Chapter 3: Evolution of relationship between two sexes

Couple of questions?

I have a habit of listening to the radio, and I can always hear some girls say like this: my boyfriend or husband treat me like shit, but he disagrees to break up with me. Why is that? The host of a live radio answers them like this: because you are free, without you he has to spend money to find a woman to have sex. I always hear a man complains like this: do you see that in all non-human animals, females take responsibility for rearing children alone, but why men have to take care of women and children? Do you think his complaint makes sense? As a mammal, why do other animals' males abandon females and children after mating, why do men not abandon them? Is it really because of love? Apparently both sexes are not satisfied with the going relationship. Why? Let's see how Dawkins describes the relationship between sexes in The selfish gene: 

There are species, however, in which the male actually does more work in caring for the children than the female does. Among birds and mammals these cases of paternal devotion are exceptionally rare, but they are common among fish. Why? This is a challenge for the selfish gene theory which has puzzled me for a long time. An ingenious solution was recently suggested to me in a tutorial by Miss T. R. Carlisle. She makes use of Trivers's 'cruel bind' idea, referred to above, as follows.

Many fish do not copulate, but instead simply spew out their sex cells into the water. Fertilization takes place in the open water, not inside the body of one of the partners. This is probably how sexual reproduction first began. Land animals like birds, mammals and reptiles, on the other hand, cannot afford this kind of external fertilization, because their sex cells are too vulnerable to drying-up. The gametes of one sex—the male, since sperms are mobile—are introduced into the wet interior of a member of the other sex—the female. So much is just fact. Now comes the idea. After copulation, the land-dwelling female is left in physical possession of the embryo. It is inside her body. Even if she lays the fertilized egg almost immediately, the male still has time to vanish, thereby forcing the female into Trivers's 'cruel bind'. The male is inevitably provided with an opportunity to take the prior decision to desert, closing the female's options, and forcing her to decide whether to leave the young to certain death, or whether to stay with it and rear it. Therefore, maternal care is more common among land animals than paternal care.

But for fish and other water-dwelling animals things are very different. If the male does not physically introduce his sperms into the female's body there is no necessary sense in which the female is left 'holding the baby'. Either partner might make a quick getaway and leave the other one in possession of the newly fertilized eggs. But there is even a possible reason why it might often be the male who is most vulnerable to being deserted. It seems probable that an evolutionary battle will develop over who sheds their sex cells first. The partner who does so has the advantage that he or she can then leave the other one in possession of the new embryos. On the other hand, the partner who spawns first runs the risk that his prospective partner may subsequently fail to follow suit. Now the male is more vulnerable here, if only because sperms are lighter and more likely to diffuse than eggs. If a female spawns too early, i.e. before the male is ready, it will not greatly matter because the eggs, being relatively large and heavy, are likely to stay together as a coherent clutch for some time. Therefore a female fish can afford to take the 'risk' of spawning early. The male dare not take this risk, since if he spawns too early his sperms will have diffused away before the female is ready, and she will then not spawn herself, because it will not be worth her while to do so. Because of the diffusion problem, the male must wait until the female spawns, and then he must shed his sperms over the eggs. But she has had a precious few seconds in which to disappear, leaving the male in possession, and forcing him on to the horns of Trivers's dilemma. So this theory neatly explains why paternal care is common in water but rare on dry land.

I have not explicitly talked about man but inevitably, when we think about evolutionary arguments such as those in this chapter, we cannot help reflecting about our own species and our own experience. Notions of females withholding copulation until a male shows some evidence of long-term fidelity may strike a familiar chord. This might suggest that human females play the domestic-bliss rather than the he-man strategy. Many human societies are indeed monogamous. In our own society, parental investment by both parents is large and not obviously unbalanced. Mothers certainly do more direct work for children than fathers do, but fathers often work hard in a more indirect sense to provide the material resources that are poured into the children….

Wow!!!!!!Dawkins described the man as a Communist fighter or the sage. I don't blame him, because wise John Locke also believed that men choose to live with women in order to raise their children together. But I don't agree with them on this point. Do you wonder why man doesn't abandon his wife and children after mating? Don't tell me because of love, the stupid. Adam Smith said that “We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.” A body is really a machine blindly programmed by its selfish genes. As a selfish machine, man is trying to do the best for himself. For brevity, we shall again use the convention of thinking of man as though it had a conscious purpose. What is the conscious purpose of a man which drives man not leave after mating? This purpose must be different from that of non-human males in mating, because if they share the same purpose, male must take advantage of the idea of “cruel bind”. This chapter, I am going to trace back the history of the relationship between sexes. I am going to tell you a very true, cruel and unexpected history. As before, to trace back this history, we can follow the three steps for analyzing mutation and counter-strategy: (1) We start from original equilibrium. (2) How a mutation breaks the original equilibrium? (3) After a series of counter-strategies, a new equilibrium state arises. 

A series of counter-strategies triggered by a mutation

To see why, let's start with a choice. All men must pick one of the two options: one is to choose a woman, who has a vagina but no uterus; the other is to choose a woman, who has a uterus but no vagina. People's desire is always endless, but they have to face tradeoffs because of the limitation of their abilities. How do men choose? It depends on the hierarchy of all desires. The hierarchy of interests of every person is like an onion layers. The central interest is the core interest which person could give up anything to defend. Every rational person would give up the interests of the outer layer, in order to get the interests of the inner layer. People's choice reflects a complete ranking of their preferences. Do you think men would choose whether vagina or uterus? I bet vagina. Verbal statements are no guarantee. Let's examine another question. One of the most striking properties of survival-machine behaviour is its apparent purposiveness. What is the purpose of a man getting into a marriage? Don't tell me a love, the stupid. In ancient china, a man can't see his wife until they are married. Don't tell me for taking care of the children together, the stupid. You should check the idea of “cruel bind” in the selfish genes, which neatly explains why paternal care is common in water but rare on dry land. In addition, it is not uncommon for a man abandoning his wife and children. Other non-human mammals mate only during female ovulation, and after mating season most males immediately leave females to live alone, but human males want to mate at all times, and after having children they still want to live with women. Why is that? If we can say that the purpose of animals mating is for reproduction, definitely human's purpose of mating is not for only reproduction. What causes men can't leave women, but non-human males can. I bet sex. Sex is the main driving force to push a man staying with a woman. So, facing the tradeoffs between vagina and uterus, men prefer vagina to uterus. In these two purposes, sex is main one, and reproduction is a tying or by-product. 

Here I am going to tell you an unconfirmed story I made up for you. At the original equilibrium, human, as same as non-human mammals, only mates during female ovulation only, because they have only purpose of reproduction. Beyond female ovulation, males don't want to mate with females. At this time, males' actions are driven by purpose of reproduction. One day, suppose a mutant gene arose that changes the mating purpose from reproduction to physically enjoy. We can call this mutant gene as orgasm gene, before this mutation, the purpose of male mating is reproduction, so males only want to mate females during female ovulation, but after this mutation, the purpose of male mating is for his orgasm enjoy. As a selfish machine, purpose determines action, and new purpose determines new action, so males have to choose to stay with female in order to enjoy the sex release anyplace and anytime. This new mutation breaks the original equilibrium, because compared with mating only during female ovulation, mating everyday has an absolute advantage, so as a result, this mutant gene which purpose is for orgasm, could spread fast in species, and the old gene which purpose is for reproduction only, was completely eliminated. From now on, for men, the use of women has changed, or to be more exact, males need females as a passive tool to vent his turpitude upon her. I firmly believe that this is a credible story. By the way, I also wonder which animals have orgasms as same as men. Birds certainly do not, because they use cloaca to mate. Do all mammalian males have orgasms? Those males who only mate at the time of female ovulation are certainly not. 

Let's go back to what kind of best conter-strategy women can evolve? After the orgasm gene mutation, the original balance of two sexes was broken, and the relationship of sexes enterd into new stage: rape, everywhere and everyday. Do not doubt that rape takes quite a long time in human history, even not rare today. About rape, you can check the book half the sky written by and Nicholas D. Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn, which can tell you how common rape is in Arica right now, even though I don't agree with many of the ideas in this book. Roma was not built in a day, and I'm a member of the conservative party. Don't break the original balance, till you can build a new advanced equilibrium for them. Radical behavior can only push them into a more tragic situation. They write like this: 

Rape has become endemic in South Africa, so a medical technician named Sonette Ehlers developed a product that immediately gathered national attention there. Ehlers had never forgotten a rape victim telling her forlornly, “If only I had teeth down there.” Some time afterward, a man came into the hospital where Ehlers works in excruciating pain because his penis was stuck in his pants zipper. Ehlers merged those images and came up with a product she called Rapex. It resembles a tube, with barbs inside. The woman inserts it like a tampon, with an applicator, and any man who tries to rape the woman impales himself on the barbs and must go to an emergency room to have the Rapex removed. When critics complained that it was a medieval punishment, Ehlers replied tersely, “A medieval device for a medieval deed.”

What is the nature of strategy of “A medieval device for a medieval deed”? The nature of this strategy is “Tit for Tat.” To be honest, I don't think Rapex is useful like people expected because it only works for one shot rape, and then the rapist would choose forcing woman to take out of rapex before penetration as a counter-strategy, or using woman's mouth and anus, anyway, what they need is just a hole. Some men even think raping women is his human rights. I wonder what the difference of this idea is among men between West and Africa. Men in West still believe that P-V model is human rights and take it for granted, because it is chosen by God. In my view, there is not much difference between the two ideas. In fact, P-V model is just a kind of sexual assault. 

