. fetishism and BDSM usually do not. Therefore, some continuums of desire tend to be more overtly expressed than others.

The challenge therefore is to disprivilege gender both as a the purported primary locus of sexuality and as the purported other of anatomical sex. Therefore it is vital to make visible many other continuums of sexuality. Also who really needs gender identity or sexual identity? These are completely redundant like so many other unnecessary and harmful identities and individual human beings should rather be raised to learn to appreciate many, many forms of sexuality as opposed to identifying with unhelpful and redundant physionomistic categories.

Indeed, being a gendered person means being a sexual individual. Being gendered precisely means being sexualized. Gender is always more or less sexual precisely because gender is indeed one of many spectrums of sexuality.

31. Shifting Paradigm in Feminism

Feminism emerged as a movement that advocated the Rights of Man for women as well. Nominal legal equality between males/men and so called fe-males/wo-men has been achieved in most relevant areas of law in most countries, indeed other than where the difference nominally favor females over males.

Feminism as a movement with almost no international solidarity between females in different countries historically reached nominal emancipation and then Western feminism found itself in a state of permanent frustration with practical inequality in public and private arenas still partially remaining. The remaining gender inequality is both social and cultural in nature and feminism found itself in a position similar to that of organized religion in being mostly confined to advocating virtues and morals.

Feminist theory, the discursive genre of “Epistemology of Love” is part of the wider discursive project known as Critical Theory  and has found itself occupying an increasingly important position for the advancement of Feminism due to the diffusion and popularity of the field of Gender Studies in contemporary academia.

Critical Theory of course is a field of critique. Ordinary science seeks to understand the world while Critical Theory in contrast seeks to understand how the world is misunderstood due to varying discursive filters intrinsic to various social groups. This has of course strengthened the widely held impression that feminism is a movement of mere complainers. Yet the fact is that the focus in contemporary feminism is naturally on what is wrong rather than how things ought to become in the future.

However natural a condition this may seem, this is nevertheless a mistake as much more focus now ought to be on how things should be in the future. Futurism in the sense of innovatively reimagining the future is historically and in the present rare in feminism yet is of tremendous importance for the future of feminism.

Contemporary feminism is essentially a movement that seeks noble love without oppression in a world where love is systematically used against females by males in order to reinforce sexism and masculinism in society yet feminism still discursively essentially restricts itself to demanding the Rights of Man for women. Yet the Question of Love in being so central to the structural oppression against human females has for the most part been woefully been neglected in feminism.

Once it is understood that gender is one of many scales of sexuality, then can it also be understood that love as an aspect of sexuality is absolutely central to the very question of feminism. Indeed the so called “Radical Feminism” is definitely right about the centrality of sexuality in the oppression of females. The male sex drive as exaggerated by the production of too much testosterone is clearly very much central to the oppression of human females worldwide. It is indeed a folly among many feminists to ignore biological factors that contribute towards rather absolutely determine human social outcomes.

Feminism rather needs to focus more on feminist futurism in sexually and innovatively so re-imagining the human future. As genders are forms of sexuality is it surely a mistake to ignore biological factors ultimately underpinning sexuality. The multiplicity and diversity of genders, meaning gendered sexualities means that human beings may increasingly and rather flexibly so move between different genders and irrespectively so of anatomy.

19th century sexology created two diagnoses for transgender people. These two diagnoses are transsexualism and transvestism. The medical discourses of transexualism and transvestism are still premised on the notion that there are supposedly only two genders – male and female – and that all human beings should be fitted into these two genders. The same is of course true with regard to Intersex persons and more generally the wider medical discourse on Intersex which similarly wrongly presumes that the anatomical spectrum of sex is reducible to some simplistic historico-religiously inspired simplistic binary.

Feminism therefore needs to abandon the Para-Christian anti-body physionomistic discourse in feminism whereby biological factors contributing to social outcomes are simply denied. This is premised on the historical “metaphysical” Christian supersessionist notion in Replacement Theology of “Celestial Israel” (i.e. the Christian Church) “supplanting” “Carnal Israel” (i.e. the Jewish people and Rabbinic Judaism).

Feminists therefore have endeavored to deny and ignore the human bodies as a biological and zoological phenomenon by assuming in a very distinctly Para-Christian manner that eschatological deliverance lies inherently in denying the very carnal foundations of the human animals. The originally Soviet term ‘social construction’ has typically been used unthinkingly in ignoring the diverse and flexible nature of human social construction as indeed part and parcel of human zoology.

The question of noble behaviors, sincere partnership, mutual friendship, divine love, feminist sexuality and human reproduction is therefore absolutely central to the question and premise of not only what feminism is but also what feminism importantly is supposed be. In understanding that genders are sexualities rather than sexes can the question of love as expressive of sexuality become central to the feminist investigation and more generally to the very project of Feminist Theory and Queer Theory.

32. Structure of Sublimation

What is known as culture is an important feature in human societies around the world and although culture is not limited to human societies, human cultures are extremely diverse in their social and semiotic expressions.

The question of course is why this is so? Relatively high intelligence in comparison is one obvious explanation as relatively high intelligence allows for specialized social behaviors. However, while intelligence may facilitate such specialization, intelligence in and of itself is not an explanation at all as such diversity in cultural behaviors are found even in extremely low-tech contemporary human societies where little progress has been made with regard to intelligence-driven functional specialization. Rather, human cultural diversity worldwide is the result of diversity in sexual repression as the societal excess in cultural diversity is simply the result of global creativity in sexual sublimation.

Many cultural expressions of this sexual sublimation may be considered benign such as much of what is known as the arts while other forms of sexual sublimation take destructive expressions such as war and crime. Most career criminals are males who suffer from antisocial personality disorders which are usually known as psychopathy in legal adults and ADHD in legal minors and which involves extremely excessive production of testosterone. The extreme excess in human cultural diversity cannot however be explained in evolutionary terms since most of this extreme anthropological diversity is simply irrelevant to local human survival.  

While excessive male production of testosterone was useful in human stone age societies in terms of ensuring survival of offspring until the offspring themselves became anatomically ready for reproduction, human societies around the world apparently found it necessary to socially restrain humans sexually and hence the peculiar phenomenon of near universal human sexual repression and its extremely diverse sublimated cultural expressions.

Any serious feminist utopian must therefore pre-design future feminist human societal environments where sexual repression will no longer be necessary to any great extent which surely would be no small feat. Yet how then can this be achieved?

First, obviously this requires minimizing the number of human males and those bred and born must be truly exceptional in being descendants of geniuses and who must be extensively educated in royal etiquette to behave truly exquisitely towards human females. In an intermediate historical stage, this would involve a polygynous society with a proportion of male births to female births of 5/95 with males on average being married to about 20 females with the most genetically advanced families giving birth to males and the others to females and thus achieving very significant eugenic progress in every generation through such a process of breeding.

Second this requires reinventing both human sexuality and organized religion so that feminist ritual group sex becomes the very center of organized religion and of course human society more generally. Rather than sexual activities being seen as a spontaneous recreational activity in deriving pleasure from breaking social taboos as is typically the view in secular/modern cultures will feminist ritual group sex usually need involve at least seven human participants and be highly structured with detailed protocols determining what is to be done and in which order. Sexual activity tête-à-tête will therefore come to be seen as something rather boring and particularly unsophisticated considering that feminist ritual group sex as part of feminist religion as devoted to the permanent feminist revolution as well as the knowable will revolutionize human sexualities as one single sexual event may involve thousands of participants or more. The feminist calendar should thus be devoted to regular mass events of public ritual group sex.

Third, clothes ought only be used when there is a specific purpose for wearing particular clothes. When wearing clothes serves no ethically legitimate purpose, then should clothes not be worn at all.

Let’s be clear that the feminist revolution requires redesigning both male social behaviors and human genetics generally. Mere complaints or mere critique are wholly insufficient as feminist visionaries in social engineering must in detail design and articulate the feminist future of the so called “humanity”. Rather than human sexualities being examples of human culture are therefore human cultures examples of human sexuality.

33. Temples of Love

The public stigmatization of sex work deters most human beings from what under respectful conditions is truly the most wonderful and joyful profession possible, indeed the profession of love. Yet this stigma is completely and entirely irrational.

Of course working conditions for sex workers selling sexual intercourse (and especially for prostitutes, i.e. partly or entirely involuntary sex workers) are usually quite deplorable, but this is a result of the physionomistic stigma and is certainly not the origin of the stigma against sex work and sex workers but rather very much a social consequence of the stigma and the discriminatory legislation against sex workers in most countries.

In contrast were Temples of Love present in the ancient world where priestesses made love with visitors who left donations for the maintenance of the Temple. These were religious institutions and there was no stigma attached against the sacred female human beings working there. This was first established in Sumer (the world’s oldest civilization in today’s southern Iraq) with the gynocentric cult of Inanna, the prominent Goddess of Sexuality and War in Sumer. As Sumerian civilization spread in establishing the ancient world did Temples of Love also spread in Mediterranean civilization.

While obviously sex workers need to be fully emancipated as has already happened in Germany and the Netherlands, this is hardly enough as society must commence profoundly respecting sex workers both as persons and as professionals. Sex workers obviously need the protection of the state, the severe physionomistic stigma against sex workers must be lifted, sex workers obviously need education in their profession including academic programs in sex work, sex workers must be trained in defensive martial arts, begin working in pairs, only accept customers whom they themselves genuinely like and truly approve and feminist international SWAT teams with universal jurisdiction will need to be formed to liberate prostitutes no matter wherever they are found.

Some no doubt would question why sex should be paid for at all considering that the usual marital prostitution does not involve direct payment and these critics do have a point in a sense albeit not the way themselves imagine. Therefore should not only prostitution but sex work generally become supplanted by non-profit Temples of Love as once already existed in the ancient world. Everyone irrespective of gender ought to be encouraged to volunteer in Temples of Love. Young persons should be trained as volunteers in Temples of Love as early as the young persons themselves carnally desire and they would there receive feminist education in spiritual love & ritual sex. Even married persons should volunteer in Temples of Love and Courts of Conception (eugenic feminist harems) should obviously have their own internal Temples of Love.

Temples of Love should be specialized in many regards and not only with regard to the ritual sexual acts of love performed there but also in many other respects such as genre of music, aesthetic theme and genre of religious dancing. Temples of Love should practice advanced socio-sexual hospitality and volunteers should never be paid but guests should each be charged with small sums (say 10€ per visit as comparable to a visit at a cinema) needed for the physical maintenance of the building, rent, electricity and so on.

Volunteering in Temples of Love means that it will become very easy to realize one’s sexual fantasies, all one needs to do is to volunteer at the right Temple of Love and receive some feminist sexual education in order to behave appropriately there in accordance with the specific etiquette & protocol of the specific Temple of Love. There would be mutual computerized psychometric matching of volunteers and visitors and in particular so with regard to aesthetic preferences with respect to facial features, body types, cosmetics and fashion. This means that both volunteers and visitors will only have intimate contact with persons whose exterior and interior they genuinely like and approve of.

How many then will volunteer in Temples of Love once the stigma is lifted? Well, almost every human will do so because the universal establishment of highly specialized Temples of Love means that most sexual fantasies can be quickly realized with very little effort and almost no expense other than a small donation for the maintenance of a specific Temple of Love. The fact that volunteers will only practice socio-sexual hospitality towards visitors whom they genuinely like and truly approve of means that there is no ethically valid reason for anyone not to volunteer in the Temples of Love.

Volunteers of all genders at Temples of Love will have the sacred status of priests/priestesses and visitors would have to kiss them on the hand and in other ways show profound deference such as e.g. through curtsy, bowing and even prostration. Temples of Love would be religious feminist institutions practicing ritual sex only and would all be supervised by special government agencies devoted to maintaining high ethical and aesthetic standards in all Temples of Love.

Each Temple of Love would have two High Priests/Priestesses who would both have academic degrees in sex work and would be formally certified for their vocation by the government agency in question. High Priests/Priestesses would therefore be professionals carefully educated in the feminist ethics and feminist aesthetics of sex work. Temples of Love would be non-profit religious feminist institutions devoted the spiritual elevation of sexuality and furtherance of profound mutual respect in all encounters between volunteers and visitors.

Volunteers in Temples of Love would usually work in pairs or else in groups of three or more. The visitor would be lovingly received by the pair whom the visitor would kiss on their respective hands and this would be so irrespective of the genders and anatomies of volunteers and visitors respectively. The pair would then delicately undress the visitor and treat the visitor with profound loving kindness. Everyone would be trained to behave extremely polite and all sexual interaction would be limited to the pre-determined protocol; i.e. to the etiquette pertaining to the provided form of socio-sexual hospitality, to the specific Temple of Love and to ethical legislation with regard to Temples of Love generally. The visitor would therefore not be allowed to make additional requests for particular sexual activities since this would be completely and entirely determined beforehand as the visitor would decide beforehand which Temple of Love that s/he desires to visit as well as what specific and entirely and completely pre-determined form of socio-sexual hospitality that s/he therefore desires to engage in.

Would there then perhaps be a deficit or a surplus of volunteers in relation to the number of visitors? If there are too few volunteers, then should those whom themselves regularly volunteer in Temples of Love be given preferential access as visitors of Temples of Love; something which would effectively ensure that many, many more would regularly volunteer in the Temples of Love. If there is a surplus in volunteers in some regard then would those in the surplus simply make themselves interesting by training for and volunteering in yet further forms of socio-sexual hospitality. Volunteering should take place in many different forms of socio-sexual hospitality in accordance with the appropriate specialized etiquette and protocol and the number of such types of carefully regulated forms of socio-sexual hospitality would increase with time as would specialization in different subforms of socio-sexual hospitality.

Then what about persons who are typically not considered conventionally attractive? There are many diverse individual preferences with regard to physical exterior and this can furthermore usually be turned conventionally attractive in the eyes of many with the right amount of makeup and fashion and this is true irrespective of gender and intimate anatomy. There is e.g. contrary to popular demeaning physionomistic conception a very common sexual preference for obese persons and there is e.g. a particular sexual preference for persons moving in wheelchairs.

There would be no need to use alcohol, cocaine, morphine or any other so called “recreational” drug to numb oneself in order to socio-psychologically enable carnal intimacy with someone one has only just met. There would be virtually no shyness in Temples of Love other than intrinsically pertaining to individual personhood as all socio-sexual behaviors of volunteers & visitors alike would be carefully pre-determined and indeed choreographed by the etiquette and protocol pertaining to the specific form of socio-sexual hospitality practiced there. Indeed, it should become illegal for volunteers and visitors alike to be intoxicated by alcohol or any other so called “recreational” drug while in the Temple of Love.

Feminist Temples of Love will hence become a highly important educational, indeed essential part of the feminist revolution in the sense that volunteers & visitors alike would be carefully trained & educated in the appropriate feminist socio-sexual behaviors in accordance with the respective etiquette & protocol of specific forms of socio-sexual hospitality at particular Temples of Love around the world.

34. Feminist Social Centers

Visitors to Para-Christian Sin centers serving as meeting points (i.e. pubs, nightclubs, discos etc.) for potential lovers will typically feel compelled to get drunk to varying degrees and/or use other so called “recreational drugs”.  Visitors of all genders will typically feel awkward if sober and initiating contact with someone completely unknown whom one is attracted to whether in such a Sin center or elsewhere in society is typically considered almost almost prohibitively difficult unless intoxicated with alcohol and/or other “recreational drugs”.

The essential question therefore that fundamentally needs to be posed and subsequently also profoundly considered is therefore why this is really so? Most human beings who have reached a certain chronological age in secular/modern culture are not particularly shy so why do they still feel this way? The simple answer is that they feel fundamentally uncomfortable with conventional forms of initial courtship in secular/modern culture. They are put into a social matrix in which they feel that they do not truly fit and therefore feel that they must significantly emotionally numb themselves and their real feelings in order to be able to socially perform in accordance with conventional social expectations.

Males therefore are supposed to intoxicate themselves to a degree that they feel able to approach females in a therefore typically less than polite manner and females are supposed to intoxicate themselves to a degree that they feel able to accept such less than polite attempts at making contact by males. What is lacking therefore is etiquette that mutually extends the respective individual comfort zones and makes it comfortable both to initiate contact and accept attempted initiation of contact without any need to use of alcohol and/or any other “recreational drugs”.

Sin centers whose social purpose is to enable such non-commercial initiation of contact potentially leading to non-commercial intimate intercourse do however receive most of their revenues from the serving of alcohol and so the typical interior of such sin Sin centers are therefore implicitly designed in such a way that only those intoxicated by alcohol will feel socially comfortable spending extended amounts of time there. Establishments such as commercial discos devised to enable initiation of and acceptance of attempts at non-commercial contact would therefore not be profitable unless they also served alcohol.

What are needed therefore are Feminist Social Centers open to human persons of all genders, yet crucially without the serving of alcohol and where persons of all genders will feel mutually comfortable socially interacting. These social centers need to be established by the government in every town and city whereby it will be possible for associations, individuals and companies to rent the premises for a day, an evening or a night for a low, nominal fee.

This means that a great diversity in social events involving a great diversity of different event concepts, musical genres, types of social interaction, types of intellectuation encounters and styles of dance will be held at such community social centers with feminist social flavor. However, the organizers of each event must however present visitors with a simple written feminist and otherwise ethical etiquette for each specific event detailing the feminist and otherwise ethical rules of engagement at each specific event or reappearing genre of event. This event-specific etiquette must be lucid, simple, easily intelligible, easy to apply for participants yet still necessarily detailed to some degree.

National law should determine the establishment of Feminist Social Centers yet give organizers significant leeway in designing the respective etiquettes of both unique events and regularly reappearing genres of events. Since Feminist Social Centers would not be socially and economically premised on the consumption of alcohol would these events be organized at very different times during the 24-hour day and the 7-hour week and would therefore be open to bookings of events at times around the clock and around the year.

The bottom line therefore is that the existence of a sufficiently detailed feminist and otherwise ethical etiquette for each particular event held at a Feminist Social Center will essentially void the need for the numbing of social inhibitions by the use of alcohol and/or other “recreational drugs” as social behavior simply will be in accordance with the particular etiquette of the event or genre of event, an etiquette which crucially however must not be discriminatory or exclusionary.

35. Feminist Courtship

While Feminist Social Centers and online psychometric mass matching would supplant Sin centers as venues for potential lovers to meet each other for the first time, this still leaves us with the question of how feminist courtship ought to be as the first occasion of contact is merely the beginning of what indeed is known as courtship, the period of getting to know each other.

Most human cultures have sexist practices where monetary interaction whether substantial or symbolic such as giving roses (the rose is a symbol of the female intimate anatomy), paying for her in restaurants and cinemas and buying her rings play a prominent role. Many feminists have therefore been on the spot in describing monogamous marital sexual relations between a female and a male as prostitution on the part of the female. Weddings are usually farcical events in the bride being macabrely dressed up as the prostitute of the night. If she is a virgin will the night become the nightmarish rape that is penile so called deflowering since almost no males are aware that deflowering ought to be done most delicately with tongue and fingers.

How then do Lesbian and Bisexual females meet each other? Generalizations that do not show the entire picture are obviously problematic, yet feminism is indeed about making such for the most part valid generalizations. Lesbian females tend to get to know each through the love of friendship between initially acquaintances which typically only later is extended to carnal love. Feminist courtship hence needs to be about getting to know each other as one really is considering that friendship  is about appreciating both strong sides and weak sides in a fellow person and friendship is therefore the only lasting basis for romantic love.

Yet ethical courtship certainly requires a feminist code of conduct. The task therefore is one of profound and loving candor; i.e. revealing oneself in splendid imperfection. If you want someone to love you, then you should want that person to adore your strong sides while respecting your weak sides for the human condition is one of psychological imperfection. If your friend often tells you that you are cute on occasions when you happen to exhibit your weak sides, then you know that it is probably real and lasting love for your personhood on the part of that person.

Getting to know each other very politely and exquisitely nicely, yet in splendid imperfection is therefore a task quite in contrast to the mutual fraud that is typical heterosexualist dating. If you wish your friend to appreciate your personhood in its entirety, then hiding your weak sides and exposing them much later is not a particularly good idea to put things mildly because by doing that you put social dynamite destined for later explosion under your relationship. Contemporary conventional heterosexualist dating therefore in many ways resemble simple fraud but is however considered socially acceptable due to being mutual in nature. In fact, this very mutual social fraud is typically a simple enactment of a certain type of pornographic imagination.

A traditional role used by males during courtship is that of the gentleman which is subsequently typically abandoned once the courtship phase – as typically involving mutual pathological infatuation – ends. Gentleman is derived from “gentle man”, meaning “gentle male” as boys too can enact a gentleman role. This role is often profoundly erotic in the sense that most females desire finding a male who is dominant in an extremely nice manner which is what being a “gentleperson” is all about. However few seem to have considered that the gentleguy ideal is behaviorally appropriate for females as well and that females can be gentlegirls and behave in accordance with the traditional gentlemanly behavioral ideal.

The gentlemanly behavioral ideal is derived from British aristocracy and more specifically from the behavioral norm that prevailed at Buckingham Palace with its Franco-British standards of royal etiquette. The British empire was a multicultural, multiethnic and multireligious enterprise and so the local princely rulers of Asia and Africa within the British Empire obviously had to be received with appropriate decorum, including importantly profound cultural sensitivity so as obviously not upset relations between London and its dependencies.

The Buckingham etiquette therefore required a gentlemanly introduction after which the elegantly erotic Versailles etiquette often ensued once there was a sufficient degree of social intimacy. Importantly did the gentlemanly ideal thus apply to female behavior as well at the British royal court of Buckingham Palace as everyone were obliged to be initially extremely sensitive and indeed so irrespective of gender. The gentleman ideal was therefore originally gender neutral and should indeed be so today as well. Just as it is typically extremely romantic for a female to be kissed on the hand by a male, so is it extremely romantic too for a male to be kissed on the hand by a female and certainly so for females to kiss each other’s hands and obviously no less so for males to kiss each other’s hands all of which were practiced at the historically functionally bisexual and generally sexually extremely liberal royal courts of Europe.

The Buckingham etiquette not surprisingly has therefore in recent centuries provided a guide for courteous behavior of males towards females. However, it is much less known that this etiquette was mostly gender neutral and that traditional courtly etiquette is essentially feminist in nature so as to sexually liberate those introduced at the court by means of ensuring extremely appropriate male behavior towards females.  

The Buckingham etiquette thus provides a suitably considerate, affable, sensitive and potentially romantic introduction which once social intimacy has been established allows for a more socially erotic, yet still behaviorally extremely exquisite social phase in accordance with the Versailles etiquette which indeed was the courtly etiquette in most of Europe.

There can be no doubt that teaching exquisite courtly etiquette is absolutely required for undoing male antisocial behaviors towards females around the world and so traditional etiquette systems from the historically sexually liberated princely, royal and imperial courts around the world certainly do provide an essential guide for devising a contemporary feminist etiquette of feminist courtship.

36. Designing Feminist Man

Male oppression against females exist in all human cultures although very diversely socially and culturally constructed. Such forms of oppression against females variously found in some but not all human cultures include formal discrimination against females, derogation of females, segregation of females and devaluing things, activities, behaviors and/or attributes considered feminine. To deny however that there are biological factors that significantly contribute towards the male state of oppression against females is completely naive and understanding those biological (genetic, hormonal, sexual, character) factors certainly must not be confused with biological determinism according to which male oppression against females is completely and entirely unavoidable or the naturalist fallacy according to which male oppression is “natural” and therefore purportedly legitimate.

These biological factors that contribute to the male oppression against females in human societies need to be acknowledged and dealt with. The four main biological problems with regard to male oppression against females are the following. 1) One significant genetic problem is vast overrepresentation of antisocial personality disorders (ADHD/psychopathy) in human males in causing not only severe oppression against females (especially in the so called private sphere) but also significant male overrepresentation in recidivist crime, abuse of alcohol and substance abuse. 2) Most human males produce far too much testosterone, the male sexual hormone in often causing severe misbehavior on the part of males towards females in human societies. 3) Most human males experience a far greater need for penetrative sexual intercourse than do most human females as the average male easily can sexually satisfy 20 female spouses on a regular basis. 4) Most human males are in comparison with the far more spiritually elevated human females relatively speaking lowly and selfish creatures and so feminist eugenics need to focus on breeding males with ethically exceptional and saintly personal characteristics

  1. Antisocial personality disorders (ADHD/psychopathy) need to be treated genetically and such treatment must become standard procedure with regard to early human embryos as early as once pregnancy is medically detected. Recidivist criminals (including criminal drug addicts and criminal alcoholists) should be sentenced to compulsory genetic modification in order to supplant the very genes causing antisocial personality disorders.
  1. Male-to-Female transsexuals who choose sex-reassignment surgery take medication for the rest of their lives that lower their production of testosterone. Males with socially speaking excessive production of testosterone therefore also need to be continually medically treated so as permanently lower their production of excessive amounts of testosterone.
  1. The proportion of male births to female births need to be initially decreased to a ratio of 5/95 by means of universal introduction of artificial uteri and later even further.
  1. Later must only saintly males with exceptional personal characteristics and as descended from geniuses be born and subsequently raised for reproductive life in gynocentric harems and androcentric harems. Feminist eugenics is therefore most essential for the feminist revolution.

There are of course both social and cultural factors that are complicit in the male oppression of females in various human societies. The most effective ways of altering these are by means of education, social behavioral training (SBT); devising feminist systems of etiquette and then making sure that society at large adopts the feminist etiquette.

Indeed, feminism needs continually discuss what are the desired psychometric characteristics in the future Feminist Man because deciding this is indeed the very first step towards both socially and biologically redesigning the psychometric state of man.

Some feminists might surely question whether human males are needed at all, however feminist eugenics is a vital part of phasing out male pathology and males are certainly needed in feminist breeding for the purpose of feminist eugenics. Phasing out male pathology is the task at hand and designing Feminist Man is certainly therefore a vital part of the feminist revolution.

37. Sexual Phallocentrism

Most human males who have reached puberty experience an almost constant need for penetrative sexual intercourse. However the fact is that most human females do not and this simple fact is something that most human males simply don’t accept and therefore typically turn intimate relationships with human females into what is best described as marital prostitution.  

The inconvenient fact therefore is that human females and human males simply want different things sexually from intimate relationships. Prostitution hence is typically a socio-psychological process whereby males endeavor to psychologically turn females into behavioral males sexually speaking. However, this phenomenon is not limited to prostitution itself, but males in many different human cultures use various social and cultural techniques for turning females into mere instrumentalized tools for selfish male pleasure. In essence, the diversely socially constructed so called “patriarchy”, namely the social and ideological subjection of females does endeavor to subordinate females to selfish male pleasure whereby ignoring the sexual desires of the heart of most females who deep inside desire things very different and instead turn her into a marital prostitute.

Yet, the perfect human male intuitively senses the profound desires of her heart and realizes those desires of hers in a selfless manner. Only then can the female devote herself to the profound desires of his heart without in the process turning herself into a marital prostitute as prostitution is indeed sex work that socio-politically is partly or entirely involuntary.

Human males tend to endeavor to convince themselves that coitus is that which human females want most of all. Most females of course enjoy coitus once in a while – but certainly not every night as a marital routine although some females of course do. Many females find coitus painful and therefore prefer anal penetration or oral penetration. Most females however desire social intimacy of which penetrative sex may or may not be part.

There are currently two main model genders for females in secular/modern society with access to the Internet. The first is that of the Princess and the second is that of the female Pornstar as consumption of pornography is becoming near universal among persons with constant access to the Internet. On the one hand does the female typically wish to be treated as a princess, on the other hand does she want to ensure that her male is sexually hooked to her and she tends to believe that she must engage in marital prostitution to keep him pleased and thus not lose him to competing females. Why is this so? Well, the socio-economic security of both her and her children (if indeed she has children) is simply at stake and she makes an economic calculus that in most cases effectively turn her into a marital prostitute. As females generally earn less than males due to both discrimination against females and the fact that female-dominated professions have lower average salaries – is there typically much at stake in economic terms for her.

Her most fervent hope however is that he will start treating her like a Princess if she treats him as if she herself were a Pornstar. Of course, most males do not exactly treat their girlfriends and wives as if they were princesses but rather in lowly manner endeavor to turn her into a marital prostitute. The tragedy therefore is that while she understands the utmost beauty in being marital sex workers selflessly devoted to each other’s profound desires of heart, yet of course most males are rather lowly, emotionally unsophisticated beings and have no intention whatsoever of becoming selfless marital sex workers.

However, this is interestingly what his heart deep down desires and she knows that but peculiarly does not tell him for she hopes that he will find out himself. Of course, he does not find out because no one tells him that most human males deep down desire to become sex workers. This is the tragedy, she tests him and he abjectly fails the test in typically turning out to be a mere lowly sexist brute due to mere lack of education in how to socio-sexually treat female human beings. Sexual education is unfortunately typically focused on teaching coitus and not even feminism teaches males how to socio-sexually behave towards females.

The tragedy of course is that she would not mind being a voluntary marital sex worker if he too were to be one and like her were to selflessly focus on the utmost pleasure of a profoundly respected other. It would not even be marital prostitution for her to have frequent coitus if he like her were to selflessly focus on the pleasure of the other. Being a fully voluntary sex worker is of course a most wonderful profession which tragically turns into prostitution the moment the sex work starts becoming relatively involuntary whether due to her economic considerations or increasingly coming under the social domination of a parasitical middleman.

Sexual phallocentrism is often sublimated into phallic representations in architecture, its sublimation in discourse is known as phallogocentrism (i.e. phallocentrism+logocentrism) in Critical Theory and sexual education is typically focused on coitus and to a lesser degree on oral penile penetration and anal penile penetration. Human females are therefore indoctrinated to believe that they must constantly want to be sexually penetrated by a human male and that it is simply natural for him to behave as a selfish brute. Yet, human females typically desire sexual subjection but in return wish to be exquisitely treated in accordance with the deepest desires of her heart which of course only rarely happens. The tragedy hence is that the female engages in marital sex work in the fervent hope that he too will which of course he does not because no one tells him that this is indeed the deepest desire of his heart.

What role therefore should sexual phallocentrism play in feminist sexual utopia? Sexual phallocentrism should change character from male oppression of females into feminist religion whereby phallocentric public ritual sex become events in the feminist calendar. There should for instance be special Virgins’ Day around the year when virgins have feminist coitus for the first time and publically so on altars in public view. Rather than opposing all forms of sexual phallocentrism should sexual phallocentrism become one important feature in public ritual sex of feminist religion.

38. Agency of Ejaculation

Normative Western sexuality is typically conceived of as something that distinctly begins with puberty. Psychoanalysis is one of few Western discourses that discusses issues pertaining to pre-pubescent sexualities, in fact the question of pre-pubescent sexuality and its socially constructed psychological repression is very much central to Sigmund Freud’s discursive endeavor.

Yet, a little known anatomical fact is that boys are typically capable of erection and therefore of penile penetrative sex long before puberty, indeed many do masturbate and it is more common than not that pre-pubescent human beings engage in sexual relations by choice, mostly with each other but also with adolescents, adults and non-human persons.

Normative androcentric Western, i.e. Para-Christian sexual discourse directly following in the teachings of the Catholic Church traditionally claims that proper sexualiy is about procreation and that everything else is essentially “sin” as the iconoclastic eroticization of sexual taboos – i.e. “sexual sin” in Catholic terms – is the very foundation of Para-Christian sexual pleasure.

It is this very Para-Christian conception of sexuality that ignores, negates and denies the very sexual agency of pre-pubescent human persons. The attitude towards sexualities of pre-pubescent human persons is therefore similar to the prevailing attitude towards sex workers in that their very socio-sexual agency is deliberately ignored, negated and denied. Indeed, the question of when and how sex workers enjoy commercial sex is completely taboo as it is assumed that sex workers somehow cannot enjoy working, much like many persons in many other professions certainly do enjoy working.

Girls are traditionally considered “closed” in waiting to be opened rape-like by phallic agency capable of producing ejaculation while pre-pubescent boys are simply considered “premature”. Pre-pubescent human beings are officially considered as living in celibacy although usually in actual reality not doing so.

The agency of ejaculation, namely being discursively considered as being able to produce ejaculation is traditionally central to socio-sexual legitimacy. Like sex workers therefore are pre-pubescent human persons considered as lacking socio-sexual agency. Although few would deny that pre-pubescent human persons once reaching a certain verbal level are able to provide both social consent towards human persons of all ages and sexual consent towards fellow pre-pubescent human persons – it is not only axiomatic, but indeed dogmatic – that pre-pubescent human persons purportedly lack socio-sexual agency with respect to intergenerational sexual relations also involving adolescents and/or adults.

Since sexual relations prior to puberty is recognized as not being able to produce pregnancy are pre-pubescent sexual relations much like until recently also same-sex sexual relations considered as outside the realm of social legitimacy. The biblical prohibitions against particular expressions of sexuality do not however mention specific forms of sex but rather enumerate forbidden sexual relations on account of gender, kinship and the state of menstruation, yet does not even separately mention pre-pubescent sexual intimacy.

However, the notion of traumatization as first articulated by Sigmund Freud came to form the very basis for the still hegemonic, yet completely irrational taboo against particular intergenerational sexual relations in Para-Christian society. The fact however is that no one has ever, ever been able to scientifically prove in purely quantitative, meaning statistic terms that illegal sexual relations are intrinsically traumatizing when it is in fact instead parenting that virtually always produces traumatization in young persons

The ideology of ejaculation whereby females are mere empty vessels for procreation and the dissemination of male seed is at the center of socio-sexual legitimacy therefore socially permits disallowing any sexuality that breaks the patriarchal matrix of procreative ejaculation. Thus would many not even consider many non-penetrative lesbian sexual relationships as performing “real sex” but rather as “mere petting”.

Therefore, universal sexual liberation requires breaking the hegemonic discursive privileging of procreative ejaculation and human males need to be trained in experiencing non-ejaculative orgasm as well as in postponing ejaculation for hours in a row and even leaving out ejaculation altogether and thus being highly able to resume sexual intimacy after a short break as indeed a break in fact may be far more pleasant than an ejaculation. The fact that many human males simply do not experience non-ejaculative orgasm is for some reason not considered a deficiency, a problem or a medical disorder as male sexuality is purportedly intrinsically about procreative ejaculation which of course leaves out those pre-pubescent forms of erection that do not produce ejaculation containing seed.

The contemporary focus on Para-Christian “forbidden relations” is also quite peculiar in that this ignores idiosyncratic personhood and in a sense demeaningly reduces persons to mere physionomistic categories. The very notion of being attracted to physionomistic categories of gender, age, taxa etc. is in a sense very demeaning as surely ought one not first be attracted to persons rather than to stereotypes? Indeed, this is the reason why most human females wish to be socially recognized as persons before accepting compliments of a sexual nature from human males.

However, the hegemonically Para-Christian ideology of ejaculation privileges procreative ejaculation precisely in that it semiotically privileges the social agency of “adult males”, a state of things which in feminism is more commonly known as patriarchy, the hegemony of the relatively elder males, a.k.a. “men”. The semiotic privileging of procreative ejaculation is therefore at the heart of what is known as patriarchy, indeed one could argue, the very material essence of Western (i.e. Para-Christian) patriarchy.

The culturally normative discourse on sexuality therefore needs to be substantially decentered from the act of procreative ejaculation in deconstructing the very notion of sexuality as the patently absurd epistemology of seed.   

39. Arousal of Taboo

Sexuality in Para-Christian society is typically socially constructed as the eroticization of engaging in non-procreative sexual activity, something which is socially constructed as sexual taboos whose iconoclastic “breaking” causes sexual excitement. For example, many females in contemporary Para-Christian society find it highly sexually arousing to be called “whore”, “slut” etc. in bed by their male partner or spouse while having sex. The sexual arousal therefore comes from engaging in sexual activity of a non-procreative type as commercial sex is indeed in principle non-procreative.

The eroticization of so called “paraphilia”, i.e. forms of sexual activities stigmatized as “deviant” and mostly so by 19th century early sexologists and which precisely comes from the religiously “forbidden” nature of non-procreative sex in 19th century Euro-Christian society. This is not to say that those forms of sexualities did not exist prior to the emergence of the academic field of sexology in the 19th century but rather that the normal/non-normal binary reinforces the eroticization of non-procreative forms of sexuality. This sexual culture of taboo is distinctly Para-Christian and has its origins in the doctrines of the Catholic church according to to which all non-procreative sexual activity is completely sinful.

19th century European sexologists indeed created elaborate sexual taxonomies according to which human beings could be classified into different physionomistic categories known as “types”. This reinforced existing sexual subcultures as participants of sexual subcultures eventually began to create worldwide communal identities for themselves on the basis of their thus “classified” sexual orientations.

The worldwide diffusion of the Internet in the early 21st century has however caused Para-Christian sexualities to spread worldwide, including to the world of Islamdom where the availability of Internet pornography despite attempted, yet easily evaded national censorship of the Internet has changed the nature of sexuality from what was long part of a religious institution, namely the Muslim religious marriage to a type of hobby and recreational activity as increasingly divorced from procreation.

While Muslim ethnic groups worldwide generally had higher fertility rates than non-Muslim ethnic groups in the same parts of the world during the 20th century, the introduction of Internet pornography has caused national fertility rates in predominantly Muslim countries to plummet. While not the entire population has unhindered access to the Internet, the sexual practices of the wealthier segments of society are increasingly spreading to society at large. This has significant social consequences as elites and other wealthier strata of citizens in predominantly Muslim countries are increasingly leaving Islam in practicing Western taboo sex at home while outwardly typically still claiming to be Muslim.

There are however several problems inherent to the Para-Christian sexual culture of taboo. First it assumes that sexological physionomistic categories represent different “types” of human beings. Second it presumes that sexual desire is “taxonomic”, meaning that it is socially constructed by Euro-Christian sexologists in a distinctly essentialist manner. Third, it presumes that these are fixed rather than fluid categories of participants. Fourth it eroticizes non-procreative sex as deviation rather than as enjoyment in diversity of love.

Of course, having one’s sexuality defined by the historical Para-Christian rejection of already then outdated anti-sexual religious dogma of the Catholic church seems quite peculiar to put things mildly. Being Queer is thus not a “deviation” but is indeed how Para-Christian sexualities generally are socially constructed through the eroticization of deviation from the Catholic social ideal of purely procreative marital sexual intercourse.

The sexualities of secular/modern (i.e. Para-Christian) global sexual subcultures therefore certainly deserve intensive deconstruction and social reconstruction indeed. Sexual education should rather than merely teach procreative sex instead teach everyone to embrace sexual diversity and to learn and try out as many sexual specializations as possible. The more types of sexual interaction that one enjoys and personally appreciates surely the better. Rather than identifying with physionomistic categories should one embrace the tremendous diversity that are globalized sexual subcultures.

The fact that one has come to enjoy a certain form of sexual specialization certainly does not preclude learning to enjoy yet many other forms of sexual specialization as well. Just as functional bisexuality ought to be the social ideal so should it also be the social ideal to learn to appreciate and enjoy as many sexual variations as possible. Adolescents and especially male adolescents therefore ought to be encouraged to engage in sex work as sex work in safe work environments is an excellent way to learn to appreciate the joys of sexual diversity and human diversity generally. Of course, this first requires the emancipation of sex workers and subsequently ensuring that sex workers always have good and protected work environments. However, commercial sex work would become redundant in the feminist future as sex work would be offered almost free of charge in Temples of Love.

The Para-Christian eroticization of sexual taboos as originally in the Catholic context known as “sexual sin” as distinguished from purely procreative sex therefore needs to be supplanted by appreciation of the joys of sexual diversity. The more one enjoys, indeed surely the better.

The eroticization of purported “sexual amorality” is also problematic in the sense that it divorces sexuality from ethics, including most problematically from feminist ethics. Feminism has two main streams, the French stream as founded by Simone de Beauvoir which seeks to articulate and better understand the social construction of gender difference while the American stream as founded by Shulamith Firestone ultimately seeks the abolition of gender itself. Of course, “gender” is not the purported “social sex” as juxtaposed to the purportedly primordial “biological sex”, but is rather one of many social aspects of sexuality and so gender is the eroticization of sex difference just as ethnicity is the erotizisation of cultural difference and so called “race” (including as expressive of taxonomic variation in multiple contemporary species and subspecies of the homo genus) is the eroticization of genetic difference. This is so as human culture is indeed at its very core the very sublimation of repressed, indeed as socially considered “excessive” sexuality.

While feminism rightly has many complaints about human male sexual behaviors vis-à-vis human females, feminism has yet to more profoundly engage with the intersection of sexuality and ethics. While feminism unfortunately since its historical inception has a long history of sexual moralism, what is rather needed is a feminist revolution of sexual morals whereby “secular” sexuality is liberated from its unhelpful Para-Christian associations.

What is needed therefore is a certain feminist takeover of organized religion worldwide whereby feminist ritual group sex in Temples of Love becomes the focus of organized religion and sexuality is therefore liberated from the notorious monogamous reproductive prostitution that is so typically advocated by patriarchal organized religion.

As religion and its purportedly “non-religious” derivatives (ideologies, philosophies, nationalisms, cultures, civilizations etc.) is at its core about the very repression and sublimation of sexuality, so need feminism lead the global sexual revolution in reinventing sexuality as functionally advanced love. Enjoying diversity in sexual practice is a far greater enjoyment than being socially contained by originally religious taboos of sexual ‘taxonomy’.

However, the feminist merger of sexuality and religion means undoing the human cultural repression of sexuality as indeed culture is simply the sublimation of repressed love. The feminist takeover of organized religion therefore means that ethical advanced sexuality will become the very focus of human society, certainly not its only component, but surely its most central one as human beings at their very core are highly sexual beings whose desires of love are mostly repressed and sublimated rather than expressed in profound enjoyment of diversity in love.

40. Question of Infidelity

Marital infidelity as a phenomenon, both real and imagined is indeed a specter that unfortunately plagues many monogamous marriages. The menace of infidelity threatens not only individual economic security and ordinary daily family life but threatens also on a more profound level the psychological security of spouses. While the focus is on sexual acts technically constituting the marital infidelity, these acts more precisely are seen as threatening the marital relationship itself. The sexual acts technically constituting the marital infidelity therefore are emotional symbols of the fear of being emotionally abandoned.

There is general agreement that infidelity is something bad, even something reprehensible, yet it remains legal in most countries and where it is illegal, this is due to sharia law being applied as state law.

Yet, the fact is that marital infidelity is something usually performed by males with sex workers and prostitutes (prostitutes = partly or entirely involuntary sex workers) and this is rarely a threat to marital continuity, yet may still be a significant strain on the relationship and the wife may feel compelled to herself more act like a prostitute in terms of her sexual relationship with her husband, meaning regularly performing sexual acts that she actually does not want to do, yet still does out of concern for both marital stability and individual economic security.

The question therefore is why infidelity is legal? What if sex work was much more socially accepted, would it still be considered as infidelity to purchase commercial sexual services? This is so considering that purchasing commercial sexual services is rarely a threat to marital security as most men are unfortunately so prejudiced towards female sex workers that they would not even consider marrying a female sex worker. Should purchasing commercial sexual services even be considered infidelity?

Yet, marital jealousy is a sublimation of repressed marital discontent with monogamy that substantially reaches the surface once there is a real or imaginary emotional threat to the marital relationship. Both infidelity and jealousy are therefore expressions of discontent and of course also a perfectly rational concern of once more being left single with all the difficulties typically involved in finding a suitable mate. Romantic/sexual jealousy is therefore a perfectly logical psychologic reaction to the psychological and economic anomaly that is monogamy.

This much said about the typically dystopian nature of monogamy, yet there is still need for legislation regulating the highly problematic phenomenon of marital infidelity. When should it be legal and when should it be illegal? If there is spousal consent for an extra-marital sexual relationship such as part of polyamory, then does it simply not constitute infidelity. Visiting and/or volunteering in Temples of Love should however become something completely normal and mutual spousal consent for this should therefore become the social norm. Extra-marital sexual relations for married persons (including the purchase of commercial sexual services) should therefore become illegal unless there is spousal consent. Extra-marital sexual relations with spousal consent would hence not be considered as constituting infidelity in legal terms. If however the spouses have separated in anticipation of divorce, then of course should not extra-marital sexual relations be considered as infidelity in legal terms.

Why is this legislation needed already in monogamous society, not to speak of a polyamorous and polygynous future? First legislating this issue will create much more emotional trust between spouses and therefore much less emotionally detrimental jealousy. Also, the indirect (as opposed to direct) emotional pressure on a wife to engage in prostitution-like sexual behaviors with her husband will likely decrease substantially in most marital relationships between a female and male. There is really no reason why such socially outrageous behavior should remain legal for married persons as most would indeed agree that marital infidelity is emotionally harmful, extremely rude and certainly by all standards unethical indeed.

41. Harlot Feminism

Feminism has always had an ambiguous attitude towards sexuality and since the 20th century ranging not only from antisexual but also to the almost uncritically prosexual.

However, being rightly critical of male social constructs of sexuality should not necessarily infer opposing female-male sexual relations generally but sexuality should rather become fundamentally reinvented from a diversity of feminist perspectives. It is rather culturally hegemonic male sexualities that are antisexual in typically to varying degrees stigmatizing female sexual pleasure, female sexual liberation and female sex work.

A society’s attitude towards sex workers is therefore an important indicator of how society views female sexualities and female sexual liberation. Many cultures (including the antisexual subculture in radical feminism and many Muslim societies) view female sexualities as being weak in need of protection. There are thus eery parallels between patriarchal and matriarchal perspectives conceptualizing female sexualities as weak in need of protection by patriarchy/matriarchy.

While it is true that human females typically are physically weaker than human males, yet it is also true that this is a social construct as every human being should learn self-defense martial arts. If human females thus were trained in self-defense martial arts would not human females need to physically fear human males as this would boost their respective physical self-confidence in feeling confident in their ability to defend themselves.

Terminology in various languages such as harlot, slut, whore etc. in English typically have dual meanings in both referring to a sexually liberated human female and to a sex worker offering commercial sexual intercourse. Both meanings are interestingly and highly unfortunately so extremely derogative of the human females in question.

Being a prostitute, meaning a sex worker who offers commercial sexual intercourse yet does this in a social context that is partly or entirely involuntary is surely a bad thing yet this ought not reflect badly on those very human persons known as prostitutes. The bad thing therefore is neither the person known as a prostitute, nor the fact that she has sexual intercourse with many customers or even the fact that she like voluntary sex workers may even enjoy the thus commercially provided sexual intercourse, but rather that she is effectively forced to perform sexual acts that she does not actually wish to provide.

It is thus imperative that universal emancipation is extended to sex workers and prostitutes and that all prostitutes as well as sex workers living under precarious conditions with respect to personal security are physically liberated, including by feminist SWAT teams whenever and wherever necessary. This universal emancipation must importantly be extended to illegal immigrants providing sex work as illegal immigrants are typically extremely vulnerable to abuse and exploitation and indeed especially so if providing sex work.

On the semiotic level need terminology in different languages such as harlot, slut, whore etc. in English become reappropriated and given new liberated meanings of feminist empowerment. Feminists of all genders ought therefore individually declare feminist sexual liberation by wearing sexually liberating feminist t-shirts with texts such as “Proud Harlot”, “Slut Pride” and “Proud to feel like a Whore”.

Many socialist feminists who ignore, deny and negate the socio-sexual agency of sex workers and therefore take part in the masculinist oppression against sex workers do not seem to understand that they are not only structurally complicit in the very masculinist oppression against sex workers but indeed structurally participate in the masculinist oppression of female sexualities generally, including their own respective personhoods as fundamentally sexual human beings.

Indeed, the feminist reappropriation of terminology such as harlot, slut, whore etc. is absolutely pivotal indeed for the project of feminist sexual liberation generally. This is so as the negative connotations of those terms come precisely from the structural discursive derogation of female sexualities and the structural discursive devaluation of human females as sexual beings.

Therefore is universal emancipation of sex workers also absolutely pivotal to the wider project of feminist sexual liberation, indeed for a cross-cultural, global feminist sexual revolution of morals. Therefore can the global feminist project no longer be limited to demanding social privileges that men created and gave to themselves and so Harlot Feminism must endeavor to ensure that virtually every human being is trained to become an exquisite sex worker as adhering to feminist socio-sexual etiquette.

