William’s Question 1-9-24
LOOPHOLES TO MATRIARCHY
From William Bond–Hi Rasa:
Since the beginning of this year I’ve been attempting to write another book. I have been thinking about how it is possible to create a matriarchal society and it seems to me the only workable system we know off, is that of the Bonobo ape. In a sex war for dominance, men have the advantage of size, strength, aggression and violence. While the only way women can dominate men is through love, sex and sisterhood. So I’m thinking about whether women use similar methods to that of the bonobo ape. It would involve a very radical change of behavior. Women would have to freely give sex to men and at the same time have sex with other women to form a lesbian sisterhood.
An alternative to this, is for women to be like the priestesses of ancient Goddess temples and form a prostitutes collective. So all the wealth and power that comes from prostitution end up in the hands of women and keep pimps and criminals out. So we could either have a new religion, or run it like a business. But whatever way we do it, women will end up trading sex for wealth and power over men. We also know that patriarchy is very anti-sexual and want to control women’s sexuality. an extreme case of this is Islam where women have to cover up their bodies completely and have their clitorises cut off.
I’m now having second thoughts about this and wonder if these proposals might be too radical? Because however you do it, women will end up having a lot of sex with many different men. So would it be realistic for women to use sex. lesbianism and sisterhood to dominate and control men? It’s hard for me to say, as I’m a man so I don’t know what women would think about this idea. So I’m just wondering what you think about this Rasa. William
*{Rasa says: Prositution, though not formal, is exactly what we have been dong all these years ditto Bonobo style touching, feeling & sex. We do this in deference to them whether we like it or not, we are forced. Try being unpleasant to men & you will see revenge that is ten times worse than what you gave out. Merely IGNORING them has brought revenge upon me.
Your first idea – the Bonobo model plus sisterhood will never happen not realistic. As if we appease men Bonobo style, which we are doing anyway, that negates Sisterhood as women become our enemies we compete with them, there is a bad conflict. There’s jealousy, cattiness & hate woman to woman as long as we try to please men. For women to be hetero plus have a Sisterhood & become Lesbians is so unrealistic, no one would believe it. I guess being bisexual is what you’re saying, there aren’t enough bisexuals to pull this off, the majority maybe 75% are hetero & hetero they will stay.
If we take sex out of the equation, like using sex to dominate men, & find economic freedom – then we can continue engaging men for sex for our pleasure, not so much theirs. That is the model I’m working on in the New Religion & Order because it MAKES SENSE.
You are going BACKWARD in making sex the center to dominate men, that is EXACTLY what we want to abolish!
Why not create a book that bears with the facts – that human men have been discovered to be inferior due to having only one X chromosome to women’s 2 X’s, that we see in statistics & reports, & the jail system, that men are generally rogues, that women have held them up for millennia but now this is falling apart. As men go downhill, women are rising. Show this in a few relationships & partnerships, how it affects the individuals. The men are scared; they’re trying to see how they can retain their dominance. The women are breathing sighs of relief but this dominance is hard won as the men are not submitting easily & are fighting all the way. This is conflict. All the ways men take revenge& try to trap women once again; all the ways women are trying to get away from their snares, violence & unfairness. This is the drama a story needs.
The stumbling block of your propositions, in my view, is that women must continue using sex to dominate men. This suits men in general & submissive men in particular but this is what I HATED about being a dominatrix. It is them controlling us from the bottom & that’s what you’re proposing here, are you not? Like “use sex to dominate me.” That’s why I HATE femdom. As it isn’t freedom for us at all.
And oh yes, why not interject women forming ‘brothels’ for ‘Sacred Sex’ as the ancient ‘Sacred harlot’s did? Men come to the Temple of Love, worship at an altar where women preach & lecture then give a donation for intimacy which will help them gain Spirituality – Sacred Sex – Tantra. And these women are respected, revered & they get wealthy so they can be free to do whatever.}*
From Pete:
Indeed, William. In a nutshell, my response upthread was basically that I thought it best to simply to remove all restrictions, shame, and stigma on sexual activity between consenting adults, and let it develop organically. Dr. James W. Prescott would likely concur.