It is not easy to be misled when thinking about any situation as a result of a series of counter-strategies. What is the counter-strategy for woman, while man's strategy is to rape everywhere? I guess woman developed two counter-strategies without any brainwashing like G-spot or love at the beginning: one is seeking protection from the strongest man, the other is prostitution. I agree with a statement that prostitute must be the first one in woman' career history. There is no fundamental difference between the two strategies, and the former called wife is selling sex to one man, and the latter is called prostitute selling sex to every man. I agree with Marx: marriage is a kind of variant prostitution. What we seek is something equivalent to an evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS), apparently prostitution can hardly be a stable strategy, because of the congenital physical gap, and women don't have the power to bargain with men. Note that there are two important categories here: rape belongs to violent civilization while prostitution belongs to contract civilization. It is impossible to force a man into a contractual civilization by relying on a woman herself because rape, without any payment, is always the best strategy for men. what is to be done? Don't worry about that. Men find the business opportunities and join it. They hired muscle and organize women together to run a brothel. In prostitution, this is a win-win-win game. In short, the change of mating purpose must lead to the emergence of prostitution. Where there is a demand, there is a supply. 

One principle of microeconomics is trade can make everyone better off, because trade allows each person to specialize in the activities he or she does best. By trading with others, people can buy a greater variety of goods and services at lower cost. Prostitutes as well as Clients also can benefit from the trade with each other, and from then on, the prostitutes become a very important profession. Those women providing you sex-services are not acting out of generosity. Nor is some government agency directing them to satisfy your desires. Instead, women provide men with the sex-services because they get safety and foods in return. Women can totally take advantage of vaginal at the best tool of making money, which given by God. A new equilibrium has established followed by, and there is no free sex-service or love between sexes at all, and all P-V models are charged. People face trade-offs, and sex-service and money are the two sides of a coin, and women or men must to give up one thing to get the other. The key of trade is not only absolute advantage, but also you have some goods or services what I want from you. Since then, women opened the road of alienation from professionalism of being prostitutes. Women are welcome formally into the role of prostitutes. Trade will inevitably lead to division of labor based on each comparative advantege, and further to specialization, and final to alienation. Since then, women have embarked on the path of alienation. What is alienation? In my words, alienation means people lost themselves in occupation, like actor can't distinguish between acting and living. What is woman alienation? It means women lost themselves in occupation of prostitutes, because previously women get survival resources by their hands from nature like other non-human female animals but afterwards women get survival resources by vagina, face and from men. Let us recall Dawkins's question in The selfish gene:

One feature of our own society that seems decidedly anomalous is the matter of sexual advertisement. As we have seen, it is strongly to be expected on evolutionary grounds that, where the sexes differ, it should be the males that advertise and the females that are drab. Modern western man is undoubtedly exceptional in this respect. It is of course true that some men dress flamboyantly and some women dress drably but, on average, there can be no doubt that in our society the equivalent of the peacock's tail is exhibited by the female, not by the male. Women paint their faces and glue on false eyelashes. Apart from special cases, like actors, men do not. Women seem to be interested in their own personal appearance and they are encouraged in this by their magazines and journals. Men's magazines are less preoccupied with male sexual attractiveness, and a man who is unusually interested in his own dress and appearance is apt to arouse suspicion, both among men and among women. When a woman is described in conversation, it is quite likely that her sexual attractiveness, or lack of it, will be prominently mentioned. This is true, whether the speaker is a man or a woman. When a man is described, the adjectives used are much more likely to have nothing to do with sex.

Faced with these facts, a biologist would be forced to suspect that he was looking at a society in which females compete for males, rather than vice versa. In the case of birds of paradise, we decided that females are drab because they do not need to compete for males. Males are bright and ostentatious because females are in demand and can afford to be choosy. The reason female birds of paradise are in demand is that eggs are a more scarce resource than sperms. What has happened in modern western man? Has the male really become the sought-after sex, the one that is in demand, the sex that can afford to be choosy? If so, why? 

One feature of our own society that seems decidedly anomalous is the matter of sexual advertisement. As we have seen, it is strongly to be expected on evolutionary grounds that, where the sexes differ, it should be the males that advertise and the females that are drab. Modern western man is undoubtedly exceptional in this respect. It is of course true that some men dress flamboyantly and some women dress drably but, on average, there can be no doubt that in our society the equivalent of the peacock's tail is exhibited by the female, not by the male. Women paint their faces and glue on false eyelashes. Apart from special cases, like actors, men do not. Women seem to be interested in their own personal appearance and they are encouraged in this by their magazines and journals. Men's magazines are less preoccupied with male sexual attractiveness, and a man who is unusually interested in his own dress and appearance is apt to arouse suspicion, both among men and among women. When a woman is described in conversation, it is quite likely that her sexual attractiveness, or lack of it, will be prominently mentioned. This is true, whether the speaker is a man or a woman. When a man is described, the adjectives used are much more likely to have nothing to do with sex.

Faced with these facts, a biologist would be forced to suspect that he was looking at a society in which females compete for males, rather than vice versa. In the case of birds of paradise, we decided that females are drab because they do not need to compete for males. Males are bright and ostentatious because females are in demand and can afford to be choosy. The reason female birds of paradise are in demand is that eggs are a more scarce resource than sperms. What has happened in modern western man? Has the male really become the sought-after sex, the one that is in demand, the sex that can afford to be choosy? If so, why?

Before I answer his question, let me clarify my view some different from his. Dawkins believes because of the idea of cruel bind, in land animals like birds, mammals and reptiles, the females are in a very disadvantageous position, and always abandoned after mating. The female is potentially in a position to drive a hard bargain before she copulates. Once she has copulated she has played her ace—her egg has been committed to the male. In response to this unfavorable situation, females evolved two counter-strategies: one is called domestic-bliss strategy; the other is called he-man strategy. In the domestic-bliss strategy, courtship rituals often include considerable pre-copulation investment by the male. The female may refuse to copulate until the male has built her a nest. Or the male may have to feed her quite substantial amounts of food. In he-man strategy, the females resign themselves to getting no help from the father of their children, and go all-out for good genes instead. Once again, they use their weapon of withholding copulation. They refuse to mate with just any male, but exercise the utmost care and discrimination before they will allow a male to copulate with them. Dawkins doesn't discuss what might predispose a species towards one form rather than another. He emphasizes those species in which the differences between the sexes are slight, these being in general the ones whose females have favoured the domestic-bliss strategy. 

Here I give you my opinion about the two strategies which seems females choose actively. Apparently, you can find that females' birds basically adopt domestic-bliss strategy, and conversely females' mammals basically adopt he-man strategy. Why is that? Which one is more advanced? Can they exchange strategies? In my view, he-man strategy is not chosen by females, because of physical gap, and males must adopt rape as mating strategy rather than courtship rituals or any pre-copulation investment. Suppose I am a male non-human mammal, much stronger and bigger than females, fuck off all “mammal rights”, I don't care whether a female is willing to mate with me or not. Only one thing I need to do is catch them and rape them as many as possible during mating season, and after that I choose to abandon them. You don't have to doubt my view, because have a look at Africa right now, the barbarians still do it in 21^st Century, and the only difference between human and non-human mammals is rape happens not only during female human ovulation but also during everyday, every hour even every minute. What is female strategy in response to male rape? To be honest, female does not have much option except toleration, because male beats her up if she refuses to mate. You can find a common phenomenon in he-man strategy: when males are in fighting for the possession of females, females always stand by and look at the fight chillily, and finally walk away with the winner. The war is severest between the males for mating right in animals, where it is not necessary for women to participate in. Additional you can find that sexual advertisement happens only in birds not in mammals, because male mammals don't need to adopt sexual advertisement to pander to female, and rape is his best choice, which maximize his payoffs and minimize his cost. P-V model, strictly speaking, is no more than a sexual assault, not related to the desire of women, regardless of whether female is willing or not. Let's go back to birds. Apparently even as the simplest and most brutal strategy, rape is not adopted by male birds, why they don't choose to rape? Rape can save all pre-copulation investment and time, and should be best strategy for all males. Why? Because of love or “birds' rights”? Of course not. To be honest, male birds prefer to rape females, but they can't. I guess there are two reasons: one is no significant difference in size and muscle between sexes; the other is male bird have two wings instead of two arms. Intuitively speaking, wings are good at flying, but not at catching or controlling or thrashing, so it is difficult for him to violate the female bird's will. This is the truth, cruel truth. As a result, male birds have to choose the second-best strategy: pandering to the females. This is just my guess, actually we can examine the bat, which is mammal but with two wings instead of arms. My theory would be correct, if male bat chooses domestic-bliss strategy; my theory would absolutely break down, if male bat chooses so called “he-man strategy”. Summary, our ignorance of the sexual selectioin is profound. Additionally, I guess at the beginning, female and male mammals have the same size and muscles, and males are forced to mate with females by domestic-bliss strategy. But one day males would have been some that just happened to be slightly stronger than females, and instead of catering to females they find that rape can make them better off. There might therefore have been an evolutionary trend towards difference gap between sexes, because stronger males and weaker females are more likely to spread genes, as long as an abandoned woman has the ability to raise the children alone. Once the divergence between the two sexes had started, it would have continued in runaway fashion, because medium-sized intermediates would have been penalized. It is the steady accumulation through natural selection. We can find a common phenomenon that the species with smaller size and muscles between sexes prefers domestic-bliss strategy, and species with bigger size and muscles between sexes prefers he-man strategy. Do you believe that female birds have more “animals' rights” than female mammals in some sense? I believe so, according to values of Western. In short, domestic-bliss strategy and he-man strategy are both chosen by male instead of female. Her behaviour depends on the behaviour of her opponent. What disappoints me is Dawkins never mention a word about “rape” in his book of The Selfish Gene. Rape exists today even in our human beings, and why it is impossible not to exist in non-human animals? I think this is the biggest mistake of the book. For the point of best response, I even suspect the matriarchal society really existed in human history. If matriarchal society really existed, the only possible explanation is that, human were still in animals stage where they only had desire to reproduce genes and no desire to vent libido, so women were useless for men not in the heat period.