Harlot Feminism must not only endeavor to severely limit the proportion of male human births as part of feminist eugenics, but Harlot Feminism must endeavor to redefine sexuality from an activity that is normatively performed tête-à-tête to feminist ritual group sex as part of the feminist revolutionary reappropriation of organized religion.

Harlot Feminism means endeavoring towards a society where every human being feels proud of being a harlot and where love including sexuality is liberated from its dystopian monogamous, normative oppressive social connotations; a society where being a couple is no longer the social norm and where the far fewer human males are no longer lowly oppressors but exquisite, exceptional feminist harlots as always devoted to the cause of the permanent feminist revolution.

A society where virtually every human being becomes a trained socio-sexual volunteer in feminist Temples of Love means however the effective abolition of commercial sex work and its universal substitution by feminist Temples of Love. The universal emancipation of commercial sex workers is essential but so is the universal substitution of commercial sex work by feminist Temples of Love. It’s not that commercial sex work ought to be prohibited but rather that commercial sex work will become completely redundant in a society where virtually every human being volunteers in and visits feminist Temples of Love as feminist Temples of Love will indeed exist with many different specializations, themes and genres as catering to virtually every sexual desire.

42. Matter of Defloration

Defloration of human females is something that has historically in many cultures preoccupied many human males. The father was supposed to “look after” his daughter so as to ensure that that she anatomically remained a so called “virgin” until becoming “deflowered” by her husband on their wedding night.

Penile defloration is a form of typically highly painful, yet usually consensual rape. Virtually no one in contemporary human society seems to be aware however that appropriate defloration should be performed in a relaxed spa environment and by means of using fingers and tongue only.

Most human females have an extremely negative recollection from defloration and the earlier the more negative is it typically perceived. The problem is still completely taboo and the usually extremely negative recollection of the act of penile defloration is something that human females do not even discuss with close female friends and certainly not with close female relatives.

Some more culturally traditional human females consider it an act of love to wait with defloration until the wedding night, i.e. “saving herself” for what is supposed to be “the great love” in life. However the defloration rape turns the wedding night into a nightmarish rape and the human female feel so ashamed that she tells no one about it. However, the wedding night is an especially inappropriate occasion considering that the bride is typically psychologically tense and not relaxed at all and the wedding night becomes an IRL nightmare rape. What was supposed to be about love becomes a terrible rape experience and “the great love” turns out a rapist as every penile defloration is rape even if it is consensual.

Yet how consensual can it be to agree to something one falsely expects to be wonderful but actually turns out a terrible and painful experience? Neither the bride nor the groom is typically aware that their intimate moment of consummation of marriage will turn out a horribly painful female experience of rape and they typically never discuss it again as the bride feels profoundly ashamed of the typically intense pain that she experienced. She typically thinks that it was her fault and/or assumes that there was something anatomically or psychologically wrong with her as indeed the groom merely did what was socially expected from him. The de facto solution therefore is to never again discuss the trauma with anyone, not even with a psychotherapist as she simply does not realize that most other human females who have undergone penile defloration have indeed very similar and typically extremely painful recollections from the very event of penile defloration.

How then should defloration ideally take place and who should perform the act of deflowering in a way that is feminist and does not cause significant pain? Defloration should take place as part of an elaborate feminist religious ceremony in a spa environment. The young female should be the one to decide whom to invite for the ceremony, who should perform the act of deflowering and whether or not the ceremony should be public or private. The act of defloration should be performed by specially trained females in therefore ensuring that the occasion will be almost painless. Yet most young females wish to be deflowered by her father and so this wish should be honored and respected and the father should therefore perform the first instance of coitus in public view on an altar, hours after the defloration ceremony. These would be mass events in virgins having their first instance of coitus with their fathers on special Virgins’ Days in the feminist calendar.

Of course, if a young female wishes the defloration and subsequent ritual first coitus to be performed differently and by other persons, then should that obviously be respected. However, the fact is that most young females wish for a painless defloration and desire subsequent coitus as performed by her father. Intrafamilial sex of course is taboo and is furthermore an irrational taboo indeed. So called “incest” is widely practiced in animal breeding and so incest is neither a genetic nor a social problem as persons wishing to engage in intrafamilial sexual intimacy should obviously be encouraged to do precisely so. Intergenerational sexual intimacy is similarly typically described as “dangerous”, yet this has never been proven by any purely quantitative study on a representative sample of the population. No one has been able to prove this for the simple reason that intergenerational sexual intimacy is simply not more traumatizing than other forms of sexual relations.

The feminist issue here is not only the typically immense pain experienced by the young female due to penile defloration, but also the rosy dreams and erotic fantasies of the young female. What does she truly want and what does she indeed desire in the depth of her heart? Rather than an occasion of personal disaster should ritual defloration and subsequent ritual coitus become a festive, female-sensitive feminist event in celebrating a young female’s girlhood and ritual sexual initiation. Rather than a trauma should defloration and first coitus become a most wonderful memory for the young female as her first coitus will be painless and certainly without the rape of penile defloration.

The young female should therefore decide what kind of ceremony that she desires, who should perform the sensitive defloration with fingers and tongues, who should perform the first coitus, at what age, whether the first coitus should be ritual or not, whether the ceremony should be public or private and of course who should perform the first coitus. The young female may of course want a boyfriend, a male friend, a brother, a teacher, an uncle, a grandfather, a male fashion model, a male rockstar, a male actor, a trained female with a dildo (whether with strap-on or otherwise) to perform the first instance of coitus, she may want to hold the dildo herself or let her mother, grandmother, another female relative, her girlfriend or best female friend hold the dildo. The real point here is female autonomy and that the young female should be precisely empowered to follow her heart and so hence realize the most profound desires in the depth of her heart on her feminist day of profound intimate celebration.

43. Feminist Pickup

Western culture has spawned an entire subculture known in scientific literature as the seduction community practicing the methods of the pickup self-help industry. The community is led by charismatic, socially talented male semi-celebrities known in the scientific literature as pickup artists who make a living from teaching their socio-sexual skills to yet other males. What is peculiar is the homosocial, almost exclusively gendered nature of this industry and subculture in being made up of virtually only males teaching purportedly “male” socio-sexual skills to fellow males.

Pickup artists do however tend to upset gender difference by pushing gender difference at the seam in therefore also questioning habitual psychological perceptions of gender. It could also be argued that they are gender warriors rebelling against social strictures of contemporary socially hegemonic male so called gender roles. While pickup artists may sometimes seem sexist both in discursive expression and in the exclusively homosocial, gendered nature of the pickup self-help industry, there is no question that they like feminists are profoundly critical of stereotypical male gender roles and seek to remold those very gender roles. Pickup artists are indeed not critical of females as their criticism is directed exclusively at males only for engaging in unhelpful socio-sexual behaviors towards females.

Indeed, one may certainly wonder why feminist theorists specifically and feminists generally do not seem to find the time or even care to publically critique the heavily gendered epistemology of the nightclub? Why on earth should pickup not be constructively criticiqued by feminists? It could therefore certainly be argued that the pickup artists as gender rebels are a sort of “feminists in disguise” despite the occasional public expressions of overt sexism.

Young females growing up in secular/modern society typically read colorful publications informing their female adolescent readership on how to make themselves more beautiful and socio-sexually attractive to males. Many of these originally sexist publications have however with time also come to be sort of “feminist in disguise”. It could therefore be argued that the pickup self-help industry while directing themselves primarily at adult males are a sort of late counterpart to those colorful magazines in aiding males to make themselves socio-sexually attractive and therefore “more beautiful” to females by discursively and socially revolutionary behavior that indeed question traditional male gender roles.

There is however no reason whatsoever why feminists should not criticize and intellectually contribute to the seduction community. Why should not females be equally trained in social skills in approaching, conversing and seducing males and females of their own idiosyncratic choice? One may certainly wonder why such essential social skills are not taught in the system of education, neither at pre-academic nor at academic levels considering the tremendous social utility of advanced socio-sexual skills?

How then would feminist pickup look like, not only theoretically but also practically speaking? First, it would question the gendered seam at which pickup artists successfully operate. Underlying gender is one well-documented psychometric spectrum of cognitive differentiation with a strong hereditary basis with transgender people in the middle and much like so as biological sex is a similarly medically well-documented anatomical spectrum of bodily differentiation with Intersex people in the middle. In both cases is it not a binary or a dichotomy but rather a spectrum of degree in gradual differentiation. However, gender difference although certainly having a zoological basis is also heavily socially constructed and it precisely the perceived dichotomies in the respective spectrums of sex and gender that are indeed illusory social constructs and typically very much traumatic psychological obstacles to ethico-effective pickup.

The male-only pickup self-help industry however does not question these social dichotomies but they do rebel at the very seam of this binary, indeed much like feminists and the LGBTQI community, including transgender and Intersex people precisely rebel at the socially constructed binary seam of sex & gender difference. Feminists however should certainly endeavor to teach such often advanced socio-sexual skills to human females, skills that are also revolutionary in the sense of not requiring intoxication by alcohol or any other so called “recreational drugs”.

Human females in secular/modern culture typically desire males who are exquisitely nice and kind, yet socio-sexually mildly dominant. The fact is however that human males in secular/modern culture typically seek the very same qualities in females. It is true that females like to be touched in erogenous parts of the female body by males whom they are attracted to, yet it is also true that males like to be touched in erogenous parts of the male body by females whom they are attracted to. Females certainly typically wish to be seduced by males whom they find attractive, yet males also typically wish to be seduced by females whom they find attractive.

Being exquisitely nice and kind is however typically not enough as socially successful pickup also requires mildly dominant socio-sexual behavior, in other words good leadership. This means daring showing the way and taking the initiative as leading towards a desired sexual and/or romantic outcome. Such determined, yet socially sophisticated socio-sexual leadership efforts are typically successful if both sides as typical in flirtation tend to desire such a socio-sexual outcome. Empathy as a vital quality in leadership is also important in ethico-effective pickup in the sense of being able to communicate in an intelligent and socially sophisticated manner, not only verbally so but also emotionally and with regard to the signs and touches between bodies.

On an evolutionary level do psychopaths (who typically suffer impairment with regard to the ability to experience empathy) however have much fewer socio-sexual inhibitions with regard to pickup and their typically superficial charm and relative psychological indifference to social outcomes typically make them much more successful with regard to approach, conversation and seduction. These social inhibitions are however socially constructed and there is no reason why not both females and males ought to be taught the scientific basis for successful pickup in accordance with an innovative feminist etiquette without having resort to consumption of alcohol or any other so called “recreational drug”. There is simply no reason whatsoever why males only should be socially constructed as romantic/sexual agents/subjects while females are reversely socially constructed as socially inferior romantic/sexual receptors/objects.

Feminism therefore needs to seriously and in depth study the insights and critique the claims and discursive expressions of professional pickup artists while re-appropriating pickup for feminism as there is no reason why feminism should not teach ethico-effective feminist pickup to every human being irrespective of gender. Effective techniques taught by professional pickup artists are surprisingly it may seem quite gender-neutral and can be no less effectively be practiced between males, between females and by females towards males. While the pickup self-help industry thrives at typically already in childhood traumatized gender difference, most of the gender difference in this regard is entirely socially constructed and therefore certainly highly malleable to feminist discursive intervention.

While the pickup self-help industry teaches specific socio-sexual skills in some ways similar to how seduction agents are trained in the intelligence community, ethico-effective pickup all comes down to loving kindness and socio-sexually pleasant social determination. Most human beings who live in monogamous relationships in secular/modern culture do so precisely because they have not been trained at all in developing appropriate socio-sexual skills for initiating and successfully developing new intimate relationships. This should be an essential issue for feminism as feminism is very much about the reappropriation of female social agency and indeed female subjecthood.

An exquisite feminist art of initiating contact, performing mutual conversation towards increasing social intimacy as leadings towards selfless seduction is in fact something that feminists of all genders ought to teach to human persons of all genders and different ages. The gender binary does have some social relevance for ethico-effective pickup as have indeed anatomical and hormonal differentiation but eventually has this art no gender because ethico-effectively successful pickup is ultimately about transcending the gender binary.

44. Semiotics of Gendered Desire

With the invention and novel social construction by the then new science of sexology in the 19th century of what is now known as ‘same-sex love’ into what became known as “homosexuality” did normative Euro-Christian sexuality reversely become constructed into so called “heterosexuality”, the newly invented sexuality of attraction to semiotically gendered difference. Hence emerged the novel notion that hegemonically normative and even today almost universally religiously sanctioned sexuality is the attraction between purported “polar opposites”.

Previously were not male gender and female gender regarded as opposites but rather as complementing each other in religiously sanctioned marriage constituting a purported holistic whole. Males therefore were seen as complementing females and females were seen as complementing males. Since the religiously sanctioned marriage was seen as a perfect union was this at the time not yet socially constructed as a desire for difference of gendered purported “polar opposites”.

Therefore do males and females in secular/modern culture even today typically tend to believe that socially hegemonic so called “heterosexuality” is a desire for semiotically gendered “polar opposites”. Fashion and makeup are therefore used to disguise the very anatomical fact that female-male anatomical differentiation is an anatomical continuum indeed and certainly not an anatomical binary. Therefore is it assumed that females desire semiotic and behavioral opposites of themselves and that males reversely also desire semiotic and behavioral opposites of themselves. This perception needs however be questioned as both females and males typically largely desire the same psychological properties and qualities in potential mates.

Rather; beauty, fashion, hygiene and gendered socio-sexual sophistication in social behaviors in secular/modern culture typically showcase desire for similar qualities as opposed to purported polar opposites. Most males therefore do not realize that fertile-age females typically showcase what they do desire in males by their own very semiotic appearance as gendered females. For example, a female who likes dressing in pink is very likely to be attracted to males dressing in pink as the main reason why she dresses in pink is simply because she personally likes that particular color. Males who engage in resolute social behaviors may similarly be likely to desire females with “no nonsense” sexual behaviors such as for example is typically exhibited by street prostitutes. Females who are exquisitely nice towards males whom they are attracted to similarly signal that they do desire males who are exquisitely nice towards females. Males who portray themselves as “sexually available” therefore typically seek females who themselves are “sexually available”.

In other words; you communicate by your own very appearance and your own very social behavior what properties and qualities that you yourself desire in a potential mate. However, there is a sort of vast time gap between females and males in contemporary secular/modern culture with regard to beauty, fashion, hygiene and sophistication of gendered socio-social behavior whereby males are typically lagging over half a century behind females. There was a time before the emergence of the first teenage subcultures in the 1950’s when females wearing trousers ran the risk of being “suspected” of either being sex workers or else otherwise being sexually liberated which at the time was regarded as as very bad thing. Female fashion since the emergence of teenage pop culture in 1950s has however to varying degrees appropriated virtually all standard items in the male fashion inventory. Females thus are socially permitted to wear clothes very similar to those typically worn by males while it is still not considered socially accepted for self-identifying purported so called “heterosexual males” to wear clothes similar to those considered intrinsic to females such as skirts and dresses.

While the art of makeup is virtually ubiquitous among fertile-age females in secular/modern culture, makeup is still rarely worn by males outside of television and the LGBTQI community. The average fertile-age female clothing budget is typically several times as large as that of males of the same age and female fashion is so incomparably far richer than male fashion in both diversity and variation. This is all highly peculiar commercially speaking as the beauty and fashion industries would have far larger revenues were males  to spend as much on beauty and fashion as do typically females.

The continuous worldwide development and increasingly ubiquitous diffusion of teenage pop culture has thus since the 1950s very substantially reconstructed normative female sexuality while doing very little to alter normative male sexuality. Male conceptions of male beauty, fashion, hygiene and level of gendered socio-sexual sophistication are thus typically about as advanced as were female conceptions of female beauty, fashion, hygiene and gendered socio-sexual sophistication in the 1940’s, meaning precisely what many today would undoubtedly describe as quite “boring” and rather “unattractive”.

In a sense is of course the monotonous male conceptions of male beauty, fashion, hygiene and gendered socio-sexual sophistication precisely expressive of the typically superficial male conception of sexuality as being centered on phallocentric penetrative sexual intercourse. While female desire typically is decentralized throughout the female body is male desire still stereotypically centered on the phallus despite numerous other erogenous zones existing on the male body and males still project this very socially constructed monotony onto females in continually endeavoring to boorishly rewrite female desire in accordance with socio-sexually unsophisticated stereotypically normative male desire.

However, the fact is that we do not only project ourselves by the way we choose to look, sound and smell; but we also implicitly present our desires as gender is precisely a type of partly sublimated sexual expression. However, few seem concerned with properly deciphering those semiotic messages. A male potential rapist may rationalize his intended crime by convincing himself that a female with a very short dress and a lot of makeup actually wishes to be raped by him; yet what precisely is her real semiotic message?

Other than naturally wishing to be good-looking she may simply send the implicit semiotic message that she desires sexual intimacy with popular males who sleep with numerous females, meaning that rather than being promiscuous, she desires seduction by promiscuous males. If she is not a sex worker, then obviously she does not signal being a sex worker. She most probably however sends the message (as Sigmund Freud was the first to point out) that she likes being the subject of polite male desire in public space. The usually intentionally sexualized nature of this kind of semiotic appearance may thus be more about her own conception of desired male sexuality than about herself signaling being socio-sexually available to male approach. Her usually intentionally sexualized appearance may likely also be about signaling fertile status among fellow females and her appearance may of course mostly be about attracting female social attraction and/or female sexual desire.

However, since males in secular/modern culture typically lag more than half a century behind females with regard to beauty, fashion, hygiene and gendered socio-sexual sophistication, almost no males are capable of deciphering the semiotics of female beauty, fashion, hygiene and gendered socio-sexual sophistication. The female world however has its own secret language with its own secret codes and not only so with regard to verbal communication as females typically think that males ought to understand this very language despite most males having a very, very low understanding of this secret, largely implicit form of communication.

It is thus rather peculiar how busy fertile-age females are at sending implicit semiotic messages by means of verbal hints, fashion and makeup and although those semiotic messages are in part directed towards fellow females, the semiotic messages directed at males are unfortunately only rarely appropriately deciphered. These female semiotic messages directed at males are not only directed at unknown males in the street and casual male acquaintances such as in the workplace but also at male spouses whose comprehension of the female secret language is also typically virtually non-existent or at least very low indeed. This is hardly helped by males typically lagging over half a century behind females with regard to beauty, fashion, hygiene and gendered socio-sexual sophistication, meaning that their own gendered semiotic communication is socially primitive indeed so that their capacity for comprehending female semiotic communication is typically extremely undeveloped.

Females generally and especially female feminists therefore rather than automatically expecting males to comprehend forms of female gendered semiotic communication that most males simply do not comprehend ought to teach female semiotic communication to their sons, grandsons, husbands, boyfriends, fathers, brothers and indeed generally to male relatives, to male friends and even to male acquaintances. Females generally and feminists especially also ought to start encourage males to more personally and idiosyncratically so socio-sexually express themselves through fashion, makeup, hygiene and gendered socio-sexual sophistication such as by means of feminist pickup. Such idiosyncratic socio-sexual male semiotic expression already does exist to some degree in the LGBTQI community as indeed very overtly showcased to the wider society on LGBTQI Pride parades around the world.

Males thus not only need female help in training to sensitively deciphering female semiotics, but subsequently themselves engage in such highly sophisticated semiotic expression of gendered personal idiosyncrasy as the secret semiotics of gender very much needs to to be much more opened up to male expression and indeed so far beyond the LGBTQI community.

45. Sexy Feminism

Feminism is often reproducing a subconsciously Para-Christian structure of disseminating feelings of guilt in both females and males for not living up to the lofty social ideals for private life as typically advocated by feminism.

The question that therefore needs to be posed is how smart it really is politically speaking to try to influence social behaviors by making persons feel bad about themselves? The answer of course is that this is not terribly intelligent, but typically quite counterproductive. Attempts to strengthen German feelings of guilt over the Holocaust has not lessened widespread anti-Jewish sentiments among Germans. The Animal movement’s attempts to disseminate a sense of guilt over consumption of products derived from exploitation of non-human persons has similarly of course not been terribly successful as its relative success rather comes from the vegan industry offering ethical consumer choices as well as of course veganism spreading in youth cultures.

It is however a fact that positive messages in politics tend to be far more effective than negative messages, i.e. as not focused on individual political leaders . Feminism hence needs to rebrand itself into inventing and offering attractive social solutions rather than reinforcing feelings of guilt for not living up to lofty feminist social ideals. While critique is an important and essential part of feminism, the focus needs to be more on offering attractive feminist alternatives to contemporary sexism (sex/gender discrimination), masculinism (derogation of aspects and phenomena considered “feminine”) and misogyny (hatred against females).

Denying that there are both biological and social factors that reinforce each other in the structural oppression of human females has long been a hallmark of Socialist feminism. This very denial is of course healthy in the sense of stating that male oppression of females is not destiny and can therefore be undone, yet contemporary feminism certainly does not know how to achieve that very feat. Therefore recognizing that biological factors such as excessive production of testosterone in males certainly play a significant role in influencing gendered social behaviors ought not be confused with biological determinism. However, the feminist paradigm of negating, denying and ignoring the body sends the wrong message, turns off both females and males and ignores the vital role of medical and eugenic solutions in undoing the male oppression of females.

This of course has its origin in the Marxist doctrine of historical materialism which itself is premised on the Hellenistic myth of tabula rasa and on a negative Para-Christian conception of the body as something to be ignored, denied and negated much like those Christian theologians who despite the fact of the continued survival of the Jewish people and Rabbinic Judaism despite many centuries of genocidally intended persecution have somehow continued to convince themselves that Celestial Israel (the Christian Church) has somehow “replaced” Carnal Israel (Rabbinic Judaism and the Jewish people). Feminist eschatology is therefore typically like Marxism itself premised on a barely secularized version of Christian Salvation history and Christian metaphysics more generally. Indeed, Catholicism as the largest and most influential Christian church is infamous for its extremely negative view of sexuality and the body generally.

Feminism therefore needs to scientifically and theoretically intensely focus on friendship, love, sexuality and reproduction; including the various social, cultural and biological factors underpinning this spectrum of phenomena. Feminism therefore needs to offer feminist mass ritual group sex in Temples of Love as the feminist alternative to masculinist conceptions of friendship, love, sexuality and reproduction. Indeed, there is no question that feminist Temples of Love will make feminism far more interesting for everyone involved. Feminist eugenics and a feminist polygynous society will similarly be much more attractive to both females and males than the current ineffective, unfortunately guilt-based paradigm in feminist politics.

Feminists therefore need to focus more on the feminist reappropriation, deconstruction and fundamental restructuring of human sexuality and especially sexual desire. How then can sexual desire be reconstructed? Well, just as masculinist denigration of female desire in pornography structures and produces contemporary hegemonic sexuality so can feminism itself socially construct sexuality by moving away from taboo-based sexuality towards learning the joys of sexually appreciating immense sexual diversity. Hegemonic Western (i.e. Para-Christian) taboo-based sexuality is neither nature nor destiny and is but one culturally hegemonic conception of the joys of bodily intersubjectivity. There are thus many others and often very different culturally hegemonic conceptions in other human cultures of what is known in secular/modern (i.e. Para-Christian) culture as “sexuality” in many different human cultures (both contemporary and historical) around the world as is indeed quite well documented in anthropological scientific literature.

Feminism hence needs to move away from mostly being a platform for mere critique and complaints in offering real functioning and attractive, innovative social solutions in the behavioral spectrum of friendship, love, sexuality and reproduction. Feminism therefore needs to rebrand itself as a sexy alternative to the immense bigotry of contemporary masculinist dystopia. Feminism hence needs to oppose physionomism generally including physionomistic denigration of the body in many forms of feminism. Once feminism rebrands itself as “sexy” in spearheading the feminist sexual revolution will it be able to use its own sexy image to draw in both females and males into the feminist movement.

Sexy feminism ought not to be yet another form of physionomistic identity politics but should rather be focused on appropriating and articulating the underlying problems (whether social, cultural, conceptual, semiotic, biological, zoological, economic, technological etc.) and then find attractive, innovative solutions thereto that really work rather than merely engaging in endless complaints.

Feminism therefore must not only take over organized religion and turn temples, mosques, churches and synagogues into Temples of Love but feminism also needs to take over pornography itself and indeed outcompete sexist, masculinist and misogynistic pornography as contemporary hegemonic sexuality in secular/modern culture is precisely structured and determined by a masculinist, sexist and misogynistic pornography which mostly with exceptions such as Playboy and feminist pornography is typically masculinist in defacing (ignoring, negating and denying) female carnal desire.

While complaining about social ills is no doubt important and necessary in a liberal-democratic open society, complaints without offering attractive practical solutions that really work are rather ineffectual politically speaking. Also offering lofty political goals without attractive, innovative practical solutions that really work tends to be relatively ineffectual indeed in politics.

The essential insight that genders are a subform of sexuality and that the male oppression of females is therefore historically and in the present founded in the social spectrum of what is known as friendship, love, sexuality and reproduction is therefore vital indeed for the future success of the global feminist revolution. Feminism thus fundamentally needs to rebrand itself into an open, welcoming, constructive, attractive and indeed sexy platform for innovative social, conceptual, sexual, economic and technological feminist innovation in therefore efficiently undoing the male oppression of females by means of indeed thinking outside the box.

46. Feminist Religion

Feminists have for many decades now sought to transform organized religion into becoming more female-friendly, not only in terms of accepting female clerics but also in terms of making religious practices such as liturgies more inclusive of females in therefore creating more gender equality in organized religion. This certainly has been quite successful in some denominations of organized religion yet much less successful in yet other denominations of organized religion.

The question that therefore needs to be posed is whether such success is sufficient? Is it not true that the real implicit purpose of organized religion is to maintain sexist forms of kinship, meaning family units as designed to perpetuate male oppression of females? Is it not true that acceptance of same-sex marriage in religious denominations where feminists are influential does not substantially alter the hegemonic matrix of heterosexualism? How really can conscientious feminist clerics participate in and endorse forms of organized religion historically almost entirely created for males and indeed overwhelmingly devised by now dead men who therefore can no longer be consulted with regard to what was truly their religious opinions in centuries past? This of course is not to say that feminist clerics ought to leave contemporary denominations of organized religion but rather that feminist clerics need to set far more ambitious goals for the feminist revolution in organized religion.

The very notion of “religion” (Latin religiō ) as it emerged and developed in the Latin language is of distinctly Para-Christian historical origin as it presumes a bisection of male epistemological authority between organized religion and organized statehood. Indeed, Catholic secularism as originally conceived of in the famous letter of Duo Sunt (formally Famuli vestrae pietatis) sent by Pope Gelasius I to Byzantine Emperor Anastasius I in the year 494 C.E. specified a male power-sharing arrangement between what became known as “the princes of state” and “the princes of church”, i.e. bishops, cardinals etc.

The modern notion of “religion” as organized belief in things that cannot be proven is also of distinctly Para-Christian origin as Christian metaphysics precisely privileges individual belief as being essential not only to individual salvation but also to the eschatology of Christian Salvation history. However, while it is clear that religion (included its purportedly “secular” derivatives such as ideology etc.) fill an important zoological need for the human herd animals, why really should organized religion be founded on things that cannot be proven? Rather should natural science endeavor to rigorously explore matters relegated to the realm of “religion” by medieval Christian academia and do so using innovative scientific research methodologies as appropriate to the subject matter at hand.

Feminist religion should however return to the ancient Sumerian origin of most forms of contemporary religion where indeed the goddess Inanna was worshiped in Temples of Love which later were established in the Hellenistic world as well. This will make organized religion socially relevant and the merger of religion, sexuality and feminism will place feminist gynocentric religion at the very center of human society. Religion, ideology, nationalism, philosophy, culture etc. certainly fill the human need for togetherness, yet this need precisely not be premised on premises that cannot be proven!

Rather than as typically a force of oppression against human females will sexuality become transformed into a force for the global feminist revolution. The vital merger of feminism, sexuality and organized religion will indeed make feminism strategically succeed where it previously failed.

Feminism therefore will need to reinvent sexuality by means of Temples of Love so that virtually every human being will become a Harlot indeed and present institutions of worship such as temples, mosques, churches and synagogues need to be turned into Temples of Love as devoted to feminist ritual group sex. Feminist ritual group sex in both private forms and in the form of public mass events will revolutionize human sexuality as normative sexuality will all follow feminist etiquette and every specific form of ritual group sex will have its own “diplomatic protocol” in which participants are carefully trained beforehand. The number of such specific “diplomatic protocols” for different forms of ritual group sex will of course grow with time as this will ensure that every participant adheres to the role assigned to her/him by the specific etiquette of the type of occasion.

Religious holidays ought also be returned to their Sumerian historical origins and holidays ought not only be focused on public mass ritual group sex but need also emphasize relevant virtues such as civil courage, dealing ethico-rationally with regard to physionomism (including sexism, masculinism and misogyny) and DOLP as well as endeavoring to behave optimally ethical in every specific social situation. This short list of public virtues will obviously need to be updated with time so as to indeed remain relevant in the future.

While there is certainly need for the “social togetherness” as produced by religion and its purportedly “secular” derivatives, nobody actually needs religious belief in things that cannot be proven. Feminism as the sole contemporary political movement advocating noble behaviors should prominently participate in a second Enlightenment and will revolutionize not only organized religion but also normative sexuality in indeed spearheading the global human sexual revolution.

47. Sexual Restraints of Gender

Gender and similar social shibboleths such as ability, age, attractiveness, beauty, caste, clan, class, color, diagnosis, ethnicity, fertility, intelligence, nationality, personality, profession, race/subspecies, religion/denomination, semiotic contamination, sex, size, social status, species, subculture, tribe, weight etc. are not only partially sublimated subsets of sexuality and indeed therefore expressive of sexuality itself; but in social terms also significantly serve to culturally restrain socio-sexual behaviors. As human culture is the sublimation of repressed human sexualities is this sublimation thus expressed along these multiple axes. There are hence two main aspects of culture as the sublimation of sexuality; namely social expression of sexuality and social limitation of sexuality.

These normative expressions and intersubjective limitations of sexuality in one’s own culture are typically considered as a given and therefore typically remain unquestioned even in so called “Western” culture. The two main subcultures in “Western” society that question gendered expressions and gendered limitations of sexuality are the LGBTQI community and the pickup seduction community. Feminism in contrast is typically quite reactionary in this regard in prominently being devoted to policing those very expressions and limitations of sexuality in “Western” culture so that these do not diverge from preconceived gender-asymmetric “Western” cultural norms. Feminism therefore implicitly sees it as its task to maintain the fundamentally asymmetric nature of female-male gender relations in “Western” culture with regard to bodily intersubjectivity, typically known as “sexuality”.

A female who socio-sexually diverges from these preconceived expressions and limitations of gendered culture therefore risks being stigmatized as a “slut” while a male who socio-sexually diverges from these preconceived expressions and limitations of gendered culture risks being stigmatized as a “sleaze”. Both gendered prospects for gendered abjection serve however to typically instill tremendous subconscious fear in human persons.

While there are both objective sluts, meaning sex workers and objective sleazes, meaning sexual harassers; a subjectively characterized male sleaze can be defined as a male who suffers unreserved rejection as a person by at least one female in a first encounter while a subjectively characterized female slut can be defined as a female who suffers unreserved rejection as a person by at least one male in a first encounter. A subjective sleaze or a subjective slut is therefore a person whose intersubjective abjection and subsequent unreserved rejection as a person is performed by yet other social agents. The performative production of the subjective slut/sleaze is however not only based on gender but on other similar shibboleths such as ability, age, attractiveness, beauty, caste, clan, class, color, diagnosis, ethnicity, fertility, intelligence, nationality, personality, profession, race/subspecies, religion/denomination, semiotic contamination, sex, size, social status, species, subculture, tribe, weight etc.

Both females and males therefore rather understandably fear becoming socially constructed as sexual abjects in the eyes of others. Indeed, this is what the fear of rejection is psychologically about in terms of initiating contact out of intimate interest. The fear of being subjectively stigmatized as a slut is so great that very few females IRL in secular/modern culture dare initiate contact with males out of intimate interest. Males have similar fears about being subjectively stigmatized as sleazes. For females is the fear far greater however since females themselves tend to stigmatize each other as purportedly being “sluts” subjectively speaking while males rarely stigmatize each other as sleazes.

There is thus a towering psychological wall socio-sexually separating females and males from each other in secular/modern culture once they develop gender-reverse romantic/sexual interest. Initiating contact with an unknown person IRL is typically not considered especially difficult unless indeed the person who desires contact has romantic/sexual interest in the person s/he wishes to initiate contact with. However, once s/he develops intimate interest does the towering gendered wall suddenly emerge and s/he typically falls into the grip of the tremendous fear of being stigmatized as either a sleaze or a slut.

What solutions are there thus to this problem which preoccupies so many persons even far beyond the pickup seduction community? Indeed primping females typically spend significant economic resources on beauty and fashion in order so as to indeed become contacted by attractive males. Males similarly typically spend considerable private economic resources on subduing the fear through alcoholic intoxication and other so called “recreational drugs” and so may reluctantly dare to initiate contact only once there is considerable intoxication.

These practices however tend to be expensive and fundamentally psychologically unsatisfactory as solutions considering that primping females still typically dare not initiate contact with males and males typically may only dare initiate contact after getting drugged with alcohol or other so called “recreational drugs”. Yet, primping is far from a guarantee of being contacted by a male she likes and intoxication usually does not lead to intimate contact with a female. Most so called “heterosexual” visitors to nightclubs therefore go home drunk, relatively poorer and socio-sexually frustrated without having found a mate even for the night. 

Culture as the sublimation of sexuality therefore takes diverse expressions, including through gendered culture. Culture thus can be described as a political regime that it may be quite possible to rebel against and this is certainly one potential remedy to this very common socio-psychological problem. However, this is difficult in practice unless supplanted by a different cultural etiquette in indeed specifying how to otherwise behave. A second social solution therefore is to behave in an exceedingly polite/affable and exquisitely nice/kind manner, something which therefore typically allows far more leeway in cultural terms of socio-sexual interactive initiative/behavior. Discussing sexuality can for example be extremely socially appropriate and extremely socio-sexually helpful if the discussion indeed is also extremely polite indeed.

A third solution however is to at least partially simply flip gender. Males are socially permitted to behave like subjective sluts and females are reversely socially permitted to behave like subjective sleazes. Thus flipping gender permits both females and males to initiate gender-reverse contact out of romantic/sexual interest without falling into the grip of the fear of being stigmatized as sluts and sleazes respectively. In fact, many males tend to appreciate females who behave in a so called “sleazy” manner and many females reversely tend to appreciate males who behave in a so called “slutty” manner.

A fourth solution is social informalization, namely endeavoring to acquaint a person into becoming an emotionally close friend while ignoring formal dating requisites such as “asking out”, “paying the joint bill” etc. while deferring romance and seduction for later. Partially flipping gender can however help social informalization since same-gender pickup typically is far easier in usually being much more informal. Social informalization is indeed as common among lesbians as sexual informalization is among gays.

A fifth solution is de-individualization whereby contact is initiated by a group, such as a group of young females approaching a singular young male. While social experience is certainly helpful in this regard, initiating contact with the support of a group of friends is more fun and typically easier in psychologically permitting substantially more socio-sexual leeway.

A sixth solution means assuming a temporary socio-cultural role that is different from one’s ordinary socio-cultural role. This may or may not involve disguising oneself as belonging to a different shibboleth such as e.g. speaking a different language and claiming to be a visitor from a different country. One may thus use disguise such as voice, makeup and clothes to assume a role that one feels much more comfortable performing. While this may be helpful for pickup as for an intended one-night stand, it may be less helpful if one is interested in a serious relationship where being and expressing oneself is most probably of essence.

Role play does not however necessarily require subterfuge of assumed identity as one may simply choose to express oneself in a different social manner without claiming to be someone else. It is thus as a seventh solution quite possible to learn to socially transition between different genders, meaning between differently gendered social roles. Having more than one gender at one’s disposal need not be reduced to a question of personal essence or identity politics but can simply be great fun as adapting one’s gender to the specific situation at hand is flexible and typically facilitates greater politeness. This flexibility is however not limited to gender as for example relatively assimilated members of ethnic minorities typically freely transition between ethnic majority and ethnic minority social-cultural expression. Role play may thus be also performed using other shibboleths than gender, including imitative behavior whereby one socially assumes a shibboleth of the other person. This may e.g. involve speaking in terms of cultural/subcultural references of the person with whom one converses.

An eighth solution is for males to acquaint female friends as social exercise and similarly for females to reversely acquaint male friends as social exercise. Discussing emotional aspects of relationships in the context of gender-reverse friendship may thus be a very good exercise for later gender-reverse approach, conversation and seduction of yet other persons.

A ninth solution is to think out of the box and simply dare improvise without thinking too much about of what others think of you. Once one realizes that gender, age, ethnicity and similar cultural sublimations of sexuality are essentially political straitjackets may one also endeavor to express oneself by means of spontaneous idiosyncrasy. One may therefore learn to spontaneously express oneself in a way that is individually adapted and tailored to the person with whom one meets. This is typically mutually socially interesting as most human persons indeed like being sensitively treated in this individualized manner where the other is in focus. Lobbyists do this all the time as part of their jobs and others can learn to do this as well. All really that is needed is focusing on the life experience and socio-cultural references of the other person. Empathy is therefore certainly also helpful in this regard as is indeed knowledge of social experiences within other cultures and subcultures.

It is thus possible to begin to free oneself from the tyranny of the cultural sublimation of sexuality whereby one learns to adapt and individualize oneself depending on social context and specific individual encounters. The fear of being shamed into a sexual abject is however not limited to slut & sleaze as persons who belong to various minority expressions (e.g. ability, age, beauty, class, color, diagnosis, ethnicity, fertility, intersex, profession, religion, transgender, weight etc.) typically also with varying degree of justification fear being stigmatized into sexual abjects.

While being treated as a sexual abject is certainly unpleasant, however once one realizes the socio-cultural nature of this particular fear of social encounter can it also become far more constructively handled. We all need being affirmed as persons so we obviously do not desire the reverse, namely being treated as socio-sexual abjects. However, just because someone treats you like a socio-sexual abject certainly doesn’t make you one and that’s about it. All prejudice is essentially about more or less deliberately misunderstanding others and so being misunderstood due to prejudice is certainly not your fault.

48. Feminist Transtopia

How really should gender look like in a not so far-off feminist utopia? Is it really possible to thus socially pre-construct and indeed reconstruct gender in accordance with feminist futurism? What’s actually the real problem with gender from a feminist perspective? Should females change their feminine genders?

These are all important questions that require profound contemplation. While there are biological problems in many males that need to be fixed through medical and eugenic intervention, there is not much to complain about female behaviors towards males. Most masculine behaviors are rude while most feminine behaviors are polite or at least so in so called “Western” culture. Rather than males being the norm for everything need females set the behavioral norm by their own examples for male behaviors.

Feminist etiquette should thus mostly be gender-neutral excepting specific contexts such as an erotic theme party where gender asymmetry intentionally may be part of the thus devised socio-sexual retro concept. Excellent female behavior should therefore become the norm for excellent male behavior. In other words should not females emulate male behaviors as typically advocated by Socialist feminism but males ought to emulate feminine behaviors in accordance with an innovative feminist etiquette.

How then can this be achieved? Well, it is really simple, most male behaviors are lowly and at best borderline rude while most female behaviors are sophisticated and polite or at least so in so called “Western” culture. There is of course the problem of females being mean to each other so not every typically female behavior should be the subject of male emulation. The feminist etiquette would therefore specify the new feminine norm for gender-neutral feminine behaviors.

Courtly etiquette in historical princely, royal and imperial courts prescribed feminine behaviors for all those who had been formally introduced at the court. This meant that masculine behaviors were considered impolite and socially lowly in most social contexts. Feminism therefore needs to discredit and even stigmatize most masculine behaviors as opposed to stigmatizing males themselves as there is indeed little to gain by making someone feel intrinsically bad about her/himself. The hands-on social task is therefore for females to invite males into the female cultural world of feminine sophistication. This means that most masculine behaviors will be considered at least impolite and even rude irrespective of the perceived sex or gender of the person practicing the masculine behaviors in question. This means that rather than stigmatizing males ought feminism instead stigmatize most masculine behaviors in both males and females.

Then what about the spectrum of trangender expression? Is it not legitimate for transgender persons to exhibit masculine behaviors? Individual transgender transition in so called “Western” culture takes place in a society where being masculine is associated with males and being feminine is associated with females. Once masculine behaviors no longer are considered normative for male behavior will also transgendered socio-sexual behavior change as well. In a society where feminine behavior is the norm for all genders will other things come into focus with regard to gendered difference as masculinity will be out of the picture.

Just as many fertile females in so called “Western” culture tend to highlight their female anatomy by means of tight-fitting female fashion so is it quite conceivable that male fashion will focus on highlighting the male sexual anatomy as did indeed European male fashion up until the 19th century. Males thus up until that time wore long stockings and tight-fitting short trousers which tended to strategically expose erections in romantic encounters. Males should also be taught to beautify themselves by means of feminine fashion, makeup and other available means that idiosyncratically enhance individual beauty. Indeed, the revenues of the fashion and beauty industries will undergo astounding growth once they in a concerted global effort help teach males beautify themselves and indeed therefore making themselves far more sexy in the eyes of females and everyone else.

Being transgender will however in a sense lose its meaning as gender difference will no longer focus on the masculine/feminine binary as being feminine will be the norm for human beings generally. Being transgender will no longer be an exception but being transgender will rather be seen as the very core of the gendered continuum. Making transgender the social norm is essential so that males even beyond the LGBTQI community will dare explore the potential for feminine beautification of males. Once being transgender is fully socially accepted will there no longer be any gendered social obstacles to teaching males generally the secrets of female beautification.

Indeed, feminism will be able to set the norm with regard to ending masculinity once feminism introduces and gains acceptance for an innovative feminist etiquette for society at large which embraces femininity and discredits most masculine behaviors irrespective of the individual genders of those performing so called “masculinity”.

Feminism should do this in conjunction with the fashion and beauty industries that have so much to gain financially from a transgendering feminist revolution that embraces feminine aesthetics for all. Thus transforming normative aesthetics for males will not be especially difficult provided that there is a concerted effort combining the introduction of feminist etiquette and feminist education for all with the fashion and beauty industries doing their part in design and marketing in strategically diversifying male aesthetics. This is far from inconceivable considering that unisex (gender-neutral) fashion became the norm in the 1970s. However, this time will it be necessary to ensure that gains made are not lost once more but rather that male fashion and male beauty are permanently and increasingly so diversified rather than once more homogenized as homogenization is still the dull essence of stereotypical male fashion.

Feminism therefore should conduct a permanent global campaign in conjunction with the fashion and beauty industries so as to strategically and permanently diversify male beauty and male fashion and so make the feminine the norm for all. This will crucially help discredit most forms of masculinity while opening up the diverse world of enhanced beauty and female fashion to aesthetically idiosyncratic male expression. Indeed this will be the beginning of the end of masculinity as we know it and ultimately also the male semiotic hegemony itself.

49. Science of Seduction

Most human persons in the depth of their hearts wish both being seduced and seducing fellow human persons. American pop culture often portrays roles of “superpersons” (Nietzsche’s German term Übermenschen singular Übermensch) implicitly or explicitly engaging in roles of brave seduction, yet the truth is that most human persons simply dare not seduce a relatively unknown person or at least so very rarely and typically only spontaneously so while being heavily intoxicated by alcohol or other so called “recreational drugs”.

Yet is it not the goal of feminism to precisely empower females into becoming superpersons? Is it not the goal of feminism to transform human females into subjects of their own lives and destinies? Should that not also be sexually so? Ought not human females be precisely empowered in their existing femininity rather than needing to engage in stereotypically masculine behaviors in order to gain social stature? Yes, yes, yes and yes. Does feminine behavior equal weak and does masculine behavior equal strong? Of course not, that’s just an illusion as a person with femininely gendered social behavior may be determined and strong while a person with a masculinely gendered social behavior reversely may be weak and confused.

The first female superstars emerged as actors in American movies in the first half of the 20th century and today’s female superstars in American pop culture are mega popstars famous for their usually highly artistic music videos. It could certainly be argued that this is the return of the goddesses in the guise of commercial popular Weltanschauung. These female mega stars are often in their artistic music videos portrayed as seductive sexual subjects. While females in music videos by male mega pop stars in American pop culture are typically portrayed as passive sexual objects are the female mega popstars portrayed as mistresses of their own destinies as openly sexual human beings. The roles that they therefore play are that of human beings who are very sure of themselves and whose sexuality is no longer socio-culturally repressed. Some of these music videos even portray the female mega pop stars in theatrical roles as sex workers.

These feminine roles of females mistresses of their own destinies are however important contemporary gender role models not only for females but potentially for males as well as these actually feminist music videos highlight how that one may become an agent of seduction in one’s own life without being masculine at all. These more or less fictional female main characters in such popular music videos as portrayed by female mega popstars in American pop culture showcase that femininity can be sexually empowered indeed. Becoming an appropriately reciprocal sexual subject in your own right is thus about ethico-intimately realizing what Nietzsche described as the will to to power (German der Wille zur Macht).

While the semi-famous pickup artists for the most part do not delve into discussions of “nature and nurture” they certainly do presume that males and females have very different socio-sexual psychologies. Although the significant average psychometric differences between so called women and so called men are quite well-documented, these rather form part of cognitive continuums/spectrums of cognitive differentiation in degree.

Rather than misconceiving of human females and human males as purported “polar opposites” psychologically speaking is it certainly more helpful to instead comprehend the fundamental similarities in socio-sexual personal psychology. Indeed there is no conflict whatsoever between being extremely nice (i.e. feminine) on the one hand and being socio-sexual determined and only mildly dominant on the other. Also, one need not become the slightest masculine in order to be socio-sexually determined and very mildly dominant indeed.

Therefore, the most intelligent thing to do in terms of the science of seduction is to simply reject and discard redundantly gendered social limitations as imposed by variously gendered social roles. Once you recognize redundantly gendered social behavior as irrational cultural taboos that should be relegated to the dustbin of anthropology can you also begin becoming a socio-sexual feminist subject in your own right without ever needing to resort to alcoholic or other intoxication of any kind.

Feminist seduction should therefore be about recognizing oneself in others and even so in genders of others. The secret of successful seduction is however simply about making the other person(s) sexually aroused. Well, how do you do that? While makeup, fashion and even intelligent use of scents may indeed be extremely helpful, seduction is crucially about quickly establishing intersubjective connection & rapport between two or more persons. Making sure that the other person(s) feel(s) affirmed is however quite essential. Well, how do you do that? Well such affirmation can be intellectual, tactile, emotional, psychological, choreographical and social; indeed preferably all of the above.

Key to successful feminist seduction is therefore to be confident in your feminist social role which means simply discarding redundantly gendered social limitations, something which typically is very much facilitated precisely by being extremely nice, exquisitely kind but also very mildly dominant in terms of socio-sexual psychological approach & determination as combined typically gives you far more social leeway.

Once you feel confident in your new feminist social role in freeing yourself from irrationally gendered social limitations, then can you share that socio-sexual psychological confidence with the person(s) whom you endeavor to seduce. Once you turn her/him as confident as yourself have you hence established mutual psychological grounds for successful feminist seduction. Once you know what s/he desires can you therefore also first socially and subsequently sexually commence to fulfil the most intimate wishes of her/his heart. How do you then detect those intimate wishes? Well, love is about telepathically experiencing the feelings of one or more other persons as your own.

The person(s) whom you are endeavoring to seduce may feel insecure and that certainly may make yourself feel insecure. Understanding clearly how for better and worse you experience the emotions of the other(s) as your own emotions is precisely crucial to successful feminist seduction. While confusing your own emotions with those of the other(s) is precisely what love is about, becoming confused can be both impediment and facilitator in a social dynamic of seduction. The male professional pickup artists therefore typically endeavor to shock a female person into becoming psychologically confused so that she will introjectively experience the sexual feelings of the male pickup artist as her very own feelings. This permits him to increasingly socio-psychologically dominate her and ultimately seduce her. This is indeed the essence of the socio-sexual skills that the male pickup artists make a living from teaching to fellow males.