I forgot to add one more thing: it is quite interesting that the slogan “Smash Monogamy” in the early 1970s was actually coined by a group of lesbian Women, not men. Though I would argue that a better slogan would be “Smash Enforced Monogamy”, since it is not monogamy per se that is the real problem, but rather its “enforcement” and “default” status in society. It should be whatever floats one’s boat. Tolerance should work both ways, of course. And it should be the case for both genders, with no “reverse double standard” either.
People can argue until they are blue in the face about whether monogamy is natural or not. But I would say that there are three kinds of monogamy: strict, lifelong, and universal. Pick two out of three. To achieve anything close to all three requires a ludicrous amount of violence and coercion, and/or some sort of “safety valve”. Even Orthodox Jews, arguably the most monogamous people in all of recorded history, who appear to have achieved all three, have always had a convenient escape hatch for men: quick and easy divorce, but only for men. Which, of course, historically left Women and children high and dry, often destitute. (Perhaps that was what Jesus was esoterically getting at when he *allegedly* prohibited divorce completely. Though banning divorce, as we have seen historically, in practice only trapped Women and children even more in the quagmire of patriarchy.) Pete
Hi Pete
I think the reason why patriarchy talked women into monogamy is that woman are always the ones left, “holding the baby”. So unrestricted sex and love can work for women if they have a powerful sisterhood whom will care for the children. Break up the sisterhood and women then have to rely on men for support when they have small children to look after. In this situation women then need strict marriage laws to make sure the man stays and helps look after his own children.
So the break up of monogamy will bring about very radical changes in how men and women relate to each other. Women then have to form a sisterhood and depend on each other for support. They also can receive the help of men but bribe them with sex to get them to do what women want.
William
*{Rasa says: That is PRECISELY what I’m trying to build in the New Order – a backup system for women with children. We are not left holding the bad when these guys leave us. They want to dumpp sperm then go off & have fun or find another female or dump in multiple women. We need SECURITY. Not looking for wealth & luxury – it’s security, room & board, education, a foundation of security for the family.
This is what Matriarchy was all about, the security of the Sisterhood with child care built in. The nuclear family keeps woman as slaves to the home. How can she go out & work when she has one or more kids? I did that, it was extremely difficult. We need sisters at the home front, caring for children while we go out. That is the FOUNDATION of Matriarchy.}
From Pete:
Indeed, and that’s precisely where some naysayers will speciously claim that we are putting the cart before the horse. But that said, with the advent of modern birth control, paternity testing, and especially the welfare state and its social safety nets (all nonexistent for most of recorded history), these concerns are greatly attenuated as a result. So in recent decades, it’s not really putting the cart before the horse IMHO.
But again, it is best to let it all develop *organically* rather than impose it from the top down. Done correctly, it will be the ultimate kill switch for patriarchy, as I have noted before. True, journeys are often far more dangerous than destinations, but this particular destination is worth the journey.
(The Tamera ecovillage in Portugal comes to mind, for example. But it also needs to be done within “mass society” as well as best as one can.) Pete
*{Rasa says. What you say Pete, re the welfare system & all that, yes, there are institutions & social agencies & actions in place that do diminish the man’s control over women especially their abandonment & lack of care. That is part of the culture that is evidence of men getting weaker in their stranglehold.
It’s all happening on different fronts in different ways. Abortion is weakening the man’s domination as he can’t always saddle the female with unwanted children. Birth control, all its forms & condoms weaken his hold. But it’s only part of the answer, albeit a good part.
Women’s sexual freedom cannot happen suddenly – like a light bulb came on. By many changes in society on many levels, gradually it will occur. Then it means patriarchy is done.
My Order hopefully, or its blueprint, will help.
The Tamera ecovillage in Portugal – I looked it up. It’s a good start – egalitarianism, equality, all that, it’s not Matriarchy.
I intend to take a BIG PLUNGE into SERIOUS MATRIARCHY with my Order.
As far as your book, in conclusion I saw the two propositions are a no-no. Dramatizing the actual reality that is really happening IMO could be better. Maybe if you focus on the Prostitution as the center of the story with a powerful Priestess/Madame & the men who get involved for good or bad would be dramatic.
