Reining in male sexuality

Modern societies with free market economies are not kind to women with declining or low sexual market value. At any time, in any liberal society except the poorest ones, a decline of sexual market value always affects the large majority of women. And even young and very attractive females know that in just a few years, they will also be affected, and lose out.

There are other good reasons for female solidarity, but the common interest in reining in male sexuality is by far the most emotional one, and a the soundest basis for female solidarity indeed.

To rein in male sexuality, there are two strategies: 1. restricting men, 2. restricting other females

A large number of women are willing to compromise on any topic, even outdated religious regulations, if the effect is that the decline of their sexual value is stopped.

And many social conventions, such as formal marriages in repressive societies, have a net effect of reining in male sexuality, and keeping female competition out.

A new phenomenon has undermined the efforts of female solidarity unions since the last quarter of the 20th century: male mobility. Men have been going to live in non-Western countries for sexual opportunities.

The response of female solidarity unions are “You ain’t get it somewhere else” machinations on the level of public opinion and, of course, on the level of legislation.