Feminist seduction however is not a relationship between a social subject and a social object but rather one of establishing mutual confidence and sharing one’s feelings with each other. The feminist seducer therefore does not only make the other person introject the emotions of the seducer her/himself, but s/he does take interest in the emotions of the other(s) which the seducer her/himself introjects. Feminist seduction should ideally be a mutually intersubjective endeavor of persons mutually seducing each other, yet even as traditionally more one-sided seduction should be feminist in nature in recognizing seduction as sharing each other’s emotions and experiencing them as one’s own.

Feminist seduction means however recognizing and distinguishing the intimate desires of the other person(s) and commence to realize those desires first socially and ultimately sexually so. It is however difficult to be a sexual subject in one’s own right if one becomes too confused although deliberately giving rise to such strong confusion in the other person(s) indeed does typically facilitate a sexual subject’s seduction of one or more other persons who thus play the social role of sexual object(s) in the very socio-sexual process of seduction. While creating such psychological confusion may be about sharing emotions out of loving kindness, it may also be about taking advantage of a fellow human being who is in search of a serious relationship. Skilled pickup artists are indeed typically sober males who seduce females relatively intoxicated by alcohol and so the male pickup artist being sober and the female(s) whom he seduces being relatively drunk is thus turned into a relative advantage of the male pickup artist himself who is typically only interested in one-night stands and is otherwise almost completely homosocial.

It is therefore essential that feminist seduction and indeed seduction generally is not only successful but ethical indeed. Approaching other persons with a pure heart, yet confident mind of non-possessive loving kindness may enable you to share those emotions with one or more fellow human beings so that the person(s) you endeavor to seduce experience those feeling as her/his own. If your intentions are those of selflessly desiring to share loving kindness, then seduction should be precisely about emotionally and intimately sharing those very emotions with a fellow human being so that s/he will experience those emotions of yours as her own. This however becomes more psychologically challenging if you are seducing two or more persons at the same time. However, once your mind is sufficiently clear in enabling you to distinguish your own emotions from that of the other person in a tête-à-tête encounter, then can you begin to distinguish the feelings of multiple persons such as in anticipation of a threesome or a ménage à trois.

Seduction therefore should not only be a matter of effective pickup techniques but must also become a feminist matter of ethical pursuit of profound respect and loving kindness for one or more fellow persons. Indeed, just as in business is it more profitable and less risky to behave ethically. Acting ethically does not mean having any less fun, indeed to the contrary so as having the best of intentions of non-possessive, unselfish loving kindness permits you to approach fellow persons with a pure heart, yet also a socio-sexually determined mind as free from redundantly gendered social limitations and therefore also free from steretypically gendered, typically redundant social expectations.

Once you understand that love is about persons implicitly endeavoring to contagiously share intimate desires of each other much like you contagiously share your newest facebook post with your facebook friends, then can you commence to intellectually distinguish the emotions of the other(s) from your own in endeavoring to socially and sexually realize the most intimate desires of the heart of profoundly respected fellow human beings whom you feel strongly attracted to.

50. Deconstructing the Nightclub

The nightclub is a place where peculiarly almost everyone feels uncomfortable unless intoxicated by alcohol or other so called “recreational drugs”. Many nightclubs charge an entrance fee, yet the business model is prominently based on selling alcoholic beverages to customers at relatively high prices.

So if virtually everyone feels uncomfortable while sober in a nightclub, then why go there at all? The answer is that most people dare not do approach unknown persons whom they feel strongly sexually attracted to in public space. The nightclub as a social venue is a Para-Christian Center of Sin where visitors endeavor to overcome their shyness towards those whom they are strongly sexually attracted towards and they usually do so by means of alcoholic intoxication. Males therefore typically need to intoxicate themselves to a level where they dare approach unknown females while females need to intoxicate themselves to a typically relatively lower level of intoxication where they can enjoy socializing with and socio-sexually accept drunk males approaching them. This is quite peculiar as sober persons tend to not be socio-sexually interested in drunk persons.

The LGBTQI community however practices cruising, meaning that one may meet persons whom one is attracted to at almost any venue, excepting many heterosexualist Centers of Sin. Gays typically cruise in public parks although there are nightclubs etc. catering primarily to gays in many major cities in countries where the LGBTQI community is more visible due to enjoying a greater degree of societal acceptance. Lesbians also cruise albeit typically more discreetly so and can do so pretty much anywhere without usually risking unwanted attention and harassment from homophobic bigots.

The absence of a gendered dichotomy in same-sex pickup is in fact very much helpful for bisexuals, lesbians and gays and there is thus no religio-ideological gender asymmetry to transcend. Of course being openly transgender is a social position so socio-psychologically complex and so immensely vulnerable to transphobic harassment in public space that making a full surgical transition simply makes life easier with regard to pickup. As transgender people tend to still remain in the closet even in open societies is it therefore difficult to do pickup while expressing one’s own gender except when in a gay bar or some other LGBTQI-friendly Center of Sin.

Gay pickup is typically very upfront and highly explicit about being almost exclusively about sexual intercouse while lesbian pickup is typically focused on friendship that develops into love and later may lead to sexual relations. Of course the timeline from friendship to love leading to sexual relations varies greatly from just one night to weeks or months. The great question therefore is why heterosexualist majority society in general and the pickup seduction community in particular specifically do not endeavor to learn from and indeed study how pickup works in the LGBTQI community?

Lesbian pickup involves females being mistresses of their own lives and destinies as typically no males are involved. So why is it that lesbian and bisexual females typically can do same-sex pickup without alcoholic intoxication almost anywhere while most other females simply dare not approach males whom they are strongly sexually attracted towards due to subconscious fears of being subjectively branded as so called “sluts”? Why is it really that gay and bisexual males typically can easily do same-sex overtly sexual pickup almost anywhere without alcoholic intoxication while most other males simply cannot do that towards females for fears of being subjectively branded as so called “sleazes”?

The answer is that the psychologically intimidating, towering wall of socially constructed dichotomizing gender difference creates tremendous fear of psychological abjection. But why really is this the case and why are so called “heterosexuals” much more afraid of facing abjection than their peers in the LGBTQI community? The answer is that by socially being LGBTQI has one at least in part overcome that fear of being branded as an LGBTQI sexual abject and have indeed embraced what many in majority society regard as being a sexual abject indeed.

In order to understand the psychology of the heterosexualist nightclub needs one consider its genealogical origin as a Center of Sin in a society with a Christian value system. Persons frequenting heterosexualist nightclubs therefore typically go there in the guise of reproductive monogamy while in actual reality their personal interest is typically not limited to reproductive monogamy. However, the heterosexualist nightclub is specifically about twosomes and virtually everyone claims to be there in search of a reproductive monogamy. While it is true that some indeed are there exclusively in search of a relationship of reproductive monogamy, yet many others pretend to be exclusively interested in reproductive monogamy as in order so as to evade being branded “slut” or “sleaze”.

Yet, the socially expected normative social role of a male in a heterosexualist nightclub is precisely to behave “like a sleaze” and the corresponding normative social role of a female in a heterosexualist nightclub is no less to behave and typically also dress “like a slut”. (It is quite common for female fashion to imitate styles of clothing and beauty as used by sex workers.) This means that visitors to heterosexualist nighclubs are expected to behave like sexually liberated persons yet are afraid to be regarded as such. Nevertheless, males visiting nightclubs tend to be interested in promiscuous females and females visiting nightclubs reversely tend to be interested in promiscuous males. Indeed, the heterosexualist nightclub is a Center of Sin and a venue for promiscuous social behavior and so why do many visitors pretend to not be interested in promiscuous sexual relations?

The answer is that the binary between Para-Christian (i.e. so called “secular”) society and barely secularized religious norms still prominently and hegemonically prevailing in society continue to recreate a psychological paradox, a socio-sexual semiotic barrier and indeed intimidating psychological wall of socially constructed dichotomizing semiotic gender differentiation. Visitors to nightclubs therefore experience a socio-psychological need to engage in social hypocrisy in giving the impression of being exclusively interested in reproductive monogamy as advocated by virtually all major religions. People in the LGBTQI community instead tend to embrace being “queer”, meaning being construed as sexual abjects in the eyes of many outside the LGBTQI community. Acting like a “sleaze” is openly embraced among gay and bisexual males while lesbian and bisexual females fear not and typically risk not being branded as “sluts” in terms of same-sex socio-sexual behaviors.

The nightclub therefore as a Para-Christian (i.e. so called “secular”) Center of Sin and a venue for socially transcending the gender binary and sexually transcending the lingering historical Christianity/Christendom binary is like an unfinished personal journey whose destination is reached precisely by embracing socially behaving like a slut/sleaze, meaning a sexually liberated person who is the mistress/master of her/his own life and destiny. Indeed, embracing being and attractively “behaving like” a sleaze/slut is precisely what pickup artists do. Indeed pickup artists typically use socio-psychological techniques already since long widely used by street prostitutes.

Pretending to be exclusively interested in reproductive monogamy is therefore not only hypocritical but counter-productive indeed. Almost no males are genuinely exclusively interested in reproductive monogamy and female sexual fantasies are typically far from limited to reproductive monogamy. Visitors to heterosexualist nightclubs therefore need to embrace not only acting like a slut/sleaze but also the fact that not every human person is attracted to every other human person and so most human beings regard many fellow human beings as sexual abjects indeed.

Once you embrace very politely acting like a sexual abject (“slut”, “sleaze”, “dyke”, “gay”, “trans”, “queer” etc.) while accepting unfortunately being regarded as a sexual abject by many fellow human beings do you no longer really need a nightclub to frequent as open society permits you to cruise anywhere and everywhere at any hour of the day whether at dark or during daylight. Just as the LGBTQI community has socio-sexually embraced and re-appropriated derogatory terms for sexual abjects such as “dyke”, “gay” and “queer” so need majority society embrace and re-appropriate similar terms for sexual abjects such as “slut” and “sleaze”. The same of course is needed with regard to fat-shaming, age-shaming, socio-sexual stereotyping of ethnic/genetic minorities and many other forms of prejudicially stigmatizing fellow human beings as sexual abjects indeed.

Just as homosexual females are known as “lesbians” and “dykes” and male homosexuals are known as “gays” ought heterosexual females be appropriately known as “sluts” and heterosexual males no less appropriately as “sleazes”. It is intensely peculiar indeed that there is not yet specific socially accepted terminology describing heterosexual females and heterosexual males respectively just as there is such re-appropriated terminology for homosexual females and homosexual males respectively. The very act of re-appropriating oppressively stigmatizing terminology is therefore in and of itself highly liberating, including not least socio-sexually so.

51. Reversing Sexual Repression

What is known in feminism as patriarchy has an evolutionary origin just as have all other human behaviors indeed at least in part evolutionary origins. The fact that humans are Animals and therefore zoological creatures should obviously not be confused with what is known as biological determinism as what is known as nature and nurture is usually quite mixed up. What is known as social construction is indeed part and parcel of human zoology.

Humans are zoological herbivores with a purely herbivore anatomy and this includes the human teeth, the human nails and the human digestive system; all of which like the rest of human anatomy are very typically herbivore in comparative zoological terms. Before humans invented and began using weapons such spears, arrows and knives did humans therefore not hunt since the unarmed human anatomy does not permit hunting and other carnivore behavior without the aid of tools.

Tool use has however continued to increasingly diversify human behaviors. Just as humans are anatomical herbivores who now usually do not live as herbivores are humans sexually repressed nymphomaniacs who now however usually do not live as nymphomaniacs. The closest living relatives of the Homo genus are the matriarchal Bonobos (a.k.a. Gracile Chimpanzee) who have continued to live on plantbased diets in rainforest while also continuing to live as nymphomaniacs.

The human evolutionary direction since the Neolithic Revolution has instead been that of increasingly developing into parasitoids, meaning parasites who ultimately kill themselves by killing those whom they parasite on. The gargantuan Animal Industry of Evil therefore is one huge parasitical complex. Hundreds of thousands of human parasites hence parasite on the lactation of one single enslaved Cow person before she is is murdered on account of chronological age, more specifically due to expected decrease in lactation. Consumption of products of animal origin is extremely detrimental to the health of the anatomically herbivore human Animal and therefore destroys human health as typically causing severe disease and premature death.

This change of evolutionary direction certainly explains the historical change in eating habits, but it also explains that very distinctly economically parasitical institution that is reproductive monogamy. Patriarchy is therefore simply human male parasitical behavior onto human females who are consensually, partly consensually and/or non-consensually sexually and socially enslaved.

How did this happen? Humans lived in small herds who like the matriarchal Bonobos engaged in a lot of sexual activity and they therefore produced many offspring. Humans spread from Africa and made little contributions to their new evolutionary environments other than partially destroying those very evolutionary environments. Environmental destruction has thus long been a feature of global human colonization by those very African animals known as human beings.

However, repression of sexuality increasingly became prominent in the social evolution of human cultures and most probably so because those human communities who sexually disciplined themselves in sublimating human sexuality into cultural expressions were simply more successful in surviving, growing and spreading demographically as they were most likely far more innovative as human culture is sexuality sublimated as cultural innovation indeed. In fact war itself is typically won by innovation and so cultural activities such as technological innovation had and still have a very significant continuing impact on human economic history. Religions were quite useful in that these provided rules for the disciplining and thus cultural sublimation of human sexuality.

Reproductive monogamy was most likely more economically successful than other forms of kinship in that this was more successful in ensuring the survival of human offspring and therefore of human ethno-genetic communities. Human zoology has ever since have had two main forms of kinship, micro-kinship (family) and macro-kinship (community). Relative male control over female reproduction meant that the male typically became committed to the survival of the joint offspring.

This however required separately repressing sexualities of both human females and human males as beginning already in childhood. Activities such as childrearing and education are essentially about the repression of sexuality and its sublimation as various cultural activities. Culture is habitually taken for granted in that few have stopped to ask ourselves how human societies would look like without the existing extreme social repression of sexuality known as culture?

It is clear that our forebears before things turned out for the worse in giving rise to parasitical phenomena such as patriarchy, environmental destruction and consumption of animal products thrived on plant-based diets and spent much of their lives making love living in rainforests. This is the natural condition for humans to live in biological terms and so the question is how do we return to living more like the matriarchal Bonobos who still thrive on plant-based diets in rainforests?

We need to replant the world with forests and grow food on walls in factories so as to reverse global warming, we must  stop repressing sexuality in children, adolescents and adults and we really need to revert to plant-based patterns of consumption. While cultural diversity is valuable do we need to question human culture as a problematic activity in mostly being the result of the sublimation of repressed human sexualities.

Ending and reversing human repression of human sexualities importantly requires rethinking culture as such. Just as so called “race” was fetishized by academia during the 20th century so is so called “culture” similarly now fetishized by academia during the 21st century. Just as “race” was questioned as a profoundly problematic conception so needs “culture” similarly become questioned as a profoundly problematic conception indeed.

Humans of all ages need to be rehabilitated from sexual repression by means of ritual sex teaching feminist diversity in carnal love. Parents and other adults therefore need to stop repressing sexualities of children and adolescents. Humans generally need to be practically hands-on trained in embracing feminist diversity in carnal love.

Patriarchy, environmental destruction, sexual repression and human use of animal products are but consequences of human economic history and that turn to the wrong is wholly and entirely reversible and must indeed absolutely be reversed. This requires rethinking culture as such and indeed learn to think outside the parameters of cultures generally. Just as we all as human beings need to learn to think outside the box so do we likewise need to learn to think beyond the tyranny of culture as the outcome of sexual repression.

Sexual training in feminist diversity in carnal love therefore needs to begin at an early age. Indeed, already Sigmund Freud had the revolutionary insight that most sexual repression takes place during what is known as “childhood”. It is well-known that children become severely traumatized by child-rearing, the essence of which is the social repression of what Freud described as “infantile sexuality”. Increasingly advanced technological societies have created industrially fabricated living environments that increasingly pose severe dangers to children and thus “require” parents to exercise even more totalitarian control over young persons in therefore even more exacerbating sexual repression.

The paradigm of taboo in sexuality in secular/modern (i.e. Para-Christian) society needs to change so that most sexual taboos are removed and undone and sexuality is therefore no longer about iconoclastically “breaking” taboos. This means inter alia getting rid of the irrational incest taboo and the scientifically unfounded notion that illegal intergenerational sex is traumatizing which has never been proven in purely quantitative statistical terms as measured on the general population. Parents, teachers and peers confined in coercive education are instead the real perpetrators who systematically traumatize young persons in systematically repressing what Freud described as the polymorphous perversion of pre-pubescent sexualities.

Sexual repression begins in childhood and so needs discriminatory legislation on the basis of chronological age simply end. Persons need to be treated on an individual basis in accordance with idiosyncratic cognitive profile and irrespectively so of chronological age. The timing of when and the degree to which a young person is able to exercise individual legal rights such as voting is simply a matter of individual predisposition. All human persons therefore need to be given the right to vote as they themselves will individually decide when to start exercise that right. Young persons also need to be given the right to divorce their parents who currently enslave them. Young persons growing up in families may individually prefer to grow up collectively as once in most Israeli kibbutzim or simply choose another family to live in. Young persons are effectively treated as slaves as owned by so called “parents” and so certainly need to be emancipated from this very enslavement.

Future feminist polygynous society where only 5% of births are male will help put an end to the oppressively hegemonic nature of sexual phallocentrism and so young human persons need to grow up in a society where sexuality is not falsely presumed to begin at puberty. Feminist ritual group sex therefore needs to commence at an early age as part of the sexual socialization of young persons.

Reversing and ending redundant sexual repression must end the taxonomic conception of sexuality as premised on sexual taboos. Just as virtually every human being can and should indeed be trained to become functionally bisexual so can and should indeed virtually every human being become trained in appreciating the joys of most so called “paraphilia”. Sexuality therefore needs to be reinvented and re-conceptualized as forming part of the friendship-love-sexuality-reproduction socio-cultural spectrum and so the feminist revolution in sexuality needs to help end taboo sexuality and supplant it with sexual appreciation of diversity in carnal love.

Once carnal love is abundant by means of diverse feminist ritual sex in Temples of Love will there no more be a sexual scarcity to socio-culturally guard as taboo sexuality derives from patriarchal control over female sexualities through reproductive monogamy which creates tremendous socio-sexual deficits in human societies. In fact, neither human females nor human males are really aware of what they would truly desire were not their sexualities subjected to the harsh societal repression of sexualities from childhood and onwards throughout life.

The feminist global sexual revolution therefore must aim to no less than end Western and most other cultural conceptions of sexuality and supplant these with societal recognition of the importance of respecting, cherishing and diversely developing what Freud indeed referred to as infantile polymorphous perversion. Culture is therefore the real opposite of sexuality and so it is culture as such that needs to be questioned in quite some detail indeed.

52. Epidemiology of Abjection

The socially constructed, structurally cultural fear of being branded a “sleaze” or a “slut” can be so great and overwhelming that many human persons don’t even think about what that means. Essentially there is little to no difference between “being like a slut” and “being like a sleaze”. It’s the same thing and the only thing that is different is the gendered frame indeed. It means essentially being intensely afraid of being considered as making oneself publicly “sexually available”. Female street prostitutes while soliciting customers in the streets tend to speak more or less exactly like real male creeps and the main sociolinguistic difference in approach is therefore that the male creep offers sexual intercourse for free while the street prostitute charges a fee. The often gendered sense of experiencing someone else as “creepy” is indeed a form of abjection, meaning the emotional experience of reductively perceiving another person as a mere abject.

The fact is however that fertile-age females in secular/modern society tend to be quite socio-sexually sophisticated, yet still deadly scared of being stigmatized as sluts. Males in secular/modern society however still tend to act creepily towards females whom they are strongly sexually attracted towards because they presume that it is their reproductive purpose in life to fool and/or manipulate females into bed. That however is typically perceived as creepy by females and feminist rightly decry this as sexist behavior. Who after all wants to be treated like a prospective victim of fraud? Males don’t like that so why would females?

The pickup self-help industry in the United States has however found a thriving niche by exploiting this sexist mindset when it really all comes down to spiritual values of sharing loving kindness, i.e. love thy neighbour as thyself. In other words, you make it difficult for others to love you unless you love yourself in the first place. Once you love yourself, you can let others share in that feeling by opening yourself to the love of others.

Hillel the Elder of the Babylonian Talmud (as all graduates of Jewish schools are aware) teaches the famous dictum that If I am not for myself, who is for me? And if I am only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when? Meaning inter alia that a person who only cares about himself is creepy indeed. What kind of a person are you if you are out to fool others? What kind of person are you if you look down on females as prospective victims of socio-sexual scam? If you are only interested in getting laid and don’t really care about the idiosyncratic personhood of a female fellow human being but only inserting part of your anatomy into her anatomical cavities, then what kind of person are you really? Indeed, art thou not right indeed to feel ashamed of yourself while talking to females with whom you wish to get into bed?

Males typically don’t want to marry sex workers which is really, truly weird and even creepy considering that sex workers typically are lovely persons who really enjoy sharing intimacy with others. Even prostitutes (persons whose whose offering of sexual services for a fee is partly or entirely involuntary) often learn to really enjoy sex although like sex workers generally who offer commercial sexual intercourse typically feeling intensely ashamed of their respective histories of sexual intercourse with customers due to the severe social stigma still attached to sex work generally irrespective of whether it is voluntary or not. Yet it is certainly true that professional social behaviors of street prostitutes towards potential customers in the streets tend to be creepy indeed.

Neither females nor males therefore tend to wish to marry creepy persons and the only difference being that males in secular/modern society tend to think that they will only become attractive to females if they behave as creepily as do typically street prostitutes while soliciting customers. In fact, most females frequenting nightclubs need to get somewhat drunk and therefore psychologically numb themselves in order to be able to sleep with drunk males with creepy behaviors. In other words, females have to become creepy themselves in order to be able to sleep with creepy males.

There is every reason for human males in secular/modern society feeling ashamed of being part of the male social class and males who don’t want to be creepy should not be afraid of decrying the creepy behaviors typically exhibited by members of the male social class. In fact, feminism is the perfect topic to discuss while doing feminist pickup. There is absolutely nothing wrong with males disassociating themselves from the male social class and the creepy behaviors typically exhibited by members of that social class. In fact, it is perfectly understandable that most males in secular/modern society find it awkward to be part of the male social class while doing pickup. They feel ashamed and rightly so. Males should not only feel ashamed of being associated with the male social class but indeed many have quite a lot to be ashamed of in this regard themselves in terms of past and present socio-sexual and other gendered behaviors towards female human beings.

Human females in secular/modern society who desire to find a male socio-sexual life partner do however find themselves in a difficult conundrum; they are well aware that most human males in their societies exhibit creepy behaviors yet the human females are still seeking to separate the wheat from the chaff. It is typical for a human female in secular/modern society to therefore talk herself into believing that she can somehow improve a behaviorally deficient male socio-sexual partner into somehow becoming a Prince of Dreams. Indeed, the usually fruitless endeavoring to improve human male behaviors towards human females is after all what feminism is about. While feminism has been and is indeed successful in achieving formal emancipation and legal change – it has been markedly less successful in achieving behavioral change in human males.

One reason why this is so is that the typically by far excessive production of testosterone in human males produce strong emotional pressures on males to engage in selfish behavior in order to gain socio-sexual access to human females. Creepy male behaviors are however for the most part legal in most jurisdictions and feminist critique of legally permitted sexist behaviors have mostly only reinforced male fears of being of being stigmatized as sleazes. Feminism has due to internal divisions also not succeeded in removing the masculinist stigma on sex work, a social stigma that quite regrettably, more broadly indeed is a stigma on female sexualities generally.

The essence of sexual liberation is therefore accepting that socio-sexual abjection is part of human psychology indeed. How is abjection however socio-culturally produced in modern/secular society? Schoolyard culture is a big part of it where pupils informally learn to regard and stigmatize each other as socio-sexual abjects. The question of abjection and its emergence in children is however significantly discussed in psychoanalytic literature and more famously so by Bulgarian-French prominent feminist Julia Kristeva. One way of preventing this is to fashion both the upbringing of young persons and human bodily aesthetic ideals so that young persons don’t stigmatize each other as socio-sexual abjects such as crips, faggots, fatties, niggers, uglies and whores.

However, socio-sexual abjection is also a reality in human psychology and is probably not going to disappear entirely although its spread can be limited and contained by social means through education about the workings of the phenomenon of physionomism generally, by innovative social behavioral therapy (SBT) and by strategic re-appropriation of demeaning physionomistic terminology as badges of pride for physionomistically stigmatized classes of persons.

Sexual liberation requires however human males to learn to avoid gendered creepy behavior. It certainly does not mean males fooling or selfishly manipulating females, even if it is true that many females respond positively to and are thus socio-sexually impressed by such misogynist behavior, but it rather means human males learning to share loving kindness with females as indeed reciprocally sharing loving kindness with males is what most females indeed most profoundly desire. The problem however is that most males are not exactly princes of dreams and in part so due to being hormonally and genetically deficient in human males unfortunately on average being significantly far more psychopathic than human females.

While 6-7% of genetically indigenous European males are clinical psychopaths are only 1% of genetically indigenous European females clinical psychopaths. Psychopathy is a genetico-behavioral spectrum that unfortunately affects far more than so in terms of both subclinical psychopathy and psychopathic traits. The psychopathic spectrum in its entirety is therefore far more statistically present in human males than in human females. The statistical frequency of antisocial personality disorders (“psychopathy”) also varies greatly between different human ancestral genetic groups and contributes therefore significantly to what is known as ‘racial strife’ and also in part to so called ‘sectarianism’ as human taxa with comparatively lower average IQs reversely do tend to have comparatively higher frequencies of antisocial personality disorders, usually known in adults as psychopathy and in legal minors as ADHD.

Psychopaths typically do in fact seem to have a very strong genetic predisposition for creepy behavior and many psychopaths socially learn to disguise that in order to gain social and sexual advantage and that is often known as the “superficial charm” often found in clinical psychopaths. However since so many males are on the psychometrically measured, yet heavily genetically founded psychopathic spectrum are male gendered behaviors generally socio-culturally sadly significantly affected by unfortunately socially contagious psychopathic genetically based behaviors.

Genetically treating antisocial personality disorders and medically reducing the typically far excessive production of testosterone in human males is therefore an essential part of the feminist and sexual revolution. It is in fact not weird at all to experience clinical psychopaths as creepy and so socio-culturally gendered contagious, yet in many males unfortunately genetically based psychopathic behaviors need to be medically treated through the curing of antisocial personality disorders by means of gene therapy. The two medical problems are interconnected however as psychopaths typically have extremely high production of testosterone in therefore inducing “bold” antisocial behaviors, both legal and illegal.

The question of abjection is therefore not merely a feminist and psychoanalytic issue but indeed also very much a neuropsychiatric issue. It is due to the statistically extremely significant overrepresentation of males on the psychopathic spectrum that so many human females are fearful of creepy behaviors in males such as haterape, sexist forms of pickup and seduction as well as socio-discursively reducing female persons to mere objects of male carnal desire. Genetic problems at their core have indeed no social solutions other than gene therapy and other relevant and effective medical treatment. Psychopaths may seem creepy indeed and psychopathic behaviors unfortunately have a very significant influence on the social construction of male genders. Feminist neuropsychiatry is very much needed and not least considering that most recidivist criminals are either clinical psychopaths or subclinical psychopaths is thus effective medical treatment of antisocial personality disorders of essence.

While many psychopaths may seem sexually liberated is their cultural influence on society unfortunately highly detrimental indeed. Pretending that all human males are psychopaths is of course hardly helpful and psychopaths certainly need medical treatment and not stigmatization as “monstruous” social abjects as that is indeed how contemporary society typically views criminals and psychopaths.

53. Feminism and Sexual Repression

Households with just one adult person have increasingly become epidemic in secular/modern society. This of course is absolutely individually fine if that is by personal preference indeed but the truth is that it is usually not completely voluntary. Social media including Internet dating has not solved this problem as online social relations such as on Facebook have increasingly become a substitute for IRL relationships.

The question that needs to be posed however is why this epidemic of loneliness is only expanding as IRL relationships increasingly fail due to increasingly heightened personal expectations in society with respect to individual quality of life? The role of feminism is obviously important as females increasingly are dissatisfied with sharing their lives with behaviorally dysfunctional males. This of course is a good thing but the problem of involuntary loneliness continues to increasingly spread and this is obviously not the fault of feminism.

What needs to be explored however is the role of feminism in human sexual repression. Feminists obviously like everyone else of course must deploy generalizations to explain social reality. An appropriate feminist generalization obviously does not claim that all males are equally bad, but feminism still needs to make the case by pointing out how most human males are clearly behaviorally deficient with respect to their gendered behaviors towards human females. However, feminism does reinforce the fear in males of being considered as “being like sleazes” and feminism has due to internal divisions on the questions of sex work and pornography not succeeded in lifting the stigma on female sexualities as centered on the stigma on sex work and sex workers and this means that most fertile-age females remain profoundly frightened of being considered as “being like sluts”.

Involuntary loneliness is however a direct outcome of structural social expression and feminism has increasingly supplanted organized religion as the preeminent ideological power in fomenting sexual repression in both females and males. Males typically admire “hot chicks” but the fact is that being a female in secular/modern still deeply sexually repressed society is a rather horrible, indeed unenviable social experience. Why is this so? Well, contemporary female gender roles in secular/modern society continue to deny females sexual agency in them being limited to those males mustering the courage to approach them. Males are however increasingly similarly shamed and deterred from approaching females and feminism is indeed the main culprit in this regard. This is especially difficult for persons of all genders who are not conventionally attractive although a wonderful personality in both females and males typically goes a long way in compensating for not being considered typically physically attractive.

Feminism as a global political movement has always had an ambiguous attitude towards sexuality and 19th century feminism was primarily a movement of married and economically privileged, genetically indigenous European women. There have therefore always been feminists who abhor and abject sex workers as socio-sexual competitors for the financial resources of their husbands. The late 20th century saw an almost traumatic split in White feminism on the question of sex work and pornography and that certainly has made feminism far less effective with respect to the social spectrum of friendship-love-sexuality-reproduction.

Many matronizing feminists therefore claim to speak for sex workers whom they claim cannot be trusted in speaking for themselves as they purportedly don’t even know what’s good for themselves. While discursively the rise of this severely matronizing attitude in 20th century socialist feminism was enabled by the Marxian notion of false consciousness, the fact is that this attitude towards sex workers in feminism precedes the rise of socialist feminism within feminism as the real origin is the economic envy and sexual jealousy of economically privileged married women towards sex workers. Indeed the social and historical origin of this unfortunate attitude is the persistent envy and marital jealousy of married, economically privileged White women towards 19th century working class sex workers.

Feminism has long wrongly presumed that a gender is “a social sex” while in fact a gender is a form of only partly sublimated sexuality as culture itself is primarily the performative sublimation of the continuous socially constructed repression of human sexualities. The rise of socialist feminism in the late 20th century led feminism to increasingly politically emphasize socio-economic issues at the expense of the vital matters pertaining to the social spectrum of friendship-love-sexuality-reproduction. However, once one as a thinking feminist recognizes that a gender is a socially constructed, partly sublimated sexuality and not a socially constructed sex, one must engage with the friendship-love-sexuality-reproduction social spectrum as being central indeed for feminism once more becoming futuristic and constructively socially transformative.

Feminism hence must no longer suffice with rhetoric, demands and theories but feminism must once more become a visionary movement indeed. Therefore is formal legal emancipation and demanding the privileges of White men for women no longer enough. Feminism thus needs to recognize and acknowledge its own unfortunate complicity in the cultural repression and social sublimation of human sexualities in persons of all genders.

Feminism therefore must endeavor to train females towards becoming sexual agents and social subjects in their own romantico-sexual lives. Once most human females become capable of seducing the very males that they personally desire will both females and males become mostly liberated from socially suffocating gender roles. Once it becomes perfectly socially normal to become a feminist pickup artist will the still socially hegemonic masculinist stigmatization of female sexualities end. Indeed, human persons of all genders need to be trained by the wider society to become feminist pickup artists.

While it is true that sexism, masculinism and misogyny can be highly effectively deployed by male pickup artists and other males in approaching, attracting, conversing and seducing females, the fact is that the art of pickup as articulated by semi-famous pickup artists in the United States making a living from teaching their social skills to fellow females is still typically premised on long since outdated gendered perceptions. While these male pickup artists teach their students to engage in masculine behaviors, these professional pickup artists themselves instead deploy distinctly feminine social behaviors for the purpose of approaching, attracting, conversing and seducing females as indeed can be easily observed in their in-field youtube videos.

While apparently not being aware that this is the case, they train themselves so as in a sense “transgender themselves” in becoming able to socially transcend the socially constructed gender binary. They presume therefore as is typically the impression in secular/modern society that females are attracted to masculinity while the fact is that both females and males are attracted by the will to power (Nietzsche’s German der Wille zur Macht). Indeed, if a person of any gender exhibits the will to power is that person typically considered socio-sexually attractive even if not being conventionally physically attractive.

There is a poetic expression in Swedish according to which one should speak with peasants in the manner of peasants and with learned people in Latin (Swedish tala med bönder på bönders vis och med de lärda på Latin) and this of course teaches us that effective discursive engagement is on the terms with whom one engages. Effective discursive engagement is therefore as every skilled lobbyist is aware done on the turf of the party with whom one communicates. While apparently not being aware of this, the RSD (“real social dynamics”) professional pickup artists in the United States engage in usually mildly dominant feminine behaviors in order so as approach, attract, converse and seduce females. While RSD methods are indeed usually effective and sometimes ethically problematic, the pickup community is typically extremely naive with regard to the social construction of gender and usually lack even basic familiarity with academic gender science. RSD-influenced pickup artists are therefore typically unaware why the social skills that they have trained themselves to perform are actually effective indeed.

RSD training tends to be effective for two main reasons, first it serves to undo sexual repression in males and second it teaches its accomplished male students to engage in femininely gendered, yet mildly dominant socio-sexual behaviors. An accomplished RSD-trained male pickup artist therefore essentially imitatively changes gender while interacting with females whom he is sexually attracted to. The gender-transcending social techniques as typically used by pickup artists are however hardly new as these have been used by female sex workers for centuries in similarly socio-sexually transcend the gendered socio-cultural binary.

RSD is premised on a large number of gendered dichotomies that are actually not about gender as females and males tend to be attracted to the same type of mildly dominant social behaviors on the part of a potential seducer. Mild social domination can as is well known be quite effectively combined with sexist, masculinist and misogynist behaviors, but mild social domination can also be socio-sexually feminist in nature and of course extremely nice and kind which most humans find extremely attractive. Indeed, one can be profoundly feminine yet still also very attractively mildly dominant and irrespectively so of gender. Mild dominance as expressive of the underlying will to power is precisely why so many persons are attracted to persons either trained in and/or naturally talented in approach, attraction, conversation, pickup and seduction. This socio-sexual will to power is of course no less socio-sexually attractive when exhibited by a female than in a male.

One reason why there is a market for the genealogically and discursively prostitution-inspired RSD self-help ideology with its commercial deployment of sexually explicit phallocentric jargon as both populistic sales pitch towards potential male customers and effective undoing of sexual repression in participating males is that feminism has disregarded the vital issue of training females and indeed human persons of all genders into becoming accomplished, indeed ethico-sophisticated feminist pickup artists. These are basic social skills that humans generally of all ages need to learn and so teaching feminist pickup is essential indeed for the global feminist revolution.

54. Beyond Segregation

Is discrimination sometimes justified? Yes if it is relevant and then it is technically not discrimination. However if discrimination is about fears, abjection and seeking to maintain institutional segregation then it’s clearly not legitimate. Locker rooms, public restrooms, schools, many feminist and religious institutions, public baths, passports, ID cards and civic identity numbers are still domains of state-sanctioned and/or state-enforced institutionalized segregation on the basis of sex and/or gender.

Let’s therefore investigate whether there is anything relevant about this institutionalized discrimination and segregation. A person’s intimate anatomy is clearly a private matter that it’s nobody else’s business to question or determine. Think about it, whether you have a pussy or a penis is simply nobody else’s business. The only legitimate purpose for registering intimate anatomy is for medical and reproductive purposes. Indeed, there is no legitimate reason whatsoever why this information should not remain completely private and confidential indeed.

Segregation of locker rooms on the basis of sex and/or gender is justified due to fears that females may suffer assault by males. The fact is however that the abolishment of Apartheid in South Africa has led to a huge increase in violent crime against South Africans of primarily European origin by distinctly more pigmented criminal offenders. This is a fact and the failure of the South African government to protect the so called “White” (actually pink-skinned) citizens of South Africa from criminals with usually far more pigmented color of skin has led “White” South Africans to emigrate in vast number as following upon the case of Zimbabwe where the vast majority of the “White” population has already long since left the country. Yet no reasonable person would advocate reinstitution of racial segregation and “White” minority rule in Zimbabwe and South Africa.

Similarly would no reasonable person advocate reinstitution of pigmentation-based segregation in the United States despite the fact that most victims of violent African American criminals are indeed indigenous Europeans. The case could certainly be made for reinstituting religious segregation in Western Europe due to the fact that most perpetrators of xeno-rape in various Western European countries are males of Muslim ethno-religious origin and most of their victims are indigenous European females indeed.

Crime or fear of crime therefore cannot reasonably be used for justifying segregation. However there is reason to believe that ending segregation between females and males will instead serve to normalize, calm down and de-dramatize gender relations. It is also likely that integrated locker rooms will lead to some degree of increase of crime in locker rooms. Yet, this is not a legitimate argument as fear of crime is not a legitimate argument to justify discrimination and segregation. It could be argued that society generally should be sex-segregated on the model of Saudi Arabia where females and males even attend separate gender-exclusive universities. It could further be argued that a sex-based Apartheid system ought to be established on the correct assumption that this would very substantially decrease the number of female victims of crime as most criminals are indeed males. However, justifying gender segregation on the basis of fears of crime is simply not a legitimate argument. These fears may or may not be justified and indeed so to various degrees, but that still does justify not institututional segregation whether accepted or enforced by the state.

Nazi Germany claimed that Jewish statistical overrepresentation in white-collar crime justified institutionalized discrimination and segregation against Jewish citizens of Germany as paving the way for the Nazi German genocide against the Jewish people. The fact is that this was due to the Jewish statistical overrepresentation in white-collar professions as Jewish citizens of Germany were reversely statistically under-represented in blue-collar crime and so mainly due to the fact that Jewish citizens of Germany were statistically under-represented in blue-collar professions. Had there even been a real Jewish statistical over-representation among criminals in Germany had discrimination and segregation against Jewish citizens of Germany of course not been justified either.

The fact that human genetic groups with a relatively higher frequency of antisocial personality disorders (psychopathy/ADHD) with a therefore relatively higher frequency of recidivist crime as compared to the majority genetic group obviously does not justify ending immigration of persons belonging to genetic groups with a higher frequency of antisocial personality disorders and therefore also a higher frequency of recidivist criminals. That argument is simply democratically inadmissible and antisocial personality disorders need instead be cured by means of gene therapy and entirely irrespective of chromosomal sex or genetic origins of those suffering from antisocial personality disorders.

While there is an increasing tendency to supplant sex segregation with gender segregation; gender segregation is just as reprehensible as sex discrimination. It is true however that gender segregation is functionally preferable to sex discrimination to many but not all transgender human beings as there are many transgendered persons who identify and consider themselves as neither female nor male in terms of gender.

Therefore, all forms of segregation on the basis of sex or gender must end as no existing institutional gender segregation or sex segregation can be reasonably defended. This means that gender and sex will become a private matter and will no longer be indicated in individual civic identity numbers and in official documents such as passports and ID cards. All collected data will become confidential and solely used for medical and reproductive purposes. All forms of institutional gender segregation such as in locker rooms, public restrooms, religious institutions, schools, feminist institutions, public baths etc. must therefore become outlawed.

While this may cause some initial inconvenience to persons who derive personal comfort from institutional segregation, what is rather needed is feminist architecture that will modify public areas so that females feel safe to be move around outdoors around the clock and even so if walking alone.

This author who is a transgender lesbian female with a body that is technically anatomically male yet is quite feminine in its overall structure showered and dressed in a gender-integrated locker room in the context of physical education in first and second grades (ages 7 and 8) in Sweden along with all her classmates. While this caused no inconvenience whatsoever to anyone, there is every reason to assume that enforced gender segregation and enforced sex segregation whether applied to children, adolescents or adults contributes quite significantly to the socio-cultural, collective repression of human sexualities. Ending all forms of institutional or other segregation on the basis of sex or gender is therefore not merely a matter of fighting transphobia including ending institutional discrimination against transgender human beings (whether identifying as gender binary or gender non-binary) but eminently one of rolling back the collective socio-cultural repression of human sexualities indeed.

55. Dismantling the Barrier of Gender

Gender as a form of partly sublimated sexuality typically serves to socially, semiotically and aesthetically reinforce what is socially perceived as purportedly typical anatomical morphological differentiation. In many cases therefore does clothing serve to disguise what would be perceived as non-typical morphological differentiation as for instance bras serve to disguise the vast morphological differentiation in the size and form of human female breast. In fact, some men have larger breast than some women and reversely some women have smaller breasts than some men and this is in so called “Western” culture disguised by means of female and male fashion respectively.

The fact that most female fertile-age females in so called “Western” societies use makeup more or less frequently and that most males in those societies do not is another fact that serves to reinforce the perceived bodily morphological differentiation. The hiding of intimate anatomy generally by means of clothing is certainly a factor that not only disguises and disfigures the vast morphological differentiation in intimate anatomy but also socio-politically serves to reinforce the socially constructed, culturally hegemonic gender binary indeed.

The socially constructed psychological barrier of binary gender uses not only anatomy as a figurative fig leaf so to speak but importantly also disguises and disfigures it as a literal fig leaf. Then what is this binary and what purpose does it serve? The eroticization of the illusion of binary gender serves to socially control female sexualities under the regime of sexism. The essence of this regime is a sexual deficit as created by male sexual ideological hegemony whereby males typically desire socially constructed male sexualities much more than females typically do and females reversely typically desire socially constructed female sexualities much more than males do. The result is that both human females and human males experience sexual deficit under the regime of socio-cultural repression of sexuality.

This runs contrary to the official sexual ideology in secular/modern societies whereby males and females purportedly desire each others’ sexualities. However, since the hegemonic sexual ideology is essentially egoistic and focused on self-satisfaction is heteronormative sexuality an eroticized taboo as premised on sexual shortage as males typically do not sexually satisfy female sexualities and females typically do not sexually satisfy male sexualites. While it is true that females in those societies typically wish to have penetrative sexual intercourse with males much less frequently than males wish to have penetrative sexual intercourse with females, this is not due to females being less sexual than males but is rather due to the socially constructed fact that females tend to desire different modes of intersubjective intimacy than do typically males.

Feminism typically construes males as socio-sexual abjects and an important reason behind this perception is the predator-like sexual behaviors of many males towards females which is typically perceived as creepy, manipulative, dishonest, phallocentric and possessive in intent. What is needed therefore is a revolution in the perception of gender whereby gender is recognized as individual, idiosyncratic and increasingly self-constructed. It is also increasingly common not only in the LGBTQI community but also among fertile-age females to have multiple gender roles whereby one transitions between different gender roles in different social situations; something which is often reinforced by alternating between different forms of hairstyle, clothes, makeup, perfume, tone of voice, way of speaking, choice of topic, social role, body language, facial language, subculture and even ethnicity.

While it is true that the industries of beauty and fashion substantially profit from eroticizing the socio-cultural, psychological barrier of the socially constructed gender binary, yet another important fact is that those industries profit even more from diversifying female fashion and diversifying the perception of female beauty. It is also certainly true that the beauty and fashion industries would almost double their revenues were they to entice males to spend as much as females typically do on beauty and fashion.

What is needed therefore is for feminism to think outside the box. Feminism needs not only identify problems but no less important see social opportunity and embrace innovative solutions. While in theory individualism ever since the second half of the 20th century is the hegemonic lifestyle ideology of so called “Western” culture are those societies still not especially individualized.

As those societies gradually transition from Capitalism, the economic era of the hegemony of capital; to Talentism, the economic era of hegemony of advanced cognitive capabilities requiring emotions, does the challenge of individualizing society increasingly loom on the horizon. In fact, treating persons as standardized modules is an industrial reinvention of the prior feudal agricultural society where most humans made a living from agriculture and therefore had similar lifestyles. So called “ideology” thus largely supplanted so called ’’religion” as the single most important hegemonic force of discourse in ensuring cultural homogenization in the interest of ensuring control in the maintenance of perceived social harmony. However, as mass professions increasingly become supplanted by technology will individual human beings struggle to remain relevant and not individually becoming economically redundant in the emerging economic era of Talentism.

This means that the system of education must become individualized in preparing human beings for an economic reality where jobs increasingly become temporary and where the individual human being needs constantly endeavor to enhance her/his own idiosyncratic advanced talent and thus stay economically relevant in the economic era of Talentism. This obviously requires the entire society to individualize and cherish the enhancement and development of actually or potentially economically valuable idiosyncratic advanced cognitive capabilities.

This is where the increasing individualization of gender expression fits in. While gender is already extremely diverse as divided by age, ethnicity, class, explicit sexual expression and so on, the prevailing perception is still that of the ideologically hegemonic gender binary. The notion of females and males being different species so to speak still psychologically predominates in the absence of gender-neutral feminist etiquette. Feminism therefore needs to endeavor to work with the beauty and fashion industries to help males catch up with the individualization of beauty and fashion as already achieved to a relatively advanced degree for females.

What is needed therefore is not only continued individualization of beauty and fashion for variously socially gendered human beings but also an increasingly individualized perception of gender generally. If we perceptually think about gender as something that we individually perform whether by deliberate individual choice or by social conditioning, then can we make much better choices in semiotically expressing our respective idiosyncratic personhood. The fact is however that this understanding is far more advanced among females than among males in secular/modern society as most males in those societies have indeed much to learn from both females and the LGBTQI community in deliberately transcending aesthetic genres and alternating between variously gendered social roles.

While so called “cross-dressing” is already almost completely socially accepted for females does it still remain to become the norm for males as well. Females wearing trousers and shorts are no longer seen as an exception and so should in the future males wearing dresses and skirts also not be been seen as exceptions. Feminism needs to internalize that tearing down the perceptual barrier of illusory binary gender also requires feminism to repudiate the very social and sexual privileges so to speak “granted” to females by hegemonic sexism and crucially support males who semiotically and aesthetically transcend gendered norms.

Economic forces therefore need to be embraced in this semiotic and aesthetic revolution of not only mainstreaming non-binary transgender semiotic/aesthetic expression but indeed transgendering the beauty and fashion industries in favor of increasingly individualized gender expression as also increasingly divorced from conventional ideological interpretations of sexual anatomy. This requires a major shift in feminism from Marxist-style conceiving of the gender revolution in terms of an economic struggle of competing, purportedly socially homogenous classes of persons as fueled by essentialist identity politics into rather engaging with and coopting the beauty and fashion industries in facilitating and ensuring ever-increasing individualization of gender indeed.

56. Gender of Abjection

Abjection takes many forms and is often gendered, including in secular/modern culture. Having sex with males and especially temporarily so tends to be stigmatized irrespective of the gender of the person who thus has sex with a male. A female who has sex with a male risks being socially abjected as a “slut” by both males and females while a male even if of heterosexual general socio-sexual orientation risks being socially abjected as “gay” by fellow males if having or being perceived as having sex with a fellow male.

In contrast, a female who has sex with another female does not risk much public stigmatization. Even a female who has sex with many females does not really risk being stigmatized as a “slut”. Similarly does not a male risk much stigmatization for having sex with a female or even with many females. However, fertile-age females typically live in constant fear of insemination in the form of xeno-rape. Many males are similarly typically intensely afraid of becoming inseminated by fellow males and hence the phenomenon of homophobia which typically involves males sexually fearing yet other males.

What’s at play therefore is something else, namely semiotic contamination. There is thus a subconscious structure in motion according to which sperms spread semiotic contamination. The historical origin of this attitude is most likely fear of sexually transmitted diseases (STD). Many persons who became infected by STD prior to the development of modern medicine may have believed that the medical symptoms of STD were divine punishment for having engaged in religiously proscribed sexual acts. Stigmatizing males as “gays” and “sleazes” and females as “sluts” thus most probably emerged as a precautionary religious measure to prevent the spread of what we now know are STD. A male typically does not suffer social stigmatization for engaging in sexually licentious behavior towards females other than potentially suffering rejection by females, yet he may be implicitly feared by females and therefore considered a “sleaze” due to historical fears that promiscuous males -just like historical sex workers – historically were likely carriers of STD indeed.