And breakup of Monogamy? It cannot be required nor should it be a taboo to break it. You want to be monogamous? Go for it? You don’t? Fine. You want multiple lovers? OK. You want lovers of both genders? Float your boat. Freedom
Sexual freedom for women destroys Patriarchy. The taboos, restrictions, ‘morals,’ have nothing to do with righteousness or God – they are man-made. Women must unmake them. That’s our New Religion}*
From Pete: Good answer overall, Rasa.
Though I would say both of your perspectives make sense in their own way. William may have over-egged the proverbial pudding a bit, but he still makes some good points, as do you.
I don’t think I have much else to add to this conversation, except to bring up the interesting case of the Mosuo people (who are of course Matriarchal and practice a form of “free love”) that both of you have discussed in the past, and that has worked for thousands of years. (Note that sex is NOT used by the Mosuo Women as a tool to appease OR to control men, at least not explicitly.)
And again, in any case, whatever the solution is, it will have to develop organically, and with at least some concessions made to modern times. I had mentioned the Tamera ecovillage in Portugal, for example, but I would further add that even within “mass society” there are (according to philosopher Charles Eisenstein) some broadly similar pockets here and there, such as in parts of Colorado and Western Massachusetts in recent years. Not necessarily Matriarchal, at least not explicitly, but a step in the right direction IMHO. Best wishes, Pete
From William – Hi Rasa:
I think what you are proposing is already happening. There are books about why women are doing better than men in education. We also see the result of this as there are now more female politicians and business leaders. I suppose if things keep on going the way they are, women will probably in a another 100 years time, be ruling everything. The trouble is I don’t think I’ve got anything to say about this. The type of book your proposing should be written by academics who has access to all the facts and figures about this.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/02/21/new-book-explains-why-women-outpace-men-education
So if Ashley Montagu is right and women are naturally superior to men. Then the only way men can become the dominant sex is to actively suppress women. But once men stop doing this, then women naturally rise to the top and take over and perhaps is is what feminist have been doing. They tell everyone they only want equality but I think they only say this to fool men. I think the feminist do want to take over and rule they world, but are afraid if they say this, as they fear it might provoke a male backlash. So they are working towards this silently and secretly and would prefer us to shut up about women ruling the world.
Yes, I can see patriarchy has been very successful in making sex unpleasant for women. As far as men are concern sex is all about dominance and submission, and this includes femdom sex. Whereas women want sex to be about love making. (Although many men do also want sex to be about love as well). But I agree with the idea of Sacred Sex, I think the problem with femdom is that men are still in charge of it. So to them it is still about dominance and submission and not so much about men worshipping women. So perhaps I have to think about the spiritual side of sex to make this work. William
Pete – Good response, William:
Like I said, I think you are both correct to one degree or another. It is however important NOT to make any solution androcentric (centering men), in terms of appeasement or control. Rather it should be gynocentric (centering Women).
From Rasa:
William, this is what I’m getting now. A novel is a FANTASY. This fantasy can be ANYTHING. My reaction was from my own POV & feelings, which I am LOATH to have to continue USING SEX to appease or control men. I – we women – have done that since the beginning of Patriarchy & myself & I am sure other women are sick to death of it.
And so, I would HATE your book. But you aren’t writing for me, it’s for femdom men & they want it! And it’s also an emotional release for you, you’ve done this many times, you’re good at it, you just need a NEW ANGLE & for that, ask the minds of femdom men what kind of fantasy they like.
For ten years I produced glamour, femdom & fetish videos for men & made a fortune. I received their SCRIPTS & also saw that the more extreme, brutal, cruel we were, the more the videos sold. I had to do what the market demanded, so I exaggerated the action in the ads & also pushed myself & my actors to their limit to act the way the audience wanted – even though it was make believe. I had to demonstrate to these feminine young models how to act like they HATED the guys. I was so effective that one actor was scared & said,
“I’d hate to meet you when you’re drunk!”
And he never showed up again for work, lol.
{I had the same thing happen with a spiritual disciple. He wanted me to appear to him mystically & COMMAND HIM to worship me. He began his devotion, made an altar. Within days I appeared & touched him on the shoulder until it hurt & demanded,
“Worship me!”
he told me the story, then disappeared. Why? He couldn’t handle it.