The beginning of alienation

Go back to keep answering Dawkins's question. Like I said before, trade must inevitably lead to division of labor, and further to specialization, and finally to alienation. As a result, women are alienated during the new role: prostitutes. In other words, the process of women alienation is the inevitable outcome of pandering to men. When women are forced into the business of prostitution, they start to become an object, and lost the subject. I agree with Simone de Beauvoir in The Second Sex that “First violated, the female is then alienated.” Since then, woman has not only the property of goods for men's consumption, but also has the price of goods. She totally becomes a commodity or private goods interchange between men. What happens to women after being a commodity? In any transaction, if the sellers want to make money, they must produce some goods which can cater to the needs of buyers. Man is not satisfied merely to find in his partner sex organs complementary to his own, he needs more. John Stuart Mill gives a wonderful presentation in the book of The Subjection of Women: 

All causes, social and natural, combine to make it unlikely that women should be collectively rebellious to the power of men. They are so far in a position different from all other subject classes, that their masters require something more from them than actual service. Men do not want solely the obedience of women, they want their sentiments. All men, except the most brutish, desire to have, in the woman most nearly connected with them, not a forced slave but a willing one, not a slave merely, but a favourite. They have therefore put everything in practice to enslave their minds. The masters of all other slaves rely, for maintaining obedience, on fear; either fear of themselves, or religious fears. The masters of women wanted more than simple obedience, and they turned the whole force of education to effect their purpose. All women are brought up from the very earliest years in the belief that their ideal of character is the very opposite to that of men; not self will, and government by self-control, but submission, and yielding to the control of other. All the moralities tell them that it is the duty of women, and all the current sentimentalities that it is their nature, to live for others; to make complete abnegation of themselves, and to have no life but in their affections. And by their affections are meant the only ones they are allowed to have—those to the men with whom they are connected, or to the children who constitute an additional and indefeasible tie between them and a man. When we put together three things — first, the natural attraction between opposite sexes; secondly, the wife's entire dependence on the husband, every privilege or pleasure she has being either his gift, or depending entirely on his will; and lastly, that the principal object of human pursuit, consideration, and all objects of social ambition, can in general be sought or obtained by her only through him, it would be a miracle if the object of being attractive to men had not become the polar star of feminine education and formation of character. And, this great means of influence over the minds of women having been acquired, an instinct of selfishness made men avail themselves of it to the utmost as a means of holding women in subjection, by representing to them meekness, submissiveness, and resignation of all individual will into the hands of a man, as an essential part of sexual attractiveness. Can it be doubted that any of the other yokes which mankind have succeeded in breaking, would have subsisted till now if the same means had existed, and had been so sedulously used, to bow down their minds to it?

I am far from pretending that wives are in general no better treated than slaves; but no slave is a slave to the same lengths, and in so full a sense of the word, as a wife is. Hardly any slave, except one immediately attached to the master's person, is a slave at all hours and all minutes; in general he has, like a soldier, his fixed task, and when it is done, or when he is off duty, he disposes, within certain limits, of his own time, and has a family life into which the master rarely intrudes. “Uncle Tom “ under his first master had his own life in his “cabin, “ almost as much as any man whose work takes him away from home, is able to have in his own family. But it cannot be so with the wife. Above all, a female slave has (in Christian countries) an admitted right, and is considered under a moral obligation, to refuse to her master the last familiarity. Not so the wife: however brutal a tyrant she may unfortunately be chained to—though she may know that he hates her, though it may be his daily pleasure to torture her, and though she may feel it impossible not to loathe him—he can claim from her and enforce the lowest degradation of a human being, that of being made the instrument of an animal function contrary to her inclinations.

When women become a commodity aimed for pandering to the male low, malignant and vulgar sexual desire, men must choose to shape so-called qualified women according to their sexual needs, as same as the businesses in order to pandering to buyers' needs to produce and shape the products aimed for getting higher returns. Men need submissive sex slaves, so women are trained by men to become submissive sex slaves to pander men for a good price. I agree with that 'The reciprocal bond basic to marriage is not set up between men and women, but between men and men by means of women, who are only the principal occasion for it,' says Lévi-Strauss. Women completely become private commodity during marriage system. Let's think about what men want from women. That is key question, because as goods women must be shaped into what men need. Next, we are going to examine what kind of women men need. I think there are three things a man wants to get from women: (1) sexual release; (2) love (precisely speaking respect and worship); (3) children and housemaid. Let's illustrate them one by one. 

The main alienation of women is to pander to the sexual desire of men, because a market economy rewards people according to their ability to produce things that other people are willing to pay for. We must admit that human sexual desire is gross appetite, but as a product, women have to embrace this degrading duty. For, in his own body, man feels the sexual need only as a general need analogous to hunger and thirst, a need without particular object: the bond that holds him to this especial feminine body has, then, been forged by the Other. The adage “any port in a storm” is grossly cynical; man seeks something more than brute sexual pleasure; nevertheless, the prosperity of houses of prostitution is enough to prove that man can obtain some satisfaction from whatever woman is available. Desire, which frequently shrouds disgust, reveals disgust again when it is satisfied. I can understand that disgust immediately after my shiver for few seconds. I don't like porn video at all, because I feel that is malignant and vulgar, but I need to see it, and it is very useful for me. I see it with clear purpose only at the time when I need a sex release. Man pursues that chimera, a companion half sex slave, half free. When man takes possession of woman through the pleasure he gets from her, he also awakens in her the dubious power of fecundity: the organ he penetrates is the same as that which gives birth to the child. Evey man knows that morality is a vast hoax in sexuality, and the nature of pursuing orgasm must be obscene, vulgar, perverted and debauched, and he forgets anything about dignity when he is driven by libido. On the one hand, he lauds chaste and faithful wives, on the other hand, he asks his neighbour's wife to commit adultery. Man does not act according to the principles he professes and asks her to disobey them; he does not wish what he says he wishes. All women serve as sewer to the shining, wholesome edifice where respectable people have their abode. Gentlemen condemn vice in general but view their own personal whims with indulgence in sexuality, because they take P-V model for granted. In a word, man needs a passive flesh prey in sexuality, and then women are shaped into fresh preys and the plaything of disdain. The key is, as a commodity, women must cater to consumers. Since woman is destined to be possessed and consumed, her body must present the inert and passive qualities of an object, and lost all qualities of a subject. They have to dress up like an erotic object, and suffer further alienation during professionalism. She exaggerates her femininity, she adorns herself, she uses perfume, she makes herself all charm, all grace, pure immanence. She delights in the display of her “interior”, even of her own appearance. Women start to shape themselves according to males' desire. High heels, clinging satin, heavy make-up, and strong perfumes of today advertise her profession. The skirt is less convenient than trousers, high-heeled shoes impede walking. Her erotic capacities are integrated with the life. It is indeed to preserve this mystery that men have long begged women not to give up long skirts, petticoats, veils, long gloves, high-heeled shoes, because those mean feminine trait. A woman is changed into a doll of flesh. She was always dressed like a picture. What she treasures is herself adorned, and not the objects that adorn her. Neglected, “misunderstood”, they seek consolation in narcissistic fancies: they view themselves as romantic heroines of fiction, with self-admiration and self-pity. Clothes and conversation will satisfy much of this feminine taste for display. Woman, who would be men's idol, makes herself the slave of her admirers; she dresses, lives, breathes, only through men and for them. Of course, society controlled by men would give a positive feedback to her alienation, and men are more willing to spend money on a woman dressed up, because prostitute is her only profession to live. The better showing a woman makes, the more advantageous it is for her to appear prosperous. Smart appearance is a weapon, a flag, a defence, a letter of recommendation. It is all determined by interest, because the world is controlled by men, and the only thing women can do is to shape themselves in accordance with the male value, in order to obtain resources from men. The purpose of the fashions to which she is enslaved is not to reveal her as an independent individual, but rather to offer her as prey to male desires. When she has once accepted her vocation as sexual object, she enjoys adorning herself. For not only does the woman of fashion project herself into things, she has chosen to make herself a thing. The toilette is not only adornment, it also indicates woman's social situation, and its art is to create mirages and presents an imaginary object to the eye, like in Janpanese porn video. As a result, a woman's whole life is wasted on toilette, in order to pander to male's libido. Frankly, the object of a man's sexuality is passive flesh carnal prey instead of a woman with XX chromosomes because all men would have sexual impulse when they see a lady boy in Thailand with feminine and coquettish appearance. In short, the only thing, a man loves, is how to meet his desires, not women.