In Saudi Arabia are there different terminologies for a male who inseminates another male and for a male who is inseminated by another male and the male inseminator has far higher socio-sexual status than the male being inseminated. It is interestingly in this context the male who is being inseminated who is stigmatized and not the inseminator. This gives us a clue as to why in many societies it is those who are inseminated who are stigmatized as gendered sexual abjects and irrespectively so of the gender of those thus inseminated. The reason is that the person who received insemination was perceived as the one who irrespective of sex or gender risked becoming infected with STD, the symptoms of which in historical times were probably construed as divine punishment for transgression of religious sexual taboos. This makes logical sense as being inseminated probably statistically involves a far greater risk of becoming infected by STD than if being the one who inseminates.

Therefore, once we understand that gendered abjection in secular/modern culture historically emerged due to fears of becoming infected with STD can we start dealing rationally with those fears of persons becoming inseminated in temporary sexual relations and this of course is why it is those who are perceived as receiving insemination who suffer gendered societal stigmatization.

The fear of being stigmatized as a “slut” or a “sleaze” is similarly an historical anthropological remnant where having sexual relations with a person with many sexual partners obviously presented a statistically greater risk of becoming infected with STD. However today are there condoms easily available and although condoms may break during sexual intercourse are condoms a fairly good protection against the risk of becoming infected with STD.

Those living and acting out of fear of suffering gendered abjection (e.g. sleaze, slut, gay and pedo) thus act out of an age-old subconscious cultural structural fear of dissemination of STD. Reconstructing the genealogy of gendered abjection can thus help put to rest those largely subconscious, yet no longer relevant fears. Females therefore need not play hard-to-get with males as such social play certainly does not decrease the risk of becoming infected with STD. Males exclusively interested in romantic relationships with females similarly need not abstain from the joys of sucking cock once in a while considering that condoms indeed offer reasonably good protection against STD.

The fact is that homophobia, biphobia, transphobia and pedophobia are primarily the domain of males in secular/modern society as females are usually not affected by those fears to any significant degree. In secular Sweden where this author grew up and lives as of writing are most fertile-age females certainly open to the possibility of having sex with fellow females and especially so within the socio-sexual contexts of partner-swapping, swinging culture, group sex, threesomes, sex in sex clubs with typically male partners present but also casual sex between female friends such as with a college flatmate or subsequent to a nocturnal festivity after which the female friend sleeps over.

Swedish females who have not yet sexually engaged with another female tend to be extremely open to the possibility of at least trying out what is known in Swedish as tjejsex, meaning literally “galsex”. Prevailing attitudes towards “galsex” is of course not substantially different in similarly heavily secularized countries as homophobia, biphobia and transphobia are primarily found among males in those societies as well. Galsex does not actually refer to lesbian sex but rather usually to so called heterosexual females having casual sex with each other with often at least one male present as a participant or spectator. Not only are homophobia, biphobia and transphobia primarily present in males but most of the victims of these forms of prejudice are indeed anatomical males themselves. Homophobic males may thus enjoy pornography depicting galsex and may participate in threesomes with two females despite himself being intensely prejudiced against gay and bisexual males. What is at play therefore is the fear of insemination, specifically the fear of suffering semiotic contamination if being inseminated.

The fear that illegal intergenerational sexual relations will lead to semiotic contamination began to spread in the early 20th century and this fear has reached epidemic dimensions in the early 21st century. Despite the fact that no purely quantitative study documenting traumatization has ever even remotely proven the perceived dangers of illegal intergenerational sexual relations has this socially constructed collective mindset of fear become increasingly pervasive in secular/modern societies. However, in contrast to other similar fears of semiotic contamination by means insemination is it the perceived or actual inseminator that is stigmatized although it is believed that it is the younger participant in an illegal intergenerational sexual relationship who becomes semiotically contaminated. However pedophobia typically involves the belief that intergenerational semiotic contamination may happen even without actual insemination. Pedophobia is heavily gendered considering that it is virtually always males who are “suspected” of engaging in illegal intergenerational sexual relations with younger sexual partners. It is therefore the very gendered nature of pedophobia that reproduces the structurally cultural fantasy of imaginary semiotic contamination.

There are societies in the major pacific island of New Guinea that have special camps in the forest where young adult males inseminate school-age boys. This is rationalized with the fear that the boys will turn out women if they are not properly inseminated during an en extended period of time. There are also those in New Guinea who believe that females are dangerous and manipulative thieves who steal sperms and that males who are thus “deprived of sperms” seriously risk effemination. There is also a belief that a female who reaches menopause may become a male and may therefore become socially treated as such.

These perceptions in certain societies in New Guinea may certainly indeed seem outlandish to a culturally naive Eurocentric observer but are actually rather similar to the subconscious structurally cultural fear of semiotic contamination due to imagined or actual insemination that underlies gendered structural abjection of human persons into sluts, sleazes, gays and pedos.

What is needed therefore is an emotional, social and intellectual willingness to engage with the subconscious culturally structural fear of suffering gendered abjection of semiotic contamination by means of perceived, actual, imaginary or purely semiotic insemination. Once there is understanding that this subconscious fear of insemination is now clearly irrational considering the availability of condoms and has a socio-cultural historical origin that is intelligible and easy to explain can persons of all genders stop fearing stigmatization due to either actual insemination or perception of insemination. It is especially important to explain this genealogy of gendered abjection to young persons but this certainly needs to be explained to the general human population as well. Human beings whether female or male should certainly no longer need to fear gendered stigmatization on account of semiotic contamination due to notions of perceived or actual insemination.  

57. Consent and Phonocentrism

The question of socio-sexual consent is an important feminist issue considering the pervasive prevalence of male social and sexual behavioral dysfunction. Human females growing up in secular/modern society typically have many female advisors with regard to socio-sexual behaviors towards males. Such female advisors include female friends, mothers, sisters, other female relatives as well as of course journalists through colorful magazines catering to adolescent females.

Human males however typically grow up almost entirely without socio-sexual advisors other than of course often sexist online pornography which today is widely consumed by females as well. Male socio-sexual misbehavior therefore is largely an outcome of the lack of both peer advice and feminist socio-sexual education. Sexual education in schools is typically extremely technical in character as focused on phallocentric penetrative sexual intercourse.

Yet, it is also true that most human persons as Jacques Derrida points out deep down desire involuntary sex in one form or another. The desire for involuntary sex is typically associated with the desire for being seduced and fantasies about loverape (not to be confused with despicable haterape) are extremely common. Loverape is extremely common and indeed largely socially accepted among gay and bisexual males.

The very real politico-feminist need for sexual consent is however unfortunately a major killer of sexual desire if explicit verbal consent is considered socially required by society. This is not least so for cohabiting/married couples where the demand for explicit verbal consent tends to destroy the emotional tensions that typically are so important for an intimate relationship. Being able to correctly read facial/body language is no doubt an important quality in a successful seducer and a successful seducer does not ask for permission to initiate and proceed with the process of seduction. A successful seducer of any gender moves forward with both a) subconscious/verbal/body/facial language and b) tactile engagement, including importantly hugging. The socio-sexual act of a male kissing a female in a nightclub is typically preceded by such multidimensional communication as well as tactile engagement at socio-sexually appropriate points on the female body. Seductively successful males in nightclubs therefore do not ask females for verbal permission for tactile engagement leading towards kissing as that would essentially be absurd because the female typically wishes to be seduced without her explicit verbal permission. A male asking for permission for tactile engagement would be immediately turned down by almost every female as the very act of asking the question would destroy her sexual desire. Thus not asking for permission is typically an essential element of seduction.

Females who put a lot of daily effort/time into preening typically do so inter alia precisely because they desire seduction by an attractively decisive male. A female seducer of males is similarly supremely attractive due to her being decisive and indeed never asking for permission. The same is of course true for same-sex seduction, including loverape among gay and bisexual men. Preening typically serves multiple purposes (including enhancing social stature among fellow females and a desire to look good) but the desire for seduction is typically a very important motivation indeed for preening.

Consent therefore can be given in multiple ways other than phonocentric verbal agreement. Indeed, asking for verbal permission is derived from the world of sex work in offering commercial sexual intercourse for a fee after verbal agreement has been reached. The notion that phonocentric (i.e. verbal) consent is superior to other forms of expressing consent is reflective of the ideological hegemony of phonocentrism in so called “Western” culture – yet is it also a feminist matter of deterring male socio-sexual misbehavior by purportedly making it easier to convict sexist males in courts of law. Non-verbal forms of mutual consent include tactile engagement such as appropriately touching, hugging and kissing; communicative eye contact, tone of voice, flirting as well as body language and facial language.

The contemporary feminist notion that consent must be explicitly verbal in the form of the spoken word “yes” is not only phonocentric and therefore a form of structural prejudice but is also expressive of prejudice against non-human persons without so called spoken language. Most females dare not seduce males due to the pervasive fear of being stigmatized as a “slut” yet certainly dream about being seduced by a decisively attractive male who goes all the way without ever asking for permission for the next step in the process of seduction.

While strengthening the legal standing of females towards sexist males is in principle laudable, males and female alike need to be taught the feminist art of seduction already while children. Consent in seduction is not given, it is taken as a successful seducer produces, indeed fabricates consent in a fellow person. The typical preening single female wishes her Prince of Dreams to initiate contact, converse for some time; hug, touch and kiss her and subsequently take her with him. She typically desires being mildly dominated and indeed the male dreaming about being seduced by a female also dreams about being subject to such very mild domination.

Many Marxoid feminists may view such asymmetric role play as expressive of structural oppression and it is certainly true that females socially confined to the social box of heteronormative behavior in practice have little social choice other than to attract and await male attention by means of primping. In fact, a female who initiates contact with a male of her own personal choice certainly risks being socially stigmatized as a “slut” and that fear is typically psychologically overwhelming considering that both females and males typically participate in such despicable stigmatization of females. It is probably not the male she contacts who will perform that stigmatization but rather third parties either witnessing this or learning about it through gossiping. Is that fear exaggerated? Yes probably in most cases but the fear is very real as a female socially stigmatized as behaving “like a slut” is typically considered much less attractive due to this very social stigmatization and so hence the likelihood of her being contacted by Mr. Right is in her mind therefore significantly, even disastrously diminished.

Feminism should however avoid relying on, encouraging or producing sexual repression. Rather ought the feminist art of seduction be taught to human persons of all genders. The art of seduction is contrary to conventional perception gender-neutral yet typically behaviorally asymmetric as the seducer in order to succeed typically needs to be intelligently assertive, indeed namely mildly dominant.

Verbal consent is just one of many forms of communicating consent, yet females typically do not wish to provide verbal consent to a seducer in a nightclub or elsewhere, indeed they typically wish to be charmed, seduced and “taken”. This may be because female gender roles do not really give her so many other real socio-sexual options and so her gendered niche is therefore eroticized in this particular way. There is a socially acceptable feminist option however and that is her friends joining her in initiating contact, flirting and picking up males of her own choice. Indeed, her friends could substantially help her out in the process of seduction. Feminism therefore needs to provide females with more social options other than mere preening and waiting to be picked up as akin indeed to sex workers seeking clients in public space. How much socio-sexual autonomy does a human female after all really have if she cannot initiate contact with males of her own choice? How different is this really from those traditional cultures where the family controls whom a young female is allowed to marry? One certainly needs also question how voluntary compulsory phonocentrism after all really is?

Imagine therefore if feminism were to focus on training humans generally of various ages and genders to become feminist seducers? Imagine if feminism were to have as much positive messages as negative messages? Imagine if feminism were to become a visionary futuristic movement advocating much more than merely seeking “White male adult” social privileges for human females who have reached the chronological age of eighteen? Imagine if feminism were to educate males in how to behave towards females and not merely rightly criticize structural male misbehavior? Imagine if feminism were to endeavor to institute gender-neutral feminist etiquette for humans generally, including for socio-sexual behavior while celebrating diversity in expression of increasingly individualized gender? Imagine if feminism were to ditch sexual repression in favor of sexual revolution? Imagine indeed if feminism ceased to mindlessly imitate male ideologies such as fraternal egalitarianism and were to understand the intrinsically masculinist nature of phonocentrism that structurally demeans advanced non-verbal/non-spoken modes of communication of non-human persons, human females and the human Deaf community alike?

58. Art of Feminist Seduction

Seduction is something that most human persons desire and typically humans wish to both seduce and become seduced. However, most humans in most situations simply dare not do so even if intoxicated and furthermore do not even know how to go about. The most common mistake is to believe that seduction is about gender asymmetry when in fact seduction is gender-neutral and is rather about asserting socio-sexual dominance in a socio-sexually permissible manner. The seducer therefore asserts dominance in a manner that the person s/he seduces actually desires. The skilled seducer projects her/his own sexual emotions onto the person being seduced who subsequently introjects and experiences those emotions as her/his own. The skilled seducer intuitively reads the facial/body language of the person being seduced and then endeavors to step-by-step realize the most intimate desires and yearnings in the depth of the other person’s heart.

Yet there is a behavioral asymmetry between seducer and seduced in that in BDSM terminology the seducer is the “top” and the seduced is the “bottom”. Behaviorally asymmetric seduction in general ought therefore be recognized as part of the BDSM socio-sexual spectrum although typically neither the seducer nor the seduced is aware of themselves actually practicing BDSM. Anyone desiring seduction thus needs to understand that seduction is a roleplay where the “dom” (dominant partner) seducer emotionally makes the “sub” (submissive partner) submit to the desire of the seducer in that the seduced experiences the emotions of the seducer as her/his own. However, the ethico-sophisticated seducer is unselfish and rather realizes the profound sexual desires and social yearnings of the heart of the person being seduced by means of carefully and continually reading the facial/body language of the person being seduced. The seducer needs to be assertive and should project her/his own self-confidence so that the person being seduced will feel no less socio-sexually comfortable than the seducer herself/himself.

Yet none of this is actually about anatomical sex. Dom and sub in seduction are simply typically context-specific temporal roles that persons of any genders may take on. Most humans in Western culture who identify as so called “heterosexuals” are convinced (that is if they have an opinion at all in this regard) that being a seducer is about masculinity and that being seduced is about femininity. This of course is sheer nonsense as a dom may be very feminine and a sub may be very masculine indeed.

Dom and sub are instead asymmetric temporal roles that are typically required for successful seduction. A seducer and the person being seduced may however use exaggerated femininity or exaggerated masculinity as a behavioral tactic to establish emotional rapport. Seduction therefore typically is a form of drag whereby usually temporary top-bottom roles are mutually assumed so as to therefore mutually facilitate the socio-sexual process of subjection in seduction.

Let’s however first look at what a contemporary younger female in so called “Western” culture would typically desire from a male seducer. She wants attention, she wants to feel chosen, she wants to feel hot and certainly she welcomes being kissed on the hand as an unexpected, extraordinarily romantic expression of profound respect. She wants to be conversed at least until she becomes sexually aroused. She wants to be hugged and she wants to be touched on parts of her body that are considered socio-sexually permissible for the seducer to touch in public space. She desires to be romantically kissed mouth-to-mouth and she uses facial/body language to signal when she is ready to be kissed. The seducer instantly recognizes her yearnings and desires and realizes them without undue delay. Once she is kissed is her hard-to-get social game over and she is now really the sub in emotional terms. She is so profoundly delighted by becoming seduced that she does not even care so much to what degree she originally considered the seducer as physically/aesthetically attractive. This first half of the process of seduction may be performed almost anywhere in public space where both parties feel sufficiently comfortable considering that a nightclub as filled with nervous, intoxicated persons is probably the worst place for public seduction in open societies as even a genderwise non-segregated house of worship is most likely a better location.

All this may seem like stereotypically gendered social roles but the fact is that a female “dom” really does not act much differently towards a male “sub” in public seduction than does a male “dom” towards a female “sub” in public seduction. The same behavior applies of course in same-sex public seduction as the seducer creates desire in the seduced by socio-sexually asserting and projecting himself/herself in an emotionally intelligent manner. A male who is seduced by a female will typically not care so much about to what degree he originally considered the seductress as physically/aesthetically attractive. Even hand-kissing can be no less wonderfully performed by a female seductress towards a male whom she seduces. In short, seduction is not reducible to gender.

The feminist seducer is a kind of sex worker without charge who labors to do to that which the person being seduced yearns for and profoundly desires. It is of course much more difficult to seduce someone while behaving as a bottom rather than as a top. While gender roles may be mutually exaggerated as drag while playing top and bottom, the art of seduction is essentially one without gender.

The feminist seducer grasps the art of seduction but endeavors to act ethically only. The feminist seducer therefore will not seduce someone whom s/he does not really like and appreciate as a person and will make love with a person and not just with a body. The feminist seducer does not merely assert emotionally intelligent dominance but truly shares her/his carnal love with the seduced person even if for only one night. The feminist seducer does not regard herself as a manipulator but rather as someone skilled at mutually sharing socio-sexual emotions of loving kindness. The feminist seducer understands that seduction is an intuitive art of love and therefore endeavors to realize the most profound yearnings and desires in the depth of the heart of the person being seduced and entirely irrespectively so of regular genders of the seducer and the person being seduced. The feminist seducer endeavors to sexually arouse the person being seduced at which point s/he is kissed on the mouth without undue delay. The feminist seducer takes action and proceeds with the process of seduction with determination once the person being seduced signals via her facial/body language that s/he desires escalation in seduction.

To assume however that seduction is about gender rather than carnal love may indeed rightly be perceived as creepy and to want to have sex with a gender or a stereotypical conception of anatomy rather than with a unique person is creepy indeed. The person being seduced typically does not merely wish to have sexual intercourse as becoming seduced if appropriately performed is typically an overwhelming emotional experience indeed.

Creepy feelings may be experienced by a human person of any gender as a result of the other person at that point not being able to express her/his carnal desire in a mutually appropriate fashion. If one of the persons in the process of seduction has negative feelings of insecurity, anxiety and/or nervousness not related to the other person, then may those feelings be transferred to the other person who may thus experience a feeling of creepiness. Irrational emotions of negative anticipation may therefore be transferred by either the seducer or the seduced in thus unintentionally sabotaging the very emotional process of seduction.

A skilled seducer therefore knows how to not introject any such irrational emotions of negative anticipation and rather projects her/his own assertively affirmative emotions onto the person whom s/he seduces who subconsciously submits to the seducer by introjecting the sexual emotions of the seducer and experiences those emotions as her/his own. A skilled seducer therefore needs to be cognizant that feelings of her/his own of negative anticipation are most likely irrelevant emotional reactions deriving from structural repression of sexuality in what is known as “human” so called “culture”. Once the seducer recognizes that those reactions are typically non-individual and rather expressive of oppressive cultural structures wrongly experienced as purportedly “individual” may those emotions simply be disregarded and actually permanently discarded to the dustbin of anthropology.

What is not needed are alcohol, other so called “recreational drugs” and sexist gender ideologies. A seducer who is sufficiently attractive can seduce almost any human being and so seduction is more difficult if the seducer is not considered sufficiently physically/aesthetically attractive. The good news however is that any human of any gender may use makeup and clothing to turn himself/herself far more sexually attractive. A female who uses makeup and sexualizing attire may thus typically turn herself say ten times more sexually attractive than without. Surprisingly to most is the same true for a male. A male primarily socio-sexually interested in females may thus easily turn himself say ten times more sexually attractive to females by means of makeup and sexually appealing attire such as tightly fitting items of clothing. A feminist seducer thus wishes to be perceived as beautiful in the eyes of the seduced beholder and hence invests in his/her own beauty. Indeed, the more beautiful the seducer, the simpler and faster becomes seduction.

The beautified and/or naturally beautiful seducer may therefore kiss the other person within a very short period of time, even within much less than a minute after commencement of approach. The seducer receives implicit consent for this by means of facial/body language even in the last second by the person thus being seduced. Kissing mouth-to-mouth is hence preceded by facial/body language completely affirming that the person being seduced indeed desires being kissed mouth-to-mouth and so the seducer needs to be confident enough to correctly decipher facial/body language. Hand-kissing and other forms of socio-sexually permissible tactile contact will typically serve to arouse desire for being kissed mouth-to-mouth. The feminist seducer should maintain eye contact with the seduced (provided that the person being seduced is not significantly visually impaired) so as to receive continuous implicit consent even in the very last second prior to the first kissing mouth-to-mouth.

Once mutually desired kissing mouth-to-mouth has taken place in public space is the next stage leaving together for another place appropriate for sex. A feminist seducer may wisely hold hands and show affection by other means of tactile contact while leaving together for that other location. Once there does the seducer continue to assert desire in a sexually attractive fashion. While some seducers are rude and this may unfortunately be psychologically effective in seduction for some persons, the feminist seducer is cognizant that it’s the roleplay of assertiveness on the part of the seducer that arouses the person thus being seduced and so there is really no need whatsoever for rudeness.

The feminist seducer seduces a person and not merely a gender or presumed ideological anatomy and recognizes that mutually appropriate seduction is typically a profound intersubjective experience of sharing carnal desire and mutual attraction with a fellow person. Feminist seduction therefore is about a mutual process of sharing carnal desire with a fellow person while always at every stage of the process appreciating the idiosyncratic personhood of that very unique individual.

In a future feminist society will therefore virtually every human person irrespective of gender or sex become perfectly capable of approaching and potentially seducing another human person – whom s/he is socio-sexually attracted towards – in a mutually permissible fashion that even if it leads to ultimate rejection is considered highly flattering indeed for both parties.

59. Deconstructing Heterosexualism

There is still a prevailing perception in secular/modern society that so called heterosexuality is what most human beings are. But is this actually true? Well, there are at least two elements to this.

The first element are social expectations such as gendered expectations for romantic infatuation, privileged relationships, socio-sexual cohabitation and marriage. By this standard are most human beings in secular/modern society so called “heterosexuals” in the sense that they socially endeavor to live up to heterosexualist social expections.

The second element relates to what kind of individual genders that we are actually individually attracted to. There are several levels to this, indeed a continuum or spectrum of attraction; including social attraction, physical attraction, aesthetic attraction, romantic attraction and sexual attraction. Virtually all human beings in secular/modern society are by that standard clearly bisexuals and this is true even if we limit this particular test to sexual attraction only as both genders and sexual anatomies are statistically continuums of gradual differentiation in degree with transgender people and intersexed persons in the middle of each respective spectrum. While one can certainly be attracted to a sexualized dichotomy, this is mere ideology and neither ideology nor ourselves control whom we are attracted to. It’s just beyond our intentional control.

The case of Swedish “galsex” (Swedish tjejsex) whereby most Swedish females have either participated in galsex (involving typically sexual activities involving at least two females identifying as “heterosexuals”) or are open to such potential participation clearly shows that so called “heterosexuality” is rather an originally religious social ideology of “heterosexualism” that puts forth social expectations as we simply do not control whom we are attracted to. It is just beyond our control and intersubjective attraction is furthermore not only about gender but many other cultural aspects (age, color of skin, social behavior and so on) are at play in interpersonal attraction, including in sexual interpersonal attraction.

The phenomenon of galsex (in which male partners may also participate) involving typically so called “heterosexual” females having either casual sex with each other or engaging in polyamory together with each other clearly shows that heterosexualism is not only a social ideology but also a certain mythology of desire. How reasonable is it really to describe Swedish females open to galsex as heterosexuals?

Well, socially “being” heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual is typically about having certain non-exclusive tendencies of desire at varying frequencies towards certain forms of embodied gender expression. Yet, virtually all so called “heterosexuals” and “homosexuals” are actually bisexuals if we consider that most human beings with varying frequency are not actually completely exclusively gendered in attraction to fellow human beings.

Why then are Swedish females identifying as “heterosexuals” typically open to galsex? While most females in secular/modern society have a distinctly negative recollection from their first instance of coitus with a male is the experience of galsex typically perceived by females in a positive light. The reason why Swedish females socially identifying as “heterosexuals” typically are open to galsex is that most human beings are not exclusively gendered in desire, neither with regard to interhuman attraction generally or with regard to interhuman sexual attraction specifically. Galsex is furthermore almost ubiquitous in commercial pornography and enjoys increasing social acceptance in Sweden and in other similarly secularized societies.

Same-sex sexual intercourse is similarly widespread and increasingly socially accepted in the male section of the gender-segregated American prison population as typically involving males identifying as so called “heterosexuals” having sexual intercourse with each other. This seems to be intrinsic to the American male prison subculture as this is not known to be so widespread in male prison cultures of (most or all) other countries. Convicted male criminal offenders in American prisons tend indeed to be sexually aroused by each other as American sexual interaction in prison between males typically involve penetrative sexual intercourse requiring erection.

The Swedish case of galsex and the American case of widespread penetrative sexual intercourse between male inmates therefore clearly show that heterosexualism is nothing more than a myth and an ideology as most human beings indeed are bisexuals in terms of not only attraction generally but also with regard to sexual attraction specifically.

Just as Swedish females typically on occasion freely engage in typically non-penetrative galsex whether as part of casual sex or polyamory – so is the still intense fear of being stigmatized as gay (Swedish bög) among Swedish males the only obstacle for Swedish males identifying as so called “heterosexuals” to similarly engage in same-sex sexual interaction whether for the purpose of casual sex or polyamory. While anal sex and deep-throating between males may be considered relatively more advanced and perhaps requiring somewhat more social intimacy is there no reason whatsoever why Swedish males should not engage in ordinary casual oral sex between males. A male may thus be socially interested primarily in females, yet could still engage in oral sex with fellow males as there is nothing unpleasant with ordinary oral sex between males although deep-throating and anal penetration may of course be somewhat painful indeed.

The salient point however is that virtually all human persons are bisexual in terms of interhuman individual attraction and the religio-ideological claims underpinning the social ideology of heterosexualism are therefore completely baseless. A heterosexual or homosexual lifestyle may or may not be based on tendencies in individually gendered attraction, however this is usually about social choice whether our own social choices or those made for us by sexually repressed society.

Although many claim to be “exclusively” heterosexual or “exclusively” homosexual in attraction to fellow human beings whether relating to attraction generally or sexual attraction specifically, these are unproven claims that typically express mere social desires – if you like wishful thinking – as these claims just cannot be proven. For example a male claiming to be “exclusively heterosexual” in attraction to fellow human beings may well that very day have been attracted to a passable transfemale or an intersexed person with an intimate anatomy that cannot be medically defined as either male or female. The purported existence of “exclusive heterosexuality” in terms of interhuman individual attraction as a purported biological phenomenon is therefore simply an unproven academic hypothesis from the 19th century. Not only is this not the norm in terms of attraction whether relating to attraction generally or sexual attraction specifically but the very existence of exclusively gendered desire is a theory that simply cannot be proven and therefore must be rejected as a religio-ideological construct indeed involving barely secularized Catholic conceptions of carnal desire.

Heterosexualism is therefore a social norm and not reflective of interhuman individual attraction whether relating to gendered attraction generally or sexually gendered attraction specifically. This is similar to the widespread desire for illegal intergenerational sexual relations involving perfectly legal attraction (including sexual attraction) yet certainly is not limited to an imaginary minority of desire. Just as perfectly legal intergenerational attraction (including sexual attraction) without legally proscribed sexual acts is not limited to a stigmatized imaginary community of desire and is indeed widespread (also pre-pubescent human beings as already Freud pointed out are also sexually attracted to adolescents and adults in addition to each other) – so is same-sex attraction certainly not limited to the LGBTQI community as gendered attraction may be more or less strongly focused in terms of tendencies yet are not and cannot be completely exclusively anatomically gendered in carnal desire which simply is beyond our own intentional control.

60. Prince of Dreams

Females in secular/modern society typically grow up with multiple advisors as how to constructively relate to males. This includes not only the journalists behind colorful magazines for adolescent females but also sisters, mothers, female friends etc. as females effectively train and coach each other as how to relate and behave towards males. Yet almost no one trains and coaches males as how to relate and constructively behave towards females. Females certainly don’t coach male friends; sons, brothers and other close male relatives as how to behave towards females and males usually do not coach each other in this regard either.

Females in secular/modern society now typically grow up with the socio-behavioral ideal of the princess and the socio-sexual ideal of the female pornstar. Females typically fervently wish to be seduced by a Prince of Dreams yet of course that seldom materializes.

While most males have behavioral problems to some degree or another as relating to excessive production of testosterone and this needs to be medically treated so as to bring down the production of testosterone in males; boys need to be raised towards the ideal of becoming Princes of Dreams both socially and sexually. Is this too much to ask for from males? It certainly is not an unreasonable demand and while not all males will be able to live up to that ideal, at least they deserve the chance of being given the appropriate upbringing, education, training and coaching to do so. (Personality disorders are overrepresented in males and certainly require gene therapy.)

Just as society teaches females how to behave towards males so needs society teach males how to behave towards females as currently almost no one does excepting the cynical pickup industry which offers techniques that to varying degrees are effective in socio-sexually manipulating and misleading human females. Teaching a boy to become a Prince of Dream is however not especially difficult and it certainly does not require misleading anyone. A male with an interest in intimate relationships with females therefore needs to internalize female expectations about male behavior toward females and not just for seduction but indeed throughout life. Once a male understands what exactly females expect from males does it also become psychologically easier to be constructively receptive to feminist critique. Criticism without constructive suggestions is however typically at best unhelpful.

Just as females grow up internalizing high ideals for their own social and sexual behaviors so need males become cognizant of what females quite reasonably expect from males. However, unless told how to behave towards females, how really can they be expected to behave well unless actually told what that means? The problem with feminism therefore are not the mostly justified, yet typically endless complaints but rather the apparent disinterest in providing constructive innovative solutions and in particular so with constructively educating males how to actually socially and sexually behave towards females.

A Prince of Dreams knows how to arouse desire, a Prince of Dream knows how to seduce and a Prince of Dreams is well aware that his quality as a person is completely reducible to how he behaves towards others. A Prince of Dreams is unselfish and knows how detect and realize intimate desires in females. A Prince of Dreams knows full well that contemporary females have high expectations both from themselves and from males and understands that it is part of his purpose in life to live up to those perfectly reasonable expectations. A Prince of Dream understands that this is not merely about “pickup” but indeed that those expectations apply to every minute throughout life.

A Prince of Dreams knows perfectly well how to behave towards females and is particularly skilled at reading female facial/body language including optical affirmation. The Prince of Dreams understands that his purpose in private life is to make females happy and not just during pickup but in every situation throughout life. A Prince of Dreams knows full well how to behave in every social situation precisely because he has been extensively educated, trained and coached how to do so. A Prince of Dreams knows the difference between redundantly gendered behavior and the limits of constructive social engagement. A Prince of Dreams thinks of himself as a kind of sex worker without charge whose purpose in life is to make females happy.

A Prince of Dreams knows that virtually every female in secular/modern society expects him and knows when to abide by rules and when to break them as indeed rules tend to have exceptions. A Prince of Dreams is not an emotional deceiver but understands that his own value to females is reducible to his own social and sexual behaviors, not just during one night but during every night and day throughout his life.

Very few males will spontaneously become Princes of Dreams and so becoming a Prince of Dreams is a lifelong vocation that requires constant devotion to this calling. Princes of Dreams are therefore usually educated, trained and coached to become so and know exactly what is expected from them. Every feminist of any gender or sex should conversely see it as her/his task to educate, train and coach boys and men to become Princes of Dreams. Not that every male will succeed in becoming a Prince of Dreams but at least should he be given the chance to become one. Just as females train and coach each other for gendered socio-sexual engagement so should females train and coach males for this purpose as well.

Feminism therefore needs to evolve from merely producing endless complaints to proactively training boys and men how to practically behave towards females. Mere production of discourse is therefore not nearly sufficient as male social behavior needs to be drastically changed by means of training boys and men to become Princes of Dreams. This is realistic and certainly very much possible but requires feminism to evolve from a merely reactive mode to a predominantly proactive mode. Rather than merely pointing out error in males ought feminism encourage extensive feminist education of males towards becoming Princes of Dreams.

A Prince of Dream is well aware that most male behaviors are simply rude and lowly and understands that both males and females need to commit to exquisitely feminine conduct in both social and sexual engagement. A Prince of Dreams understands that the attraction in seduction is simply a roleplay on the BDSM spectrum and that although the attraction in being seduced is about being dominated – the Prince of Dreams must nevertheless never abuse his privileges as a seducer but must treat females exquisitely well. A Prince of Dreams understands that truly noble behavior is about endeavoring to treat others exquisitely well and although this does not always succeed due to hostility from yet other persons, the Prince of Dreams therefore does endeavor to treat every female exquisitely well irrespective of whether he is attracted to her or not. While the Prince of Dreams is aristocratic and indeed royal in his exquisite social refinement, he is nevertheless not a classist and does not look down on others but rather seeks to be a role model for yet others.

A Prince of Dream knows how to exquisitely dominate a female into making her sexually aroused, yet he does not take advantage of this for selfish purposes of sexually or economically exploiting her (such as through unpaid domestic labor) but understands that his very purpose in life is to produce happiness in females. A Prince of Dreams would not even consider having sexual intercourse with a female without her first being sexually aroused. A Prince of Dreams knows that his purpose in life is to realize the most intimate desires and yearnings in the depth of the hearts of females. A Prince of Dreams knows how to exquisitely dominate but he also knows that her social happiness and sexual satisfaction are also his own very social limits.

A Prince of Dreams therefore knows that he has extensive freedom of social and sexual action for as long as he does not violate her personhood or cause her to become unhappy. A Prince of Dreams understands that her happiness and her satisfaction is his calling in life. A Prince of Dreams knows that the alternative to being noble and refined is being a lowly and selfish human who only thinks about himself. A Prince of Dreams knows that unselfish behavior is the golden path to social happiness and sexual satisfaction. A Prince of Dreams is an educated feminist who is extensively trained in feminist social and sexual behavior and understands perfectly well that being a human male does not need and importantly ought not mean being a selfish and lowly person.

61. Raising the Feminist Subject

The feminist subject is not merely a topic but indeed a vision for how a human being ought to be and indeed become. The question that therefore needs to be raised is precisely how to raise the feminist human being, indeed how to raise children into feminist human beings. This is not merely about making fe/males believe in the future of feminism but rather about how to raise children into human beings with feminist socio-psychological standards. The task of feminism is not actually to make males feel bad about themselves for not living up to lofty feminist ideals but rather how to transform humans and cure them from masculinist psychopathology.

Then who and what is the feminist subject? A futuristic feminist subject is a human being who is the mistress of her own destiny. However, the feminist subject is not the selfish homo economicus of masculinist economic academic discourse. In fact, the feminist subject does take care of her own interests but she understands that selfishness leads to unhappiness and that selfishness itself is precisely part of masculinist psychopathology. Unless you help yourself, how can you help others?

The feminist subject may have female anatomy, male anatomy or intersexed anatomy. The feminist subject may be cognitively female, cognitively male or transgendered. The feminist subject is not an anatomical sex and it is definitely not a gender. The feminist subject is rather a product of feminist upbringing and feminist socialization. The feminist subject is to some degree an illegitimate philosophical daughter of Friedrich Nietzsche for the feminist subject is the supergirl herself, not a fictional product of American comic books but actually a flesh and blood human being.

Social, sexual and aesthetic ideals for female human beings are constantly raised to even loftier levels in secular/modern society while the corresponding ideals for males are lagging far behind, indeed over half a century behind. The feminist subject however does not recognize those antiquated males as the social norm as the feminist subject is herself the coming human norm, indeed the norm of the feminist future.

The feminist subject is the mistress of her own destiny in every conceivable respect as she is precisely raised to become so. The feminist subject therefore is a mistress of seduction as she masters everything; indeed every aspect and every stage of the process and art of seduction. The feminist subject is not afraid of instantly becoming an entrepreneur and she does not allow herself to be either guided or misguided by fear for she recognizes that fear is a faulty compass in life. If the feminist subject wants something, then she knows how to get it and fully legally so. The feminist subject does not think inside box for she has been raised, educated and trained to think innovatively and precisely so outside the box. The feminist subject despises paradigms and she is precisely fearless because that is how she is raised. The feminist subject is confident in her ability to develop her own brain and she does not think like a slave. The feminist subject thinks in the future for the future is created and realized here and now.

The feminist subject fears not and even if she feared she would not let herself to become a victim of fears, whether her own or those of others. The feminist subject rejects sexual repression with scorn. When she wants to become intimate with someone she knows what she wants and she knows how to get it. The feminist subject may be a domme or a sub in the process of seduction for she decides herself. The feminist subject does not fear being stigmatized as a “slut” as she considers that as a badge of honor. The feminist subject does not merely critique the present as she is in control of her own agency in creating the future here and now. The feminist subject does not merely criticize the failings of males as she daily remakes herself into what she desires to become, indeed acts as role model for others. It is precisely by being a supergirl and therefore admirable to most that she becomes so powerful in having others following her example.

An individual feminist subject may be a victim but she does not identify as such as she rejects with scorn most identities as deficient products of Master-Slave Mentality which of course itself is an outcome of Master-Slave Morality. The feminist subject may have identities (i.e. whether ethico-politically relevant) but she is not a slave of her own identities and she herself is precisely not an identity. Rather, the feminist subject is someone who is daring and is not afraid to lead by example into the feminist future. The feminist subject rejects with utter disdain the notion of being a slave of a gendered role. She vehemently rejects that and so picks and chooses what she finds ethico-politically and socially useful in variously gendered social roles in various cultures, indeed not only cultures of humans but cultures of non-human persons as well.

The feminist subject certainly is daring and therefore also a darling as she instantly invokes the admiration of others. The feminist subject is not afraid to be beautiful but she recognizes that beauty is not merely an aesthetic condition but also a state of being for she recognizes and makes others recognize the beauty of feminist agency, indeed the agency of supergirl.

The feminist subject rejects with scorn and impatience approaches in feminism that fail to be transformative or misguidedly adopt sexual repression as a political tool despite the fact that the sexual revolution during the course of the 20th century was very much a product of feminism and feminist sexual agency. The feminist subject is certainly not uncritical of contemporary sexuality but views sexual revolution not merely as a means of liberating currently existing sexualities but furthermore as a messianic process of welcoming the feminist transformation of sexual desire and sexual practice into feminist ritual group/mass sex.

The feminist subject therefore inaugurates the feminist future and she does so precisely by her utter fearlessness. The feminist subject recognizes problems as opportunities and she has been raised to think precisely so. If she wants to start a business, she will do so; if she wants to seduce a male, a female or someone else will she precisely do so; if she wants to solve a problem by innovation, then she will do so; if wants to to change society she will do so by leading by example. The feminist subject is eschatology herself for she will not rest by complaint but will take action in order so as to herself be and become the change itself. The feminist subject does not await the realization of eschatology for she does not wait for someone else, indeed she does not wait but takes action here and now.

The feminist subject however is not alone and her vision is to turn every human being into a supergirl. The feminist subject is not afraid of the male body and she is not afraid of strategically changing it and not only by means of discourse but also by means of feminist medical and eugenic intervention. The feminist subject is not afraid of being or becoming the supergirl and she is not concerned by conventional expectations of purported “realism”. Indeed she rejects “realist” fearmongers with scorn and impatience for she does not fear altering and developing the human body itself.

The feminist subject is however not a standard or an agency of standardization as she precisely rejects the ontology and epistemology of the present as already belonging to the past. The feminist subject is rather precisely the agency of the future as she makes it her own task to precisely transform the present into the telos of the future. The feminist subject does not allow herself to become intellectually enslaved by founders of discursivity for she rejects the thinking of paradigm itself. Not that she is prejudiced against founders of discursivity, but it is rather that she is the mistress of her own intellectual journey of social change.

Indeed, she is not a mistress of the present but rather the mistress of her own future and therefore also of her own journey into the future. The feminist subject is not afraid of opinions or prejudice of others whether gendered or otherwise for she rejects with impatience redundantly gendered limitations of the present in making herself the change itself. Indeed, the feminist subject embodies the change itself.

Then back to the present, how do we fashion human beings of all genders into supergirls? To begin with, the conventional system of education must become comprehensively transformed and feminist education must rather endeavor to give a tailored education to each young person and the challenge is not for so called “adults” to control and manipulate young persons, including by repression of what Freud described as “infantile polymorphous perversion”. Comprehensive feminist education must rather endeavor to identify and strengthen the inherent strengths and thus potentials in each student and help her fashion herself into an agent of not only her own future but the futures of others as well.

Children of all genders must similarly be raised to become feminist subjects in their own right, indeed supergirls. Feminist upbringing and education precisely needs to reject social constructions known as “adulthood” as the proprietors of the patriarchal present. Indeed the etymology of the originally Greek term “patriarchy” invokes not only gender but age as well. Feminist upbringing and feminist education therefore do not endeavor to socialize young persons into becoming subordinated under the patriarchal present but rather encourage them to become their own agents of social change and therefore rejects power structures of gender and age.

Conventional education is indeed an ageist caste system whereby young persons are forcibly (indeed with much psychological coercion) socialized into the patriarchal present. Feminist education rejects with scorn and disdain oppressive epistemologies of age as half of the patriarchal equation is gender and the other half is age. Comprehensive feminist education is indeed extremely ambitious in endeavoring to help each human person irrespective of age or gender developing into a supergirl in her own right. Feminist education helps each student socially transcend redundant social limitations whether those are gendered, aged, taxonomized or otherwise. Feminist education is not an agency of the present but indeed a harbinger of the feminist future which does not at all resemble the patriarchal ideology of the present.

The feminist educator rejects with scorn and impatience the notion that fashioning human beings into supergirls is somehow “unrealistic”. Indeed, to the degree that the human body is an obstacle to feminist eschatology need human bodies (actually mostly male bodies) become altered by means of feminist medical and eugenic intervention. The feminist educator is not afraid of the human body and is furthermore not afraid of feminist biological change whether medical, genetic, hormonal or otherwise as indeed part of the liberal-democratic toolbox of the comprehensive feminist revolution.

The feminist subject is therefore also an educator by example as she leads by example and does not allow herself to be restricted or held back by the prejudice of others. The feminist subject is a leader by choice rather than by selection by others. Indeed the feminist subject leads precisely by deciding to do so. The will to power of the feminist subject is not a will domineer or tyrannize but rather a willingness to herself inaugurate the change itself by leading by example.

The feminist subject therefore rejects the patriarchal discursive structures of age as redundant antics of the patriarchal present. The feminist subject does not only reject human sexual repression but she embodies the very feminist reappropriation of sexual diversity itself and its transformation into revolutionary feminist sexuality of feminist ritual group/mass sex. The feminist subject is unconcerned by the self-appointed guardians of the patriarchal present precisely as she is indeed the change itself and by raising the feminist subject (topic) does she therefore raise herself to a higher level. By raising children of all genders into supergirls does she not only raise children to a much higher level than the present but she raises indeed the standards of the future itself.

62. Spine of Seduction

So called dating coaches range from behaviorally conservative males training fellow males to behave “like gentlemen” towards females to outwardly seemingly sexist pickup artists who do however tend to be much more socially transformative with regard to transforming unhelpfully redundant gender roles. One of the things that they have in common however is that they teach binary gender asymmetry as a social ideology. This means in practice that they teach males social tricks as how to behave in a manner that will curry favor with females while claiming that this manner is “masculinity” when in fact it is learning the performance of assertively mild social dominance.

This is indeed similar to how colorful magazines catering to adolescent females teach their readership how to curry favor with males by means of gender-asymmetric social behavior. Of course neither industry is even the slightest knowledgeable in academic gender science, including how socially assertive females successfully curry socio-sexual favor with males as well as how one gains same-sex approval by means of mildly dominant, socially assertive behavior for the purpose of seduction.

The question that dating coaches answer in so many ways is therefore how males ought to behave towards females in order to gain their socio-sexual approval. The most simple answer to that question is the golden rule, namely how would you like to be treated and not be treated if you were the one who was being seduced? Of course this is to some degree individual and idiosyncratic yet the golden rule offers a general rule of the thumb provided that you understand that there are differences in socially constructed anatomy, in socially constructed typically gendered expectations, hormonal differences affecting social behaviors as well as individual cognitive profiles such as types of personality.

The male who doesn’t know how to constructively relate and behave towards females because nobody taught him so when he grew up should answer himself the following question: How ought an assertive female who actually is not really “my ideal type” relate and behave towards me in order to get me into bed? Subquestions to this include: What kind of conversation should she deploy in order to turn me on and sexually arouse me? What does it take for her to get me into bed? What would I perceive as hot and attractive in her social behavior towards me? What would I perceive as seductive and what would I consider as turnoff in her potential social behavior towards me? In short how: How should she act in order to curry socio-sexual approval with me and subsequently seduce me? Of course this refers to a hypothetical encounter but these questions are nevertheless highly useful as an intellectual exercise in understanding the socially, psychologically and sexually asymmetric positions of the person being approached as opposed to the person approaching.

The confused heterosexualist male therefore needs to put himself in the position of the person being seduced and simply ask himself how he himself would prefer to be treated if he were the one who was being seduced? What then would it typically require? First, she would have to be assertive (i.e. mildly dominant). She could do this in a either crude or sophisticated manner yet what matters is that she exhibits spine because that is what will turn him on and enjoy being seduced. Being seduced by a hitherto unknown, yet seductively determined female is such an unlikely event for most males that they have not ever considered those questions but have rather simplistically assumed that men are from Mars and women are from Venus as per contemporary hegemonic gender ideology.

How should she touch him? Well, in a manner that will not offend him but rather in ways that will turn him on and subsequently serve to sexually arouse him. How should she converse him? Well, in a manner that will turn him on and subsequently sexually arouse him. How should she escalate the process of seduction? Well, in a way that will turn him on and subsequently sexually arouse him. What then will turn him on and subsequently sexually arouse him? The most important thing is for her to exhibit spine while at the same time relating and behaving towards him in manner that is based on understanding his typically asymmetric emotional position. She might act crudely, but being dialogically sophisticated is far more likely to be successful.

Of course all this would be much easier if she were his “idealized type of female” but she is not as she is just a random female who was turned on by his physical appearance and therefore simply seeks to seduce him. Public seduction therefore is generally easier if the seducer is considered as physically highly attractive by the person being seduced, however being considered as highly physically attractive is not sufficient for a seducer as the seducer typically must consistently show spine in order to succeed in seduction. A seducer “with spine” who is considered physically unattractive is therefore much more likely to “get laid” than a highly physically attractive seducer “without spine”.

Once it becomes clear that seduction is not about gender does gender-asymmetric seduction cease to be misunderstood as ostensibly prohibitively difficult. This is why same-sex seduction is typically much easier because there is no towering, intimidating “berlin wall of gender” socio-psychologically producing gender distance/spacing between two persons. Exhibiting and having “spine” is indeed what characterizes the socio-sexual subject and although things like looks, verbal skills and social competence certainly do help; producing attraction and ultimately succeeding with seduction is fundamentally about having and indeed exhibiting “spine”.

Seduction is of course not the only way to become intimate with a fellow person. For gay males is public seduction typically not necessary at all as initiating sexual relations with an hitherto unknown fellow male more or less loosely affiliated with the LGBTQI community while cruising in a public park may typically only requiring just saying so. For lesbians however is it typically essential to get into the so called “friend-zone” that is so feared by males in heterosexualist subcultures. For lesbians is friendship the golden gate to seduction while for the unimaginative, misogynistic male this ostensibly closes down his options with her as he does not know how to turn her on and subsequently sexually arouse her without taking advantage of her typically extremely high romantic expectations.

The friend-zone therefore is so feared precisely because males in secular/modern culture tend to be socio-sexually incompetent and simply do not know how to turn on and subsequently sexually arouse a close female friend. Dating coaches for some reason have no advice to offer in this regard and incredulously believe that gender-asymmetric friendship cannot conceivably turn erotic. The bizarre assumption is thus that a female cannot reasonably be turned on by a mildly dominant close male friend. If he “cannot” turn her on and subsequently sexually arouse her is it probably because he is socio-sexually incompetent and simply does not know how to turn on and subsequently sexually arouse her by means of conversational, social, tactile and optical engagement.