Most of these guys I dominated had fantasies, such as being sodomized by a big dildo held by a woman. But when it came time to do it, they wanted the dildo smaller & smaller until it became A BUTT PLUG, lol.
I had one male with plenty fantasies but when I pulled out all the stops dominating him, HE CRIED.
What you’re doing is fantasy. So is Peter Rabbit & all the adventures created by Beatrix Potter. So was ‘Twilight Zone,’ So was the ‘Harry Potter’ series, so was Star Trek – thousands of fantasies by thousands of writers & it works, when done well. There’s an audience.
So go ahead & create hetero women who also become lesbians to control men, whatever you can imagine – if it suits the audience! It doesn’t have to MAKE SENSE the way I said, its entertainment!
If you do what I want our submissive men will hate it, if you do what they want I’ll hate it. Do what they want, they are ‘paying your bills,’ lol. Best of Luck with the novel.
PART II
Pete says: very well-said, Rasa.
Fantasy is indeed exactly that, fantasy. It may or may not contain a kernel of truth at times (and of course sometimes that kernel even can be the size of a whole cornfield if one wants), but it NEED NOT be so. Fantasy is really ultimately for it’s own sake.
Best of luck with your novel, William. Pete
Hi Rasa
I wasn’t thinking so much about the femdom scene but more about the bonobo ape and the way female bonobos dominate male bonobos through sex and sisterhood. As far as I know, the female bonobo doesn’t act like a dominatrix.
What interests me is that patriarchy does it’s best to restrict female sexuality. The extreme case of this, is that the Muslims force women to cover their bodes and even their faces and cut off the clitorises of females. Patriarchy also does it’s best to restrict prostitution and make it illegal. So what is it about female sexuality that patriarchal religions fear? That is what I’m more interested in. william
Rasa says: Hi William:
I think we spoke about this before & decided that the ‘kill switch’ to Patriarchy is women’s sexual freedom. I first heard it when channeling St. Martin Luther King Jr. - He said to me when women are sexually free, that ends Patriarchy. It all starts from there.
Think about it from all angles. Women get pregnant from any man they want, no man knows for sure, are these his kids? So he cannot claim JURISDICTION or OWNERSHIP of new people, which DISEMPOWERS him. He canot make the children work for & with him or fight with him! The woman he’s been with will not stay in the dwelling he wants her to – she goes wherever she wishes, she & other women build their own dwellings, huts, cabins etc. Or apts & houses in our ‘civilized’ society & go on welfare &/or work, sisters maybe help one another – Moms, aunts, grandmas, cousins all as One.
When the man wants sex, where does he go? He has to be on bended knee to get it, do as the women wish – work – hunt, whatever. But he cannot intimidate, frighten, abuse, beat up or dominate a woman when she is surrounded by female helpers on all sides. And he cannot gain access to her children to dominate them!
Control over women & their children is ‘the first conspiracy’ as we agreed many years ago.
Men CANNOT create new people – this disempowers them. They are helpless & powerless without women. Women CAN create new people; this gives them ALL THE POWER.
Therefore, it is imperative for men to gain control over the female & her power to reproduce – without it, he is HER SUBORDINATE. All he can do is OBEY & whatever the females want, he must do it if he wants access to them. If he doesn’t obey, he can be pushed to the outer limits of the village or society, he can become unwanted & unattended to – an OUTCAST from the society of women.
For us to follow the model of the Bonobos is better than Chimpanzees or any animal I can think of. The females rule with the help of other females, although some males are stubborn & resist their authority. But for us to HAVE TO HAVE SEX with men to keep them quiet, obedient & well behaved is way too much to expect. If we are AUTONOMOUS we should not have to do that.
That’s the difference between your view & mine. In yours, we have to OBEY THEM by appeasement. In mine THEY HAVE TO OBEY US because WE HAVE THE POWER & THE AUTHORITY.
The model I seek is: “You do as we say or you are out of here. We do not molly coddle, appease, put on an act for you just to keep you here….You either obey or get out.” Rasa