Men are not only satisfied with erotic release on women, but also deliberately train women into slaves. In order to make women be slaves, women are deprived of transcendence as normal human beings. Costumes and styles are often devoted to cutting off the feminine body from any activity: Chinese women with bound feet could scarcely walk, the polished fingernails of the Hollywood star deprive her of her hands; high heels, corsets, panniers, farthingales, crinolines were intended less to accentuate the curves of the feminine body than to augment its incapacity. Society, being codified by man, decrees that woman is inferior, and he refuses to accept his companion as an equal in any concrete way, each free being wishes to dominate the other. Men fix women's seats in mediocrity and give them enslaving education. She experiences that multifarious subjection. She is subject to her husband, she is subject to the guests. The feminine woman is making herself prey tries to reduce man, also, to her carnal passivity; she occupies herself in catching him in her trap, in enchaining him by means of the desire she arouses in him in submissively making herself a thing. Providing sex-service is the only profession for women, and women are trapped into prostitutes and deprived of any other chance. For a girl, erotic transcendence consists in becoming prey in order to gain her ends. A woman is rendered more desirable to the extent that nature is more highly developed in her and more rigorously confined: it is the 'sophisticated' woman who has always been the ideal erotic object. Make-up and jewellery also further this petrification of face and body. The function of ornamental attire is very complex; with certain primitives it has a religious significance; but more often its purpose is to accomplish the metamorphosis of woman into idol. Woman is enraptured in solitude. Due to male compliment, she sinks so often into such foolishness because she has no hold upon the world. Man likes woman as prey, and woman is proud of catching male interest, of arousing admiration. Fated as she is to be the passive prey of man. All girls, from the most servile to the haughtiest, learn in time that to please they must abdicate. Men do not like tomboy, or bluestockings, or brainy women; too much daring, culture, or intelligence, too much character, will frighten them. The young girl is supposed not only to deck herself out, to make herself ready, but also to repress her spontaneity and replace it with the studied grace and charm taught her elders. Any self-assertion will diminish her femininity and her attractiveness. Actually, it is not by increasing her worth as a human being that she will gain value in men's eyes; it is rather by modeling herself upon their dream. The privileged place held by men in economic, their social usefulness, the prestige of marriage, the value of masculine backing, all this makes women wish ardently to please men. In becoming a bluestocking, a woman of brains, she will make herself unattractive to men in general. Women are still, for the most part, in a state of subjection. Men indeed decide whether their supreme divinities shall be females or males; woman's place in society is always that which men assign to her; at no time has she ever imposed her own law. She did not share his way of working and thinking, that the male did not recognize in her a being like himself. Since he did not accept her, since she seemed in his eyes to have the aspect of the other, man could not be otherwise than her oppressor. The male will to power and expansion made of woman's incapacity a curse. The inevitable result is that masculine accomplishment is far superior to that of women, who are practically forbidden to do anything. They have no opportunity of doing anything constructive. Balzac expressed the same ideal in more cynical terms. In the Physiologie du mariage he wrote: 'The destiny of woman and her sole glory are to make beat the hearts of men…she is a chattel and properly speaking only a subsidiary to man.' She experiences that multifarious subjection. The life of society demands that she “make a showing”, that she put herself on exhibition, but not that she establish any true communication between herself and others. It does not take her out of her isolation. She is a pure instrument without getting a grip on the world. It is man who will act as intermediary between his wife as an individuality and the universe. She has only to put her existence in his hands and he will give it meaning. Every benefit always has as its bad side some burden; but if the burden is too heavy, the benefit seems no longer to be anything more than a servitude. So we must first go on to describe woman such as men have fancied her in their dreams, for what-in-men's- eyes-she-seems-to-be is one of the necessary factors in her real situation. Man wants woman to be object: she makes herself object. It is through the service of sex that she gets benefits. Master and slave, also, are united by a reciprocal need, in this case economic, which does not liberate the slave. Woman is shut up in a kitchen or in a boudoir, and astonishment is expressed that her horizon is limited. Her wings are clipped, and it is found deplorable that she can not fly. For time to seem to her to go round and round without ever leading anywhere. She is occupied without ever doing anything, and thus she identifies herself with what she has. She will lose time in shopping, in having fittings, and the rest. This dependence on things, a consequence of the dependence in which men keeps her. Women have nothing to do, but only treat their bodies as capital to be exploited. She has paid for her success by too much slavish compliance. In short, this is the cruel bind in interest. 

'Men make the gods; women worship them,' as Frazer has said. The Cult of “G-spot” is the result of this worship. All the idols made by man, however terrifying they may be, are in point of fact subordinate to him, and that is why he will always have it in his power to destroy them. For she has been taught to accept masculine authority, so she gives up criticizing, investigating, judging for herself, and leaves all this to the superior caste. The masculine world seems to her a transcendent reality, an absolute. Women's ineffectiveness and ignorance are what give rise to the respect accorded by them to heroes and to the laws of the masculine world; they accept them not through sound judgment but by an act of faith-and faith gets its fanatical power from the fact that it is not knowledge: it is blind, impassioned, obstinate, stupid; what is declares, it declares unconditionally, against reason against history, against all denial. The woman who has always looked up to a god in man kneels in ecstasy at the feet of the male who is the earthly substitute for God. The idea of “penis envy” arises to glorify the advantage of the penis. It is as a symbol of all the privileges of manhood that she wishes to appropriate the male orgasm. But her desire, as we have seen, is much more ambiguous: she wishes, in a contradictory fashion, to have this transcendence. It is rather satirical to say that their worship of this grand totem is of sexual nature, but they brainwashed women to recognize masculine authority. Religion seems much less an instrument of constraint than an instrument of deception. It is why the Church is notable hostile to all measures likely to help in woman's emancipation. There must be religion for women; and there must be women, “true women”, to perpetuate religion. But a woman whose work is done by servants has no grip on the world; she lives in dreams and abstractions, in a vacuum. Man's situation is far preferable; that is to say, he has many more opportunities to exercise his freedom in the world. Very often the parental attitude serves to inculcate in the girl a sense of inferiority that woman is inferior to man. She is taught that to please she must try to please, she must make herself object, she should therefore renounce her autonomy. As a result, she is treated like a live doll and is refused liberty. Thus a vicious circle is formed. Man tries to make up the beautiful lie, and trapped women in, and denies the commonness of human nuture and human orgasm, but emphasizes the difference between two sexes. When she perceives that she has been duped by a mirage, it is too late; her strength has been exhausted in a losing venture. The married woman is a slave whom one must be able to set on a throne,' said Balzac. In the end, women fall into mysticism, but the male, are on the Master side and that Mystery belongs to the slave. Kept on the fringe of the world, woman cannot be objectively defined through this world, and her mystery conceals nothing but emptiness. Most bourgeois women accepted this gilded confinement at the expense of being yielded to in trifles. Man dreams not only to possess her but also to be worshiped by her. Her whole situation destines her to play this role of concerned spectator. She has been deceived in being persuaded that her worth is priceless. The truth is that for man she is an amusement, a pleasure, company, an inessential boon. What most clearly interests the man, in many cases, is the sexual benefit he gets from it. In bed he asks her to feel pleasure. He encourages her in make believe that flatters his lordliness and his vanity. She learns that to be happy she must be loved, to be loved she must await love's coming. Thus the supreme necessity for woman is to charm a masculine heart. Woman assures her most delicious triumphs by first falling into depths of abjection. She will become all-powerful through deepest resignation: she takes delight in a masochism that promises supreme conquests. She uses against him in return her powers of dissimulation. For in deceiving him she satisfies her own desires and enjoys the pleasure of trating him with derision. Men know that woman's faults indicate her situation so well that, anxious to maintain the hierarchy of sexes. In a sense her whole existence is waiting, since she is confined in the limbo of immanence and contingence, and since her justification is always in the hands of others. She awaits he homage, the approval of men, she awaits love, she awaits the gratitude and praise of her husband or her lover. Her economic dependence places her at his disposal; she is only one element in masculine life while man is her whole existence. In bed, she awaits the male's desire, she awaits-sometimes anxiously-her own pleasure. A man who is looked at by a woman receives nothing; no gift is given until the feminine flesh becomes prey. Whereas the coveted woman is at once metamorphosed into a desirable and desired object; and the woman in love, thus slighted, is reduced to the status of ordinary clay. Her education has prompted her to identify herself with her whole body. As an object to be enjoyed，the ideal woman is perfectly stupid and perfectly submissive; she is always ready to accept the male and never makes any demands upon him. Thus the passivity that is the essential characteristic of the “feminine” woman is a trait that develops in her from the earliest years. Man knows that to satisfy his desires, to perpetuate his race, woman is indispensable; he must give her an integral place in society: to the degree in which she accepts the order established by the males, she is freed from her original taint. The idea is very clearly stated in the Laws of Manu: 'a woman assumes through legitimate marriage the very qualities of her husband, like a river that loses itself in the ocean, and she is admitted after death to the same celestial paradise.'It is this ambivalence of the Other, of Woman, that will be reflected in the rest of her history; she will be subjected to man's will up to our own times. Each man none the less views erection with a touch of vanity, that is why there is a disease called premature ejaculation named by human beings. To be honest, I have suffered this disease for twenty years. The feeling of male superiority had been established by the lack of female orgasm, and reinforced by Monogamy, and inflated by vagina orgasm or G-spot, which made P-V model under licit appearance and made man to be Saviour that only penis penetration can give female real orgasm. In order to create perfect women who are is perfectly stupid and perfectly submissive, lies, such as G-spot and vagina orgasm, should also be following. In short, brainwashing began, and men enslaved not only women's bodies but also women's souls, though women have no soul at all.

The ultimate goal of men to deprive women of other options and brainwash them is to keep them servility, but man couldn't be reconciled to having such a slave. John Stuart Mill argued that women are actually worse in their conditions than slaves, because men expect women even love, rather than just obedience, at least from slaves they don't expect love. To be honest, man's attitude towards woman is too ambivalent, on the one hand they need a woman as a sex slave to vent their malignant and vulgar sexual release, and on the other hand they expect to get love from woman as an equal human being. From my experience, love and sex are hardly reconciled. Sexual desire is aggressive and grasping in nature; in it person sees affirmation of subjectivity and transcendence, so you need only a passive object when you vent your turpitude. You can look at gay men that one man must be passive in anal sex as same as women. We can conclude that the one, as sex seller, must be passive in sex-service trade. That is the nature of sex-service. I agree with Márquez's opinion that“Sex is the consolation you have when you can't have love.” The wife emphasizes her sex appeal shows bad taste, in her husband's opinion. He disapproves audaciousness that he would find seductive in another woman, and this disapproval kills any desire he might otherwise feel. I think there is repulsion between love and sex in nature, the former is noble, self-sacrifice, like two-way soulmates; the latter is vulgar, lewd, selfish, ego, like one-way violation. Toilette only can arouse man's sexual desire, but has nothing to do with love. If I love someone, it means I love her or his soul. In additional, I can't achieve my orgasm through sex fantasy about someone I love. I don't why, maybe there is a valve in my brain, and only one function can be opened at a time. I believe that for human a descent into animality is the necessary condition for orgasm, and animality has nothing to do with love and respect. Someone, who reintegrates eroticism and love into marriage, is doomed to failure. But there was more truth in Porto-Riche's Amoureuse, in which the incompatibility of these two orders of values was shown. Sex is preoccupied with the moment, not aspiring to immortality, but love is pursuing immortality. Sex release requires a degraded scapegoat at least in your brain, and is aggressive rude movement without any respect. A subject vents the turpitude upon an object. On the contrary, love means respect and devotion. The reason why man go to a brothel even he has a wife already, is to indulge vicious tastes that they do not dare admit to their wives. Don't we know better than anyone that these men easily drop their masks of gentility, self-control, and importance and behave like beasts? That is the nature of sex, but the nature of love is admiration and appreciation between two both soul and body independence individuals. People have always been a vague connection between sex and love, because of the fact that love and sexual release are ambiguously associated. The perfect combination of sex and love, as a kind of Utopian lies, can only deceive women, castrations. Any man knows that love and sexual vention are neurologically conflicting because the two completely incompatible neural models. I agree with the theory of Platonic love: there are two types of love: Vulgar Eros and Divine Love. Vulgar Eros is nothing but mere material attraction towards a beautiful body for physical pleasure and reproduction. Divine Love begins the journey from physical attraction i.e. attraction towards beautiful form or body but transcends gradually to love for Supreme Beauty. This concept of Divine Love is later transformed into the term Platonic love. Actually, in my view, Vulgar Eros is sex, and Divine Love is love. The nature of battle of the sexes is a duel between the exploiter and the exploited. In short, marriage is nothing more than legalizing the sexual assault.  