There tends indeed to be an erotic emotional dimension underlying many friendships IRL whether these relationships are gender-asymmetric or same-sex. Lesbian seduction is indeed the art of developing friendship as a platform for eventual seduction. The virtually always ideologically heterosexualist dating coaches with their outdated reactionary ideologies of behavioral gender-asymmetry therefore seem to have no interest whatsoever in the experiences and insights of members of the LGBTQI community with respect to the art and science of seduction.

One social reason why same-sex seduction tends to not take place in public space may likely be because members of the LGBTQI community may feel less comfortable performing public seduction due to the fear of homophobic, biphobic and transphobic harassment on the part of bigots passing by. Heterosexualist dating coaches however have really very much to learn from females who seduce fellow females and importantly ought it be pointed out that female-female seduction is far from limited to the LGBTQI community as female-female seduction in the form of galsex is widespread not only in mainstream pornograpby but also importantly IRL.

The key to unraveling the secrets of seduction is therefore the golden rule while taking into account various relevant social differences between two or more persons. It should however be kept in mind that taking into account individual social differences, certainly applies to same-sex seduction as well. Love is about telepathically sharing feelings with each other so that one experiences the emotions of the other person as one’s own feelings. Seduction therefore is a process of emotional synchronization whereby after some time of conversational, social, tactile and optical engagement two (or more) persons simply more or less desire the same things. It is wise for seduction to be allowed to take its time as relatively longer seduction as well as more more intense conversational/social/tactile/optical engagement is conducive to more advanced emotional synchronization. Indeed, too hasty seduction may lead to insufficient emotional synchronization, meaning that the sexual engagement commences at a point where emotional synchronization is not sufficiently advanced. This may result in a situation where the seducer has not learned to truly appreciate the personhood of the person being seduced and the seduced person may conversely be fundamentally unsatisfied with the ensuing sexual experience.

One essential insight from same-sex seduction is therefore that the friendzone is contrary to perceived heterosexualist opinion perfect indeed for seduction. Some might counter that this applies only to same-sex seduction, yet why should it and how could it possibly? Seduction is precisely not about gender and gender-asymmetric ideologies typically make the process of seduction more difficult to comprehend and master due to social mystification of purported and/or actual difference in typical psychological gender.

Female-female seduction typically takes place in the private space of the home of at least one of the females. Emotional synchronization has typically progressed much further thanks to the much misunderstood “friendzone”, i.e. the development of more profound interpersonal rapport as well as mutual appreciation of idiosyncratic personhood. Female-female seduction is therefore typically much more socio-sexually intelligent in achieving a far more advanced degree of emotional synchronization than is typically the case in the typically dishonest and manipulative heterosexualist seduction.

Canadian-American Owen Cook, known in the pickup artistry community under the name “Tyler” and who is the owner of the California-based Real Social Dynamics Inc. typically tells his working-class adult male adolescent audiences in vulgar speeches subsequently made public on Youtube that most of the females he sleeps with (he states that he sleeps with a different female every night) are not “girlfriend material”, meaning that he is essentially so to speak “prostituting himself” by sleeping with females whose respective idiosyncratic personhoods he neither likes nor appreciates. This is indeed a typical example of insufficient emotional synchronization.

In the global intelligence community where functional bisexuality is the expected social norm for field agents of seduction as virtually always powered by cocaine, the prevailing opinion is that seduction ought to happen within a timespan as short as possible. However, the goal for agents of seduction is typically sexual entrapment whereby the victim is extorted to become a spy or an agent for the intelligence agency in question. As the global intelligence community has become increasingly dystopian in recent decades is the organized prostitution in the intelligence community for the purpose of extortion by means sexual entrapment hardly a good guide for wise and feminist seduction. Most entrapment agents have in recent decades been enslaved prostituted decoys as deliberately drugged with cocaine and who were involuntarily made “sexually available” for the intended purpose of agent/spy recruitment by means of extortion by sexual entrapment. Most but not all of these enslaved decoys have been females and many have been legal minors of varying ages.

A more profound interpersonal experience however typically requires more advanced emotional synchronization. While the process of seduction can be made more intensively interpersonal such as without disturbing distractions, a prolonged process of seduction is especially beneficial indeed if the intention is not merely casual sex but rather either coupling or enlightened polyamory. However, even casual sex certainly tends to become far more joyous if there is a greater degree of emotional synchronization for the simple reason that sexual engagement itself certainly tends to become more interesting if the persons involved desire the same things, meaning that emotional synchronization is far more progressed.

Anyone of any gender who is interested in learning how to inspire females into having sexual relations ought therefore study how females seduce each other, whether inside the LGBTQI community or as part of ordinary galsex. A more intelligent alternative to the one-night-stand culture of the pickup artistry community is therefore expanding ethical polyamory whereby one builds an increasingly expanding network of polyamorous partners in love. This means letting seduction take its time so as to grow optimal emotional synchronization. It also means socially and creatively so embracing that so feared so called “friendzone” as an opportunity indeed for optimizing emotional synchronization and therefore also sexual synchronization which combined are the highway to mutual interpersonal appreciation of idiosyncratic personhood.

63. Feminist Social Behavioral Training

Feminism is famous for its usually justified complaints about structural male misbehaviors. However, complaints without constructive suggestions tend to be much less effective. If you need to get rid of a specific social phenomenon, then you probably need to supplant it with something else.

Feminist SBT (Social Behavioral Training) is not just needed in the system of education but indeed throughout society. It is needed in places of work and spouses/partners certainly need it for their marriages/relationships to last. The beginning of feminist SBT is therefore about making conscious the typically structural character of socially redundant individual gendered behavior.

Once the person participating in feminist SBT realizes that his behavior is a structural expression rather than an individual one does he no longer need to be a slave under a socially reactionary gender role. Once he realizes that most masculine behaviors are lowly and crude and that most female behaviors are sophisticated and exquisite will he probably wish to become more behaviorally sophisticated so as to more successfully communicate with females and others.

Successful feminist SBT therefore needs to motivate participants by helping them understand that improved gender behaviors are indeed a win-win solution. Most males misbehave for the simple reason that they have not been taught how to behave and feminism has unfortunately done very little to impact education.

Feminist SBT therefore needs to help participants to understand that they can themselves redesign their own genders and gender roles. This is not merely an expression of the understanding that genders and gender roles are socially constructed but indeed helping participants become mistresses/masters of their own lives in deliberately redesigning their genders and gender roles into becoming more behaviorally sophisticated and constructively so. Many females and many members of the LGBTQI community already do this to a significant extent by means of primping, including by having different gender roles on different days as depending on the aesthetic style used on a particular day. However, redesigning one’s gender role can also affect social behavior to a far more profound degree and one may therefore electively and selectively so pick and choose social behaviors and modes of thinking from different genders (female, male and others) from many different cultures, including from cultures of non-human persons.

Feminist SBT therefore needs to train participants in redesigning gendered behaviors by making them understand that they can deliberately decide this by themselves rather than merely mindlessly continuing unhelpfully gendered behavior usually imitatively acquired in childhood. Feminist SBT therefore needs to teach male participants how to engage in individualizing primping just as females already learn this from an early age. Just as gendered behaviors are typically acquired at early age so can one simply by decision get rid of gendered behaviors that are unhelpful, redundant and/or oppressive.

Feminist SBT is mostly about changing male gendered behaviors but some female gendered behaviors certainly need to change as well, including destructive behaviors among and between females and female nominal consent to sexist interaction with males. What therefore needs to be made conscious is not only the non-individual, socially constructed and culturally structural nature of gender but also how it can be individually redesigned and how one may deploy differently gendered behaviors in different social contexts and indeed on different days.

Feminist SBT is thus both group therapy and education in individualizing primping engineering, meaning that participants are taught to de-collectivize and indeed individualize gendered behaviors and modes of thinking by becoming mistresses/masters of their own genders and gender roles by selectively and syncretistically remaking their own gendered internal thinking and therefore also individual gendered expression. What kind of person do I wish to be? What should I ditch in my current gendered social expression and gendered psychological behavior? These are crucial questions and feminist SBT should help participants redesign themselves into becoming whom they wish to be. Gendered behavior is in fact often a kind of unhelpful, accidentally acquired socio-psychological behavior that has been adopted without much thought and whose consequences have rarely if at all been considered as it is usually taken for granted and is typically not individually questioned at all.

Feminist SBT is therefore certainly not about making participants feel bad about themselves and their respective individual histories of unhelpfully gendered social interaction but is rather about empowering them and irrespective of anatomical sex and preexisting genders turn them into feminist subjects indeed. Not only need participants be made aware that prior unhelpfully gendered social behavior and underlying unhelpfully gendered modes of thinking can be neurologically de-automatized, but they need to be assisted into remaking themselves into whom they wish to be by means of intensive feminist SBT. One effective way for achieving this is by elective imitation. This means that imitation (culture is mass imitation) can be elective rather than unthinkingly collectivized. Yet this also means that new subcultures can be created for newly innovatively designed gender expressions.

As one major challenge in the emerging politics of the future is how to achieve increasing individualization of society is the individualization of social, psychological and aesthetic gender expression indeed very much part of this challenge. It is therefore very much essential that empowerment in individual gender engineering is truly understood as a benefit and indeed substantial enrichment of the life of the participating individual person.

Feminist behavioral training therefore needs to train participants irrespective of anatomical sex to become feminist subjects in every aspect and dimension of life whether with regard to love/seduction, work/career, individualized expression/thinking or innovation/entrepreneurship. The agenda of feminist behavioral training is therefore not only about undoing sexism, masculinism and misogyny but turning all participants irrespective of anatomical sex into feminist subjects in their own right. One important tool for this is by enacting, filming and watching role play. Feminist SBT therefore is about making conscious unhelpfully collectivized social structures of behavior, thinking, reaction and everyday gendered role play.

Once self-awareness is increased, both about how one currently is and how one wishes to become can individual engineering of gender expression commence. This is already informally done by many people in the LGBTQI community including especially many transgender people as well as of course by primping females. However, gender engineering certainly needs to develop further innovatively effective scientific methods that will aid in the increasing individualization of gendered modes of thinking and therefore also of gendered social expressions.

64. End of Man

How exactly can the male psychopathology be ended? This is a question that feminism has rarely seriously endeavored to answer in depth and so the question certainly needs to be posed what kind role human males should have in the visionary feminist future?

Some feminists might certainly argue that there should no human males at all in the feminist future and that high tech human reproduction should take place without any males participating. However, there is no question that Man as we currently know them must end. Human males are indeed primarily needed for human reproduction although they could also have a role as feminist sex workers. One possible solution would be for human males generally to be surgically altered into shemales prior to the onset of puberty. They could potentially be given a new vagina as grown in an industrial laboratory and the phallus in non-erect state would be hidden in a surgically created fold in the skin. The purpose of this would indeed be to end both male gender and male culture.

However, it could reversely be argued that feminist eugenics should endeavor to produce cognitively exceptional males who would constitute an increasingly small proportion of all human births. Since there are certainly genetic issues at play within sexism, masculinism and misogyny are males clearly needed for reproductive purposes of feminist eugenics. Also there would be nothing wrong with feminist Princes of Dreams who would exhibit near perfection in terms of gendered behaviors towards females. It could therefore be argued that females who typically at an early age envision the arrival of the Prince of Dreams are messianic prophetesses indeed. Awaiting the arrival of the Prince of Dream is therefore not entirely dissimilar from awaiting the redemptive Messiah (Hebrew Mashiach).

Not only the question of eschatology but eschatology itself therefore needs to be reappropriated by feminism. What if feminism were to be reconceived as eschatology itself? What if feminism were to reinvent itself as the high tech return to human nature; namely once more becoming nymphomaniacal gynocentric herbivores living surrounded by dense green forests? Indeed the Bonobos (“Gracile Chimpanzees” and the closest living relatives of humans) still live this way and feminist leadership thus needs to show the path away from male psychopathology towards return to human nature in its original natural condition.

However, let’s nevertheless once more make clear that Man as we now know them must end completely. Many human males act like parasitoids in parasitically enslaving females, non-human persons and human children while working overtime in destroying life on this planet. Manhood therefore needs to be recognized as the very physionomistic psychopathology that it truly is and that clearly needs to be treated by means of both feminist medicine and feminist eugenics. Both medicine and eugenics are therefore essential indeed to the cause of feminist eschatology.

However, the question of feminist eschatology also opens the question of feminist religion that would not be based on premises that cannot be proven but that would rather be visionary and unlimited by paradigm. Feminist eschatology could therefore also be conceived of as not merely awaiting but ensuring and paving the paths towards the very messianic arrival of the Prince of Dreams.

Feminism typically imitates male ideologies such as Liberalism, Marxism, Humanism and Ecosophy. This is why there is such tremendous diversity in contemporary feminism and precisely because there is so much diversity in feminist imitation of male ideologies. Rather than imitating male ideologies ought feminism instead spearhead the path to the feminist future by means of intellectual and technological innovation.

The End of Man will not be achieved by stereotypically imitating Para-Christian male replacement ideologies but it needs to be clear that feminism is a revolutionary movement, not in the sense of seeking an urban uprising in the cities of liberal democracies but rather in embracing intellectual and technological innovation towards the End of Man. Feminism needs to embrace the body and femininity in chartering the course towards a society that would seek the marginalization and ultimate elimination of physionomism such as sexism (discrimination against females), masculinism (derogation of the feminine) and misogyny (hatred against females).

Achieving the End of Man therefore requires embracing intellectual and technological innovation for feminist purposes rather than continuing mindless imitation of mindless male ideologies that were never designed for the purpose of promoting the interests of human females. Not that those imitations don’t serve an important political purpose in changing those male ideologies from within but it is rather that it is completely insufficient from the perspective of the feminist revolution of morals. This should not be meant to infer that it is somehow wrong to be influenced by Friedrich Nietzsche, Jacques Derrida or other innovative anatomically male thinkers but rather that deconstructive adoption and indeed deconstructive adaptation of notions of male thinkers need to happen both electively and selectively as opposed to merely modifying stereotypical systems of male thinking including those founded on stereotypical thinking such as phallogocentrism and phonocentrism.

While male eschatology has historically been conceived of as the Eschatology of Man, feminist eschatology should in contrast endeavor to achieve the End of Man as we currently know them. To endeavor to end all human males would however be both genocidal and physionomistic as it is perfectly sufficient to increasingly reduce the proportion of male births as well as medically treat; raise, educate and train males from an early age into becoming Princes of Dreams. To put it differently, it is sufficient to medically and eugenically eliminate male psychopathology as well as ensure that human males of all ages are given the chance of evolving into feminist Princes of Dreams.

The End of Man is thus in a certain sense the opposite of the Eschatology of Man in using effective means towards eliminating that very male psychopathology that clearly needs to end. Feminist eschatology however should precisely not be based on vague hopes but should rather meticulously plan both the feminist revolution of morals as well as the essential politico-societal transition to the feminist high tech future.

65. Feminist Cruising

Cruising as a term is mostly used in the context of gay and bisexual males seeking intimate contact with each other in public space and typically so in public parks that serve as popular cruising grounds. This is typically highly informal as participants usually simply explicitly ask each other whether they would indeed like to engage in sexual intercourse.

However, lesbian and bisexual females cruise too although usually this is regarded by both participants and onlookers as mere female socializing. Females conversing and hugging each other in public space is considered so perfectly normal in secular/modern culture that it really does not raise any eyebrows at all unless of course one of the participants is visibly transfemale in which case she virtually always risks socio-sexual harassment from cis-males who are simply offended (and often feeling “involuntarily” sexually aroused) by her very existence as well as being socio-sexually envious of her rich social life with fellow females in public space.

It is interesting that pickup coaches for males typically encourage males to engage in lesbian-style cruising complete with intra-female behaviors such as friendly, socially accepted hugging/touching. Yet for some reason these dating coaches seem to believe that they have invented something new when this is naturally performed between females as part of female gender roles. In essence do they encourage males to engage in lesbian-style cruising and should I add rightly so although this is disguised in gender-asymmetric discourse as pretending that females and males are somehow each other’s asymmetrically essentialist mental opposites. This of course is both laudable and ridiculous. It is laudable in the sense that they in so called “bootcamps” (actually taking place in downtown streets as well as in nightclubs and similar establishments) do coach males in lesbian-style cruising but also ridiculous of course in claiming that this is about gender asymmetry or even that this was somehow invented by males!

Virtually all humans are bisexual to varying degrees in terms of whom they are turned on by. This means that a person in an extreme case could be statistically measured as 99,99% heterosexual, yet not completely so and although we all have social desires we do not control whom we are attracted to, including when those feelings are experienced as “involuntary” or as in the case of sexualized homophobia/biphobia/transphobia as “unwanted desire”. However, most humans are not at the extremes of the bisexual spectrum but rather somewhere in between. Females in highly secularized open societies are typically nowadays quite open to galsex (Swedish tjejsex), meaning typically sex between cis-females identifying as so called “heterosexuals”. The fact that female-female galsex is nearly ubiquitous in mainstream so called “heterosexual pornography” has certainly contributed to the increasing social normalization of galsex, a phenomenon that like Lesbian cruising even lacks a specific term in English.

A skilled male heterocultural pickup artist does lesbian-style pickup in order to turn on and sexually arouse females by means of engaging in lesbian-style socio-sexual behaviors towards females and this sometimes includes the kind of subtly mean social behaviors (so called “negging”) which females frequently display towards each other for the purpose of maintaining social pecking order of perceived attractiveness. Male heterocultural pickup artists therefore are essentally dragqueens in terms of their socio-sexual behaviors in approaching, flirting, huggging/touching and seducing females. Advanced male heterocultural pickup artists typically also primp in accordance with what is relatively more likely to curry favor among females and so this may include both makeup and tight clothing items, including in terms of male fashion sometimes with atypical colors as deliberately devised to increase female attraction.

Male heterocultural pickup artistry is therefore a certain cultural appropriation of lesbian cruising which as it happens indeed does not even have a gender specific term for it. While male heterocultural pickup artistry is nominally taught in the name of sexism is it actually rather laudable in that they indeed teach lesbian-style cruising to males. One reason why males typically find this so difficult to learn is that this involves genderswitching, namely changing gender in accordance with different social situations. While genderswitching is completely socially normalized among females who can choose and design their gender of the day, including by complementing colors, fashion, odors, hairstyles and makeup; heterocultural males are in contrast not socially used to genderswitching at all and are probably subconsciously rather afraid of being shamed for socio-sexually acting like females and dragqueens. Furthermore are they in virtually all cases almost completely unaware that they actually do engage in a heterocultural appropriation of lesbian cruising and dragqueen social roles. Considering that they are unaware of what they are actually doing in terms of subcultural mimicry is it not particularly surprising that they typically feel confused and experience severe emotional difficulty in appropriating LGBTQI social behaviors as heterocultural males.

Of course, these heterocultural coaches catering to heterocultural males are completely and indeed bizarrely so unaware of anything relating to academic gender studies, including feminist theory and queer theory. However, it is extremely likely that it would be much easier for heterocultural persons of any gender to learn lesbian-style pickup and dragqueen/dragking social behaviors were they to understand what it is that they are actually doing. It is possible and perhaps even likely that many heterocultural males would not be ready to spend large sums on training and self-help materials were they to become aware that they are actually learning to imitate dragqueens and lesbians since that does not really require any coaching at all but only subcultural mimicry which of course takes place everywhere, including in all heterocultural social settings.

Indeed, were heterocultural males come to be aware that most females are really attracted to males who primp and act female, is it then quite possible that this would spell the end normative masculinity and even heterocultural hegemony itself? Would not heterocultural males begin to primp including using tight clothes, makeup and colors as popular among females were they to become aware that emulating female behaviors from LGBTQI and BDSM subcultures (i.e. lesbian cruising, dragqueens and Dommes) would serve to make them far more socio-sexually attractive to females?

The reason why female-style heterocultural male pickup tends to be successful relatively speaking is precisely that this opens up the female desire for galsex in the context of heteronormativity. Heterocultural pickup artistry is therefore transformative in subconsciously and behaviorally so deconstructing the hetero/homo cultural binary. Indeed, an envisioned Prince of Dream is precisely a male without undesired male behaviors, that is in essence a transgender female in the sense of a person who is anatomically male yet is psychologically female, yet also with socio-sexually assertive behaviors. Were heterocultural males to become aware of this psychological reality in females is it not inconceivable that they would indeed abandon the set of undesired social behaviors known as “masculinity”. It is not that most females are not attracted to male bodies and mild social dominance (i.e. assertive socio-sexual behaviors as often confused with masculinity but which are rather universal and gender neutral); but instead that heterocultural females typically desire relationships without sexism, masculinism and misogyny although they may be initially attracted to those traits due to being combined with socially assertive behaviors which indeed are the real turn-on and entirely so irrespective of sex or gender.

Heterocultural males therefore engage in two main forms of socially assertive pickup, namely female-style pickup and explicitly sexist/misogynist/masculinist pickup. The latter is a turnoff for many females while virtually all females interested in males enjoy female-style pickup due to this apparently emotionally opening up (or even exploiting) the desire for galsex within the context of heterocultural socio-sexual hegemony. Female-style male pickup therefore is subsconsciously transformative in beginning to ditch masculinity in favor of female-style assertively socio-sexual behaviors among males towards females.

Feminist cruising therefore needs to be established as the culturally normative form of pickup and the fact that feminist cruising can be performed anywhere in public space without any need for any established “Sin Centers” such as nightclubs are likely to make feminist cruising extremely popular among persons of all genders. Learning feminist cruising is not especially difficult and the respective genders of approacher and approached does not make any significant difference in the context of feminist cruising. Indeed, children should learn feminist cruising (including feminist etiquette) in school. One reason why heterocultural males and heterocultural females alike typically find learning pickup so extremely psychologically difficult is that there is simply a lack of set rules for this aside from vague female social expectations and hence obviously the need for an established feminist etiquette for human persons generally.

Establishing feminist cruising (including a pro-sexual feminist etiquette) as supplanting sexist heterocultural hegemony should therefore not be an especially difficult feat to achieve for feminism considering how much persons of all genders have to gain individually in becoming socio-sexually empowered in becoming sexual subjects capable of efficiently acting on carnal desire in a socially acceptable manner without behaviorally acting out sexist prejudice in any form or shape.

66. Futurology of Friendship

Males in many societies are socially expected to act like manwhores while most peculiarly charging no money for their sexual services. Hence there is a masculinist ideal according to which males should have sexual intercourse with females whom they do not really appreciate as persons.

This is a result of the masculinist sex/love dichotomy according to which carnal love is considered as something separate from genuine interpersonal appreciation. Therefore it is highly peculiar indeed that not more males work as sex workers and charge money for the sexual enjoyment that they are so eager to provide. Rather than learning tricks (as originally adapted from street prostitute manipulative psycho-social behavior) or learning to emulate lesbian behaviors falsely marketed as gender-asymmetric heterocultural pseudopsychology – is it not highly peculiar that so few males (and especially highly physically attractive ones) start charging money for their sexual services? If interpersonal appreciation is seen as unimportant in the context of casual sex and one is completely able to select one’s customers, then why not charge money and skip the sexist behavioral nonsense as typically involved in non-commercial heterocultural pickup?

Imagine instead if the nightclub was a marketplace where females could pick the males they wanted in return for a reasonable, even symbolic amount of money? There would be nothing ethically problematic with that provided of course that the males seeking to “get laid” would be able to be selective about potential female clients as it is certainly more pleasant for both parties if both sides at least appreciate each other physically speaking. This is so as it is typically much easier to do commercial pickup than non-commercial pickup and this is obviously so no less so for females than for males.

Males interested in casual sex with previously unknown females without there being genuine interpersonal appreciation should therefore simply charge money and would quickly find out that there would be more and more females interested in paying for sex with males. Indeed, it is peculiar that all those males desperate about “getting laid” do not simply start thinking about the emotional, intellectual, personal, sexual and social value that they could offer females and how they could have both fun and make extra money at the same time! There is indeed a whore inside nearly every male as usually confined to the non-commercial heterocultural closet and typically subconsciously desperate to come out as a manwhore.

However, Temples of Love are much socially preferable to commercial sex and so universal and ubiquitous establishment of Temples of Love (as based on automatized matching for aesthetic preferences) in human cultures worldwide would indeed offer tremendous potential for socio-sexual specialization and so while most humans would volunteer in Temples of Love, they would do so offering “things” that they themselves would like to provide in Temples of Love offering precisely those very services. Feminist Temples of Love as continuing the ancient Sumerian tradition should therefore be the place for highly specialized casual sex without the sense of disappointment and exploitation that many females do experience after having casual sex with a male who really does not appreciate her individual personhood but only pretended to really like her.

Just as homosocial and homoerotic behaviors merely represent different placements on the same psychologically socio-sexual behavioral spectrum, the same is true for female-male friendship. What is known as the so called “friendzone” is much maligned in the heteromale pickup community since this typically does not allow the male to deceive the female about himself and his typically less than noble intentions. The heteromale pickup artist therefore endeavors to project an aura of himself as a romantic subject that fits into stereotypical female socio-sexual fantasy. However the truth is that female sexuality without sexist distortion is best expressed in female-female socio-sexual relationships as not limited to the LGBTQI community but obviously importantly including galsex as well. While it is true that Lesbian sex can often seem boring, this is of course even more so with regard to heterotypical sex! Indeed, when a female who friendzones a male by offering to become his friend, what she really typically does is to give him a socio-sexual challenge, meaning “ I really like you, but it will become much easier for you to seduce me once we become really close friends!”

Intra-male patriarchal social behaviors are in critical contexts often correctly described as “homosocial behaviors” while feminism and female-female friendship are only rarely described as “homosocial”. However, female-female friendship is indeed on the same spectrum as lesbian love with galsex in between. Galsex typically takes place in both sexual subcultures such as sexclubs, swinging and BDSM and between female friends. Female-female friendship therefore is a very important venue for both galsex and lesbian sexuality and so friendship between females and males should certainly also become the main venue for building committed relationships between females and males, including as prominently part of polyamory.

Casual sex and pathological infatuation typically both represent emotive projections of distorted illusions about a fellow person and so are not exactly conducive to building genuine mutual appreciation for individual personhood which indeed is extremely essential for long-term harmonically mutual emotional attachment. Yet idealized casual sex and idealized pathological infatuation are essentially the only emotional entries for intimacy  as offered by hegemonic heteroculture.

This leads us to the question of friendship and sexuality. First, friendship means mutual appreciation of idiosyncratic personhood in a fellow person and is as such the only healthy foundation for a committed loving relationship. While casual sex and romantic infatuation can indeed be coincidentally based on good interpersonal matching, this is usually not the case as casual sex and pathological infatuation offer typically really lousy interpersonal matching. Indeed, most persons do not even know what personality type that they themselves have, something which would have to be one of the main criteria in detailed computerized psychometric matching of potential partners for loving relationships.

What is needed therefore is not only psychometric mass matching via the Internet but indeed to put the development of friendship (i.e. profound interpersonal appreciation) at the very center of feminist dating in effectively deposing the social hegemony of sexist heteroculture. Just as females in secular societies and in secular subcultures of non-secular societies alike are increasingly open to the possibility of galsex whether as organized in sexual subcultures or as part of female friendship – so need males learn to appreciate friendship with both female and males as the gateway to both casual sex and committed intimacy. Males therefore need to become as open to casual “guysex” (typically oral sex between males identifying as so called “heterosexuals”) as are females increasingly to casual galsex. Also males need to understand that friendship with females is the perfect venue for seduction. Not only need males emulate lesbian sexual behaviors in order to improve their socio-sexual conduct towards females but they need importantly also emulate female-female social behaviors more generally, including how females increasingly develop emotional intimacy between each other in the form of friendship as leading towards physical intimacy.

Deconstructing the friendship/love dichotomy is therefore important in doing away with sexist notions of sexuality and love. A more emotionally intelligent society therefore requires not only psychometric mass matching for innumerable purposes including matching for love but also a process of building multidimensional friendship subsequent to psychometric matching. This should certainly not involve false advertisement in trying to sell an illusion of oneself as typically in casual sex and pathological infatuation but rather learning to truly appreciate each other in every way possible. Indeed, psychometric mass matching should provide the perfect basis for building mutually appreciative relationships as based on psychologically near perfect matching of persons for the purpose of building friendship (i.e. mutual interpersonal social appreciation) as leading to the building and nurturing of committed loving relationships.

Current hegemonic modes of heteroculture in secularized societies/subcultures for building committed intimate relationships are not only psychometrically extremely inaccurate but are also quite stupid to put things mildly since these typically involve more or less mutual emotional fraud as premised indeed on sexist notions of asymmetric gender pseudo-psychology.

Psychometric mass matching would obviously much obviate the need for pickup and so persons generally will need to be taught the art of emotionally nurturing friendship IRL subsequent to successful psychometric mass matching as the main social gateway indeed to building loving relationships as opposed to mutually projecting socio-sexual illusions.

67. Signifié, Signifiant and Significant Other

Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913) famously made the distinction between signifié (signifier, i.e. sign or other representation) and signifiant (signified, that which is described/represented). This distinction as a purported dichotomy has been much criticized in deconstruction yet is not gender as conventionally conceptualized supposed to be the signifier of anatomical sex?

So called “dating coaches” on Youtube catering to females typically teach them to behave in silly and usually self-defeating conventional heterocultural gender roles, indeed they usually teach them to be unpleasant and manipulative which of course logocentrically indirectly discursively legitimizes the heterocultural practice of males themselves being unpleasant and manipulative towards females. Rather than becoming socio-sexual subjects fearlessly expressing idiosyncratic personhood are they told to accept the notion of intimate relationships being based on mutual illusions and selfish psychological manipulation.

Females are taught to provide an illusion, meaning to offer a performative gender that disguises personhood. This in essence is of course simply non-commercial behavioral prostitution, meaning providing an experience rather than a genuine person. Indeed, this is the ideology of heterosexualism & monogamism whereby a female is ultimately reduced to an economically and sexually exploited home prostitute after of course some initial haggling. There is obviously in principle however nothing wrong with being genderfluid and entering and exiting genders as one pleases, yet sexist dating coaches effectively tell females to turn their own bodies into private patriarchal prisons as enslaved by effectively non-elective gender roles since of course not being offered any behavioral alternatives whatsoever.

The underlying subconscious idea therefore is that a female person is supposed to performatively reduce herself to “a tight pussy”, meaning offering some gender-typical social resistance as symbolic performance of the male experience of the initial physical resistance involved in sexually penetrating “a tight pussy”. A female person is thus told to effectively socially reduce herself to a performatively idealized representation of her own very genital cavity.

This opens the issues of what gender represents, what it is “supposed” to represent, what it might rather represent and what it could instead represent? Male fashion such as formal suits are typically highly phallogocentric with a male suit, both in its entirety and in its parts, including the tie constituting symbolic phallic representations. Female beauty and female fashion in contrast is designed to offer a vaginal illusion and thus disguise and disfigure idiosyncratic personhood. Lipstick for example turns the mouth into a symbolic vagina by means of transferring genital desire to the mouth. Indeed, deliberately sexualizing female fashion is typically designed to illustrate the social reality as Luce Irigaray famously points out of females having sexual organs all over their bodies. How is after all the Muslim hijab different from bikini in one disguising hair of the head and the other disguising hair below the belly? Indeed both serve to sexualize female bodies in a sexist fashion of semiotic segregation and thus reinforce patriarchal control over female bodies by marking them as forbidden area, meaning under the control of a patriarchal system of socio-sexual semiotic signification whereby female hair is turned into a symbol of patriarchal control or haram (forbidden) in Arabic.

While there are certainly upsides and downsides to sexualization in current patriarchal reality, the question of idiosyncratic personhood should rather be front and center with respect to the ethics and aesthetics of individual gender expression. While a female is expected to detect, explore and discover the individual cognitive profile of a male whom she is acquainting for intimate and romantic purposes is she however reversely supposed to hide her own individual cognitive profile. Her perhaps pretty-looking, often fabricated exterior according to this mysogynistic thinking therefore disguises her real and according this misogynistic thinking “nasty self” and so she is supposed to performatively represent herself as a genital, social, intellectual and psychological cavity. In other words is she supposed to disguise her idiosyncratic personhood by pretending to be a tabula rasa only awaiting phallic inscription of patriarchal ownership onto and into the skin of her body.

Indeed is she told by so called “dating coaches” on Youtube that males won’t actually like her as a person and so she must pretend to be a cognitive cavity in order to first make him really interested and second “make him stay”. Why then would males only be interested in females persons masquerading as cognitive cavities? Is there not more to a female person than merely her “pussy” and is her typically highly erogenous genital region really reducible to mere cavity? Why is she supposed to detect, explore and discover the real self of the male she is acquainting while at the same time she is expected to hide and disguise her own real self?

Gender thus needs to be reinvented as individual expression of idiosyncratic personhood. What does this mean? It does not mean that sexual expression and intentional self-sexualization are somehow intrinsically “bad” but rather that gender needs to express rather than disguise. This means that diversity of genders needs to be expressive of cognitive diversity generally. That means that society needs to culturally learn to socially appreciate cognitive diversity as an asset for society rather than as of now misconceiving of cognitive diversity as a burden and a liability.

The notion that he won’t really like her real persona anyway and so in order “to get him” and “make him stay” she must engage in a theatrical farce, a tragicomical drama whereby she is supposed to use “false advertisement” to make him “buy into” a nasty cavity – is obviously profoundly misogynistic. “Breakup” and “divorce” are thus mere highly statistically predictable ends of such essentially farcical, stereotypically gender-asymmetric heterocultural dramas performing mutual deception such as heterocultural dating and bizarrely desired pathological infatuation.

What is needed therefore is online psychometric mass matching for psychological mutual matching, aesthetic preferential matching and sexual preferential matching. Psychometric mass matching is the only real way to ensure optimal social matching as mere happy coincidence is typically statistically unlikely indeed. Psychometric mass matching can ensure optimal matching for virtually every social purpose, including for casual sex and for marriage. Computerized psychometric mass matching is the golden gate to avoid unnecessary interpersonal tensions in society at large (e.g. due to divergent personality types), including but obviously far from limited to intimate relationships. Psychometric mass matching will also help ensure economic estimation of cognitive diversity as an asset of the national economy as that is no doubt crucial for also attaining social appreciation of cognitive diversity more generally.

68. Mathematics of Beauty

Plastic surgery has become an increasingly larger industry as catering primarily to females in wealthy countries. Indeed human females increasingly compete for the attraction of males by spender ever larger sums of money on beauty and fashion. They do so of course because current gender norms do not allow females to themselves pick the males of their choice whether online or IRL as they are instead socially limited to individually accept or decline approaching males whether online or IRL. Does this mean that spending money on beauty is inherently “bad”? Of course not, but the social context as being highly problematic needs to be considered, reconsidered and socially reinvented indeed.

First let’s better understand the notion of beauty. Notions of human anatomical beauty appear in all human cultures and that which different human cultural standards of beauty share in common in anthropological cross-comparison is the perception of anatomical symmetry and so anatomical asymmetry is in contrast universally considered non-beautiful. This is so across cultures, genders, sexualities, sexes, religions, ethnicities and so on. Painting the body is however in fourth world cultures something traditionally primarily done by males on male bodies.

Anatomical symmetry as universal human beauty is however also a matter of public health as looking good to oneself and to others is indeed fundamental to human psychological well-being. While some anatomical asymmetries are genetically inherited are other anatomical asymmetries no doubt the result of environmental influence on the post-conception development of individual genetics as for example when two sides of a face look somewhat different from each other.

Anatomical asymmetries therefore need to be recognized as medical disorders in need of timely medical intervention as correcting anatomical asymmetries is essential to individual psychological health. The same is true of obesity which is usually only medically treated in extreme cases, meaning extreme obesity. Human persons suffering from obesity need each be granted their own personal trainer who can advise them on food and join them in exercise a few hours a week. This will save astronomical sums as untreated obesity is extremely costly indeed and diverts much needed health care resources from essential preventive health care.

What is problematic however is trend-based plastic surgery as surgically accomplished trend-based anatomical features typically quickly go out of fashion after one or a few years. Basic plastic surgery correcting anatomical asymmetries however need to be part of the basket of health care services provided for free to all citizens who need them. Trend-based plastic surgery is in contrast unethical and should plainly be illegal. Rather, aesthetic trends can easily be expressed by means of makeup, fashion clothes, hairstyles etc. and are far more comfortably achieved in front of the mirror if everyone is simply granted the right to medical correction of anatomical asymmetry.

Few fertile-age Western females, even the ones with relatively symmetric anatomies feel comfortable with looking themselves in the mirror undressed. Western males also increasingly develop problems with how they view their own respective bodily images. A more scientific view of beauty will therefore be more geometric in mathematically calculating objective individual beauty across cultural divides and the task of medicine will therefore be to increase individual and communal comfort by medically correcting anatomic asymmetries. An entire new diagnostic system for diagnosing anatomical asymmetry will of course need to be created.

The purpose will not only be to increase quality of life for humans generally but will also crucially be to create a more healthy and objective public perception of what constitutes anatomical beauty. Indeed anatomical symmetry enables further beautification albeit temporarily so and if one so will in accordance with the fashion and beauty of the day.

With regard to functional variation (a.k.a. so called “disability”) are there variations that need public acceptance & publicly funded and legally required functional adjustment and then there are other functional variations that are actual illness that need to be medically treated so as to optimize individual quality of life and minimize individual suffering.

The fine line between functional variation requiring acceptance and functional variation needing medical treatment has sometimes been mistakenly drawn, including with regard to so called “paraphilia” (purported “sexual minorities”) which really need to be abolished as psychiatric diagnoses. There are also borderline diagnoses such as the diagnosis of “transsexualism” which indeed requires both public acceptance and medical intervention, although transgender people need to be publicly aesthetically affirmed as socially acceptable indeed whether operated or not.

The essential task therefore is not to once more reproduce so called “normality” (i.e cultural hegemony) but rather drawing the fine line between 1) that which requires public acceptance as it is, 2) that which requires medical intervention and 3) that which requires both. The question of beauty has curiously mostly been left out of diagnostic manuals but this is not actually surprising considering that medical conditions mostly found in chromosomal females such as the medical condition of Osteoporosis are often left medically untreated (so called “unprioritized” medical conditions) and even left without formal diagnoses. As beauty is an issue which for cultural reasons is considered the abode of females in secular/modern culture is it not particularly surprising that the more common and ordinary anatomical asymmetries have remained outside of the diagnostic system. Also considering that plastic surgeons usually are male and their customers usually female is it not particularly surprising that a predominantly male high-earning industry would like to continue to economically exploit female social suffering by not moving to integrate plastic surgery into normal health care as indeed included in universal health care coverage as afforded by governments to their citizens in most wealthy countries.

Recognizing anatomical symmetry as the universally human basics of beauty on which temporary adornments certainly may be added will both increase individual quality of life for human citizens and create an improved public and individual perception of objective beauty that will also help individuals develop an individually more objective perception of their own respective individual beauty. While medically correcting anatomical asymmetry will certainly be voluntary will few decline and so a more beautiful human society will be created where obesity and anatomical asymmetry are virtually automatically treated without charge by the general system of health care. Females in secular/modern society are informally socially trained to become more aesthetically perceptive and discerning with respect to human anatomical beauty and so treating obesity and anatomical asymmetry will create a more fun and comfortable society with unseemly anatomies of all genders becoming rare indeed.

It should however not be ignored that there are further axes of human aesthetics including cuteness, being hot, being sexy, being nice, projecting good judgment, projecting social intelligence, projecting intellectual sophistication, being youthful, sensual, tasteful and pretty and there also aesthetic types and aesthetic styles and of course individual aesthetic preferences with respect to oneself and to others. Indeed it must not be ignored that in addition to 1) anatomical symmetry (i.e. objective beauty), 2) temporary adornment of beauty (fashion, makeup etc.) is there also 3) psychological projection of beauty (e.g. self-esteem, cheerfulness, independence, curiosity and playfulness) which indeed is involved in all the above mentioned axes.

The fact that armed female soldiers of Israel and Kurdistan typically project intense psychological beauty in an almost exceptional manner as a result of empowering military training simply cannot be ignored as their peers in other cultures at that age typically walk around in fear of sexual harassment, rape and of course being ignored by male peers unless they engage in beautification. Indeed, psychological beauty is also a matter of public health and so feminist training in self-defense and sexual self-respect is essential indeed for all genders with respect to the healthy development and preservation of psychological beauty as a person advances in age. Wrinkles and other aesthetically demeaning developments of ageing need also become part of both the diagnostic system and the universal health care coverage. The conception of beauty and other aesthetic axes of human life as an important public health issue needs therefore certainly include both anatomical and psychological aspects towards indeed a more holistic conception of public health, including with respect to the manifold aesthetic aspects that are vital indeed to human well-being, including the essential need for feminist architecture.

Indeed feminist architecture is also a mathematically calculable matter of both geometrics and money as masculinist architecture (e.g. the extreme case of brutalist architecture) creates physical environments where human females feel insecure and structurally threatened and especially so at night. Feminist architecture therefore needs to conquer the masculinist domain that is hegemonic architecture both with respect to new construction, including modifying existing buildings but also with regard to planning urban public space such as adding plants/trees and spotlights so that there will be no dark corners where human females dare not venture at night.

69. Science of Pleasure

Medieval Europe had a very peculiar yet distinctly Catholic conception of pleasure as it was divided into pleasures considered the domain of vice and pleasures considered the domain of virtue. Sexual pleasure generally was considered as belonging to the domain of vice and so has barely secularized, yet distinctly Para-Christian sexuality come to be constructed as taboo sexuality in that sexual pleasure is typically culturally derived from transgression of sexual taboo. Of course this peculiar notion has a genealogical pedigree spanning all back to ancient Canaan (as preceding the Neo-Sumerian emergence of ancient Israel) and has a parallel historical development in Rabbinic Judaism whose religiously most prominent mitzvot (commandments) whether prescriptive or proscriptive are typically associated with avoidance and/or experience of pleasure.

Para-Christian culture is specifically characterized by its antinomian indulgence in Christian sins whereby socio-cultural transgression of Catholic taboos (i.e. taboo inversion) whether sexual or otherwise is seen as essential to the experience of pleasure and even to life itself ands especially the quality of life. Hence there is a most peculiar separation in Para-Christian culture between law and morality.

Sexuality in the 19th century became subject to a new system of social discipline known as “sexology” whereby it was believed that carnal desire could be “taxonomized” much like what became known as notions of race, species, genus etc. Sexologists divided sexual activities into two types, the ones allowed by the Catholic church for the purpose of reproduction (i.e. reproductive marital monogamy) which were juxtaposed to all other forms of carnal pleasure as completely proscribed by the Catholic church and which were referred to as paraphilia, the Para-Christian taxonomy of sexual transgression.

This meant that so called “sexuality” was at the same time narrowly defined (reproductive sexual intercourse) as well as paradoxically also widely defined by its purportedly “pathological” extensions to so called “paraphilia”, the barely secularized Para-Christian taxonomy of socially forbidden carnal pleasure. Sexual pleasure was at the same time discursively separated from other forms of pleasure and so the very notion of sexuality is merely another name for the Catholic notion of so called “carnal desire”. Yet this still narrowly defined inter-bodily attraction as so called “sexuality” as limited to the part of spectrum of inter-bodily attraction precisely causing male erection. Inter-bodily attraction is rather a spectrum from social attraction over emotional attraction and physical attraction to sexual attraction. This means that a legally adult male human person who is socially, emotionally and physically attracted to kittens is still not considered as a so called “zoophile” under sexological taxonomy as long as the attraction is not considered as causing penile erection. Similarly is a legally adult male person who experiences social, physical, emotional (but not “sexual”) attraction to legal minors  below the age of consent (in sexology human persons below the age of 13) in the sense as not producing erection not considered as a so called “pedophile”.

This distinction between sexual attraction as causing penile erection in males on the one hand and social, emotional and physical attraction on the other is expressive of structural phallocentrism as reproducing the preceding Catholic notion that legitimate sexuality only involves reproductive phallic sexual penetration. However, for anatomical human females is it not as easy to impose this facile Para-Christian distinction between sexual attraction and all other forms of inter-bodily attraction (social, emotional and physical) on the spectrum of inter-bodily attraction as misogynistic Para-Christian hegemonic sexual ideology abhors female desire and so it must be socially disguised and psychologically hidden as males in that culturally sexual context typically wish to have sexual intercourse with bodies of females who hide and disfigure their own very carnal desire.

Of course the notion of sexual attraction as purportedly “separate” from social, emotional and physical attraction is objectively absurd as attraction cannot actually be pinned down to a dichotomy of Love of Vice versus Love of Virtue as sexual attraction to varying degrees indeed incorporates social attraction, emotional attraction and physical attraction as well. Females in Para-Christian culture typically engage in social resistance against this artificial binary by means of indeed typically socially resisting the reduction of the spectrum of inter-bodily attraction to sexual attraction, in the sense as social attraction, emotional attraction and physical attraction becoming performatively subordinated to sexual attraction.

What is needed therefore is a discursively innovative feminist notion of interpersonal attraction that will not discursively privilege sexual attraction over other forms of attraction. The only reason why sexual attraction is discursively privileged over other forms of attraction is its Para-Christian pedigree whereby “proper sexuality” is reduced to reproductive phallic so called “intercourse”. The privileging of sexual attraction over social attraction, emotional attraction and physical attraction has therefore also produced and perpetuated the privileging of centralizing phallocentrism over decentralizing gynocentrism.

Interpersonal attraction is not limited to sexual attraction as it includes all forms and degrees of attraction and it furthermore does not seek to taxonomically limit attraction in terms of the direction of attraction with regard to the ideological construction that is the purported dichotomy between signifier and signified (French signfié and signifiant). For example what is the actual difference between being sexually aroused by another person wearing clothes made of rubber/latex/PVC as indeed considered fetishism by sexology and someone aroused by fellow person wearing lingerie as this is precisely not considered fetishism by sexology? Should perhaps a double bed be considered sexual paraphernalia?

Sexology therefore needs to be incorporated into a wider science of pleasure that will study all forms of pleasure including the entire spectrum of inter-bodily attraction and indeed attraction generally. It therefore needs to be recognized that the notion of sexology is a highly prejudicial expression of masculinist phallocentrism (and of course constitutes phallogocentrism itself) and so sexology can only become meaningful from a feminist perspective if indeed fully assimilated into a wider science of pleasure that would include concepts such as ASMR (autonomous sensory meridian response) and the French notion of jouissance as part of Critical Theory. Pleasure is furthermore a political issue and so an applied science of pleasure needs not only study all forms of pleasure including attraction in order not only to further understanding but also so as to politically further the cause of pleasure. Indeed how can politics further pleasure in an ethical and effective manner unless there is not even a science of pleasure?

An applied science of pleasure will therefore also need to study how all features of sentient existence affect the production of pleasure. Just as there is need for an applied science of suffering is there no less a need for an applied science of pleasure. An applied science of pleasure will therefore need to map how pleasure is precisely produced and reproduced in society/environment including in inter-sensory encounters. Rethinking attraction and pleasure will in a sense require a discursive erasure of the very notion of “sexuality”, the notion of genital pleasure as purportedly separate from other forms of “bodily pleasure” and indeed from pleasure generally. Of course, bodily pleasure cannot be separated from other forms of pleasure as all pleasure is bodily as based on the brain and the central nervous system. Even the notion of hidden genital anatomy as a social marker is highly problematic as the genital area is of course also integrated with the brain and the central nervous system generally. Pleasure thus cannot reasonably become dichotomized into a Para-Christian Cartesian distinction between body and mind since indeed all pleasure is both body and mind.

A science of pleasure will therefore need to not only integrate neurological and neuropsychiatric insights but will also need to find an understanding of pleasure (including attraction) that indeed is not premised on baseless Para-Christian dichotomies of medieval and ancient origin with regard to personhood. Indeed, attraction specifically and pleasure generally form part of the very experience of personhood, namely the experience of sentience that is at the core of experience itself irrespective of taxa. Genital pleasure cannot reasonably be discursively separated from social pleasure, emotional pleasure and physical pleasure generally as those are also part of genital pleasure to varying degrees and if there is anything that should be considered “pathological” is that the notion of exclusive sexual attraction without social, emotional and more generally bodily attraction. Many females rightly experience “more purely” sexual attraction as profoundly intimidating, the experience of being perceived as a “hole” rather than as a “whole”, indeed the sense of being socially reduced to one’s genital area and the sense of being perceived as “a piece of meat” rather than being fully appreciated as a person to the inclusion of one’s entire anatomy.