The word love has by no means the same sense for both sexes, and this is one cause of the serious misunderstandings that divide them. Byron well said:” Man's love is of man's life a thing apart, it is woman's whole existence.” Nietzsche expresses the same idea: The single word love in fact signifies two different things for man and woman. Carnally humiliated, woman is all for love. Love has been assigned to woman as her supreme vocation. To be sure, there have also been men who burned with that flame, but they are rare and their fervour is of a highly refined intellectual cast. What woman understands by love is clear enough: it is not only devotion; it is a total gift of body and soul, without reservation, without regard for anything whatever. This unconditional nature of her love is what makes it a faith, the only one she has. For woman, love is to relinquish everything for the benefit of a master. Love becomes for her a religion. She then seeks to share in their masculinity by having one of them in love with her; it is not the individuality of this one or that one which attracts her; she is in love with man in general. Normally she is looking for a man who represents male superiority. Women fall into the Utopia of love and waiting for someone who will bear her up and lead her gently and lovingly towards perfection and obey blindly and with confidence: I will no longer need to think what to do in life or to watch over myself. Frankly speaking, women don't have enough judgement to identify men. It explains why it is that men of prestige who know how to flatter feminine vanity will arouse passionate attachments even if they are quite lacking in personal charisma. Woman feels her get real love, but sex indeed sully her body or degrade her soul, so she shys about talking sex. It is that some women take refuge in frigidity, thinking that in this way they can preserve the integrity of the ego. Such women see in physical love a debasement incompatible with esteem and affection. A woman was brainwashed to regard P-V model as an exchange of pleasure by which each partner benefits equally, but she generally feels somehow deep inside that her partner is using her as an instrument. In coition man uses only an external organ, while woman is struck deep within her vitals. Now, the woman lies in the posture of defeat; worse, the man rides her as he would an animal subject to bit and reins. She always feels passive: she is caressed, penetrated; she undergoes coition, whereas the man exerts himself actively. She feels that she is an instrument, liberty rests wholly with the other. He takes his pleasure with her, but indoctrinate her that she can also get pleasure from P-V model. Like the female of most species, she is under the male during copulation. When woman was penetrated on a bed, she feels she is just one vanquished, prey, object, and in general, however, the woman is “cold” on the bed. And that's the fact. Nothing but self-deception can compensate for the humiliation of sex act that she considers a defeat. She never feels that sexual transcendence from P-V model, she is not set completely free from the spell of her flesh; her desire continues in the form of affection. Love is woman's supreme accomplishment. “A woman who loves as a woman becomes only the more feminine,” says Nietzsche. She is not subject, transcendence, creative power, but an object charged with fluids. The contradictory requirements of the traditional woman, who dreams of being at once violated and respected, condemns him almost necessarily to failure. She is confused between ideal love and physical desire, sentiment and sex feeling.

As for man, on the contrary, if he loves a woman, what he wants is the love from her. Man have found it possible to be passionate lovers at certain times in their lives, but there is not one of them who could be called “a great lover”; in their most violent transports, they never abdicate completely; even on their knees before a mistress, what they still want is to take possession of her; at the very heart of their lives they remain sovereign subjects; the beloved woman is only one value among others; they wish to integrate her into their existence and not to squander it entirely on her. Man glories in the phallus when he thinks of it as transcendence and activity, as a means for taking possession of the other. One of the male's dreams is to 'brand' the woman in such a way that she will remain for ever his. With penis, hands, mouth, with his whole body, a man reaches out towards his partner, but he himself remains at the centre of this activity. The subject as opposed to objects that he perceives and instruments that he manipulates; he projects him self towards the other without losing his independence; the feminine flesh is for him a prey. Men are prone to complain of the excessive demands of their companions: a frenzied uterus, an ogress, a glutton, she is never satisfied! In P-V model, male desire can be satisfied on no matter what body, such desire being specific but not individualized as to object. It is certainly true that no woman can get real orgasm from P-V model. She recoiled when her husband asked if she had orgasm, putting her hand over his mouth. The expression horrified many women because all of them don't know what an orgasm it is. There is no doubt that for man coition has a definite biological conclusion: ejaculation. Certainly many other quite complex intentions are involved in aiming at this goal; but once attained, it seems a definite result, and if not the full satisfaction of desire, at least its termination for the time being. A man is very wrong in undertaking to impose his own rhythm or timing upon his partner and in working furiously to give her an orgasm. In woman, on the contrary, the goal is uncertain from the start, and more psychological in nature than physiological. Her body promises no precise conclusion to the act of sexuality. That is why coition is never quite terminated for her: it admits of no end. She desires sex excitement and real orgasm in general, but don't know what orgasm is. Man continues to indoctrinate woman that the female orgasms are widely variable in different women. An old Arab proverb says,”You can't get what you want, till you know what you want.” Woman regards sex as a chore, and woman's frigidity is a normal thing. Why? It is simple to answer: If you should happen to do something that is followed by one of the nasty things, don't do it again, but on the other hand repeat anything that is followed by one of the nice things. The repulsion that exists between the orgasm of the male and that of the female creates insoluble problems as long as P-V model adopted. Male desire is as ephemeral as it is imperious; once allayed, it dies rather quickly, whereas it is most often afterwards that woman becomes love's captive. She fancies that the man's love is the exact counterpart of the love she brings to him; in bad faith she takes desire for love, erection for desire, love for a religion. In short, woman becomes the slave of love, while love is just man's excuse for sex. 

There is no doubt that men also want to have children from women, but children are definitely not the reason why man don't choose to abandon women. In human beings, reproduction becomes a tying of sexual assault. Have you even thought about why women are doomed to be slaves and why God is so unfair to women? Yes, God is indeed unfair because he is made by selfish genes. Let me tell you why God is on the side of the man instead of woman. There is no contradiction between his vocation as human being and as male, but for the young woman, on the contrary, there is a contradiction between her status as a real human being and her vocation as female. We have seen that the connection between the general and the individual is biologically different in male and female. Apparently, a man must ejaculate in woman's vagina, and then woman can be pregnant. In accomplishing his specific task as husband and as reproductive agent, man is sure of obtaining at least some sexual pleasure. Through ejaculation and orgasm are not exactly the same things, orgasm binds ejaculation, and then binds reproduction as well. If we deny P-V model before tube baby, what does it mean? It means we human beings will be extinct. In the female, on the contrary, the reproductive function is very often dissociated from orgasm shiver. Female is rather a vessel, a container, composed of inert matter and but the plaything of capricious mechanical forces. She does not readily accept the idea of being pierced by a man, and she resigns herself no more cheerfully to being “stoppered” for his pleasure. The act of production is completed in the orgasm, its natural outcome. Coition has a definite physiological end and aim; he obtains a complete relief, following upon sex excitement, which is unfailingly accompanied with pleasure. His service to the species is combined with his personal enjoyment. The female is the prey of the species, the interests of which are dissociated from the female's interests as an individual. For the eternal genes, woman must give up their transcendence, and in service to the species, bleeding each month, proliferating passively. She is a pure instrument without getting a grip on the world. For all women the roads to transcendence are blocked by species, rathan than men. Femininity indeed signifies alterity and inferiority. With man there is no break between species and private life: the more he confirms his grasp on the world in action and in work, the more virile he seems to be; human and vital values are combined in him. Whereas woman's independent successes are in contradiction with her femininity, since the 'true woman' is required to make herself object, to be the Other. Woman becomes a 'lost sex' in evolution. P-V model means reproduction, God have to maintain its rationality. As a result, certain psychoanalysts have attempted to provide scientific support for these fancies “vagina orgasm”, suggesting that women can get female multiple orgasms from intercourse. This is how the cult was born, and man has succeeded in enslaving woman under under the guise of reproduction. As a destiny taker, woman has to renounce this human privilege in order to maintain the continuity of species. At the beginning of woman's erotic life her surrender is not compensated for by P-V model, and she has to give up self-interest for group-interest. Vagina has only value as a receptacle. I do agree with Beauvoir in the second sex that woman is the intermediate creature between male and eunuch. I believe woman suffers more wretched condition than eunuch, because the whold sex desire of women called frigid tends towards the normal, and eunuch never suffers from sexual desire. Woman is just the prey of desire. It eventually leads to emotional manifestations arising from a state of organic disorder. The woman finally becomes metamorphosis and frigidity in the disturbed and nervous state, because vicious circle is set up. Some women really lose the mind in the delusion of G-spot, this fever rids her of shame for moment, but afterwards she is ashamed and horrified to think of it. She is generally lacking in real pride, because a slave can not have the sense of human dignity. She is none the less a castrate and may suffer acutely from the realization of that fact. She feels herself as an impotent human, because her orgasm is not connected with the idea of reproduction. And economic interests are not the only ones concerned. One of the benefits that oppression confers upon the oppressors is that the most humble among them is made to feel superior. Similarly, the most mediocre of males feels himself a demigod as compared with outstanding women, because they are not excluded from orgasm shiver by god. In short, we must admit that men are privileged in reproduction. In comparison with her the male seems infinitely favoured: his sexual life is not in opposition to his existence as a person. We must admit that human beings always have a rank, and in order to keep eternity, God indeed has a preference, and women have to be The Second Sex. 