It is therefore instead the very core of sexology that discursively privileges phallic pleasure that should be branded as pathological indeed and certainly not that which exceeds phallic reproductive pleasure. The normative defining, yet imaginary erect phallus at the very core of the pseudo-science of sexology therefore literally needs to be reduced to its real size as part of the study of attraction specifically and pleasure generally whether indeed genital or otherwise.

70. Telos of Feminism

Masculinism is the phenomenon of structural derogation of semiotic markers (attributes, characteristics, practices etc.) associated with females and the assumption that semiotic markers associated with males reversely are inherently superior to those associated with females. What is considered feminine and what is considered masculine respectively significantly varies between different cultures and masculinism is structurally hegemonic in many but far from all traditional human cultures. E.g. the pre-modern traditional culture of the Jewish people was structurally neither masculinist (structurally derogating feminine/female semiotic markers) nor misogynist (structurally derogating females as persons) although certainly being pervasively sexist (structurally discriminating against females) in structurally having segregated females from organized societal participation outside of the home.

What is seldom discussed however is the often pervasive presence of masculinism in both feminist rhetorics and in lesbian culture. While heterocultural masculine/male gender roles in secular/modern society are typically dysfunctional, tragic and oppressive indeed would it be very wrong to infer that the same is true of feminine gender roles. While there are certainly aspects of feminine/female gender roles in secular/modern society that are unhelpful and oppressive are females and what is known as ‘femininity’ generally not the problem.

It is important to emphasize that what may be perceived as “femininity” and “masculinity” are socially constructed social markers and so while most gendered behaviors perceived as “masculine” are negative indeed and most gendered behaviors perceived as “feminine” are worthy of respect is this certainly not so in every case.

There is unfortunately also structural masculinism in both feminism and lesbian culture with a structurally derogative, indeed sadly often indiscriminately disparaging attitude towards female/feminine semiotic markers. Indeed, to presume that it is “bad” for an anatomical female to have feminine semiotic markers is no less masculinist and prejudicial than condemning an anatomical male for having similar feminine semiotic markers. If a certain behavior is ethico-sophisticated then this is certainly so irrespective of intimate anatomy of the person in question.

Hatred is negative irrespective of conceived as feminine or masculine and so analyses as based on a semiotic gender binary are superficial. Rather, feminism as the sole political movement promoting noble behaviors needs to promote ethico-sophisticated social behaviors generally. While most feminine semiotic markers in gendered social behavior are constructive and most masculine semiotic markers in gendered social behavior are negative must it however not be indiscriminately presumed that this is so in every respect. Rather, feminism as an intellectually transformative movement needs to consider what constitutes ethico-sophisticated social/sexual behaviors and discursively move beyond notions of illusory binary genders in promoting both individual gender expression of idiosyncratic personhood and noble behaviors for all.

Semiotic markers in human cultures may be socially constructed through illusory binaries of various kinds, yet binary logocentrism is not the only possible manner of social construction. Feminism rather needs to become an advocate for ethico-sophisticated social behaviors whether in gender, sexuality or otherwise. It is for example very much possible to be polite, feminine, dominant, exquisite, sophisticated, noble, humble, forceful and articulate; indeed all at the same time, a good example of this being former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher (1925-2013) and although she did not regard herself as a feminist certainly was an exceptional female/feminine role model indeed.

The ethics of gender therefore needs to be concerned with promoting the combination of virtues. One can be both feminine and dominant, humble and forceful, honest and diplomatic, noble and brave, sophisticated and articulate and indeed exquisite and magnanimous. Behavioral virtues are certainly not reducible to binaries and anyone who thinks so is a fool.

Structurally oppressive social/sexual behaviors are indeed negative irrespective of intimate anatomy and so we as feminists must see through the discursive veil of gendered semiotic markers and understand that promotion of both noble social behaviors and noble intimate behaviors and irrespectively so of perceived anatomy is the very underlying telos of feminism, indeed the ultimate social purpose of feminism and animating force of love that is also known as “femininity”.

71. Deontology of Prince of Dreams

Girls growing up in secular/modern culture have a persistent messianic vision, indeed expectation that a Prince of Dreams will suddenly appear, romantically kiss her, take her in his arms, ride away in sunset with her on a white horse and then seduce her and exquisitely realizing her most intimate desires in “taking her” without her explicit consent.

These dreams are to be sure lovely and beautiful (excepting of course the involvement of the enslaved Horse person) yet obviously entirely divorced from the reality of prevailing heteroculturally male gendered social, sexual and relational behaviors. Yet the female messianic expectation of arrival of a Prince of Dreams is entirely reasonable and justified and is best described as a form of contemporary feminist and/or gynocentric religion. It is therefore certainly justified to inquire as to the psychological properties and profile of a Prince of Dreams. What does it mean to be a Prince of Dreams and what then are the behavioral characteristics of a Prince of Dreams?

A Prince of Dreams has certain social standards. He will not sleep with females (or with anyone else for that matter) whom he is not genuinely attracted to. A Prince of Dream is furthermore not interested in sexual intercourse with a female who is not sexually aroused. A Prince of Dreams would never have a girlfriend, partner or a spouse whose cognitive profile he does not genuinely appreciate. A Prince of Dreams would never try to convince a female to have sexual intercourse despite her not wishing to. A Prince of Dream profoundly understands that polyamory (consensual non-monogamy) is the best path to relational happiness but will never engage in anything involving in any kind of sexual infidelity whether on his part or on the part of the other person. After all, why would a female who is lucky enough to have found a Prince of Dreams not share his lovely banana-like fruit with her female friends?

Females in secular/modern culture already grow up with the social ideal of a princess and the sexual ideal of a female pornstar and they have in effect often already by sheer willpower transformed themselves into female Princes of Dreams and so female expectations that a male becomes a Prince of Dreams although usually being entirely unfounded in reality is indeed perfectly reasonably and completely justified. However, a younger female in secular/modern society typically has the idea that she is going to transform a male into a Prince of Dreams and this usually does not work unless she uniquely succeeds in motivating him to successfully improve himself, something which is very rare indeed.

A Prince of Dreams is unselfish and since females typically have no difficulty being mutually unselfish with an unselfish male partner is an unselfish relationship of profound mutual appreciation of personhood entirely realistic and achievable indeed. A Prince of Dreams is not alien to female psychology as he is educated and trained to think as a female and exhibits near perfection in utterly refined social behavior.

A Prince of Dream never exploits anyone and puts her interests first just as she mutually (and naturally on her part by default) puts his interests first. Like her he exhibits utter refinement in intimate (so called “sexual”) behavior, never exploits someone else, exercises self-control in both ethically appropriate inhibition and being able to appropriately act in realizing her profound socio-sexual desire; he realizes her intimate desires in an unselfish manner; touches her with perfect tact and knowledge of her body and intimate desire; he does not consider a female as an opposite but as a fellow and he would not even consider having sex with her without her first becoming sexually aroused.

He virtually always treats everyone well (unless appropriately responding to highly inappropriate behavior), is virtually always polite, virtually always acts in accordance with feminist etiquette, knows when to break rules; is mutually altruistic and acts in a mutually altruistic fashion; knows and profoundly understands that friendship (i.e. mutual appreciation of idiosyncratic personhood) is the only lasting foundation for any healthy lasting intimate relationship.

He is sexually altruistic and socially highly empathetic; virtually always shows good judgment and moral clarity (and he has been trained to do so!); he does not primarily think in terms of taboo sex and certainly does not exploit sexual scarcity; he lovingly behaves as the most deluxe escort possible; is turned on and sexually aroused by idiosyncratic female personhood; loves the state of female sexual arousal and is indeed a feminist as profoundly committed to the permanent feminist revolution.

What is important here however are not only the cognitive characteristics of a Prince of Dreams but the fact that it is possible to raise boys to become Princes of Dreams and even rehabilitate men into becoming Princes of Dreams. A male scumbag typically simply does not know how to behave due to not being taught to do so. He is clueless and knows only male parasitism. However, if given appropriate training/rehabilitation can he learn that lowly behavior is useless and causes unhappiness even for himself and importantly not only to himself!

By learning feminist royal/imperial etiquette can he also learn to master his own social/sexual/relational behavior in learning that unselfishness without neediness is the golden path to learning behavioral perfection. Only without being needy can he achieve rational unselfishness. Virtues can be nurtured and of course so only with the full consent of the person being trained, educated and/or rehabilitated. To be sure, personality disorders as well as the typically excessive production of testosterone as found in most males above a certain age bracket need to be treated medically, the former with gene therapy and the latter with designer hormones.

72. Makeup Feminism

Heteroculturally gendered sexual attraction towards females in Western and many other cultures is based on sexual fetishization of girls and women (e.g. through the hijab) and hence the phenomenon of heterocultural males and lipstick lesbians alike often being as attracted to enhanced beauty (makeup, hairstyles, sensual clothes, perfume, colors etc.) as to the female body itself. Indeed there is substantial social confusion as to the mass psychological conflation of gendered bodily attraction to enhanced beauty and attraction to bodies without deliberately enhanced beauty.

This aesthetic fetishization of anatomic females has led to the interesting phenomenon of transgender females with anatomically male bodies being similarly sexually fetishized considerering the widespread attraction to enhanced beauty as usually associated with bodies of cisfemales. Heterocultural cismales thus tend to be sexually aroused in public space even more by transgender females than by cisgender females. This is indeed very similar to how most females are already perfectly used to almost daily being turned on and sexually aroused by primping fellow females whom they encounter in public space. Increasing visibility of non-passable transgender females in public space thus increasingly causes ideological breakdown of the heterocultural social regime.

While makeup just as a headscarf of any culture is certainly oppressive if experienced as more or less socially compulsory have increasing aesthetic choices for females ever since the 1920s and particularly so since the 1990s made fertile-age cisgender females increasingly genderfluid, meaning that cisgender females increasingly are socially enabled to transition between different flavors of gender as reinforced by the chosen colors, scents and styles of enhanced beauty of the day.

Lipstick feminists tend to abhor structural masculinism (i.e. structural derogation of semiotic markers deemed “feminine”) in feminism and lesbian culture alike and to stigmatize enhanced beauty (albeit as other cultural phenomena certainly being problematic) as something intrinsically “bad” is a however a certain “secular” continuation of the most reactionary forms of religious patriarchy in Euro-Christian civilization.

If however, cismales irrespective of sexuality were encouraged by females and advertisement alike to learn to use makeup and other forms of enhanced beauty already used by females such as eyelash extensions would this not only serve to bring down the heterocultural social regime but also effectively end male heterocultural identity itself since heterocultural males would start to sexually fetishize each other once experiencing being constantly turned on and sexually aroused by primping males in public space.

Sexual fetishization of bodies certainly operlaps with sexual objectification of bodies but these are two very much distinctive social and semiotic phenomena albeit certainly performatively similar. To argue that sexual fetishization of bodies is inherently “bad” is not only masculinist but is furthermore transphobic. Gender itself is precisely about the relative sexual fetishization of bodies and so why on earth should bodies of cismales be any less sexually fetishized than bodies of cisfemales? Indeed, it is the heterocultural male gaze that retains the social privilege of respectless observation and subjects females to the status of objects (i.e. subpersons) of that very male gaze. This is indeed the difference between appreciating and judging based on gendered appearance. Sexual fetishization of bodies enhances personhood while sexual objectification of bodies negates personhood.

No doubt surprising to most feminists is makeup and other temporary forms of enhanced beauty precisely central to ending sexualized social terrorism at home, at work and in public space by instead encouraging sexual fetishishization of males by means of using various means including training, education, personal encouragement, peer support and commercial advertisement.

Just as sexual objectification is fundamentally bad is sexual fetishization fundamentally good and to argue that being less sexually fetishized is somehow preferable to being more sexually fetishized is sheer masculinism and on an individual level obviously more than self-defeating. Any male seeking a sexually extrovert lifestyle having intimate relations with many females should simply deploy temporary aesthetic means to sexually fetishize himself. These temporary aesthetic means although currently in Western culture primarily individually used by females, gays and non-binary transgender persons are certainly irreducible to reproductive anatomy and work just as well on any human body irrespective of reproductive anatomy. Indeed almost any human person of any gender or sexuality can become perceived as a highly sexually attractive hottie with sufficient added layers of enhanced beauty throughout the human body.

The argument against enhanced beauty is that the body will become perceived as less appreciated without those temporarily added aesthetic layers. However this is a mistaken conception as enhanced beauty functions much like advertisement in aiding others to appreciate something or someone. Enhanced beauty if appropriately socio-sexually contextualized is instead a powerful means towards experiencing mutual interpersonal appreciation. Indeed enhanced beauty is typically deployed by females to make males appreciate them as full persons. Males who sexually objectify females tend to do so irrespective of any makeup or fashion items although it is true that sexual fetishization certain overlaps sexual objectification.

It would however be severely mistaken to blame female primping for male objectification as that most definitely involves blaming the victims of sexism. Ugly sexist behaviors are the underlying problem and certainly not practices of enhanced beauty. Discursively blaming primping females for sexual objectification is indeed tantamount to claiming that there is a causal relationship between primping and haterape, meaning that the victim of haterape is to be blamed for being hateraped due to weary scanty clothing, heavy makeup and having a sensually evocative hairstyle.

Encouraging enhanced beauty for males no less than for females thus needs to become a central part of the worldwide feminist revolution. This will serve to effectively discredit the twin sexist notions of heterocultural identity and binary genders as cismales will become very much socially, emotionally and importantly also sexually incentivized to themselves engage in aesthetically advanced and sophisticated individual primping.

73. Eroticization of Ethics

Taboo sexuality in secular/modern culture is premised on eroticization of originally religious sexual taboos. What is known as “religion” (specifically here Christianity) is therefore the inverted basis of what is known as “sexuality”. There are hence two main forms of sexuality in secular/modern society, namely religious sexuality and Para-Christian inversions of Christian sexuality.

However, what if instead sexualization became focused on the functionally advanced eroticization of virtue? What if positive ethics were eroticized so that positive ethics becomes socially constructed into the main lens of interpersonal attraction? There are many well-established techniques for sexualization of semiotic markers, sentient persons, images, imaginations, perceptions, non-sentient physical objects, behaviors, bodies and of course persons and so why should not ethics become eroticized as well?

Taboo sexuality in secular/modern society is premised on intimate scarcity and intimate deficit and so feminist sexuality should focus on sharing diversity in abundance rather than self-defeatingly socially sharing scarcity in intimacy. There is a demeaning masculinist myth claiming that feminist sexuality would somehow resemble medieval religious sexuality in being severely functionally limited but there is no reason whatsoever why this actually should be the case. Rather, feminist sexuality needs to embrace functionally advanced sexual diversity in ethically deploying a wide range of semiotic techniques in shamelessly, yet ethically so furthering the feminist eroticization of ethics as part of the feminist revolution of morals. Of course, feminist ethics must not be confused with religious/secular moralities as feminist sexuality need instead strive to merge religious/secular excitement into feminist jouissance beyond the unhelpful constraints of hegemonic phallocentric sexuality. Just as negative morality was eroticized in Christendom as early as in medieval times so is there precisely no reason why a feminist positive ethics cannot instead become the main locus of structural sexualization in society, including in e.g. advertisement.

Sexualization has in fact since the sexologist invention of so called “sexuality” in the 19th century become an increasingly pervasive feature of more and more aspects of secular/modern society. And so the essential questions need to be posed 1) why so called “sexuality” is still socially constructed as a certain Para-Christian phallocentric iconoclasm? 2) and why not a functionally advanced feminist positive ethics of interpersonal intimacy has already been articulated? Imagine if virtue rather than vice becomes the main semiotic locus of sexualization in society and indeed imagine how this would serve the overturning of contemporary sexist moralities pertaining to interpersonal intimacy!

Eve (Hebrew Chava) in the biblical Book of Genesis (Hebrew Sefer Bereshit) is described as being encouraged by a Serpent person to eat “a forbidden apple”. Christian tradition has viewed this text as a form of devilish entrapment although this view is not shared in the Jewish tradition. The Serpent is an ancient phallic symbol of Sumerian goddess Inanna (deity of sexuality and war), the most important female deity in the pro-sexual religion of ancient Sumer, the first human civilization and so the Israelite/Jewish God of Israel (deity of love and war) as originally described in the Hebrew Bible represents indeed a certain historical masculinization of Inanna although God in Rabbinic Judaism is considered transgendered or bigendered.

It can certainly be argued within both the rabbinic and psychoanalytic intellectual traditions that mythological Eve did nothing wrong by eating “the apple”, a reference to fellatio with “the apple” being the penile glans, “the apple of the penis” (the pomegranate is another fertility symbol of Inanna) as this story is one of originally Sumerian sexual initiation through ritual sex. Indeed the focus in this story is precisely on female pleasure as “the apple” is explicitly referred to as an object of female desire in her being sexually aroused by the physical phallus (“the Serpent”).

And so if Eve did nothing wrong was there not even a transgression of divine commandment as Eve rather transgresses patriarchal distortions of interpersonal intimacy. Mythological Eve is clearly described as an early feminist and the Sumerian pro-sexual gynocentric tradition with its feminist Inanna Temples of Love is almost destroyed by the disastrous rise of patriarchal civilization following upon the destruction of the last Sumerian state (the Neo-Sumerian Empire ruled by the Third Dynasty of Ur), metaphorically referred to as the expulsion from the Garden of Eden.

As taboo sexuality in Euro-Christian culture is derived from and precisely premised on a state of intimate scarcity need we understand the history, origin and culture of intimate scarcity in anthropological terms. The purpose of reproductive monogamy served the evolutionary purpose of better ensuring survival of offspring until reaching reproductive age as it is even today far easier for two or more persons to raise a child as opposed to being a lone parent. Reproductive monogamy meant that a fertile-age female was culturally conditioned to become a marital prostitute in return for a male protection racket which importantly would also protect both parties from sexually transmitted diseases (STD).

Females are typically sexually unhappy in reproductive monogamy and so are males no less. Reproductive monogamy as a state of home prostitution does not even begin to satisfy profound intimate desires of both female and male and so interpersonal marital intimacy typically turns into relative boredom of routine.

Phallocentric sexual morality is unfortunately typically premised on the patriarchal institution of marital prostitution and so phallocentric inversions of religious sexual morals in the form of Para-Christian taboo sexuality is therefore completely unsatisfactory and must indeed be be utterly rejected from a pro-intimacy feminist perspective.

What is thus needed is a certain feminist rediscovery of Sumerian gynocentric religious sexuality as historically continued in the gynocentric, sublime, serene and elevated traditions, conventions and etiquette for interpersonal intimacy of many historical princely, royal and imperial courts around the world.

Patriarchal sexual morality is oppressive, useless for all and limiting in the wrong ways and especially so in contemporary times considering the widespread (although far from universal) availability of condoms worldwide as protection against STD which historically in many cultures was greatly feared (known as “original sin” in the Christian tradition) as divine punishment for sexual transgression of patriarchal rules governing, indeed tyrannizing interpersonal intimacy.

A functional typology of sexual acts or an illusory taxonomy of desire (as if desire were not precisely unlimited!) as in Para-Christian ‘sexology’ are completely insufficient as a basis for the feminist reinvention of interpersonal intimacy as part of the essential task of devising feminist etiquette.

Let us for example look at the difference between coitus and haterape. There is not much functional difference really and there is socially speaking not much difference between a male threatening and/or physically coercing a female into haterape and a male “persuading” a non-aroused female into coitus. In both cases are males by social conditioning culturally reduced to structural rapists who in turn structurally endeavor to reduce females to prostitutes; i.e. partly/entirely involuntary sex workers.

Innovative feminist ethics guiding interpersonal intimacy needs rather be founded on etiquette (i.e. guidelines for behavior as pertaining to and relative to social context) as opposed to merely primarily on impersonal functional prohibitions. This is of course not to say that there is no need for liminal restraint on socio-sexual behavior but rather that feminist etiquette in varying social contexts needs itself offer liminal restraint so as to prevent situations of slippery slopes leading to clearly undesirable outcomes for one or more of the persons involved in a certain setting of interpersonal intimacy.

Etiquette whether explicit or implicit is the basis of every cultural or subcultural consensus and so the only question is what etiquette, or rather what kind of etiquette? There is however a certain, indeed highly peculiar absence of etiquette in so called “sexuality” of secular/modern culture as there are essentially only mostly implicit prohibitions as etiquette in contrast is about is about positive guidelines for behaviors. Indeed, if you already proactively know how to appropriately behave, then there is really not much practical need for prohibitions as prohibitions are essentially only needed for those who are not in full control of their behaviors and typically do not know how to constructively socially behave.

To use a fitting example, if you already know how to exquisitely enjoy eating an apple then you need not be told *how to not* eat an apple. Of course an apple is not a person and when interacting with a fellow person you should not behave in a way that you yourself would not want to be treated at the same time as being cognizant that the other person is cognitively different from you and most probably wishes to be treated more less differently than you wish to be treated. If you are trained into becoming a feminist mistress/master of seduction then you already know how to interact and only need to ethically personalize this to the idiosyncratic psychology and profound personal desires of the person with whom you are interacting with. This is not to say that there is only one appropriate way for performing seduction but rather that feminist etiquette should provide social skills for appropriately performing socio-sexual behaviors generally.

The feminist revolution of morals therefore should be very much about supplanting sterile, impersonal, taxonomizing/typologizing taboo sexuality – as historically developed from a certain medieval inversion of historical Christian sexual prohibitions – with instead exquisite, sophisticated feminist etiquette in training females Supergals and males into Princes of Dreams.

74. Arousal of Seduction

Seduction is about sexually arousing at least one fellow person and so there are different ways for going about in attaining sexual arousal in a fellow person. Primping females are indeed typically more or less intentionally endeavoring to sexually arouse surrounding society and this is of form of “passive seduction” in the sense of inviting “active seduction” by another person, although to be sure, usually not just anyone.

Active seduction is typically a form of BDSM whereby the seducer (the Alpha person) sexually arouses the other person (the Beta person) by means of somehow psychologically dominating that very person who is sexually aroused by her/his own state of emotional relative submission. Alpha/Beta seduction is thus essentially about domination/submission and as such part of the BDSM behavioralspectrum of socio-sexual practice. However, Alpha/Beta seduction if socially structured as gendered subordination is certainly highly problematic. This is true whether it is a heterocultural male who is oppressively subordinating a female or a butch lesbian who is oppressively subordinating a femme lesbian – or more precisely if the subordination is structural (i.e. oppressive) rather than elective (i.e. optional).

This of course does not mean that there are not other ways of seducing fellow persons. Since it is all about attaining sexual arousal in a fellow person is ethical social innovation the only limit to embracing ethical diversity in seduction. Indeed, deliberately sexually arousing another person is in a sense a sort of psychological intervention into the emotional intimacy of that very person, indeed an exercise of power of intimacy. The seducer makes herself/himself intimately desired and at the same time psychologically communicates her/his own desire for the person being seduced.

BDSM culture however also has its own genders as Domme, Dom, sub and switch. Gender generally as a culturally diverse worldwide social phenomenon is a form of social sublimation of sexuality. Being empowered as a sexual subject is however not necessarily about symbolic domination but rather about personal choice. Genders are thus typically oppressive if non-elective. Socio-sexual empowerment in Alpha/Beta seduction is thus about being able to choose and even personally design one’s genders. Having only one gender is typically a social straitjacket and the more genders one has the freer is one as a person. A person is thus not reducible to her/his gender(s) but one’s genders ought rather be expressive of one’s individually idiosyncratic personhood.

A gender thus should be an expression of personhood as opposed to a mask of personhood. The same is true of sexuality in the sense that gender should express sexuality in a socially mutually communicative fashion as opposed to a one-sided one. Being socially able to mutually communicate is the reverse of coercion just as diplomacy is the reverse of war and so gender needs to communicate one’s own sexuality in a manner that is mutually socially acceptable.

For example, if one person’s gender communicates to a fellow person’s gender that the first person is merely or predominantly interested in getting into the second person’s underwears as opposed to carnally desiring this individual as a full person is this liable to lead to a breakdown in semiotico-sexual communication unless of course both are interested in more technical intimacy such as typically is in the case between a sex worker and a fellow person purchasing a commercial sexual service.

There is a certain psychological discrepancy here that is irreducible to gender in the sense that the approacher typically originally determines approchement mainly on the basis of physical exterior (including clothes, hairstyle etc.) of the approached while the approached person is typically mainly charmed by personality. The ultimate relative degree of social success of an approchement is thus typically less about looks than about the actual efficacy of mutually communicative expression of individual personhood.

This may take the form of 1) psychological manipulation, 2) mutual appreciation of each other’s respectiven idiosyncratically individual personhood or 3) a combination of the two. A successful approchement may thus be clearly unethical, clearly ethical or ethically dubious. With the exception of extremely skilled deceivers is a an ethical approach to approachement however far more likely to become relatively more socially successful. Just as a sincere compliment is far more likely to become favorably received than an insincere compliment so is a sincere approchement far more likely to become favorably received than an insincere approchement.

There is however an underlying more fundamental problem here. There is a relative lack of non-electiveness of assumed genders of top (“Alpha”) and bottom (“Beta”), meaning that a person is limited to a culturally typically severely restricted form of gender expression that has been socially assigned to her/him by others since birth through processes of socialization. While elective aesthetic styles may socially offer more room for elective gender expression is the underlying problem the implicit assumption that a human person should have only one single gender. This is in turn typically premised on the unfounded presumption that a gender of a person is expressive of a person’s intimate anatomy when in fact it is instead precisely expressive of gender ideology at any point in history in any particular cultural/subcultural setting.

Empowerment of a person’s socio-sexual agency in her becoming a reciprocal socio-sexual subject is thus precisely about elective, preferably self-designed personalized genders. This means that whether one is Alpha/top gender (Domme/Dom) or Beta/bottom gender (sub) ought social processes of seduction be about elective, self-designed genders as opposed to gender assigned to a person by society through culturally received gender ideology.

However, no person person’s gender is truly elective unless the person is at least able to be genderfluid, meaning shifting between substantially distinctive forms of gender expression of individual personhood. This means that a person needs not necessarily be genderfluid in actual life as long as s/he is actually socially competent to be so.  

Whether individual practice of BDSM is ethical is certainly not only dependent on prior consent and an agreed codeword as there are also other ethical factors considering that structural prejudice exists in virtually all human social settings, including within the BDSMF community. However, electiveness of genders are not only essential to the freely chosen nature of BDSM practices whereby a participant freely chooses to be Domme, Dom, sub, switch etc. but certainly to seduction generally.

There is a profound structural dissatisfaction in heteroculture with the state of gender-asymmetric genders. For males is there typically profound frustration in the perceived sexual unavailability of females and for females is there typically corresponding frustration in male social incompetence as well as obviously over male sexist socio-sexual behavioral dysfunction towards females. Females typically wish to be seduced in a manner that they themselves desire but do not communicate yet males are typically clueless in this regard due to receiving no formal education/training whatsoever in this regard.

This mutual structural dissatisfaction is precisely due to the non-elective nature of this behavioral asymmetry. Thus if one is not able to choose one’s genders is one not truly free in the sense that imposed, non-elective gender is a social burden and not only so for transgender human beings. Indeed heteroculture is frustrating to both females and males due to to assigned gender roles being imposed on individuals by culture on the basis of ideological interpretations of anatomy.

Females and males in secular/modern heteroculture typically thus socio-sexually expect other things from each other than what they actually socially receive. The approached initially desires a person’s exterior while the approached tends to be more interested in the personhood of the approaching person, or at least is this so in compulsory heteroculture in secular/modern society where there is an implicit social assumption that seduction specifically and sexual relations generally are supposed to ultimately lead to what is actually monogamous reproductive prostitution.

If a person is able to freely design her/his own genders without behavioral confinement to socially imposed, “assigned” gender roles does this open up to many more potential ethical avenues for seduction. The problem is not that heterotypical seduction is part of the BDSM spectrum but rather that top/bottom genders for seduction have a non-elective nature in heteroculture in secular/modern society.

If however in the social context of seduction a human person is at least sufficiently socially skilled to become electively genderfluid then a person may switch between distinctive gender expressions of idiosyncratic individual personhood as dependent on social context. A skilled seducer expresses a gender that is amenable to the person being seduced. Indeed, the typically non-elective nature of top/bottom seduction in heteroculture in secular/modern society is severely structurally oppressive for females and males alike  and what is usually frustrating for females and males alike is the structural lack of mutuality as both parties mutually expect each other to behave like sex workers. These are mutually selfish and thus essentially lowly expectations whereby one “wants”, indeed expects certain stereotypical social behaviors from others rather than thinking in terms of what oneself could instead offer a fellow person.

This is where non-elective top/bottom seduction usually and typically so becomes mutually socially aborted as rather than thinking in terms of how oneself could act as a non-commercial sex worker to the satisfaction of the other person is that person instead expected to satisfy one’s own socio-sexual expectations. Both males and females in heteroculture thus essentially think like johns and expect free services from others rather than thinking in terms of what they themselves could offer socio-sexually to a fellow person. A heterocultural female thus typically wishes a male to seduce her in a certain way while the heterocultural male wishes her to become sexually available in a certain way.

Heterocultural top/bottom seduction is thus not only structurally highly problematic due to the structually non-elective nature of BDSMF genders as assigned on the basis of perceived anatomy at birth but also precisely due to its very selfish nature. Thus, to paraphrase John F. Kennedy, don’t ask what the other person could do for you but instead ask yourself what you could do for that other person.

Feminist seduction therefore needs to be based on elective, designed genders as opposed to assigned ones. Feminist seduction means moving out of the mutually selfish mindset as reciprocity in seduction is precisely achieved through social, sexual and intimate altruism. If rather than thinking how one is supposed “to get something” one instead thinks in terms of how one can give something to someone, then there is indeed much greater potential for an initial approchement leading to completed seduction.

Indeed, learning to master/mistress as many genders (i.e. gender roles) as possible is precisely essential to socio-sexual empowerment. Top/bottom seduction is only truly elective if one socially masters both, meaning that one does not have to practice gender switching, i.e. the state of being genderfluid but one should at least be socially competent to be so. The social norm that only males should seduce while only females should be seduced is not only structurally completely involuntary but is rather a form of compulsory sexuality and indeed rape culture and as such most severely oppressive indeed and hence the structurally pervasive discontent and ensuing emotional deficit in intimacy among females and males alike with respect to top/bottom approchement/roleplay/seduction/intercourse/relationship in heteroculture in secular/modern society.

What is hence needed is a feminist etiquette that will crucially enable persons to freely design their own multiple genders and also have appropriate social space for developing socio-sexual competence to become seducer, seduced and both. The unfortunate, tragic and sad truth is that there is little difference between compulsory sexuality and sexual harassment, as compulsory sexuality (actually rape culture) is precisely nominally “consensual” sexual harassment through structural eroticization of sexism, masculinism, misogyny and phallogocentrism.

Considering that the essence of seduction is precisely about sexually arousing a fellow person is it peculiar indeed that this is perceived as necessarily needing a top/bottom roleplay as any such roleplay should instead become completely elective with respect to the performance of seduction. Considering that egalitarian top/top seduction (e.g. as often in gay male park cruising) and egalitarian bottom/bottom seduction (e.g. as often in seduction between lipstick lesbians) are common in LGBTQI culture and also considering the formalized elective nature of top/bottom play in BDSMF cultures need society crucially therefore learn from these sexual subcultures in internalizing that multiple forms of top/bottom seduction should become part of a vast smorgasbord of manifold options for feminist ethico-aesthetical seduction rather than perpetuating a certain socially normative sexualization of structural oppression against females by means of ideologically imposed patriarchal structural distortion of male intimate desire and therefore also tragically ensuing severe structural dysfunctions in heterotypical male socio-sexual behaviors.

75. Deferred Messianic Arrival

Girls in secular/modern society at an early age typically develop lovely romantic dreams about the messianic arrival of the Prince of Dreams. However, although having expected the messianic arrival of the Prince of Dreams since an early age is the adolescent or adult female not ready and prepared when and if he ultimately arrives.

His exquisite conversational arrival replete with perfect social behavior makes her all wet in her panties, yet she is not culturally permitted by society to show her sexual arousal for fear that this will turn him off. Yet as the Prince of Dreams is a practicing feminist does he love female arousal. He makes her a lovely and wonderful invite for social interaction with perfect etiquette yet she has been taught that she must decline a few times and make him insist in order to seem like a good girl. Little is she aware that she imitates a prostitute haggling over the price and so the anti-sexist Prince of Dreams kisses her cheek, warmly hugs her tense body and tells her goodbye in disappointment over her lowly behavior, indeed her inability to verbally express and affirm her intimate desire as already extremely visible in her facial and body language. Indeed her female sexuality is precisely so structurally stigmatized that she dares not even say yes to her own desire let alone to her ultimate dream since early childhood.

Many utopias in modernity have indeed turned into dystopias and so it turns out that she is not ready to say yes to the Prince of Dreams, let alone to her own intimate desire for she is a captive of sexist binary gender which is not even her own and which she merely performs for the sake of tactically hiding her arousal. Her behavior however tells the message that she wishes for him to engage in sexist sexual aggression. “Treat me like a harlot and I shall spread my legs” is the implicit message that her hiding of her desire and personhood sends to the Prince of Dreams who in disappointment hurries on the next dreaming female who of course most likely will behave in the exact same self-defeating, indeed tragic behavior for the Prince of Dreams without exception takes a no for a no as otherwise would he not be the Prince of Dreams but yet another lowly male scumbag.

There is an inherent paradox in this drama for she believes that she needs to engage in essentially evil intrigue to snare him. She believes that in order to make him stay she needs to provoke pathological infatuation and make him “love” an idol (i.e. an idealized image of her) as the tragically brainwashed romantic female does not believe that her personhood – body and soul – is sufficient in and of itself for the Prince of Dreams to love her with profound affection and devoted appreciation of her personhood as if he were a father who carnally desires his own daughter. Little does she understand that the psychologically fundamentally selfish love for an idol disappears when the pathological infatuation dissipates as it almost always does.

Yet the Prince of Dreams does not practice idol worship for the Prince of Dreams is a righteous, feminist lover and adores and respects the personhood of the feverishly expecting female, both her body and soul. But this is not enough for the foolish female so the disappointed messianic Prince of Dreams moves on to greet the next foolish female. And so is the messianic arrival of the Prince of Dreams once more repeatedly deferred.

After he leaves does she cry intensely and she bizarrely asks herself why the Prince of Dreams did not rape her for that was indeed her erotic fantasy. The Prince of Dreams meets female after female who is unable to utter a simple “yes” let alone utter exquisite expressions of intimate attraction. The question therefore is what she truly desires in the depth of her heart? The Prince of Dreams leaves female after female in increasing bewilderment, after all is he not realizing their romantic dreams since early childhood?

The truth is that she desires intimate friendship and she is so brainwashed by sexist society that she foolishly does not think that his profound appreciation of her personhood – body and soul – is enough and she sadly chooses intrigue and manipulation over intimate friendship and so intrigue and manipulation is indeed what she will receive in return from a male scumbag while the Prince of Dreams will simply leave in utter disappointment of his perfect divine love not being accepted as sufficient by the tragically foolish female in her wet panties.

The essential question therefore is how she can nurture intimate friendship with the Prince of Dreams? What invitation for social and/or intimate activity could she ask the Prince of Dreams that would not seem like a formal proposal and hence not make her seem like a prostitute in her own eyes and in they eyes of others? Indeed, the Prince of Dreams is not a sexist and profoundly respects the personhood of the prostitute no less than that of the virgin. The Prince of Dreams asks herself what social invitation he could make that would be easy for her not to decline?


And so the Prince of Dreams gently takes her hand and they walk away together and much later proceed to jointly greet the next dreaming female expecting the messianic arrival of the Prince of Dreams for how could the Prince of Dreams even contemplate the home prostitution of reproductive monogamy considering the many millions of masturbating females who intensely expect him almost every day?

“I believe with perfect faith in the coming of the mashiach, and though he may tarry, still I await him every day.”  Principle 12 of the 13 Principles of Faith of the leader of the Jewish people, Spanish-Egyptian universal genius and posek, rabbi Moshe ben Maimon (1135-1204), also known as “Maimonides” and “Rambam”.

What sincere words could he say that would convince the pathetically romantic female in her wet panties of simply affirmatively accepting selfless love and profound appreciation of her personhood, both body and soul without the essentially selfish emotions of pathological infatuation of essentially selfishly seeking and appointing a new ersatz parent? Why does she strive for the Prince of Dreams to worship an idol (i.e. an idealized image of her) rather than him simply revering her personhood, body and soul?

It turns out that the dreaming female has become far less mature than when she first as a very young girl began to dream about the arrival of the Prince of Dreams and so has she instead become socially conditioned by sexism into luring herself into eventually becoming the home prostitute of a scumbag by means of the deceptive false consciousness of sexist romance novels and misogynist culture generally.

And so the dreaming female finally learns to unlearn the cynically evil, yet ultimately self-defeating tricks of deceptive and manipulative sexism and instead in Derridean discursive fashion enthusiastically embraces her own intense intimate and romantic desire for the long expected messianic arrival of the Prince of Dreams with oui, oui!  and viens, viens!

76. Gender Discomfort

The question of gender discomfort is one that pervades discourse on gender and intimacy in contemporary secular/modern culture. There is the notion and indeed phenomenon of one’s pleasure being the other’s discomfort in gender. But rather than thinking of gender discomfort as something idiosyncratic and given should we start thinking about how gender discomfort is socially constructed and what social role it plays in the social construction of gender relations generally, including relative degrees of intimacy and non-intimacy between persons.

Transsexualism was invented as a medical problem with the notion of “being born in the wrong body” as this presumes that there are only two types of human bodies and so as with pseudo-medical genital mutiliation of intersexed children – the idea came about that those not fitting into either two categories should be fitted in by means of medical intervention.

This is not to ignore the very real gender discomfort experienced by and towards many transgender people but it needs also be understood that gender discomfort is importantly not limited to transgender people. Gender discomfort is provoked in varying social contexts when a person is misgendered, meaning that someone reads gendered notions into another person’s body, notions which that person does not recognize and/or identify with. For example, imagine a primping adolescent female who is called “a slut” by a promiscuous male. What’s in that insult? It provokes gender discomfort in the sense that the particular adolescent female in this example simply does not identify with the description of her as “a slut” and so this projectively gendered characterization of her makes her experience gender discomfort.

Many transgender people who have still not come out of the closet and may not even be aware of themselves being transgender nevertheless socially experience the significant discomfort of misgendering as misgendering is indeed the most common form of transphobia. It is the experience of misgendering (even if the transgendered person does not yet herself/himself understand what this is) that provokes the gender discomfort experience of feeling as if one were “born in the wrong body.” But really is there any such thing as the wrong body? To assume that it is the body that is wrong rather than the misgendering of the body is essentially structurally transphobic. Of course it is typically much more socially convenient once a transgender person as completed “sex reassignment therapy” which is in sharp contrast to the severe inconveniencea of constantly suffering transphobic social terrorism while living fully openly as a non-binary transgender person. This state of post-operative relative convenience certainly must not disguise the fact that misgendering against transgender people and not the body of the transgender person is in fact the real underlying problem.

This is similar to how bodies of rabbinic Jews and African Americans were considered “problems” (although average psychometric group difference remains a significant factor in tensions between ethnic groups with divergent average genotypic profiles) rather than anti-Jewish prejudice and other forms of inter-human racism (including the genotypic psychometric norm of the predominant genetic group) instead being the real issue. European Jews and African Americans were thus considered as having “the wrong bodies” due to ostensibly having “the wrong genes” and so Jews and African Americans either had to be socially normalized (“assimilated”), socially segregated or physically eliminated as groups of people. The same attitude still exists today towards transgender people who are expected to undergo “sex reassignment surgery”, lead open lives only in the context of LGBTQI subculture such as Pride parades or else become full “socially normalized” into the ciscultural mainstream, meaning living cisgender. There is the transphobic trope according to which transgender people must only be respected as social equals in society if they either undergo sex reassignment surgery, remain invisible to surrounding society or socially, behaviorally and aesthetically comply with cisnormativity; in other words either anatomical elimination, segregation or social elimination.

Many females experience gender discomfort (“he is so creepy!”) when in contact with males in public space as interested in sexual intercourse. This is because the way tthat they are perceived does not match the way that they perceive themselves. As famous multinational psychoanalyst Erik Erikson (1902-1994) understood is convergence of self-perception and how others perceive oneself typically important for psychological well-being. A female experiencing an approaching male as “creepy” typically assumes that it is either the physical manifestation of the male (fat, old, ugly etc.) or his awkward expression of sexuality that is experienced “creepy”, yet it is rather mostly his performative misinterpretation of her body in the sense that she does not share his gendered misinterpretation of her body that provokes her sense of him as creepy rather than his gender expression, sexual expression or visual manifestation. Transgender people who are not yet fully out of the closet typically introject and internalize this impression and emotional experience of “creepiness” into a self-experience that there is somehow “something wrong” with their own bodies.

The discourse on transsexualism is premised on the idea that body and gender need ideologically match. Yet, it is extremely common for transgender people to live with two or more genders. For example is it common for transgender people to live double lives with one non-elective gender at work and privately with relatives as well as a quite different, yet typically mostly elective gender when partying at an LGBTQI-friendly nightclub during the weekend. Gender discomfort is however typically provoked in almost any person who is forced to live a gender role which s/he is made feel uncomfortable in. Many feminists are simply uncomfortable with socially prescribed gender roles in which they feel somehow socially incarcerated and so structurally experience gender discomfort in many social situations due to not being seen the way that they cognitively experience themselves.

There is no intrinsic natural match between any type of anatomy and any particular socially constructed gender as all genders (i.e. gender roles) are socially constructed indeed although it is true that social construction itself forms part of zoology. There is no natural connection whatsoever between intimate anatomy and genders since this is mere social construction. It is just that some people feel relatively less comfortable in their assigned gender roles than do others. Indeed, there are many cisgender people who feel quite comfortable in their assigned gender roles, or at least claim to be so and perhaps due to not having experienced living another gender and so really have nothing to compare to in terms of self-experience.

The liberation of gender from classificatory categories of anatomy needs to be achieved through increasing individualization of gender for males just as this has largely already been achieved for females. The antiquated notion that gender is somehow an intrinsic expression of intimate anatomy needs not only become thoroughly scandalized, but utterly discredited indeed. Just as ethnicity is not an intrinsic expression of so called “race” is gender not an intrinsic expression of intimate anatomy. Just as an ethnically “White” person in the United States may have dark skin so may an ethnically “Black” person in the United States have light skin. Just as a person with so called male intimate anatomy may be a transgender female so may a person with so called female intimate anatomy be a transgender male.

Gender discomfort is a severe daily nuisance for many females and transgender people in secular/modern culture. Gender discomfort is often sexualized in females frequently being considered sexually attractive by others often experiencing their imposed sexualization by others as a severe annoyance. For example may a sexually attractive non-binary transgender lesbian female experience severe gender discomfort in being sexually misgendered through either homophobia (here the notion that she really ought be attracted to males) or transphobia in the sense of others being sexually attracted to a false image of her as ostensibly a heterocultural male on account of their ideologically colored misperception of her body.

The notion that sexualization itself is the problem disguises the fact that the real underlying problem is misgendering. What is so extremely annoying with being subjected to misgendering (whether sexual misgendering or other misgendering) is the fact that misgendering is completely involuntary for the person being subjected to misgendering and hence the typically severe experienced discomfort about being subject to misgendering.

The discomfort with their own bodies as experienced by many transgender people is typically either medically treated or self-treated in aware transgender people by means of gender transition or gender experimenting, including by means of different choice of clothes. “Sex reassignment surgery” is psychologically helpful in the sense that a transgender person who has has completed “sex reassignment surgery” and has since become fully passable in her elective gender typically no longer suffers transphobic misgendering although s/he may still experience sexual misgendering and homophobic misgendering. Since the transphobic misgendering has socially ended does s/he no longer experience this particular form of gender discomfort in social interaction with others.  

If however the personhoods of transgender persons were fully accepted by society including the particular individual combination of anatomical appearance, sexual expression and gender experience of the individual transgender person, then there would probably not be much need for “sex reassignment therapy” as without structurally imposed transphobic gender discomfort would there indeed not be much need or even individual demand for “sex reassignment therapy”. It is however essential to understand that transphobic discomfort is surely not the only form of gender discomfort as there is also ableist gender discomfort, ageist gender discomfort, classist gender discomfort, ethnic gender discomfort, homophobic gender discomfort, linguistic gender discomfort, racialized gender discomfort, rankist gender discomfort, religious gender discomfort, sexualized gender discomfort and sizeist gender discomfort.

Gender discomfort is thus expressed through many forms of structural oppression and so gender discomfort is not a disembodied phenomenon but is rather imposed through many shibboleths of miscrimination (misperception of persons) in the form as individual stigmatization. Indeed is miscrimination what misgendering actually does and the experience of miscrimination is as discrimination a severe problem indeed in secular/modern society. Females and transgender people are surely not the only ones experiencing misgendering yet females and transgender people are the ones most exposed to misgendering.

However if multiple, self-designed and personalized genders become the new feminist societal norm of genderfluidity, meaning having the social competence to transition between various elective gender roles as soon as one so wishes, then it becomes substantially easier to handle the experience of socially imposed gender discomfort as one is able to pick the gender or gender flavor that is the most helpful in particular social situations, meaning e.g. having different genders for different makeup styles and different fashion styles and of course genders without makeup and importantly different genders for different social situations.

Gender needs to express the individuality of idiosyncratic personhood in a manner that provides effective two-way communication in hence also hopefully preempting gender discomfort. Normative genderfluidity would mean developing the social competence for becoming a human chameleon in being able to fit into almost any ethnic or social context, meaning having different genders and different flavors of those genders for different situations/contexts while always expressing one’s own individuality as opposed to pretending to not quite be oneself as is the experience of LGBTQI people still partly or entirely in the closet. The problem with needing to pretend to not quite be oneself is that it i imposed and non-elective and therefore typically rightly self-experienced as creepy, coercive and oppressive indeed.

Of course, contemporary fertile-age females in secular/modern society are effectively already increasingly genderfluid in terms of adopting/adapting different flavors of genders for different situations such as typically being far more feminine while flirting. This is not to say that every gender is ethically helpful as many masculine genders irrespective of anatomy are simply rude and base behavior. Gender diversity as diversity generally is surely wonderful, yet not all diversity is wonderful and that is true with regard to gender diversity as well and so genders as other social phenomena certainly need to become continually ethically redefined/redelimited through innovative, continually developing feminist etiquette in terms of behaving exquisitely in therefore endeavoring to treating others extremely well in most social situations.

Also there are genders mostly exhibiting so called “masculinity” and which for the most part are simply base and lowly and therefore ethically inadmissable in terms of feminist etiquette and this is so irrespective intimate anatomy. While gender diversity is truly wonderful does this not mean that sexist gender roles are somehow acceptable, although that should not be misconstrued to infer that everything is wrong in binary gender roles. Indeed most things are deplorable in binary male gender while most things are laudable in binary female gender or at least is this the case in secular/modern culture.

77. Expressing Personhood

There are many forms and subforms of interpersonal attraction and one may of course be attracted to very particular aspects in and of other persons. Primping persons usually nominally intend makeup, fashion, hairstyles etc. to attractivize their individual personhood. This is not always in practice the case as primping may rather serve the purpose of veiling and disguising personhood such as being ashamed of oneself or the way one looks bare naked without primping.

Humans are herd animals and we mirror ourselves in others and wish to be appreciated as unique persons by others as the unique individuals we are as idiosyncratic Animals. Self-designed appearance/social behavior may however be more or less successful in conveying personhood. Aesthetic communication may as other forms of communication become more or less successful in getting the message across. Implicit communication can be extremely successful, yet semiotics/communication may be typically vastly improved by carefully designing the message and/or adhering to a well-proven protocol/etiquette.