Might is right--that is the logic of God. The grown man regards his organ as a symbol of transcendence and power; it pleases his vanity like a voluntary muscle and at the same time like a magical gift. Actually there is nothing to be prond of, because P-V model is choosen by God as a kind of reproductive strategy, and man is lucky side. No one would consent to be a woman, but every man wants women to exist. In the erotic release, man embraces the loved one and seeks to lose himself in the infinite mystery of the flesh. It is not only a subjective and fleeting pleasure that man seeks in the sexual act. He wishes to conquer, to take, to possess; to have woman is to conquer her; he penetrates into her as the ploughshare into the furrow. In breaking the hymen man takes possession of the feminine body more intimately than by a penetration that leaves it intact; in the irreversible act of defloration he makes of that body unequivocally a passive object, he affirms his capture of it. The fate of woman is resignation, ruled by an obscure destiny against which it is presumptuous to rise in protest. Among insects, birds, and mammals, he penetrates her. Her body becomes, therefore, a resistance to be broken through, whereas in penetrating it the male finds self-fulfilment in activity. And certainly the organ he uses is a material object, but it appears here in its animated state it is a tool – whereas in this performance the female organ is more in the nature of an inert receptacle. For her diffuse hopefulness, her dream of happy passivity, reveals her body to her clearly as an object destined for another. She realizes that she is destined for possession, since she wants it; and she revolts against her desires. She simultaneously longs for and dreads the shameful passivity of the willing prey. The idea of penetration acquires its obscene and humiliating sense within a more general frame, of which it is, in turn, an essential element. Strict repression can be imposed, which will later weigh heavily upon her sexual life. What is desirable is that she should be taught, one the contrary, to accept herself without being self-satisfied and without shame. For the lot of woman is bondage to another. Man already remains the free will and transcendence as a superior survival machine, but woman still keeps animal destiny and trapped in reproduction reincarnation as an inferior survival machine. In this way she dooms herself to remain in its lower levels, to be inferior; and the vicious circle is formed: this professional inferiority reinforces her desire to find a husband. This is an inauspicious road, for the interest of species who takes it - passive, lost, ruined - becomes henceforth the creature of another's will, frustrated in his transcendence and deprived of every value. In a short, man's orgasm binds the reproduction, but woman's orgasm doesn't, as a result selfish God chooses to compromise for his own eternal, so P-V model has always been viewed as a sacred, unquestionable and even justicial act, and no one can doubt its just. Kierkegaard said: What a misfortune to be a woman! And yet the misfortune, when one is a woman, is at bottom not to comprehend that it is one. “Blessed be God ... that He did not make me a woman,” say the Jews in their morning prayers, while their wives pray on a note of resignation: “Blessed be the Lord, who created me according to His will.” The first among the blessings for which Plato thanked the gods was that he had been created free, not enslaved; the second, a man, not a woman. When she takes part in sexual relations, she finds a new humiliation in the coital posture that places woman underneath the man. In sex trade, there is no difference between male and female, but only seller and buyer. In reproduction mode: Penis-Vaginal, chosen by God, women are doomed to be seller, and men are doomed to be buyer. The woman is doomed to be occupied, watched and consumed. “Anatomy is destiny”, said Freud. In short, anatomic destiny is thus profoundly different in man and woman. 

All men on the world have always taken P-V model for granted, including women, and that is the key problem. Ignorant women credulously believed that they definitely can benefit from P-V model, because men can benefit from it. Women don't dare to think God is so unfair to them. People take for granted that the sexual is the intrinsic aptitude for releasing the genital, but on the contrary an organ of no great biological importance, like the clitoris, plays in it a part of the first rank. Women who attain orgasm are “viriloid” women, because she must abandon P-V model and learn how to rub dorsal root nerves. The sexual impulse is “in one direction” and woman is only half way along the road. This antinomy reaches its height in the human female; it is manifested, for one thing, in the opposition of the two organs: the clitoris and the vagina. One of the great problems of feminine eroticism is that clitoral pleasure is localised from reproduction, so God chose to sacrifice women for eternity. God's rule is: if one of the two is in some way privileged, has some advantage, this one prevails over the other and undertakes to keep it in subjection. What a misfortune to be a woman! She is fated to be subjected, owned, exploited, and has to renounce her sexual autonomy for the interest of species. 

Prostitution is the only equilibrium between sexes

Like I said before, monogamy does push women into more wretched condition, rather than liberating women. Since ancient times, China was polygamy. In west history, so-called monogamy is just nominal, not real. In fact, polygamy has a long history, and can be traced back to animal period. I have to address again 4% of male elephant seals accounted for 88% of all the copulations observed. There is only one thing in the world: how to allocate scarce resources. Both the uterus and vagina are scarce resources. Have you ever thought about why polygamy ruled for a long time if polygamy is so bad for human beings? The answer is that polygamy is an only equilibrium between sexes in the contract civilization. The only difference between women who sell themselves in prostitution and those who sell themselves in marriage is in the price and the length of time the contract runs. For both the sexual act is a service; the one is hired for life by one man; the other has several clients who pay her by the piece. Prostitution and marriage are equivalent in essence. Viewed from the standpoint of economics, prostitutes' position corresponds with that of the married woman without economic independence. The husband knows that he could have secured a different wife; the performing of “conjugal duties” is not a personal favour, it is the fulfilling of a contract. Under patriarchy, polygamy is an equilibrium state as same as prostitution. Let's use game theory to analyze the nature of prostitution and marriage. Before the emergence of marriage, the whole society is chaotic, and rape and violence are everywhere. Now on the one hand, woman, as a weak, have to and must find a protector; and on the other hand, man, as a consumer of the sex-service, need to keep woman around him. That is the deal, and each one takes what he/she needs from each other. The embryonic form of marriage arises. The essence of marriage is a trade. Man provides security and food for woman, in exchange, he gets sex-service and offsprings from woman, and on the contrary, woman provides sex-service for man, in exchange, she gets security and food from man. The formal appearance of marriage must be the result of patriarchy, and father finds that he can make money from selling his daughters, and now the woman totally becomes private property. Actually, we can consider the emergence of marriage as progress for human beings, because it is the privatization of property rights. Reproduction becomes a purposeful game. As subject, man starts to raise children with purpose. Raising son is an investment from long-run view, and there is an old Chinese saying: raising sons for help in old age; raising daughter is making money from short-run view. Under patriarchy, there is no free sex-service at all, because if so, fathers must refuse to raise girls for arbitrage. Likewise, prostitutes refuse to provide free sex-service for man. What you are trying to achieve before you go ahead and analyze the game. There must be a cost for man to get sex release on woman. We have to admit that prostitution is an evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS) in our human evolution. 

Prostitution can not be forbidden forever, because trade is spontaneous which can make each of them better off. Here I give you an example Figure 3.1. We shall use some arbitrary hypothetical values for the various costs and benefits. Suppose that the pay-off gained from prostitution by man is +20 units, and the cost of money a man has to pay is 10. Therefore, in the deal of sex-service, consumer's surplus is 20-10=10 units. Suppose that the pay-off gained from prostitution by woman is 10 units, and the cost of a woman during intercourse is 5 units. Therefore, in the deal of sex-service, producer's surplus is 10-5=5 units. Here I want to address the cost of a woman here is opportunity cost, equivalent to accounting cost, because selling sex is the only job for women. Woman and man both can benefit from this deal. Not everyone may be happy with the outcome of this sex-service process. Because man always wants a lower price while woman want a higher price, the interests of the two groups conflict. These views are not surprising: Buyers always want to pay less, free sex best, and sellers always want to be paid more. But is there a “right price” for both of them? How are the gains from trade shared between the trading parties? I think the price need not be exactly in the middle for both parties to gain, but it must be somewhere between 5 and 20, because the surplus of both are positive. Prostitution is always spontaneous and an equilibrium between two sexes from beginning to end. A competitive market is economically efficient because it maximizes aggregate consumer and producer surplus. We begin with Pareto efficient allocation, analyzing the exchange between two sexes. First, I want to address that in P-V model, woman is always the seller of sex-service, and man is always the buyer of sex-service, and P-V model is one-way trade. In in the following Figure 3.1, each point describes the market baskets of both sexes. Man's holdings are read from the origin at O_M and woman's holdings in the reverse direction from the origin at O_W. For example, point A represents the initial allocation of money and sex resourse. This assum ption is reasonable, because vagina, as an endowment, was given by God, and so far, most of wealth is in the hands of men, and both of them can make themselves better off by trading with each other. In this case, the initial allocation of Point A is economically inefficient. We can also see the effect of prostitution. Man gives up 1M in exchange for 1S, moving from A to B. Woman gives up 1S and obtains 1M, also moving from A to B. Point B thus represents the market baskets of both man and woman after the mutually beneficial trade.

The above Figure 3.1 (Edgeworth Box) illustrates the possibilities for both sexes to increase their satisfaction by prostitution. If A gives the initial allocation of resources, the shaded area describes all mutually beneficial trades. Starting at A, any trade that moved the allocation outside the shaded area would make one of the two sexes worse off and should not occur (if women are rational, and there is no free sex-service in the world). The move from A to B was mutually beneficial. But B is not an efficient point because indifference curves U_M²and U_W²intersect. In this case, man's and woman's MRSs are not the same and the allocation is not efficient. From point B the additional trade is made, with man giving up another unit of money to obtain another unit of sex-service and woman giving up a unit of sex-service for a unit of money. Point C gives the new allocation. At C, the MRSs of both people are identical, because at point C the indifference curves are tangent. Trading money for sex-service and thereby moving from point B to point C has allowed man and woman to achieve a Pareto efficient outcome, and they will both be better off. When the indifference curves are tangent, one person cannot be made better off without making the other person worse off. Therefore, C represents an efficient allocation. Of course, point C is not the only possible efficient outcome of a bargain between two sexes. For example, if man is an effective bargainer, a trade mignt change the allocation from A to D, where indifference curve U_M³is tangent to indifference curve U_W¹. This allocation would leave woman no worse off than she was at point A and man much better off. Conversely, if woman is an effective bargainer, a trade mignt change the allocation from A to E, where indifference curve U_M¹is tangent to indifference curve U_W⁴. This allocation would leave man no worse off than he was at point A and woman much better off. Thus D and E are both efficient allocations, although man prefers D to E and woman E to D. In general, it is difficult to predict the allocation that will be reached in a bargain because the end result depends on the bargaining abilities of the people involved. Notice here: three allocations labeled C, D, and E are Pareto efficient, although each involves a different distribution of money and sex resourse, because one person could not be made better off without making someone else worse off. Once a point on a contract curve, such as C, has been chosen, there is no way to move to another point on the contract curve, say E or D, without making one person worse off. At present most of women, with economic independent, go out to work to support themselves, and it means they provides free sex-service for husbands in a sense. Let's assume point C presents prostitution, and moving from C to D means man gets money and sex at the same time and woman losses money and sex at the same time. It would't happen if woman is rational, because free sex-service is strictly dominated by pay sex-service. Lesson 1 of The Game Theory: Do not play a strictly dominated strategy. In other word, a strictly dominated strategy is not stable strategy in evolution. Game between two sexes tends to converge down towards prostitution, and underlying idea is that, woman is born to prostitute, and man to whoremaster. Neither has any incentive to move away, when man and woman reach equilibrium, because now either is playing a best response to each other. In equilibrium, woman must refuse to provide sex-servcie if man stops paying, and man must refuse to pay if woman stops providing sex, because it is in self-interest to do so. There is no profitable deviation for each in prostitution because other player must react to it, and equilibrium of prostitution can be a self-enforcing agreement. 

Hysteresis of evolution

Irrational people must abuse the freedom, if they are given the right to use freedom. That is the truth, cruel truth about why government wants to liberate women from patriarchy. Now, woman has already economic independence, but still man's sex-slave; the two sexes have never shared the world in equality, and relationship between sexes enters pseudo-equilibrium. The evolution of women's rights is accompanied by human civilization. You must admit that brute force is on the side of the males. When she had become aware of how weak she really was, she lost most of her assurance; this began her evolution towards femininity, in which she assumed her passivity and accepted dependency. You could find that the more savage society, the more anxious the woman enters marriage. In the countryside of China, there is unanimous agreement that getting a husband – or in some cases a “protector” – is for her the most important of undertakings; on the contrary, women are not in a hurry to get married in big city like Beijing, Shanghai. You must admit this is the progress of Chinese legal system. Feminist always believe that patriarchal society gave all the feminine functions the aspect of a service, and woman can escape slavery only after the collapse of patriarchal. But unfortunately, the opposite is true: woman changes into free prostitute from paid prostitute. We must wait patiently for the imposture to be exposed. Additionally, the affirmative strategy, chosen by God, is one step at a time. Because woman has been alienated for many years, she is indeed inferior to man. God gave a small number of people the right to live under the survival of the fittest, and then spread the survival right to all people; God gave a small number of men the right to spread their genes under polygamy, and then spread the reproduction right to all people now; God gave all men the right to enjoy the sex release, and must spread the privilege to women sooner or later. Be patient, women have been a long and unchanging slavery history; of course, you can't change that over night. 

After woman gets economic independence, in a sensible world woman must refuse to provide sex-service immediately, but habit is second nature, and woman's behavior is driven by inertia. We must admit there is big lag in human social evolution, but economic freedom is the premise of spiritual freedom. In the past, she has no gainful occupation, no legal capacities, no personal relations, even her name is hers no longer; she is nothing but her husband's half; she has been required to involve herself wholly in her marriage, and a married woman is on her guard against young women to steal her job, the only thing she would do to keep alive is to catch a husband, and she learns that her erotic attractiveness is the weakest of her weapons, so she has to use make-up and nail-polish in order to keep a husband. In nature, she has to make money from pandering man. In ancient China, women struggle with each other in the palace in order to please emperor; behind this phenomenon actually women compete for power and status, instead of a man just with a penis. Nowadays woman losses benefit of prostitutes, but maintains the attribute of prostitute. In other words, woman retains the attributes of commodities for use and consumption, but loses the price of commodities. This is the most unfortunate point for women. I agree with this view there is no true friendship between women, because they are not subject at all. While women are confined within their general feminine lot and are bound together by a kind of immanent complicity. They negate the sexual domination of the males by admitting their frigidity to one another, while deriding the men's desires or their clumsiness. Women's fellow feeling rarely rises to genuine friendship, because they know they are potential competitors for pandering men, and their relations are not founded on their individualities, but immediately experienced in generality; and from this arises at once an element of hostility. There exists also a hostile rivalry between them, and she wants to be thought irreplaceable, indispensable. Many women are together just to kill time, and they prudently avoid intimates once they are in love. In a state of uncertainty, every woman is a rival, a danger. Love destroys the possibility of friendship with other women because the woman in love is shut off in her lover's universe; jealousy increases her isolation and thereby narrows her dependence. This ambivalence makes it hardly possible for women to repose much confidence in their mutual feelings. In fact, in my eyes they are all free prostitutes, and I am not interested in being free prostitutes at all. It would be quite wrong to suppose that woman escapes slavery in having economic independence; on the contrary, she is doomed not to get rid of the slavery and live only in fear and servility. In any case, the woman who works wishes to reconcile her professional success with purely feminine accomplishments; not only does this mean that she must devote considerable time to her appearance, and she will give only what is strictly necessary to her studies, her career. Everything combines to restrain her personal ambition, and enormous social pressure still urges her on to find social position and justification in marriage. He is first a citizen, a producer, secondly a husband; she is before all and often exclusively, a wife; her word does not take her out of her situation. You will find an interesting phenomenon in China: Many highly educated professional women choose to give up the career and enter professional housewives after marriage. Why is that? Because she is not in equilibrium and suffers more losses in current situation. On the one hand, woman has to work outside to support family; one the other hand, woman is still be a nanny, housekeeper and sex slaves, so woman has to choose to return home in order to keep previous equilibrium and she is content to be there. That is a rational decision. 

Men act as liberating hero. After woman finding herself still trapped in slavery circle when she was liberated in economy, man claims that woman could also be liberated in sexuality. Woman begins to blindly learn man's sexual openness and free-love. Not surprisingly, men are still beneficiaries in this liberation movement. She would fain escape these aspects of her past: be passive in sexuality, and she wants to be a sovereign subject at once in sexuality: be active. She is made a fool of again. In order to achieve the aim, various cults arise like G-spot, female multiple orgasms and so on. This is the reason why woman has a double and deceptive visage: in order to be exalted she must be downtrodden. This is the best way to keep legitimacy of P-V model which is benefial for man only. Is this a case of double standards? Yes, it is, but ignorant women still accept this hypocrisy and double standards. He demands that she confesses her pleasure and recognizes her subjection, and encourage woman to mimic dominance in sex movements, but she still fails to reach the climax of pleasure. From a more or less unsatisfactory affair a man is almost sure of obtaining at least the benefit of sex pleasure; a woman can very well obtain no benefit at all. Aristotle fancied that the foetus arose from the union of sperm and menstrual blood, woman furnishing only passive matter while the male principle contributed force, activity, movement, life. Hegel held that the two sexes were of necessity different, the one active and the other passive, and of course the female would be the passive one. 'Thus man, in consequence of that differentiation, is the active principle while woman is the passive principle because she remains undeveloped in her unity.' Yes, they are right, because in P-V model, women are needed to be passive when men vent his turpitude upon her. In other word, what a man need in sex release is just a passive hole. In woman's value, men are not my fellows; they are persons who judge me. In addition, woman starts to cheat her husband to imitate man's deception. Woman's infidelity is always a mode of revenge and imitation. That is going too far, but unquestionably she wonders whether she can enjoy different pleasures with others, and she is likely to finish her orgasm education in some other bed. The suckers are doomed to be exploited by cheats, and no one can change that. Ignorance is the only soil that produces tyranny. In both cases she lacks any grasp on the world; she does not escape her destiny; her liberty remains frustrated. In short, the best policy for such a selfish machine will often be one thing if it is male, and quite a different thing if it is female. As a result, women don't get what they want in the sexual liberation movement, but they loss what they used to have because they don't know what you want. 

Perhaps the myth of female orgasm will some day be extinguished; the more women assert themselves as human beings, the more the marvellous quality of the prey will die out in them. If one day woman give up disguising herself as a symbol, she would be regarded as a normal human being as same as man, and then she can find the aggressive sexuality back. By the way, according my experience, sexual release is aggressive movement with transcendence. I have to admit that pseudo-equilibrium is a necessary stage to the next real equilibrium. There is no short cut in evolution. I bet if you caused the most frigidity of women to feel what I feel, they would at once give up their false pleasures to enjoy such true delight. What all women seek is not only a transcendence, but also a redemption of their femininity. They must reject the limitations of their situation and seek to open the road of the future. It remains only for women to continue their ascent, and the successes they are obtaining are an encouragement for them to do so. It seems almost certain that sooner or later they will arrive at complete economic and social equality, which will bring about an inner metamorphosis. Men have been led, in their own interest, to give partial emancipation to women. In truth woman has not been socially emancipated through man's need—sexual desire and the desire for offspring—which makes the male dependent for satisfaction upon the female. Master and slave, also, are united by a reciprocal need, in this case economic, which does not liberate the slave. In the relation of master to slave the master does not make a point of the need that he has for the other; he has in his grasp the power of satisfying this need through his own action; whereas the slave, in his dependent condition, his hope and fear, is quite conscious of the need he has for his master. Being liberated is never a real liberation. Women are falling into the trap of the Utopia of “free woman”. 