Primping/beautification is similar to advertisement in typically conveying explicit and/or implicit messages to others, yet the problem is that the messages conveyed are typically misinterpreted by others. Persons doing primping usually however lack any formal or informal education with regard to semiotics, advertisement, professional communication and related fields which means typically nearly consistent (meaning structural!) misunderstanding. The problem with female primping is not the primping itself (makeup is a form of body painting and body painting appears in many different human cultures) but rather how it fails as communication, meaning how it is almost consistently misinterpreted by males.

Unprofessional communication is thus typically at best ineffective and at worst counterproductive. Primping is similar to advertisement in that it is intended to present something/somebody and make it attractive and interesting. While advertisement does present a product or service does primping if successful attractively convey idiosyncratic beauty of individual personhood.

Gender is a simulacrum in the sense that it is copy of a copy of a copy of a copy etc. indeed copies of copies without any original. Gender is also similar to advertisement in the sense that just as a communication professional may communicate in many different genres and subgenres of semiotics/aesthetics so may a primping or non-primping person express individual personhood and its idiosyncratic nature in many different genres of genders, gender expressions, indeed multiple genders that may all be more or less authentic/idiosyncratic semiotic expressions of individual personhood in one single unique person.

There is thus no singularly authentically idiosyncratic gender expression of any person as there are many semiotic genres of gender expression although the extent of the gendered  semiotic repertoire varies from person to person. However, if the purpose of primping is to become appreciated and understood as a person by others, then primping needs not only express but also successfully convey idiosyncratically individual personhood. Of course it is difficult to communicate with someone who structurally misunderstand as that is indeed the very structure of prejudice.

Heteroculturally primping females typically more or less consciously intend to express more than one thing at the same time. These dimensions of semiotic messaging in heterocultural primping include wishing to look good/attractive to oneself, wishing to look good/attractive in the eyes of fellow females and wishing to look good/attractive in the eyes of males. Looking good/attractive does not however necessarily idiosyncratically communicate individual personhood and that is essential if one wishes and desires to be fully appreciated as a unique person.

Primping (beautification) and gender (socio-sexual behavior) are thus two aspects of self-expression albeit surely not the only ones. It is commonly advised in many contexts that one should “be the oneself” and there is indeed much wisdom to that adage. However, this should not imply a singular gender expression but rather embracing diversity and plurality in self-expression whether with respect to gender, beautification, intellectual expression, intimacy or otherwise.

However, how be oneself? “Be oneself’” is a biologist misnomer as it ought rather be known as “expressing oneself”, or even much better: “expressing personhood”. Why “personhood” as opposed to “oneself”? There is a certain singularity to personhood not only in its experience of sentience but also in its idiosyncracy, yet personhood is multidimensional and multitemporal, the latter in the sense of sentience being serial in the sense of a person constantly changing genetically, constantly changing in her experience and and constantly changing in her perception in more or less constantly hopefully learning new things. Considering that the singularity of personhood is so multifaceted need expressions of personhood also become increasingly plural and diverse indeed.

The question of gender diversity needs therefore not only be considered in the context of societal diversity but also in terms of diversity in a person’s own gender expression. If we wish and desire to be appreciated by others must we learn to optimize our self-expression in increasingly gender-diverse ways. Do we really wish others to appreciate stereotypes of ourselves rather than our very intrinsically idiosyncratic individual personhood? And so we must find appropriate expression for that. Take the example of a male asking out a female for a date, she accepts but then begins stereotypical stalling tactics as for the day and time of the coming meeting so as to prove indeed to him “that she is not a harlot!” Instead of her presenting and expressing her own unique personhood in for example appropriately expressing her present carnal desire for eventual fellatio does she rather play out a psuedo-pornographic stereotype of sexist gender dystopia which in nearly all cases lead to the non-fulfilment of her carnal desire.

Thus rather than present ourselves as gender stereotypes need we produce exquisitely self-designed, multiple personalized genders, gender nuances and gender expressions and simply constantly work on our gender expressions to improve our social, socio-sexual and sexual skills/behaviors in thus becoming increasingly more pleasant to others. Females in secular/modern society have increasingly advanced in this respect and so the diversity and expression of genders needs to be advanced among males as well. Females must become the norm for the feminist revolution to succeed and so feminism must remove the current masculinist norms (i.e. structural denigration of semiotic markers, practices and phenomena considered “feminine”) in much of the feminist movement worldwide. In order for the worldwide feminist revolution to succeed indeed must we therefore critically embrace and deconstruct femininity in increasingly developing a feminist etiquette for all.

78. Expressing Desire

It is extremely common in heteronormative culture to fear expressing one’s carnal desire due to concerns that such expression will produce turnoff in others, both in the desired person and in third persons as observers and/or gossipers.

Females often resent how males in public stereotypically express their desire for females and are at the same time typically afraid to come across as what is invariably seen as “the wrong way”, namely “easy”, “available”, “slutty” etc. Rejection is gender discomfort precisely as the person who seemingly or actually sincerely rejects you apparently does not fully appreciate the full you, both body and soul.

It is common for females and males alike to experience frustration with not knowing what to actually say (and how to say it!) to persons whom one desires, indeed not knowing how to communicate one’s desire for others. There are two aspects to this; 1) one is simple lack of social competence with respect to building mutually sincere interpersonal ties leading towards mutually desired interpersonal intimacy and the other is 2) mythological notions of binary gender. Indeed there is tremendous diversity of genders as pertaining to both idiosyncracies and shibboleths of discursive grouping of persons such as age, caste/clan/tribe, class/profession, ethnicity/religion, pigmentation/racialization, species/subspecies, height/weight/functionally and so on.

Notions of binary genders are literally psychological prisons that serve to unethically restrict social behaviors in order to perpetuate the age/gender social order of patriarchy as premised on the hegemonic social system of marital prostitution. Indeed, binary genders in heteronormative culture in secular/modern society simply means not knowing how to communicate one’s interpersonal desire for fear of coming across as slutty/sleazy, meaning readily sexually available. Yet sexual availability is precisely what is desired so why hide it? Or more specifically why feel a need to not communicate to desired others what oneself desires in others?

There are quite strict notions of gendered language use that limit gendered linguistic expression in heteronormativity in secular/modern culture. These are heteronormative ideas whereby different expressions of language are reserved for friendship and intimacy respectively. This signals ownership in marital prostitution (spouse/partner/boyfriend/girlfriend) whereby everyone is supposed to respect the symbols of patriarchy and its most revered social institution, namely marital prostitution. A heterocultural female in secular/modern culture therefore typically feels compelled to semiotically restrict her friendship with males, transfemales and lesbians in such a way so as to protect her symbolically privileged social stature under the sexist social order of marital prostitution. This of course is Western honor culture whereby patriarchal “honor” is perceived as “harmed” unless a heterocultural female behaviorally abides by the implicit/explicit conventions of the bondage of marital/relational prostitution according to the homophobic, transphobic, sexist and patriarchal intimacy/friendship dichotomy.

A heterocultural approchment typically takes place with a certain dramaturgy of social interaction. The male who approaches a female typically does so with more or less sexual intentions and this may be perceived as “sleazy” or “creepy” if his intentions come across as exclusively sexual, in part due to her fear of being perceived by him as so called “slutty”.  The female if interested in the male is typically interested in friendship (“getting to know him”) up to the point of her sexual arousal where she may simply wish to become physically really intimate right away. The problem is that social conventions typically do not allow her to become intimate as fast as she may desire (unless perhaps she is drunk/drugged) and this is compounded by the fact that males with varying psychological “success” unfortunately often pretend to cherish and respect females as persons in order to get into their panties and so she may experience a perfectly reasonable, indeed fully justified social need to psychologically test if his intentions are sincere with respect to him appreciating her full personhood (both appearance and cognition, traditionally known as body and soul) and so she is looking for signs that he truly appreciates her individually idiosyncratic personhood.

The male in turn typically believes that he needs to court and flatter her in order to get himself a new symbolic parent (i.e. if he suffers from pathological infatuation) or simply to gain sexual access, meaning either in order to have casual sex (which may or may not be exploitive) or for the purpose of ultimately subjecting her to lifelong marital prostitution. The underlying problem is thus that he does not understand that what she desires is full appreciation of her personhood, both body and soul. He does not understand that love of a person is precisely appreciation of full, individed personhood and not just relational idol worship, namely idolization of a fantasy image of a fellow person.

Friendship itself is indeed full appreciation of personhood; love without friendship is certainly not love of personhood and so an intimate relationship without mutual appreciation of personhood (body and soul) is typically an exercise in illusion. This is why many females are looking for friendship first so as to gain some emotional influence, indeed some degree of social control over the male with the perfectly reasonable expectation that if she teaches him to respect her and abide by her rules will she be able to contain any unwanted sexual behaviors on his part. The problem of course is that this typically does not translate into interpersonal respect and interpersonal appreciation beyond mutual idol worship as typically restricted to the phases of courtship and pathological infatuation.

Many things may be perceived as attractive in a fellow person, yet what distinguishes the desired person from other persons is precisely her idiosyncracy, namely her gendered, social, intellectual, sexual, bodily and aesthetic expression of individual personhood, in other words her very uniqueness as a person. If you believe yourself to love someone without fully appreciating that very person’s full, undivided personhood, then you have talked yourself into an illusion that will eventually probably only cause emotional tragedy for all involved, including for dependent children.

Therefore, early appreciating full personhood is precisely key to making an approach desired, meaning making oneself desired; indeed if the other person feels “seen” as a full person (both cognition and appearance) and not just merely as “a body” then chances are much better that the other person will be inclined towards an increasing degree of interpersonal intimacy. Indeed a female approaching and conversing a male in a fashion that appreciates only his appearance but not his cognition is likely to be seen as unattractive and so this is anatomically neutral, the only difference being that females are typically much more frequently subjected to public sexual harassment and so are more reluctant to get into bed with strangers of the so called “other sex” for fear of being mistreated and/or stigmatized. Indeed the statistical risk of suffering haterape and physical abuse is much less if a person goes into bed with a female than if the same person goes into bed with a male and irrespectively so of intimate anatomy or gender of the person making that very choice. Indeed a physically male transfemale suffers the same risks with males as do cisfemales.

Humans in zoologically being herd animals culturally mirror themselves in each other and so we socially/sexually seek the approval of others. A female who goes into bed with a male (unless she is drunk/drugged) in heteroculture typically does so out of appreciation of his undivided personhood to at least some degree without a binary distinction between appearance and cognition and so her “spreading her legs” to him subconsciously signals to him her symbolic appreciation of his very personhood. This is why males when “scoring” with newfound females (i.e. engaging in coitus) typically experience such an ego boost. Yet if she does not appreciate his undivided personhood will he typically perceive her as merely “slutty” as a consequence of her not experiencing and communicating her intrinsic appreciation of his undivided personhood. Similarly will a female who feel insufficiently appreciated for her undivided personhood by a male at some stage in a process of establishing intimacy with her typically perceive him as sleazy or even creepy.

Interpersonal intimacy takes place between at least two persons, each with a unique individual personhood and so the secret to interpersonal success in establishing intimacy with fellow persons lies in successfully communicating both one’s intrinsic personhood and one’s full appreciation of the personhood of the other person. Such communication is often unsuccessful precisely because the communication fails due to the fact that the person simply does not know how to communicate in a social process leading towards increasing interpersonal intimacy. In other words is this a two-way street of persons communicating and appreciating each other’s undivided personhoods and if this is not communicated, then the process of increasing interpersonal intimacy is likely to as some point end in abject failure. A hetereocultural approchment without successful communication of personhood is therefore in most cases extremely likely to fail as interpersonal intimacy is about sharing personhood and anything else is therefore a mere exercise in illusions.

79. Friendship of Love

The question of love in secular/modern (so called “Western”) culture has typically been separated from that of friendship. There is thus the notion that there are two main forms of social relationships, sexual and non-sexual which are socially constructed as forming an ostensibly dichotomy. This entails the Western notion of sexual relationships not being based on friendship and friendship being somehow (yet not actually) separate from sexuality as both are based on interpersonal intimacy to varying degrees.

Thus are homosociality such as feminism and patriarchy typically considered as purportedly entirely different from homoeroticism when in fact they form part of a single spectrum of attraction as spanning from social attraction over emotional attraction and physical attraction to sexual attraction.

Indeed, this is also the nightmare of heteronormativity and its pervasive reproductive prostitution as usually *not* being based on mutual respect for the idiosyncracies of individual personhoods but rather on hypocritical sexism masquerading as essentially selfish romantic so called “love”.

The socially constructed “limit” purportedly separating friendship from intimacy and desire is thus carefully policed in secular/modern society, including by many feminists. Yet the two are essentially inseparable. The problem with this dichotomy is not only its inherently failed nature but also its intrinsic impossibility as the spectrum of attraction from social attraction over emotional attraction and physical attraction to sexual attraction is precisely a spectrum of relative interpersonal attraction indeed.

The phallocentric intimacy/friendship dichotomy essentially symbolically segregates females from males in the sense that intimacy is typically in heteronormativity of secular/modern culture considered part of friendship between females yet typically not deemed acceptable neither in friendship between males nor in friendship between males and females. And hence the phenomenon of so called “friendzoning” whereby the limit between friendship and intimacy is carefully policed indeed. Yet this binary is dictated by the proprietary nature of purportedly “monogamous” reproductive prostitution as the dichotomy is implicitly, indeed structurally intended to protect the socially privileged status/stature of reproductive prostitution in patriarchy.

Interpersonal desire is based on interpersonal attraction which is a spectrum of degree and is as such intrinsically irreducible to any kind of dichotomy in this regard.  Indeed, desire is also a spectrum spanning from social desire over emotional desire and physical desire to sexual desire.

Rather, interpersonal friendship without love and interpersonal love without friendship are simply pure evil. Slovenian psychoanalyst and critical theorist Slavoj Žižek has suggested that love is simply pure evil and there is defininetly some truth to that as the concept of love in being both too inclusive in including actually selfish emotions and too exclusive in not including interpersonal friendship of mutual appreciation of personhood. The concept of love in Christianity has essentially Satanist dimensions in demanding that others must be loved in their capacity as evildoers. Indeed Rabbinic Judaism warns that he who is compassionate to evil people will eventually become evil to good people. It needs to be understood that the conception of “love” in secular/modern culture is premised on Christianity’s essentially Satanist separation of friendship and intimacy as well as on Christianity’s no less Satanist notion that one should respond to hate with one-sided so called “love”.

While friendship and intimacy are of course found throughout LGBTQI culture is intimacy typically a gateway to friendship among gay males while reversely friendship is typically a gateway to intimacy among lesbian females. Either way is of course fine, yet what is essential is that intimacy and friendship unlike in heteronormativity in secular/modern society are typically not separated by the aporia of the Para-Christian intimacy/friendship dichotomy. Indeed, friendship and love cannot be separated for friendship and love are one and the same thing or to put it differently two different dimensions/descriptions/perspectives on the same zoological phenomenon, namely interpersonal appreciation. Of course there is a continuum of degree in relationships of friendship/love as spanning from non-intimate to relatively intimate to highly intimate.

What is thus needed is a certain Destruktion (i.e. erasure) of the intimacy/friendship binary and which will involve exposing the psychological regression structurally involved in pathological infatuation (i.e. essentially appointing a new parent) and the usually evil and parasitical nature of reproductive prostitution as often described as simply “marriage”. Of course marriage which anthropologically is neither reducible to monogamy or heteronormativity needs to be salvaged, indeed reappropriated from the pernicious, indeed truly evil sexism of reproductive prostitution and instead we need return to the Sumerian gynocentric tradition of hierogamy (Greek for Divine Marriage), meaning gynocentric religious ritual sex. True friendship is based on selfless love and true love is based on selfless friendship. Just as selfish friendship is not friendship so is selfish love simply not love at all.

Breaking down this phallocentric discursive enclosure surrounding female desire will serve to unlock female desire from the sexual prison of patriarchy with its profoundly evil practices of reproductive prostitution. Humans generally should be raised to become functionally bisexual/pansexual in terms of understanding that friendship/love needs to be based on profound appreciation of personhood and certainly not on an imaginary attraction to an imaginary collectivity of actually diverse genders. After all nobody is attracted to all females or all males. This is not to deny that gender is typically not an important factor in interhuman attraction (whether social, emotional, physical or sexual) but rather that friendship/love needs to be based on appreciation of personhood and not merely “attraction” to semiotic markers.

80. Virgin meets Harlot

Inanna, the Sumerian goddess of love and war is described in the Akkadian Epic of Gilgamesh as sometimes being a young man, sometimes a young woman and sometimes a harlot, sometimes a virgin. What is interesting is that this post-Sumerian description of Sumerian Inanna marks the partriarchal cultural bisection of human beings and in particular females into harlot and virgin. This theme is found in the rabbinic tradition where in interpreting textual traces of the biblical Book of Genesis (Hebew Sefer BeReshit) the harlot female Lilith is “replaced” by the virgin female Eve. This signifies the patriarchal destruction, even attempt to obliterate the Sumerian gynocentric tradition as based on embracing gynocentric sacred ritual sex in Inanna Temples of Love. Indeed, the Epic of Gilgamesh marks the beginning of the historically escalating demonization of Inanna by initially partially bisecting her into man/woman and virgin/harlot. Inanna/Asherah in religious tradition developed into the god of Israel was thus increasingly semiotically bisected by religious imperialism into devil (destructive deity) and totalitarian personality (deity of patriarchal “love”).

In the Christian tradition is this seen where Inanna both figures as Mary (Hebrew Miriam) as described as a mother of god who is effectively incestuously described as god’s extramarital virgin slut – both mother and virgin who cheated with god on her boyfriend Joseph and then gives birth to her lover. This continues the Gilgamesh tradition where Inanna is already partially demonized as purportedly being cruel to male sex partners. Yet the unity of Mary as therefore both harlot and virgin is still quite remarkable in the Sumerian gynocentric tradition succeeding in somehow textually survive under the socio-sexual terror of religious patriarchy. While the martial/destructive aspect of Inanna survives in the Greek Testament (so called “New Testament”) as the Harlot of Babylon does the sexual aspect of Inanna survive as the desexualized Mary of Christianity.

Heterocultural approchement plays out this profoundly demeaning bisection of Inanna in the sense that the male is supposed to play the role of Harlot while the female is supposed to play the role of Virgin. Thus, the male is supposed to initially treat her as if she were a virgin and if he does not will she typically become offended and the question is why? The reason is that the socially constructed performance of heterotypical “female personality” is culturally bisected into sexually non-aroused (virgin) and sexually aroused (harlot) and a female in heteroculture thus expects to be treated as either virgin or harlot as depending on whether she is sexually aroused or not.

The paradox is thus that she typically wishes to be treated as Virgin during approchement (initial approach) and only once she is sexually aroused becoming treating as Harlot throughout the ensuing process of seduction. Thus will she typically become offended if treated as Harlot while still sexually non-aroused and no less offended if *not* treated as Harlot once sexually aroused. Her ostensible “secret” is that she is sexually Harlot with her own interpersonal desire for interpersonal intimacy and she is not socially permitted to sexually reveal this actual non-secret prior to physiologically experiencing sexual arousal. Instead does she expect the seducing male to play the role of Harlot which she is not permitted to play for herself and so once sexually aroused does she tragically typically expect to be treated as a sexual object without asking for his consent for this roleplay. However, she does not wish to be treated as a sexual object prior to her sexual arousal but only once she is sexually aroused indeed.

The male in turn is expected to behave like Virgin during initial approchement while only revealing himself as Harlot once *she* is sexually aroused. She expects to be in control as long as non-aroused while *he* is supposed to assert control once she herself is sexually aroused. The problem however is her esoteric communication which almost no males comprehend. This is the utter and complete stupidity and social tragedy of the heterotypical female gender role in her not being permitted to openly express her carnal desire but only indirectly through semiotic hints by means of primping, body/facial language and verbal hints and non-understood verbal hints which of course invariably remain non-understood or misunderstood as virtually all males in heteroculture are profoundly and tragically socially incompetent with regard to all aspects of intimate/non-intimate relations with females from initial approach to shared custody of children and of course everything in between.

Rather, once approached she ought not be afraid to openly express her desire in interpersonal communication and verbally so since he has already chosen her and he will most likely not be offended or at least not so provided that he too is sexually aroused. In fact, the approaching male will typically either engage in aggressively sexualized sexist behavior (“bad guy”) which may in fact cause sexual arousal in some females or he will hide his Harlot side (“nice guy”). What he typically does not understand is that he needs to look for clear signs of sexual arousal in her more or less genuine self-expression of personhood and once positively detected he must swiftly switch gender from Virgin to Harlot.

She on her part almost implausibly does not understand that he has already *chosen* her through approchement which most heterotypical males of secular/modern culture experience as tortuous and almost impossible to execute and as she has already been chosen need she not fear expressing her carnal desire and even so prior to non-arousal if she is already turned on by the guy.

Virgin meets Harlot is thus not only the structural inability to effectively communicate (i.e. so called “stupidity”) but also mutual incapacity to communicate on the part of both male and female. Both expect the other to play an involuntary role which neither wishes to herself/himself express. Heteroculture is thus a state of profound and indeed almost inexplicable social stupidity. She wants him to become Prince of Dreams despite not ever telling any male to become so. He on his part desires for her to fully express her carnal desire and of course by not ever telling a female to do so.

The bisected personality of Virgin/Harlot is painful to both sides precisely because it prevents expression of full personhood including profoundly personal carnal interpersonal desire for interpersonal intimacy. If he expresses appreciation of her full personhood will she typically lose interest because of his lack of sexual expression (nice guy syndrome) as once aroused does she typically wish to be treated as a sexual object. Of course this is mutually non-consensual as this entire theater of the macabre is precisely premised on non-consensual social BDSM play in public space. Again it is difficult to exaggerate the utter stupidity of this farcical performance of theater which would be comical if not so invariably tragic. Heteroculture is precisely the culture of stupidity, even extreme stupidity as both sides make it almost socially impossible for each other.

Therefore rather than expect the other to behave in a certain and typically ultimately self-defeating sexist manner need human persons of all genders learn to express interpersonal carnal desire for mutual intimacy in a mutually successfully communicative fashion as indeed both the female and the male is afraid that the other will become offended if expressing one’s carnal desire for intimacy with the other person. The structural anthropological fear of semiotic contamination is pervasive in that she fears becoming semiotically contaminated if revealing her desire and he in turn fears semiotically contaminating her (a.k.a. he fears “becoming perceived* as engaging in sexual harassment) and thus himself becoming semiotically contaminated by him semiotically contaminating her. Of course these fears anthropologically originally emerged as fears of sexually transmitted diseases (STD) as females without access to condoms understandably feared becoming infected by STD by means of ejaculation inside the female body while males who appreciated females would understandably fear contaminating female bodies through contagion with STD.

These fears of contagion with STD are of course practically speaking almost unfounded with access to condoms yet these culturally structural fears linger on despite virtually no one understanding why this theater of the macabre is still pervasively performed. The social difficult involved is indeed what perpetuates monogamous marital prostitution as finding a new partner deemed suitable through these self-defeating procedures as is for most humans not only severely difficult but also extremely time-consuming.

Rather, persons of all genders should not be afraid of expressing individual personhood in interpersonal communication, including expressing interpersonal carnal desire in a mutually communicative manner, meaning that the communication must not only be mutually socially acceptable but also lucid and explicit as neither side will typically respond favorably to hinting as that in actual practice other than in coincidental cases (i.e. coincidental success which usually is how relationships come about) simply produces turnoff. He will simply feel unappreciated by her hinting and she will simply feel unappreciated by his hinting and so heteroculture is the culture of structurally trivial inability to communicate as fellow persons and mutually express interpersonal desire for intimacy and instead rather resorting to acting out mutually self-defeating sexist stereotypes.

81. Evidence of Love

Humans are herd Animals and so do we not only imitate each other (this practice is interestingly known as culture!) but we also do mirror ourselves in others, meaning that we seek performative affirmation from others in different ways, i.e. we wish to be or become performatively relevant to others whom we ourselves consider “relevant” by our own individual and/or collective standards. Affirmation by inter-personal relevance is variously known as power/influence/money/hierarchy, community/belonging/family/ethnicity/religion, bond/bonding/relationship/solidarity, attraction/beauty/sexuality and reciprocity/friendship/love.

For a person who is socially classified as a female (i.e. girl/woman) to experience androphilic attraction (i.e. attraction towards those socially classified as males) is an often frustrating and confusing experience. As sexism is structurally eroticized in heteroculture does this mean having to be guarded and careful with males for fear of potential sexual violence and other severe sexist misbehavior while at the same time typically in part experiencing attraction to sexist behaviors on the part of males. Many males, i.e. “the nice guys”, certainly do wonder why androphilic females tend to prefer males who perform “bad guy” gender roles towards females; after all do they reason, do females really wish to be mistreated? Many females similarly wonder why they are so attracted to “the wrong guys” who turn out so very severely serially disappointing? The problem is that “the nice guys” may be no less disappointing after the temporarily adopted gentlemanly behaviors disappear once regular sexual access is “secured” through what is known as “relationship”, i.e. typically monogamous prostitution.

The answer to those questions is that a person may be turned on and subsequently sexually aroused by different aspects in the behavior/performance/communication and/or visual/tactile/scent appearance in a fellow person. What really matters here however is turn-on and arousal. There is no limit as to the conscious/subconscious ways that one may turn on, i.e. give rise to social/emotional/physical attraction to oneself and subsequently arouse, i.e. give rise to sexual attraction to oneself in a fellow person. Imagination is the only limit and doing this may be done unethically i.e. selfishly, semi-ethically i.e. expecting mutual prostitution or ethically, i.e. out of unselfish affection for the other yet certainly without self-erasure. The fact that an unethical/semi-ethical behavior may be perceived as effective/instrumental such as “getting him committed” or “get laid” by means of selfish psychological manipulation does not mean that this is somehow advisable or acceptable since this typically neither leads to mutually fulfilling intimacy or meaningful relationships. Indeed, selfish “love” is instead precisely pure evil. Love without friendship is not love, friendship without love is not friendship and friendship without genuine interpersonal appreciation of the quality of individual uniqueness in a fellow person is of course not friendship. Interpersonal parasitism which may be sexual, social, economic, emotional, psychological, manipulative, possessive, jealous, fear-based and so on and so forth.

A marital or marital-like relationship may of course be based on genuine interpersonal appreciation and the friendship of love but this is unfortunately rarely the case as most intimate relationships are simply prostitution-like interpersonal parasitism. The selfish wish to attach oneself to a fellow person and often so by means of psychological manipulation (rather than by means of successful emotional communication of reciprocity) is parasitism pure and simple and parasitism is of course merely a scientific term for what many traditional cultural systems of signification would describe as simply pure evil.

Due to the fact that so many males in heteroculture desire temporary parasitism (“getting laid” with a mere living body) are most females socio-sexually reluctant about males and more or less constantly try to test them by means of varying forms of psychological manipulation. Many males are similarly wary about female ambitions for permanent parasitical relationships, ambitions which of course may be no less selfish and especially so considering the potential for improvement of economic conditions and especially with someone with a higher income than oneself as males typically earn more than females of similar social stature. It is not that most females choose males with money but the reality of structurally gendered average income disparity is yet another more or less subconscious incentive structure for seeking parasitical emotional attachment. Of course males typically have similar more or less subconscious parasitical motives in terms of sexual, social and psychological exploitation and indeed typically economic exploitation of unpaid domestic labor when seeking “a committed relationship” just as females too may exhibit parasitical behavior in seeking to “get laid” with a mere living body of a male.

Thus human Animals seeking interpersonal intimacy whether temporary, short-term, open-ended or permanent are typically both motivated by parasitical design (i.e. selfishness) and wariness of parasitical designs (i.e. selfishness) of others. Of course this need not necessarily be the case as one ought certainly stay clear of evil behavior and one need be cognizant that parasitism is indeed the scientific term for what traditional ethnic/religious systems of signification describe as “evil”. Love means purity of mind; love means sharing unselfish emotions with others such as happiness, appreciation and intimacy and desiring to do so out of affection for a unique other as opposed to seeking parasitic attachment to a projectively desired human host organism.

Parasitical designs are known in the pickup artistry community as “neediness” and is similarly known among females as “creepiness”. To detect parasitical designs is for most human beings to experience the sense of turnoff unless of course this is what one seeks such as a voluntary and indeed reciprocal “slave contract” within the context of the BDSM subculture and which of course can be abrogated at any time. Yet those who seek parasitical relationships tend to get exactly that and this is indeed how most intimate relationships turn out and indeed end up irrespective of how long actually lasting.

Androphilic males typically engage in psychologically manipulative behaviors to gain sexual access whether for casual sex or by maintaining an unhappy relationship in order to gain at least regular sexual access to the female whom the male has parasitically attached himself to.  A male in “a relationship” with a female may thus typically make an effort “to be nice” part of the time in order to gain regular sexual access. The female will typically put up in keeping the relationship going in thinking that it’s worth it because “he is at least nice sometimes”. Little does she understand that he is a parasitical sexual adversary and so she typically falls for every selfish expression of affection on his part (the rarer the better received!) as part of the mutually intended permanent relationship.

Being in “a relationship” means typically gaining higher social stature as a single female may often be treated as if she were a prostitute by males. This is why many females falsely claim to have a boyfriend in order so as to either fend off a new male or make herself more interesting to a new male and thus hopefully more attractive in socially presenting herself as more difficult to gain sexual access to. Falsely claiming to have a boyfriend/husband is thus a social means to gain respect and potentially genuine affection from males.

A male in “a relationship” may reversely typically present himself as single in order so as to give her hope for an extended parasitical relationship. Thus he signals that he is available for her to parasitically attach herself to him and he thus makes himself more interesting with the intent of becoming perceived by her as more socio-sexually attractive.

There is an underlying problem here in that few people understand the meaning of phenomena such as love and friendship but rather interpret those in more or less selfish terms. Rather the evidence of love is friendship and the evidence of friendship is genuine interpersonal appreciation of unique personhood. Love, friendship and genuine appreciation of unique personhood are precisely unselfish; meaning that these are emotions of respect and affection for the other as opposed to projected images of oneself. Therefore thou shalt love thy neighbor as oneself (Leviticus 19:18) is not love at all but but rather projectively emotional parasitism. Loving the other for being other is also not love, but rather structural parasitism. The individual quality deserving love and appreciation is the uniqueness of idiosyncratic personhood and certainly not projective othering of fellow persons. I.e. “I feel different from this person so that person is different!”

Androphilic females in heteroculture tend to look for esoteric “evidence of love” in interpersonal expressions by males. For a gynephilic male in heteroculture is evidence of love typically sexual access, as her spreading her legs whenever he so wants is sufficient evidence of love. Yet the evidence of love is friendship and the evidence of friendship is genuine interpersonal appreciation of unique personhood. Indeed he subconsciously experience affirmation and appreciation of his wholeness in personhood when she spreads her legs to him for the first time. This is why “giving away virginity” to a carefully selected male is in many cultures considered an almost majestic gesture of honoring a male in spite of the typically rape-like experience of being subjected to phallic “defloration” which of course is entirely without dignity, honor, respect and pleasure.

Therefore understanding the nature of friendship is essential to understanding the nature of love. Indeed the androphilic female in heteroculture typically looks for esoteric signs of genuine appreciation of her unique personhood and so her spreading her legs for the first time (at least if she is sober and undrugged!) typically signifies her acceptance of him as person. Little does he consciously understand that this is the sought-for affirmation of him as a person in the coveted act of her spreading her legs with him for the first time. Indeed this affirmation is typically absent when a sex worker or a prostitute (a partly or entirely involuntary sex worker) spreads her leg since this affirmation of his personhood is typically precisely absent.

Androphilic females in heteroculture therefore exhibit sexual restraint of self-respect by typically almost solely becoming intimate with males whom they actually like, whether in terms of outward appearance, presumed expression of personhood or both. Gynephilic males therefore may go to great lengths to seek this psychological affirmation from sexually self-respecting androphilic females. It is thus the psychological self-restraint of sexual self-respect that essentially make a female coveted by gynephilic males in heteroculture. In order to make him esteem her as a person does she typically experience a social necessity to deploy various stratagems such as playing “cat and mouse” with him and make him “fall in love” with an idealized image of her in order to potentially permanently parasitically attach herself on him for the long term.

Yet these are profoundly tragic socio-sexual practices that mostly cause personal and interpersonal tragedy as what most of us truly seek is genuine appreciation of our respective unique personhood. This is the affirmation that we to varying extent receive from parents and in particular typically mothers and so we seek selfless love from others while illogically offering them selfish “love” which of course is not love at all. Indeed this is the real tragedy of failed intimate relationships and things would be very different if we were to offer that which we truly seek in others rather rather than offering that which we do not seek in others.

This is in no way is to imply that genuine love of carnal intimacy is non-sexual and friendship does indeed require social, physical and emotional attraction and love in carnal intimacy reversely requires sexual attraction. Indeed, genuine love for a fellow person as opposed to a projectively idealized image of another person simply cannot exist without friendship and there is no genuine friendship whatsoever without loving the other person although this need not necessarily involve conscious sexual attraction.

Therefore we need to unlearn playing “tricks or treat” in potentially or actually intimate relationships. Selfish psychological manipulation as typically involving cheap performance of gender stereotypes is a poor substitute indeed for effective and reciprocal emotional engagement. It is actually really simple, in order to make someone interested in carnal intimacy with you need you find your own ways to efficiently sexually arouse a fellow person and should I add rapidly and ethically so. If you seek love then you need to endeavor to develop carnal intimacy of profound friendship. If you seek friendship then there is no substitute for love of the quality of unique personhood in a fellow person. If you wish to seduce, then first you need to turn on and subsequently sexually arouse but you also need to learn multidimensional communication, including crucially tactile engagement, meaning where to touch and how as part of multisensorial engagement with a fellow person.

It is certainly possible for the criminal mind (even if indeed breaking no law!) to successfully pretend to truly appreciate another human person without actually genuinely appreciating that fellow human being and doing so in order so as to gain temporary or long-term parasitical attachment onto the the other. Yet there is no logical reason whatsoever to do so, precisely as one does not need to do evil as most goals are achievable by ethical means and certainly those involving friendship/love. Evildoers tend to receive evil in return, e.g. criminals tend to end up in prison, those seeking emotional parasitism tend to get exactly that and those engaging in non-vegan lifestyles do indeed tend to die earlier than would typically otherwise had been the case and will typically for years suffer from otherwise unnecessary and certainly avoidable health issues. Maimonides (rabbi Moses ben Maimon 1135-1204), the most important rabbi in the documented history of rabbinical Judaism suggested that there is a moral economy of reward and punishment whether in this life or the next and there is certainly practically speaking much truth to that very profound insight which of is found in many religions.

Let’s therefore be clear, always cognizant and indeed upfront about the fact that romantic and/or sexual psychological manipulation as often involving stereotypically self-defeating gender roles and irrespectively so of the respective genders and sexualities of those involved is just simply pure evil. Pathological infatuation typically leads to emotional hell whether through psychological hell of painful breakup or social hell in an essentially sexually boring and socially annoying permanent pseudo-intimate relationship. We need rather to self-design our own multiple genders in order to become more skilled in effective multisensorial communication including importantly effective and ethical tactile engagement. We typically wish to both seduce and become seduced so we need to learn how to both efficiently seduce and allow ourselves to become seduced in self-designing genders of the switch of seduction.

We must always be cognizant of the inseparability of love, friendship and genuine interpersonal appreciation and so we must not ever confuse those with the evils of selfish emotions and selfish psychological manipulation whether in ourselves or in others. Indeed we to learn to eroticize and deepen friendships by means of learning to turn on and sexually arouse even good/close friends – for friendship is the fountain of love and everyone certainly no doubt needs to learn from lesbian subcultures in this regard.

82. Optometry of Patriarchy

Females in patriarchy are typically subject to the sexist gaze which oppressively measures, classifies, judges, objectifies/depersonalizes/subpersonalizes and of course extremely undiscreetly undresses without any consent whatsoever. Sigmund Freud famously suggested that females derive scopophilic pleasure from being observed by males while males in contrast reversely according to Dr. Freud derive scopophilic pleasure from observing females. Feminist theorists as inspired by psychoanalysis have as a consequence suggested that the sexist gaze as a certain expression of structural agency is somehow socially exclusive to males, yet any human person seen as sexually attracted and simultaneously deemed deviating from the hegemonic male norm of any time or place may become subjected to the ice-cold tyranny of the sexist gaze.

Thus younger females in heteroculture tend to closely look for perceived minor aesthetic/behavioral errors in fellow younger females while being far less aesthetically ascertaining with regard to males who are instead judged for inner qualities once potentially intimate social contact has been established. Males optometrically judging females instead tend to engage in taxonomic classification whereby instantly sorting females into more generalized categories of attraction (hot, sexy, cute etc.) and more generalized categories of abjection (fat, ugly, slutty, average etc.) This of course is part of hegemonic heteroculture and so LGBTQI culture is typically quite different in typically embracing a diversity of genders and sexualities.

There is an internal optometrically determined socio-sexual aesthetic pecking order among younger females with respect perceived beauty according to standards of beauty of the time and place while males in contrast typically rate females for optometrically determined sexual attractiveness. Females who are not considered either sexually attractive or visually attractive by fellow females are typically given low status in the internal female social hierarchy. Females who are considered the most beautiful will typically suffer malicious envy on the part of females considered beautiful but not nearly as beautiful. Females considered ‘too sexually attractive’ i.e. “slutty” will typically become both stigmatized and envied by fellow females.

There is a distinct advantage for females in turning themselves into becoming perceived as “extremely beautiful” by various means nowadays available in that this largely but not entirely frees them from the social terror of male sexual harassment or at least largely so from unknown males in public space. One of the main purposes of heterocultural female primping is however to attract male attention in public space and indeed effectively manipulate males into approaching the primping female as heterocultural males typically dare not approach those unknown females in public space considered the most beautiful and heterocultural females are in most social situations simply not socially permitted by heteroculture to approach unknown males in public space. Approchement by males gives females selection in being able to accept, reject or provide an ambiguous reply to an approaching male. Males are typically drunk or otherwise drugged when approaching unknown females in public space and so most forms of heterocultural pickup of females are in practice simply sexual harassment in public space.

Primping females performatively transform themselves into “female flowers” for “male bees”. The “female flower” is performatively reduced into a socio-sexual purported sub-person who may be deemed “sexually attractive” in her relative state of observable performative passivity while the “male bee” is a simply an agency of reproductive-style rape culture for he typically knows not how to perform any other gender or sexual expression than those of reproductive-style rape culture.

Non-binary transfemales, in the sense as non-passable transgender females are essentially treated the same as cisfemales although they also face transphobia which itself is a form of sexism. Whether a non-binary transfemale will suffer sexual harassment in hegemonically heterocultural society thus largely depends on whether she is deemed too sexually attractive (i.e. seen as “too sexy”). Gay, bisexual and transgender males will typically suffer sexual harassment if seen as too femininely attractive in a visibly “gay” manner as regarded as deviating from sexist ideological hegemony.

The sexist gaze is thus not intrinsic to the eyes of perceived ‘anatomic males’ and not exclusively directed against perceived ‘anatomic females’ but is a disciplinary collective social mechanism whereby heteroculture maintains its insidious ideological and social hegemony indeed. Females too spot males for perceived beauty and perceived sexual attractiveness but they virtually always do so in a discreet manner that does imply negatively affecting that person in any social, sexual, psychological or other sense.

Many lesbian, bisexual and transgender females if deemed sexually attractive do however suffer extensive objectification/depersonalization on the part of heterocultural females who wish to have sexual intercourse with their bodies while not really expressing genuine interest in actually befriending them.

These optometric practices of gender and sexuality as related to similar physionomistic practices of performatively reducing unique persons to other shibboleths of discrimination such as ability/diagnosis, age, ethnicity, pigmentation, religion, species, subspecies/race and so on. Optometric physionomism thus performs subpersonalization whereby a completely unique individual person is performative reduced to perceived appearance, performative group classification and subpersonalization, thus being treated and regarded as a mere subperson, meaning performatively considered much less than a person, indeed a mere individual not worthy of equal treatment.

The solution to this conundrum is optometric Social Behavioral Training (SBT) whereby persons are trained in how to observe others in an ethico-aesthetically appropriate manner; meaning optometrically respecting the dignity and unique personhood of fellow persons. Discreet female practices of observing males out of sexual attraction for these males need to be taught to males and everyone irrespective of gender therefore needs to learn how to discreetly and respectfully so visually observe non-males or anyone for that matter.

However, optometric physionomism is not limited to patriarchy/heteroculture but is rather a wider physionomistic phenomenon that operates through many structurally oppressive shibboleths of discrimination and so delearning practices of optometric physionomism is essential to effectively counteracting optometric physionomism generally. Indeed SBT in this dimension of treating physionomism needs to focus on delearning optometric physiomiism generally as not limited to any structurally oppressive shibboleth of discrimination such as gender or sexuality. Optometric physionomism is however central to many expressions of various dimensions of physionomism and so counteracting optometric physionomism is a more general task that needs to include combating all forms of optometric physionomism including importantly optometric physionomism against non-human persons.

It thus essential to understand how oppressive substructures (structural oppression against a particular group) form part of oppressive superstructures (similar/parallel structures of oppression being performed against seemingly/nominally unassociated groups) in the sense as physionomistic phenomena existing across many different structurally oppressive shibboleths of discrimination. Feminism hence needs to take a typological turn in extending beyond epistemological intersectionality in rigorously scientifically mapping phenomena of physionomism specifically and DOLP (discrimination, oppression, lies and prejudice) generally.

83. Question of the Gift

Sexist heteroculture expects males to make selfish provisions/offers to females that typically involves a male buying her something or offering a female to pay for a free experience with him and in either case in expectation of subsequently having sexual intercourse with her. Whether he buys her “something” such as a rose (symbolizing female intimate anatomy), a ring (symbolizing marital bondage in reproductive prostitution), lingerie (simply expecting sex) or offers her an experience (dinner, coffee, cinema etc.) is he the one effectively purchasing sexual services from her by him paying in her stead. However, let’s be very clear that most heterocultural females certainly have no desire to sell sexual services in potentially romantic situations and so this therefore is experienced as psychologically problematic although she probably does not understand why.

It is essential to understand that males in this prostitution culture (to be distinguished from actual commercial sex work) are essentially involuntary whores as structurally prostituted by patriarchy as long as feeling forced to do so and they furthermore expect females to also behave like involuntary whores. Yet neither females nor males usually enjoy acting “like whores” and neither females nor males usually appreciate each other for acting “like whores” although certainly expecting each other to “act like whores”. Indeed, the inherent paradox is that both expect each other to act like “like a whore” yet not really profoundly appreciating it when the other person so does.

Both thus adhere to a positive version of the Golden Rule of treating others (treat others the way you wish to be treated) and I certainly don’t mean that in a favorable light as informed mutual adherence to a negative version of the Golden Rule (don’t treat others in ways that you yourself does not wish to be treated) would in contrast end any and all non-consensual social expectations for the other person to “act like a whore”.  

To understand what takes place in heteroculture need we distinguish the three stages of approach, conversation and seduction. 1) He approaches her because he is turned on by her performative appearance and his initial task is to turn her on as well as that’s really what heterocultural approach is about. 2) The purpose of his conversation is to make her sexually aroused although he is probably not aware of this being the task assigned to him by the social context of heteroculture. 3) Seduction involves getting physical although there are only some things that heteroculture allows for being performed in public space. However, if he is not confident and/or socially skilled enough to get physical (and “sufficiently” so) will she probably either say goodbye or he will ask her a stereotypical question from the standard questionnaire of prostitution culture.

Rather than simply physically and otherwise sharing himself with her beyond mere approach (i.e. turn-on) and conversation (i.e. sexual arousal) does he typically make her a thinly veiled indecent proposal of effectively purchasing sexual services from her such as expressing an interest in dating, e.g by sharing phone numbers and/or becoming facebook friends. She is socially conditioned to engage in the typically patently false practice that is heterocultural dating which has the socio-psychological cultural advantage of alleviating her fears of male sexual violence and other gendered mistreatment. She is strongly expected by society to eventually become a mother and she knows full well that being a lone mother is typically very extremely hard indeed; socially, psychologically, economically as well as implying relative social loss of sexual attractiveness as heterocultural males tend to be much less interested in females who are lone mothers. Heterocultural dating is nominally about getting to know each other but is in reality typically a farcical social fraud and indeed usually mutually so.

What she desires at the point where she has become sexually aroused by conversation is of course to become intimate but she is likely be fearful as well and especially if she does not previously know him considering how dangerous patriarchal society is for females as involving considerable dangers of sexual violence, including particularly sexual coercion and other gendered mistreatment.

Many heterocultural females enjoy playing a little sadistic game of manipulation (playing hard-to-get) and they assume that males too enjoy that when in fact selfish manipulation for sexual/romantic purposes is simply nothing more than pure evil of objectification into stereotypically binary genders. A male so called “player” may enjoy her little performance of “proving that she is no slut” (he may find that amusing) as this allows him to extend his conversation with her and thus his own game of psychological manipulation for his own not exactly secret selfish sexual purposes, yet most heterocultural males are simply turned off by this self-defeating sexist performance of hers in usually utter futility as leading to precisely nothing.

Both males and females assume that they must play a game of asymmetric binary genders when in fact what they should endeavor to do is to break out of the nefarious matrix of socially compulsory, stereotypically self-defeating behaviors of heteroculture by communicating themselves to the other person(s) in a manner that is both truthful/sincere/genuine and effectively/ethically/aesthetically/socially/sexually/tactilely mutually communicative.

Gendered objectification is about reducing a fellow person to a stereotypical gender which is no less demeaning than reducing a fellow person to a certain degree of perceived pigmentation in skin tone and that is what sexual objectification is typically about in heteroculture, meaning performing gender stereotypes as opposed to sharing oneself in communicating one’s own personhood to one or more fellow human beings whom one desires to share intimacy with in mutual personhood.

She will typically intuitively answer no to stereotypical questions as taken from the prostitution culture questionnaire if she emotionally experiences becoming objectified to a significant degree in thus making her feel sufficiently uncomfortable as those stereotypical questions typically do perform objectification (i.e. actually “let me buy you something so that I can have sex with you afterwards”) in experiencing being reduced to a gender stereotype and he too will likely simply walk away from the conversation if he feels objectified (i.e. reduced to a gender stereotype) to a significant degree in making him sufficiently socially uncomfortable. If you don’t want to be turned away and/or be given a nominally negative reply to an invite when the other person actually carnally desires to say yes, then please don’t ask stereotypical questions from the prostitution culture questionnaire and just don’t do anything else that will make the other person feel objectified in the sense as reduced to a shibboleth of discrimination such as gender, skin pigmentation, age, beauty, weight, sexuality etc.

Your appearance is merely an introduction to yourself. Your appearance is simply marketing that attracts others to your own uniquely idiosyncratic personhood in hopefully communicating that very uniquely individual personhood of yours to potentially important others. Yet neither you nor the other person(s) are products or objects. You probably do not genuinely want others to “buy” into you as others simply want you to share yourself with them as you too probably want others to share themselves with you considering that what is ultimately genuinely interesting in interpersonal attraction aside from the intro of appearance is precisely your uniquely individual personhood. There are billions of parents, sons/daughters, friends etc. around the world yet what you do really like in those whom you truly appreciate as persons – if your emotions are real and genuine – is indeed their respective unique individuality.

Rather than selfishly manipulating others into sharing themselves with you ought you  simply share yourself with them in an unselfish, yet still self-respecting manner. This of course is easier said than done and so you should thus say it! The actual question therefore is how do you actually share yourself with others in a manner that will not make them experience objectification, i.e. you behaving in a manner that will make the other person feel reduced to stereotypically binary gender or other shibboleth of discrimination.

A first step is to offer to share yourself and your time with the other person. E.g. “If I gave you twelve hours with me as a gift without expectations for something return, then how would you plan the time?” or “I know that you want me so what can I do for you?” or “I wanna make love to you baby” or “I like you and I wanna  share myself with you” or “I wanna share myself with you, would you like to share yourself with me?” or just simply “I want to you”.

Of course some of those initiatives may seem completely confusing to the other person so you may in that case somehow want to explain that you are neither offering commercial sexual services nor otherwise expecting anything substantial in return (except for excellent manners and adherence to agreed rules) for you sharing yourself with that/those other person(s). What happens at this point is that you break out of the matrix of compulsory heterosexuality as nominally intended to lead to monogamous/monotonous, nominally reproductive prostitution. Once you yourself permanently leave the socially constructed discursive matrix of prostitution culture with its tragically binary structurally mutual gender objectification (including the objectifying questionnaire of prostitution culture) have you not only set yourself free but you have at least temporarily set the other person(s) free as well.

The next step of course is to facilitate and enable the other person to share herself/himself  with you. You may want to explain that love/friendship is about sharing and certainly not about “getting” whether pathological infatuation, sexual intercourse, relationship, friendship or otherwise. In short, you should you want to open up yourself in a social/psychological/tactile/sexual manner enabling the other person to similarly desire and dare opening herself/himself up to you. If your purpose is interpersonally sharing yourself rather than “getting” something (friendship, sex, romance, relationship etc.) from the other person(s) then you will much risk making the other person feeling objectified indeed. However, since intimacy in public space is not viewed in a favorable light by most onlookers in heteroculture (jealousy, homophobia, desire, normativity etc.) and can for this reason become mutually uncomfortable may you want move on to sharing yourselves in a less public venue. How do you do that without resorting to the prostitution culture questionnaire?

In LGBTQI culture is this typically quite simple. Gays will typically make themselves interesting and express interest in sexual intimacy and subsequently seduce each other in privacy or at least in relative seclusion from the public eye. Lesbians will typically become friends and subsequently mutually seduce each other. A lesbian will typically befriend a heterocultural female and subsequently seduce her, either after agreeing to do so or in the right moment in the right place. BDSM culture is based on formalized usually only verbal agreement and so this formal nature of things as well as almost standardized formality of explicit consent makes things psychologically easy and typically relatively socially comfortable indeed.

The reality of male oppression against females and the implicit prospects for monogamous/monotonous nominally reproductive prostitution makes it difficult in heteroculture for females and males to act as freely as is typically done in LGBTQI culture and BDSM culture respectively and especially so since there is a potentially shared economic future in reproductive prostitution. Nominally is it usually the female who has the most to economically gain from reproductive prostitution although in practice is she typically the one who is socially, economically, psychologically and of course sexually exploited.

Already prior to the initial approach is the male emotionally somewhat emotionally aware that he is initiating something creepy and questionable indeed with her due to the unethical nature of heteroculture in particular and the creepy nature of patriarchy in general. Approach feels like hell because he subconsciously knows emotionally (although usually not intellectually so) that the heterocultural prospects are simply unethical and wrong. While sexual shame may be involved is this probably in most cases not the most important factor as both sides probably feel intensely uncomfortable in heteroculture and probably in a sense subconsciously hate being heterocultural due to the typically intensely dysfunctional behavioral complications mutually socially involved indeed.

Yet, no matter how performed is the formula very simple, meaning mutually sharing oneself without expectation for anything in return. Indeed once there is expectation for the other to share “something”, then objectification probably sets in and it will probably become psychologically difficult and socially awkward for both sides. What you can do is to communicate yourself socially, sexually, tactilely, emotionally and so on in such a manner so as to facilitating for the other persons to sharing themselves such as explaining that friendship/love are two aspects of the same phenomenon and that friendship/love is about sharing and certainly not about “getting”, i.e. expecting to receive.       

This leads us to Derrida’s question of the gift and whether the gift is possible at all? Is a gift truly purely selfless if there is some emotional benefit involved for the benefactor such as feeling good about himself/herself? And if there is at least some benefit for the benefactor, then is it not really a veiled transaction rather than a pure gift? The answer of course is that a pure gift is not really possible or even desirable and there is furthermore nothing wrong with desiring intimacy with others as long as it is for the purpose of sharing oneself with fellow persons. This however needs to go beyond the socially constructed Para-Christian egoism/altruism dichotomy and as the Talmud suggests, if you don’t help yourself, how can you really help others? But if you are only out to help yourself, then want kind of a person are you really?

Hillel says, “If I am not for myself, who will be for me? But if I am only for myself, who am I? If not now, when?” Hillel the Elder in Pirkei Avot 1:14 of the Babylonian Talmud

This resolves the purportedly aporetic (i.e. ostensibly irresoluble) question of the gift as sharing yourself in reciprocal appreciation of personhood is irreducible to the artificial egoism/altruism binary, since sharing yourself with potentially important others precisely goes beyond egoism/altruism as that sharing deconstructs indeed the psychological separation barrier of stereotypically binary gender in heteroculture. When we say that we wish to meet somebody and seek love, sex, relationship etc. then we don’t actually desire a specific person since this desire is for intimacy and relations with a hypothetical persona whom we have probably not yet met as what we actually desire is indeed deconstruction itself (meaning breakdown of interpersonal social dichotomy) and in the context of heteroculture specifically the end of patriarchal sub-ideologies of sexual repression. Another extremely famous quote from Hillel the Elder in the Talmud is “the standing on one leg” aphorism whereby a person born outside of the Jewish people asks Hillel to sum up the Torah (Jewish religious teachings) while standing on one foot:

“What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation of this–go and study it!” Hillel the Elder in Shabbat 31a of the Babylonian Talmud.

This is however insufficient in our discursive context although you should indeed not do to others what you would not want others to do unto to, except as based on explicit desire & request of the other and you should furthermore sort of customize your own performative role (gender role, age role etc.) in expressing yourself in a manner that adapts yourself to the unique individuality of the other person. Yet you need also develop the cognitive capacity for understanding what the other person genuinely desires even if not explicitly saying so and furthermore become capable of ethically acting on that desire in a reciprocally communicative manner towards one or more intimately desired fellow persons.

Thus if the negative version of the Golden rule with possible exceptions as based on explicitly desired requests is the basis – is your individual customization of yourself to the individuality of the other no less crucial indeed and especially so in order to avoid objectification but also no less important to share yourself in manner that is more compatible with the desired other(s). You may therefore want to sensitively emulate elements of behaviors worthy of emulation in desired others.

As Hillel indicates may you first need to emulate an ethical teaching in order to apply it and need I add adapt those teachings in recognizing the unique individuality in a fellow person and customize your self-expression to the desires of that desired fellow person. Just as ethical enterprises typically involve less risk and far greater chance of success so are ethical endeavors typically less risky and thus also far more prone to success. Applied and individualized application of ethics is therefore central indeed to the endeavor of successful feminist seduction and you may want to consider what other ethical adages of wisdom that you should adapt as part of approach, conversation and seduction indeed or however you do it. But most fundamental of all please do psychologically, socially, behaviorally, emotionally, cognitively and sexually carefully internalize that you yourself are the gift indeed. If you ever forget that – and you most probably often will – then certainly do feel most free to discuss the philosophical question of the gift with regard to friendship/love with those inviolable fellow persons whom you desire in potentially mutual sharing of full personhood, including potentially intimately so.

84. Politics of Affirmative Negation

It is sometimes claimed that a female “means yes when she says no” and this is of course severely sexist if taken literally to infer that a female’s no generally means yes. Yet there is unfortunately a significant amount of truth to that adage in the sense that it is extremely common in heteroculture to not dare act on one’s intimate desire out of fear of being misconstrued as being something that one is not, in other words actually fear of stepping beyond the confines of assigned sex roles.

Therefore it is unfortunately true that heterocultural females commonly say no when they actually mean yes. In fact rape culture as a dimension of heteroculture eroticizes the notion of not respecting a female’s no; indeed heterocultural females when being asked out etc. frequently do not actually wish their noes to be respected but rather wish males to insist and sort of haggle over the terms of encounter as part and parcel of prostitution culture which is yet another dimension of misogynist heteroculture.

Heteroculture fetishizes female sexual expression from the angle of heteromales while stigmatizing female sexual expression from the angle of heterofemales. Heteromales thus structurally appropriate female desire as heterofemales risk sexual harassment and socio-sexual stigmatization if expressing their intimate desire through gender, appearance, and behavior in ways deemed too overt by patriarchy.  Of course what is deemed “too overt” varies much between different patriarchal cultures around the world as can be seen e.g. when comparing oppressively gendered standards of say Sweden and Afghanistan which on the face of it may seem very different yet share much in common structurally speaking in severely limiting female intimate expression in public space.

Of course this presents a dilemma for anyone intimately interested in intimate engagement with females. Should a female “no” always be respected or should one figure out when it is simply structural haggling over the terms of the intended encounter? The feminist answer is of course that “a no is a no” and should always be respected no matter what. Yet, heterofemales typically do not become intimate beyond public space unless their “no” has first been repeatedly violated and so this effectively presents a structural choice between violation and celibacy towards heterofemales. This is so as heterofemales structurally prove their virtues through initial haggling whose essence is that of serially not respecting the female “no”.

The main difference between heterocultural sexual encounters and heterocultural sexual harassment is thus that one is desired by at least one heterofemale in the encounter and the other is not, meaning that a mutually desired heterocultural encounter typically shares many similarities with sexual harassment  in heteroculture indeed.

The question needs therefore be asked why male heterocultural sexual harassment is so extensive, common and pervasive indeed? Why do heterocultural males engage in sexual harassment? First, heterotypical male home seduction is almost indistinguishable to sexual harassment.  Second, do heteromales typically experience helplessness at being sexually aroused by the appearance of females seen as highly sexually attractive and so they compensate for that very psychological sense helplessness by means of humiliating female human beings as resulting in sexual harassers feeling empowered and their female victims feeling helpless. Third, some heterocultural females are turned on by being subjected to sexual harassment and so sexual harassment is an effective heterocultural male strategy for “getting laid” since the harassing heterocultural male may eventually find someone kinky enough who is turned on by this despicably oppressive sexist behavior if he serially sexually harasses a sufficient number of females in succession in public space.

Sexual harassment makes females fearful of acting on their intimate desires for males and so are both elective lesbianisn and reproductive marital prostitution strategies for females to gain regular sexual access in a secure fashion since sleeping with unknown heteromales is a particularly risky endeavor indeed considering the potential for sexual violence and other sexist mistreatment.

Sexual harassment is thus another collectively patriarchal structural behavioral strategy for constraining expression of female intimate desire. Contemporary sexual harassment in culturally Muslim countries are part of social processes of Islamization whereby females who do not abide by Islamist dress code are considered “whores” whom it is considered legitimate to rudely solicit sexual services from.

Saying yes to sex is thus so dangerous because she does not know precisely in detail what this will entail and what emotional consequences this will have for her. She may desire some males and fear many males to varying degrees and so her intimate desire becomes structurally part of her social subjection through the heteromale appropriation and sexist distortion of heterofemale intimate desire as her fears become eroticized indeed. This is why she is so fearful of saying yes to her own intimate desire. If she says yes too easily is she justifiably fearful considering that the risk of being mistreated may be statistically greater in the sense as her being less selective about males. There is a partly subconscious calculation on her part that if she does not give the appearance of being easy/slutty will she become more respected and thus better treated in bed.

Sexual asymmetry such as more formalized in BDSM culture is certainly completely legitimate although not necessarily unproblematic, yet the structurally socio-sexual asymmetry of heteroculture as based on males typically being more physically powerful than females is indeed an entirely different matter. Heteromales thus structurally abuse their sheer physical dominance to engage in non-consensual socio-sexual power play and females are in such a heterocultural ‘game’ practically speaking limited to primping and stalling/haggling over better terms for the sexual encounter, thus hoping to become better sexually treated if hiding their very state of arousal.

Of course, the idea that stalling will lead to better treatment is an illusion as the key to being treated well as a female by a male in a socio-sexual context is rather genuine friendship involving mutual appreciation of individual personhood as indeed typically so in lesbian culture. Neither heterocultural stalling nor heterocultural dating offers however typically genuine friendship of mutual appreciation of personhood and so these tactics are ineffective and illusory indeed but serve the purpose of alleviating her anxieties that are both sexual (anticipation/arousal) and fear-based (structural/social). It is not that she is necessarily afraid of that particular male but she is rather structurally socially conditioned to fear males generally, including probably prominently due to suffering sexual harassment to at least some degree. It is thus extremely likely that females who have suffered more sexual harassment will also become more fearful of males in general.

The heterocultural state of anxiety is however prominently about fearing to deviate from stereotypical sex roles so as not seem “slutty” or “sleazy”; i.e. being perceived a sexually licentious “in the wrong way”. These anxieties are importantly much less present in the LGBTQI community due to the relative absence of involuntary socio-sexual asymmetry. Asymmetric genders such as lesbian butch/femme, BDSM Domme/sub and anatomically male inseminator/inseminated in Saudi Arabia involve hierarchies indeed subversively paraphrasing patriarchal modes of eroticization of structural power relations.

There is also a psychological asymmetry inherent in being approached or being the one who approaches in the sense that the approacher is initially turned on by appearance while the approached is initially most likely turned on by personality. The first impression is thus typically very different for the approacher and the approached in a heterocultural encounter. This means that the approached is more likely to be interested in a relationship while the approacher is more likely to be interested in casual sex. Stalling and dating thus typically for heterocultural females involve more or less consciously trying to build a relationship from his interest in casual sex with her.

There is a pervasive sense of helplessness not only in heteroculture generally but also in sexual harassment specifically whereby sexual harasser and subsequently the sexually harassed as well experiences a sense of utter helplessness. Heteroculture is similar to the ancient Canaanite ethnic taboos of the Hebrew Bible in the sense as constituting cultural practices whose historical origins are so obscure that virtually no one understands them. The heterocultural pickup culture as led by heteromale pickup artists such as famously Owen Cook (a.k.a. “Tyler”) is thus similar to the Talmud in the sense as trying to rationalize cultural notions from a completely different era (involving former Canaanite ethnicity) and which have now lost virtually all original meaning. In other words, virtually no one understands why these practices are still being performed as their original meaning has been all but lost.

This book does however not seek to justify the irrational but rather to understand heteroculture as a certain ancient social machine which continues to function despite being functionally completely and utterly outdated indeed. Epistemology of Love is thus about deconstructing rather than rationalizing heteroculture and indeed so with the purpose of pioneering applied gender science in the sense as not only deciphering and understanding unhelpful socio-behavioral structures but importantly also to provide remedies through creative social innovation indeed.

Yet if you don’t want stupid and/or stereotypical answers, then simply just don’t ask stupid and/or stereotypical questions. If you ask intelligent questions sparking curiosity and interest then you may receive intelligent, interesting, thoughtful and personal answers in reply. If you use an excuse for asking for sex by means of the prostitution culture questionnaire, then you are liable to get a similar excuse in return. If you are interested in private physical intimacy, please say so very nicely yet also quite upfront; in other words you need to do so in manner that is indeed extremely sexy for the person whom you speak with and that means not asking for a service or a favor but rather sharing yourself and your time with that person in a manner that seems extremely sexually attractive to that very person.

How do you do that then? A first step is to redesign your gender as gender is extremely fluid and you may simply want to make a one-page list of how you would want your self-designed gender to be. Obviously you need to express your personality and sexuality because those ultimately make others like you (and not merely like your appearance) and want to make love with you and not merely have intercourse with your body. If someone really likes you and feels not only sexually aroused but also relaxed and comfortable is it far more likely that the person whom you desire to become intimate with will join you in not only emotional but also physical intimacy.  

There is however no reason whatsoever why you should have just one gender as you most likely already have multiple genders for different social situations and so you really should design as many genders as you like as that simply speaking will make you increasingly socially competent in more and more social situations, including socio-sexual contexts. If you have multiple socio-sexual genders even for seduction then you have multiple or even many tools at your disposal and can pick and choose communicative modes from your personal repertoire and social toolbox indeed. If you have developed many personalized ways of seduction and you are customizing/adapting your gender to the person whom you are seducing then you won’t feel as helpless as if you have just one question or line which you wonder will be received as socially appropriate considering that this line/question may not be best one in that specific time and place.

You may design as many genders as you like and you should indeed customize your personal genders to the personalities/sexualities of fellow persons all the time. Indeed, the more the other person feels that you have in common, the more likely will it be that you will connect both emotionally and physically. There is no limit to having  as many personalized genders you can design and so there is also no limit as to how many times you can customize/individualize your genders to your fellow persons. If a designed gender does not work to the satisfaction of yourself or others then you may redesign it and even not use it further and instead think of it as a useful intellectual exercise indeed.

You need to all the time develop your social repertoire so as to avoid affirmative negation. For example is so called “friendzoning” an infamously insulting and socially incompetent affirmative negation whereby one person invites another person to seduce her as part of becoming close friends. There is of course nothing wrong in doing so but insulting a desired fellow person and make that person feel sexually undesired is not an especially sophisticated approach to put things mildly. However, even skilled pickup artists typically do not realize that this is not rejection at all but essentially an invitation to do it the lesbian way, namely seduce your friend but that of course requires social competence and an increasingly expanding social reportoire so that that you will not feel helpless but will rather feel able and safe to share and communicate your personality and sexuality in such a manner that you will be perceived as socially, intellectually, personally and of course sexually highly attractive indeed.

The difference between a good actor and a mediocre actor is that a good actor always performs herself no matter which role that she performs while a bad actor always pretends to be someone else than himself. Gender roles, age roles, ethnic roles, social roles etc. are all performative and usually learned by simply plagiarizing social behaviors without really considering whether those social behaviors are appropriate and/or effective indeed. Just as gender is not natural but rather socially constructed (although there is a zoological basis to all Animal social construction) so are other social roles also not natural either and so we can design and redesign, pick and choose, personalize and individualize, pick apart and reassemble, renew and discard, switch and deploy, think and being intuitive, select and deselect, decide and ignore, follow your own dreams and visions in life rather than those of others and indeed design new dreams and daring ethico-aesthetic visions of yours. Remaining an object of social construction can be extremely frustrating and very unsatisfactory such as typically in compulsory heteroculture and so redesigning your own gender(s) and subjectivity will help you embrace others and will make it increasingly comfortable for others to embrace you as well with and indeed so with little or no hesitation at all.

Indeed, one common problem in seduction is that of the other person(s) feeling slightly uncomfortable and typically so seemingly more or less awkward. This is typically in part due to sexual anxiety and often as stemming in part from sexual arousal and what you need to do in those social situations is to lighten up the situation by smiling, joking, sensually twisting your body etc. rather than simply walking away out of fear that your presence is no longer welcome indeed as you ought rather preempt that situation from occurring by simply sharing yourself in multidimensionally communicating your personality and sexuality through intelligently emotional communication by means of gender, appearance and verbal, tactile, emotional, physical and sexual communication.

85. Choreography of Love

Most females in heteroculture are reluctant to sleep with or even date new individual males unless first having been kissed by him. For the heterocultural female is the heterocultural kiss evidence of affection and also helps her to relax in submitting to this heteroculturally compulsory, dominant socio-sexual behavior of his. On a subconscious level does the heterocultural kiss help her evade the discursive sexual stigma in permitting her to ready herself to make love with an hitherto unknown male.

On the other hand, once she is thoroughly kissed is she essentially obliged to sleep with the new male. The unilateral tongue penetration as a sort of socially accepted oral rape is a precursor to the later rape-like vaginal penetration where going home with him essentially obliges her to perform coitus as a usually passive sexual object. If she wishes for interpersonal emotional and physical intimacy lesbian-style without coitus does she however certainly risk misogynist profanity being thrown at her and certainly in her mind does the likelihood decrease of sex leading to relationship.

Little does she know or understand that the heterocultural unilateral kiss for him signals gaining sexual access to her body and usually in no way is a sign of love, respect or affection. She has been brainwashed by sexist romance novels and similar mass expressions of commercial pop culture to believe that the unilateral rape-like kiss means “I love you” when in fact it probably means “I just wanna get into your panties”. Of course the heterocultural male may actually like her to some degree or another and especially sexually so but the unilateral rape-like heterocultural kiss is most likely not a sign of love, affection and romance unless of course both already know each other in which case he may or may not be in a state of either pathological infatuation or even genuine love and/or affection for her.

As she may understand that he is out to sexually abuse her while pretending affection may she thus accept the rules of the heterocultural game in reciprocally sexually abusing him as well in which case of course the entire procedure may be largely consensual and even not be abusive at all. However, in most cases does she become severely disappointed after finding out that he was only interested in casual sex under the false pretense of romance.

Young heterocultural females typically dream about the rape-like unilaterally penetrative kiss in naively deluding themselves that the insincere kisser is not a drunkard or player but Prince Charming, the Prince of Dreams indeed. Little does she understand that she plays the role of a sexual object in prostitution culture (to be  carefully distinguished from commercial sex work, including actual prostitution). The main difference between sex work and this pseudo-romantic encounter is that in the former is payment offered in the form of monetary currency while in the latter is the payment for expected sexual services as typically centered on coitus offered in the currency of a more or less false kiss in the sense that this type of kiss is rarely about romance but is usually merely a public act of sexual penetration indeed. In both cases are the currency of compensation for provision of sexual services relayed before coitus is actualized and this provision is indeed in both cases what grants the heterocultural male sexual access to the body of the heterocultural female.

The utter lowliness and mutual emotional tragedy of this futile exercise in mutual hypocrisy is quite remarkable yet also highly typical of thoroughly dysfunctional heteroculture and so is also the lack of alternative and functioning gender-neutral social codes for encounters of romance and casual sex respectively. These social codes certainly exist in LGBTQI culture yet certainly not yet so in normative heteroculture except when participating in various sexual subcultures such as BDSM and swinging. How can it really be that various subcultures of purported minorities of desire typically have social norms for adequate social communication for becoming emotionally and/or physically intimate while heteroculture almost completely lacks it?

This state of things may certainly seem perplexing but the simple explanation is that heteroculture is modeled on rape and prostitution in which female agency and female desire counts for nothing. Heteroculture is about reducing female human beings to subpersons in the form of sexual objects and heterocultural females are not socially permitted to simply act on their own desire but must ritually participate in themselves becomoing emotionally defrauded and sexually abused by misogynist patriarchy.

The primping female goes to nightclubs and ventures in public space so as enable the Prince of Dreams to spot and seduce her and little does she understand that her purpose as assigned to her by heteroculture is her social subjection in prostitution culture, indeed leading to her sexual subjection in rape culture, both of which form intrinsic components of heteroculture itself.

Much later as emotionally scarred by the social and sexual brutality of heteroculture and her body, appearance and vagina damaged by what is typically the brutality and barbarity of pregnancy and childbirth may she abandon primping altogether and neglect her health in assuming that she is somehow overage and so she presumes she need not bother anymore about her appearance for she thinks that she has lost her sexual value in the semiotics of patriarchy when in fact individual expression of desire and individuality, including through primping can be successfully performed even at an advanced age.

There are of course other types of kissing, indeed there are functionally many types of kisses but LGBTQI kissing is typically far more mutual and equal in nature. Lesbian kissing typically involves also kissing elsewhere on the face and neck and only slowly on the mouth and so performing lesbian or lesbian-style kissing may involve a mutually highly erotic tactile choreography of the mouth dancing on the surface of the head and neck.

It is truly sad to point out the most tragic fact of life that most heterocultural female feminists are hypocrites when it comes to matters of interpersonal intimacy but they have unfortunately little to no room, knowledge or social skills for acting differently. Heterocultural male feminists may actually tend to be less hypocritical than heterocultural female feminists in this respect but it is almost impossible to be consistently feminist in heteroculture with respect dating and pickup due to the almost complete lack of gender-neutral social codes in these respects.

There is hope however with respect to kissing as kissing is an art indeed and so sexist kissing needs to be supplanted by artful lesbian-style kissing where attention is decentered from the mouth of the other which is semiotically designated into a preliminary, symbolic vagina in heteroculture. Indeed the primping female turns her colored face into a symbolic vagina, her colored hair into symbolic pubic hair, the colored lips of her mouth into symbolic labia and her tongue into a symbolic clitoris indeed.

Instead of a socially compulsory, prostitution-style involuntary false kiss of deliberate psychological manipulation as implicit payment for later coitus is feminist kissing instead an elaborate art of sharing intimacy with and affection for fellow others. Feminist kissing is certainly not about purchasing sexual services or otherwise “getting” but is rather about sharing oneself in enabling the other person to share theirself as well.

If you think of kissing as an elaborate art of sharing emotional intimacy with fellow persons in recognizing and appreciating each other’s full personhood (i.e.  full body & soul) rather than as a barely hidden transaction of mutual deception; then kissing may become simple, relaxed and delightful indeed even in heteroculture. Feminist kissing thus has the potential to subversively disrupt and undermine the very social hegemony of heteroculture, including rape culture and prostitution culture.

A female kissing a male on the cheek or a female wanting to become his close friend so as to enable him to seduce her in the privacy of her home are both seen are clear signs of rejection in heteroculture, yet is it not absurd that this is so? Indeed she has so few options at her disposal that primping may be her best chance of even becoming approached on occasion. Romance through friendship as is the norm in lesbian culture is not even an option as most heterocultural males are so socio-sexually inept that they do not know how to turn on and sexually arouse a close friend and she does not think that her personhood will turn on anyone as she has been brainwashed by patriarchy to believe that her sexual attraction is exclusively in the domain of her appearance as reinforced by sexist psychological manipulation which she has learned in colorful magazines as catering to adolescent females. She is not even socially permitted to kiss him on the cheek as that too would typically be interpreted as rejection and what is mindlessly negatively described as so called “friendzoning”.

She is so limited by patriarchy in her social repertoire with respect to meeting males that she is not socially permitted to give socio-tactile expression to sexual arousal since for most heterocultural males this gives rise to turnoff. She is limited to social behaviors resembling prostitution and she is rightly fearful of this leading to forms of sexual intercourse as resembling rape indeed. If she is not passive in bed and refrains from acting on her own desire is she fearful of his reaction, indeed she acts like a little girl in her parents’ bed waiting for her father/stepfather to enter her genital cavity and so she fears ersatz-daddy’s potential disapproval of her giving physical expression to her own profound desire for genuine interpersonal intimacy.

Instead of merely being passively present in bed as if she were a prostitute and as waiting to become vaginally sexually penetrated irrespective her genuinely desiring this or not (as opposed to passively consenting out of social convention) needs she develop her ability for tactilely express her own desire for interpersonal intimacy. Indeed, the words lying in bed and lying as being untruthful have identical spelling in standard English.

Just as the feminist art of kissing involves decentering the verbal mouth of the head of the other person in kissing many more areas of head and neck and later elsewhere on the body need the feminist art of making love involve decentering the mouth of her lower abdomen (i.e. her vagina) in therefore activating erogenous zones throughout his body as decentering her vagina does decenter his phallus as well. Indeed, contrary to her expectations will this make him stay for it is her behavior in bed as performatively reducing herself to a role akin to that of a prostitute that precisely makes him leave her the next day.

She does not think of herself as worthy of becoming loved as herself and so her only options are primping and psychological manipulation and then surely can how can she reasonably expect to become loved if she is socially restrained from expressing both desire and personality?

Her feminist mission therefore needs to become to give expression to her desire and personality both in social and sexual interaction in individually developing the choreography of love. This means turning the process of making love from approach to affection into intimately feminist performance art. This may take the form of sexual narration, tactilely literally dancing around each other’s bodies in bed and elsewhere, giving musical expression to intimacy while sharing each other and most important of all creative artistically aesthetic improvisation around each other’s warm breathing bodies. The stale and stereotypical process of heterocultural so called “sexual intercourse” may thus become transformed from procedure to art form. As all great art does this involve creative self-expression and good aesthetic judgement indeed.

This feminist choreography of love is an art that has no gender, no color of skin and no age for feminist intimate performance art is indeed about actively sharing a breathing aroused body with another actively sharing breathing aroused body in mutual performance of feminist art of love.

The feminist choreography of love may begin at first encounter and commences whenever there is desire thereof. Different forms of kissing are indeed appropriate in different situations as some forms of kissing ought to express initial affection while others ought to express sharing intimacy while yet others ought to express in the morning that “I did not merely sleep with your body but I made love with you as a full person, body & soul.”

Creatively aesthetic choreography of love for, with and by persons of all genders may be performed almost anywhere whether in public space or in private space and may become particularly effective in subverting the cultural hegemony of rape culture & prostitution culture alike as both are unfortunately at present intrinsic components of the socially hegemonic heteroculture. The essential feminist task in this respect is certainly to subversively open up for creatively artistic aesthetic expression of both profound desire and individual personhood in interpersonal emotional/physical intimacy indeed.

86. Death of Heteroculture

It is difficult indeed to find any mitigating factors in thoroughly pathological heteroculture as based on sexism, misogyny, masculinism, patriarchy, carno-phallogocentrism and severely unethical, indeed evil psychological manipulation of possessive, selfish and parasitic intent.

Heteroculture indeed is psychological manipulation instead of sensually communicating mutual attraction. Heterocultural persons tend to be afraid to express their own sexualities and tend furthermore to be abhored by heterocultural sexual expression by others. I wrote this book in the hope of deconstructing heteroculture and help transforming it into something far better and although the disaster zone that is heteroculture requires continued deconstruction is my conclusion that heteroculture simply needs to be dissolved into many new innovative feminist subcultures of interpersonal physical & emotional intimacy. Heteroculture is simply pure evil.

Many so called “sexual minority” subcultures have established transparent means for mutual communication thanks to the fact that these communicative protocols (etiquettes) usually are gender neutral indeed. Gender asymmetry such as butch/femme, Domme/sub, binary/non-binary and male/female are certainly to some extent acceptable provided that these are consensually agreed indeed by the participants involved. The problem with heteroculture is thus that it is precisely non-consensual – compulsory indeed since it involves non-consensual gendered dyscommunication. Heteroculture is Western sexism itself and heteroculture prostitutes its participants for no good reason at all in disseminating suffering and unhappiness – it is just pure evil of mutual deception, parasitism indeed. Heteroculture is a matrix of interlocking demands for sexist behaviors that precludes “getting results” (romance, relationship, friendship, sex etc.) without engaging in or at least condoning sexist behaviors.

What is thus very much needed are many innovative feminist protocols for interpersonal intimate communication. Let us thus engage in social and conceptual innovation in devising more and more feminist protocols and let’s create many more feminist subcultures of emotional & physical interpersonal intimacy. There is little to salvage in this dystopian emotional graveyard that is heteroculture and so the thoroughly sick heteroculture needs to be put to rest by means of conceptual and social innovation in feminist interpersonal intimacy involving full personhood of both body and soul.

The fact is however that there is tremendous, indeed profound discontent with and within heteroculture among its intended and actual social participants. Singles are typically dissatisfied with the severe difficulties involved in meeting others and those in nominally exclusive couple relationships tend to be unhappy with their partner to varying degree as well as relatively dissatisfied with the quality and content of the relationship in question.

What is needed therefore is simply devising and offering socially attractive alternatives to hegemonic heterocultural social practices. While understanding the structural dysfunctionalities of heteroculture are obviously essential is there no doubt whatsoever that intended/actual social participants in hegemonic heteroculture will leave dysfunctional heteroculture once there are much better options available. Of course there are already existing alternative options in terms of highly functional communication protocols of so called “sexual minority” subcultures but these are focused on technical types of physical intimacy as “different” from those typically sought through participation in heteroculture and there is typically a social stigma of perceived “deviance” involved.

Social media such as devising new innovative Facebook groups are obviously one venue for devising such new subcultures of physical & emotional intimacy. Instructional youtube videos is another way to devise and disseminate new subcultural behaviors. It is essential that such venues are also created IRL, these can be permanent physical locations or temporal ones such as meeting weekly in the city library. If the community rules are ethical & intuitive as well as clear and apparent beforehand, then participants certainly do tend to adhere to the requisite rules indeed.

While specialization is certainly essential in increasingly devising an ethico-aesthetic feminist smorgasbord of attractive subcultural options for emotional & physical interpersonal intimacy need there also be types of specialization as different from those focused on eroticization of perceived sexual “deviance”.

The need for ethical gender training can hardly be underestimated and it is certainly not only most heterocultural cismales who desperately need to learn ethical perfection in social and intimate behaviors. The need for re-education is vast and such education need to take place in different forms, different shapes and different fora throughout society, including formal education, informal education and educating the general public such as through instructional youtube videos.

It is however essential to not only as do tend feminists see the problems but crucially also identify opportunities as problems typically are opportunities in disguise indeed. The tremendous need for ethico-functional alternatives to communication-wise dysfunctional hegemonic practices of heteroculture is tremendous and so there is likewise a tremendous market for providing alternatives to these very oppressive practices indeed and certainly so in terms of new social venues, educational programs and business initiatives. Feminist entrepreneurs therefore certainly do can attain the undoing of heteroculture in creating ethico-innovative feminist business initiatives considering the tremendous and profound discontent with heteroculture among most of its intended/actual participants.

While critique is obviously essential to gender science, need there also be applied gender science such as in this book as devoted to not only conceptual innovation but social innovation as well and so applied gender science need to be taught as part of gender studies academic courses and students crucially need to be encouraged and empowered to themselves engage in conceptual, social and technological innovation in devising new business/social initiatives as facilitating the emergence of new innovative subcultures of emotional & physical interpersonal intimacy indeed.

87. Establishing Panamorous Cultural Hegemony

Why is that the the 19th century Eurocentric construct of physionomistic categories for interpersonal emotional-physical intimacy have remained ideologically hegemonic as perpetuated by structurally objectifying interbody identities despite being highly oppressive, discriminatorily divisive and utterly redundant indeed?

Of course many things survive unthinkingly in what is known as “culture” through convention, norm and habit but there are furthermore social reasons for this. Persons with exclusively anatomically gendered “sexual identities” often experience a need to emphasize this so as preempt unwanted advances. Hetercultural males with anatomically exclusive “sexual identities” typically do so out of unfounded fear of sexual advances from gay men. This is so because gay men are falsely stereotyped as sexually aggressive when in fact gay men due to fear of homophobic violence are virtually universally afraid of cruising on heterocultural males. Many LGBTQI people in the closet will falsely claim to have anatomically exclusive heterosexual identity out of fear of anti-LGBTQI harassment. Also many lesbian/bisexual female couples will claim to be “exclusively heterosexuals” in order to avoid advances from heterocultural males seeking a threesome with them. It is not that such couples are usually or necessarily averse to the idea of threesomes with persons whose anatomies are perceived as “male” but rather that they typically do not seek that with cismales with stereotypically heterocultural socio-sexual behaviors.

Anatomically exclusive “sexual identities” are thus perpetuated by structural fears of harassment, violence and unwarranted advances and indeed so irrespective of to what degree those concerns are justified or not. The problem of course with taxonomic sexual identities is also the structural objectification inherent in the idea of being primarily turned on by categories of bodies rather than becoming turned on by unique persons. Of course most persons with anatomically exclusive “sexual identities” are not turned on by “all males” or “all females”, “all legal adults”, all same-age peers and so on but rather by some persons in those socially constructed physionomistic “categories” of phantasmatic units of social classification. There is no way to prove that exclusive attraction to persons seen as belonging to such ideological inventions even exists since heterocultural males are typically turned on by highly attractive transfemales irrespective of their exterior is passable or not.

Gays, lesbians and heterocultural females nowadays usually don’t think of their respective “sexual identities” as anatomically exclusive in heterocultural females typically being open to “experimenting” in galsex and gays and lesbians as increasingly not actually averse to physical intimacy with persons of a so called “same sex”, including in threesomes for example involving a gay couple with a lesbian female or a lesbian couple with a gay male.

Radical feminism is radical in intent but typically not so in actual practice although some radical feminists (particularly Kurdish feminism) certainly are highly socially transformative indeed. Some radical feminists live lesbian as a social choice so as to express feminist separatism in trying to avoid unknown heterocismales as much as possible. Here is this a matter of trying to avoid being victimized by sexism generally and as a political choice not borne of lack of attraction for bodies of some heterocultural cismales but rather out of understanding of the significant risks and dangers posed to females by involving in such relationships whether casual or committed.

The underlying problem thus is the structurally malign nature of heterotypical behaviors on the part of heterocultural cismales to varying degrees and so anatomically exclusive “sexual identities” are iteratively reproduced in response to those very structurally oppressive behaviors indeed.

The question needs however be posed why “sexual identities” are needed whatsoever? After all what purpose do they really serve other than objectification, discrimination and social exclusion? Describing oneself as something need not refer to an imaginary essence (i.e. iterative renaturalization of socially invented physionomistic categories) but could rather be a choice of joining or remaining in a particular community of performativity whether those practices are religious, sexual, political, social or otherwise.

Having  variously strong tendencies in terms of attraction in this or that direction (whether to persons, performative acts or innate objects) simply means being part of a psychometric continuum as such continuums exist in many cognitive respects and not merely in terms of interpersonal attraction whether social, emotional, physical and/or sexual. Few people would even consider having “sexual identities” for attraction such as height, color of hair, eyes and skin: weight, age, makeup/no-makeup and so on. Rather the issue is that society under the social terror of heterocultural patriarchy is obsessive about reproducing gendering identities whether referring to age (men/boys, women/girls), interpersonal attraction (heterocultural/LGBTQI) or social practice (male/female).

What is needed therefore is not merely abandoning sexual identities but crucially ending participation in the structural performance of exclusionary physionomistic identities, including refusing to perform structurally involuntary objectification of persons. Panamory (a.k.a. “pansexuality”) as subversive performative action should thus also mean embracing ethical veganism which is precisely structural objectification and indeed completely unwarranted mass violence. This would be in addition to refusing to perform and perpetuate the discursive iteration, ideological perpetuation, social reproduction and completely redundant and repugnant naturalization of anatomically exclusive “sexual identities”.

Anatomically exclusionary “sexual identities” furthermore exclude non-binary people since these identities presume binary gender in both the person experiencing interpersonal attraction and in those whom they are actually or purportedly attracted to and so non-binary people exist outside of anatomically exclusive gendering identities not only in social terms but in intimate terms as well.

As lesbians, gays and heterocultural females nowadays increasingly do not perceive of their respectively gendered tendencies in interpersonal attraction as entirely anatomically exclusive do heterocultural cismales too need to abandon empty and unproven pretenses of illusory anatomically exclusionary interpersonal attraction. Indeed, interpersonal attraction is a spectrum spanning from social attraction over emotional attraction and physical attraction to sexual attraction and so we need to recognise and even scientifically and psychometrically measure the entire spectrum. Gendered interpersonal attraction thus certainly includes social phenomena such as feminism and patriarchy.

The practical solution however is to train males of all ages including particularly teenagers in performing same-sex fellatio. This training needs to be overt, organized and even public and so this will make participant effectively become functionally panamorous as are already increasingly de facto lesbians, gays, heterocultural females and urban males in and of Middle Eastern countries such as Syria and Saudi Arabia.

Putting anatomically exclusive “sexual identities” to rest by ending their iteration, reproduction, baseless naturalization and public normalization is hence an essential political task indeed for both feminism and the LGBTQI community that needs to prioritized indeed. The subsequent step however is certainly to abandon “sexual identities” altogether in embracing panamorous acceptance of interpersonal attraction to individual personhood, including both interior and exterior. Declaring oneself pan or panamorous is a political act and performative speech act indeed in not merely expressing functional/performative/attractional bisexuality but should furthermore become politically designed to abandon sexual identities altogether and not merely so with respect to gender in rather embracing diversity in both attraction and intimate practice.

The panamorous transformation is precisely essential as part of ending gendered oppression and abolishing patriarchy, including ending the nefarious and severely harmful and destructive cultural hegemonies of heteronormativity and cisnormativity. Liberation from structural oppression and universally so is indeed essential irrespective of how victims and victimizers are categorized for it is structural DOLP (discrimination, oppression, lies and prejudice) itself that is the very core problem indeed and so supplanting cultural/ideological hegemonies of physionomistic categorization is precisely vital indeed.

88. Establishing Polyamorous Cultural Hegemony

The notion of sexually exclusive (usually monogamous, i.e. monotonous) marriage as an ostensibly “ideal” form of cohabitation and intimate expression has for ages been promoted by organized religion but has in recent centuries become increasingly secularized in “secular” mass culture having taken over the role of promoter of this barely “secularized” patriarchal institution indeed. Although certainly not always unhappy is exclusive monogamy usually indeed unfortunately unhappy to varying degrees. Traditionally was it for economic, social and religious reasons almost impossible for females to leave the usually unhappy institution of sexually exclusive, usually monogamous marriage.

Hetoreligious marriage was a form of bondage/servitude whereby the female was practically enslaved by socially exploiting her desire for interpersonal emotional-physical intimacy and this is still so in most traditional human cultures. Heterocultural marriage as largely supplanting heteroreligious marriage became very different legally speaking but this oppressive patriarchal institution whose core is home prostitution of nominally reproductive mongamy is indeed a barely secularized form of heteroreligious marriage.

Yet reproduction is certainly an important social factor in the historical trajectory of gender history since time immemorial. And so it is understandable that females will seek stable relationships considering the economic, sexual and social hardships that females typically face as lone mothers. To reduce this concern to one of evolution is however demeaning and misogynistic as indeed expressive of biological determinism considering that this is a very real and justified individual concern considering the immense economic, sexual and social implications thereof.

Anyone seeking to end the most tragic cultural hegemony of this severely oppressive institution, indeed social anchor of patriarchy therefore needs to offer, indeed devise economically, sexually and socially far more attractive options. The solution obviously is polyamory (i.e. consensual non-monogamy – and certainly not infidelity!) but there are many forms of polyamory (and rightly so) and so conceptual/social innovation in polyamory is needed in order to devise and design far better options for cohabitation, childrearing, committed intimacy and partnership in socio-economic cooperation.

The first step therefore needs involve building familial institutions for committed intimacy and economic, sexual and social stability. Contemporary polyamory tends to be mostly a platform for consensual sexual arrangements involving two or more consenting persons and typically so without economic dimensions that would importantly ensure social stability for mothers and participants with low income.

Polyamory therefore needs to be reinvented and substantially upgraded through feminist conceptual and social innovation indeed. Feminist polyamory therefore needs involve more economic and social aspects and the intimate dimension too needs to undergo feminist reinvention and conceptual upgrade.

The second stage should involve limiting the proportion of male births to 5% by changing chromosomal sex in early human embryos as leading to feminist eugenic polygyny where a reproductive male is on average married to about twenty reproductive females. The third stage should involve establishing both gynocentric and androcentric eugenically feminist courts of conception in further limiting the proportion of reproductively male births.

The first stage is however the primary concern in this chapter and so it is essential that social models for committed (yet not necessarily intimately exclusive) polyamorous relationships are redevised, redesigned and reinvented invented indeed so as to also ensure economic and social security and not merely intimate security; including for childrearing, family entrepreneurship and other socio-economic permanent interpersonal cooperation as based on committed relationship.

There cannot be one single model for feminist polyamory as what is rather needed is an expanding smorgasbord of customizable attractive options in feminist polyamory.  Feminist here importantly means polyamory adhering to feminist etiquette. These different feminists models for polyamory should all be based on formal standardized and legally binding feminist contracts that would outline everything essential and make sure that everything is perfectly clear down to every detail that is indeed important from a feminist point of view.

Taboo sexuality in the sense as Para-Christian eroticized iconoclasm is the ideologically hegemonic mode of sexual arousal in heteroculture. This is a phallogocentric ideology of breaking, of eroticizing infringement of borders of others and one fundamental problem with heteroculture is precisely its compulsory, indeed structurally non-elective nature.

Feminist models for polyamory in contrast need to eroticize elective boundaries. Rather than “breaking” boundaries of others as in eroticized iconoclasm needs feminist polyamory instead celebrate and eroticize elective boundaries in intimate social/conceptual innovation. If rules and boundaries are perfectly clear and signed from the start as indeed in BDSM subculture is there precisely freedom to experiment, relax and express oneself and one’s intimate desires. Rules and boundaries offers you freedom to act within those boundaries in compliance with those rules although of course both rules and boundaries must be fully elective and indeed strictly delimited by both feminist etiquette and the laws of the land.

Personally performing feminist social revolution means indeed establishing your own increasingly expanding boundaries and deconstructing rules in strict compliance with innovative feminist etiquette and the law of the land. This means that you can increasingly ditch what is known as social convention in cases where this is physionomistic, otherwise constitutes DOLP or is simply redundant, unhelpful or counterproductive.  Feminist etiquette as all other deliberate etiquette is based on treating others well and so that and adherence to the law of the land are the outer limits of your personalized feminist revolution.

In other words, feminist polyamory is part and parcel of and indeed central to the personalized feminist revolution itself and adheres to the same outer limits indeed and is personalized and consensually reciprocal within that.

Imagine that (as indeed so often in heteroculture) there is a male who likes to be dominant and a female who likes to be submissive; i.e. a typical BDSM role play. If non-elective such as there in practice being no other options available there other than not becoming intimate at all then clearly this is non-consensual and may very likely be abusive indeed. However, if there is a formal reciprocal feminist contract of intimacy would there be both prior communication and elective contractual options as is the norm in BDSM subculture. Heteroculture is indeed a social contract with very limited consent. In other words does the heterocultural female not necessarily know to what it is that she consents to which typically makes her reluctant to become intimate at all.

Heteroculture in constituting both rape culture & prostitution culture is the cultural hegemony of the wrong consent. Either does the person not know to what she consents to which is actually or potentially abusive or she is asked for consent for every little detail prior to each act which for many obviously is simply turnoff. These are for most not the right ways to do it and feminist polyamory rather offers tremendous contractual freedom indeed within both outer limits (feminist etiquette & law of the land) and elective personalized boundaries and mutually agreed reciprocal rules indeed.

We need therefore commence engaging in feminist social and conceptual innovation with respect to intimacy in overturning patriarchy’s ethically redundant rules of ethnocentrism and Eurocentrism alike.

Feminist polyamory opens indeed the horizon of merging what is known as “religion” with what is known as “sexuality” in communally reverting to gynocentric Sumerian ritual sex. Feminist polyamory needs therefore be both what is known as “spiritual” and what is known as “ritual” in nature although devotional and ceremonial may be better terms.

It will in no way be difficult for feminist ritual sex to outcompete the tasteless culture of pseudo-intimacy that is heteroculture. Synagogues, churches, mosques, temples and other places of worship need therefore be turned into Temples of Love as devoted to and specialized in various innovative forms of feminist public ritual sex. Feminist ritual sex will not only be far extremely hotter but also far extremely more spiritual in helping participants spiritually connect with each other rather than ostensibly with absent persona whether existing, non-existing or formerly existing.

It is not that it is not legitimate for two persons to become emotionally/physically intimate with each other and even perhaps exclusively so. But the question is whether such arrangements are actually usually elective to any significant degree? How individually elective really is Muslim veiling in societies where this is the hegemonic social norm such as in Muslim neighborhoods in Europe as terrorized by Islamist vigilantes? The same is true for heteroculture because the only other options typically available are sexual subcultures as premised on eroticization of historically perceived “deviation”. If you are not turned on by sexual subculture but rather as so many females in heteroculture simply long for security in intimacy then surely your options are limited.

The feminist movement therefore needs to reinvent itself so as to engage in combined conceptual and social innovation in intimate practice. Feminism needs hence not limit itself to iconoclasm (critique & opposition) but needs engage in proactively feminist social construction in innovatively creating new subcultures and new contexts able to highly attractively and rapidly so outcompete existing patriarchal ones.

Feminist revolution is thus not merely ideological iconoclasm but deliberate social construction indeed. You fashion the new world baby by ethico-aesthetically and personalized contractually reciprocally so expressing your intrinsic personhood, including profound intimate desire. Feminist ritual sex whether public, private or semi-public is therefore precisely essential and central indeed to the global feminist revolution. This is what the establishment of the coming hot hegemony of feminist polyamory is truly about and who really wouldn’t like that? This is so incomparably hotter as compared to the lowly, crappy and stereotypically physionomistic practices of heteroculture. Sexual practices of course generally need to be reconsidered, reevaluated and reinvented through feminist conceptual/social intimate innovation, including of course various existing sexual subcultures indeed including BDSM in also ending the baseless dichotomy between phallogocentric so called “sexuality” and other forms of pleasure and desire indeed.

The polyamorous revolution therefore heralds the era of feminist ritual sex as supplanting both what are narrowly known as “sexuality” and “religion” in reciprocally and extremely consensually so sharing ourselves in advanced pleasure in indeed incorporating various forms of pleasure (sexual, religious, vegan, aesthetic, feminist, political etc.) into very extremely hot and ritually advanced feminist intimate-emotional futures indeed.

The Eurolect – Politics of the Para-Christian documentation project

Screenshot 2017-12-01 at 23.30.32

The Intelligence Entrapment Methods documentation project.