Women VS Proletariat

Is the woman really liberated? Simone de Beauvoir wrote that in the second sex:

The parallel drawn by Bebel between women and the proletariat is valid in that neither ever formed a minority or a separate collective unit of mankind… They are women in virtue of their anatomy and physiology. Throughout history they have always been subordinated to men, and hence their dependency is not the result of a historical event or a social change—it was not something that occurred…. Equality cannot be re-established until the two sexes enjoy equal rights in law; but this enfranchisement requires participation in general industry by the whole female sex…. Marx believe that woman can be emancipated only when she can take part on a large social scale in production and is engaged in domestic work only to an insignificant degree. And this has become possible only in the big industry of modern times, which not only admits of female labour on a grand scale but even formally demands it... Thus the fate of woman and that of socialism are intimately bound up together, as is shown also in Bebel's great work on woman. 'Woman and the proletariat,' he says, 'are both downtrodden.'… And when the socialist society is established throughout the world, there will no longer be men and women, but only workers on a footing of equality…. Similarly, it is not clear that the institution of private property must necessarily have involved the enslavement of women…. Marx and Engels gauged its whole range, and they promised women a liberation implied in that of the proletariat…. As the swift growth of industry demanded a larger working force than the males alone could furnish, the collaboration of women became necessary…. That was the grand revolution of the nineteenth century, which transformed the lot of woman and opened for her a new era…. In fact, 'woman and the worker have this in common: that they are both oppressed,' said Bebel…. Engels showed that the lot of woman has been closely tied to the history of private property…. 

Actually, Beauvoir did not agree with the above point of view, she believes that between the cause of the proletariat and that of women there was no such immediate solidarity as Bebel and Engels claimed. I do agree with Beauvoir. Because of the labor crisis in World War I, more and more women have to work outside. War is like any unexpected event, where some people can benefit from at expense of others' losses. In making this decision, men have to weigh two effects: substitution effect and Income effect. In one hand, men will meet many competitors if let women go out to work, and they face the threat of losing their jobs; but one the other hand, women can earn money to support their families, and men can also benefit from it. To be honest, letting women to work outside is the choice of man's weighing the pros and cons on his own interest, and men never liberated women. The reason is simple this is a zero-sum game between two sexes, where the contradiction between them is deeply rooted and irreconcilable. Dawkins wrote that in Chapter 9 battle of the sexes “If there is conflict of interest between parents and children, who share 50 per cent of each others' genes, how much more severe must be the conflict between mates, who are not related to each other? I agree with Trivers that sexual partnership is a relationship of mutual mistrust and mutual exploitation. Let us think about why the proletariat wants to liberate women? Marx believed that the elimination of private ownership will solve some of the contradictions. I admit that private ownership must cause women to be enslaved, but does the public ownership really liberate women? I don't think so. The main reason why the proletariat liberates women is catering to the majority of proletarian men, because under patriarchy girl's ownership is in the hand of her father who is a selfish and rational person and can not let his daughter marry a poor guy. Liberating women means destroying patriarchy and then senting women to proletarian men. Frankly speaking, the purpose of the proletarian revolution is just for money and women, and I bet no one would follow a leader to revolute if he doesn't promise a utopian future. Of course, the only prerequisite for the existence of cheats is the existence of suckers. Secondary reason why the proletariat liberates women is catering to all ignorant women. Under patriarchy woman was always kept at home by her father, and she didn't have any insight or any social experience, so she attributed her misfortune and being oppressed to patriarchy instead of inherent contradiction between two sexes. As a result, ignorant women were bewitched to revolt the patriarchy, because proletariat makes her to believe that she and her father have antagonistic interests rather than common interests. Women are always credulous and gullible. Instead of being liberated, woman became a free prostitute, polyandry and public good in socialism. After the victory of the proletarian revolution, wind direct changed again. These ancient patriarchal restraints are just what Soviet Russia has brought back today; Russia has revived the paternalistic concepts of marriage. And in doing so, she has been induced to ask woman once more to make of herself an erotic object: in a recent pronouncement, female Soviet citizens were requested to pay careful attention to their garb, to use make-up, to employ the arts of coquetry in holding their husbands and fanning the flame of desire. Marx believed that the elimination of private ownership is equal to the elimination of all contradictions, but the fact is that the elimination of private ownership can only eliminate some contradictions at the expense of the interests of others. To be honest, women don't deserve sympathy, because limited intelligence is flawed in her whole life. Evolution tells us that suckers must be driven to extinction sooner or later. In my eyes, proletarian revolution is also a kind of democratic. The essence of democracy is the tyranny of the majority to the minority; on the contrary the essence of dictatorship is the tyranny of the minority to the majority. Dictatorship is not the worst system, and democracy is not the best system either. Women are just out of the frying pan, but into the fire. Ignorant women are short-sighted and exploited by proletariat, falling into more miserable situation. The enslavement of women is due to Co-evolution between sexes, instead of private property, and now women don't get any benefit from the collapse of patriarchy. Men have always held the lot of woman in their hands; and they have determined what it should be, not according to her interest, but rather with regard to their own projects, their fears, and their needs. Feminism itself was never an autonomous movement; it was in part an instrument in the hands of politicians, in part an epiphenomenon reflecting a deeper social drama. As long as woman stays in P-V model, she is for man a sexual partner, a reproducer, an erotic object, an Other. No one can change that, including me. 

Prisoner's dilemma between sexes

Stuart Muller believed that marriage is the only remaining example of slavery and even worse than slavery. Where should we go? Can we go back to previous equilibrium? I am afraid not. In the past, women don't go out for work, and man takes for granted that after marriage he has the obligation to support the woman or at least helps her financially because he vents his turpitude upon her, but nowadays due to the cult of “G-spot” or “Vagina orgasm”, man refuse to support the woman financially and ask going Dutch during marriage because he thinks women can also benefit from P-V model. Man dresses himself up as Giver; even believes women should give him money after sexual intercourse. The problem is on woman. Man is not wrong to maximize his payoff and minimize his cost. As long as woman keeps foolish, pseudo-equilibrium will continue. Now the relationship between two sexes formal entried the pseudo-equilibrium: Women still keep the property of goods consumed by men, but loss the price of goods. To be honest, I prefer to decline entering into such a compact with anyone, because I can't profit from it. The fact is that today neither men nor women are satisfied with each other. We deny there is an original curse that condemns them to rend each other and the existence of a rivalry between the human male and female of a truly physiological nature, and it is inevitable conflicts in which they are opposed merely mark a transitional moment in human history, and instead we instil the idea of “Love” into women's mind in order to maintain this pseudo-equilibrium where the sexual act was not to be considered a “service” to be paid for. Many modern women who lay claim to their dignity as human beings still envisage their erotic life from the standpoint of a tradition of slavery. Her condition has remained the same through superficial changes, and it is this condition that woman gets some so-called dignity but at expense of losing money. Actually men are painful at present. In the past, woman has no any rights to say no when her hasband asks for sex-service. Someone remarks that there are certainly more rapes committed in marriage than outside it. But now marital rape has been considered as a crime in many countrys, according to the idea of human rights. As a result, woman always choose refusal instead of docility from her deep heart, because she still has inferior a feeling of inferiority a sense of frustration in P-V model and view sex as a chore. She has to yield to the male's authority, but trys to refuse obedience. That “obedience” is legally no longer one of her duties in no way changes her situation; for this depends not on the will of human but on the lot. Women hate for ever a man who selfishly takes his pleasure at the price of their suffering. At a matter of fact, many women become mothers and grandmothers without ever having experienced the orgasm or even any sex excitement at all. Kinsey states that there are many wives “how report that they consider their coital frequencies already too high and wish that their husbands did not desire intercourse so often. A few wives wish for more frequent coitus”. The key is woman's erotic capabilities are not rooted in P-V model which chosen as reproduction model by God. Not only does man play the active role in the sexual life, but he is active also in going beyond it; he is rooted in the sexual world, but he makes his escape from it; woman remains shut up in it. In addition, prostitution is regarded as illegal activity, so husband suffers a serious dilemma. Under the patriarchy, woman has no rights to divorce, and a man holds the ownership of woman for her whole life after buying her from her father at the expanse of bride-price, but now man is not willing to pay the price, because the validity of marital contract is ambiguous in current marriage system. Man also has no sense of security, what if she divorces me the day after wedding day? Marriage is a kind of prostitution under patriarchy and polygamy with explicit rights, duties and the date of maturity without marital rape, human rights or love, but now marriage is a kind of free prostitution under feminism and monogamy without explicit rights, duties and the date of maturity. No one is a fool from long-run view. But if her experience enables her to unmask deceits and lies, it is not sufficient to show her the truth. Of course they need a Savior, and here I am. When one fails to adhere to an accepted code, one becomes an insurgent. Woman who does not wish to appear eccentric will conform to the usual rules.

The problem of prostitution

As a matter of public policy, many societies make it illegal for women to sell their sex-service. In essence, in the market for sex-service, the government has imposed a price ceiling of zero. The result, as with any binding price ceiling, is a shortage of the good. Why do so many governments ban prostitution? And why does prostitution still exist in any country? Let me give you my view step by step. Who will gain from free sex-service and who will lose? Obviously, all men are beneficiaries, because at least they can get free sex-service from a woman under the conditions that (1) Women must be into a heterosexual monogamy; (2) Sex ratio is 1:1. On the contrary, all women are losers, because they loss the opportunity to sell her natural resources givn by God. In this situation, the rational woman's best response should be exit the free sex-service market, which is with neither pays nor receives. To be honest, Sex ratio out of balance is not the key of left man crisis in China, and the biggest crisis is that women choose to exit the free sex-service market. Who will gain from paid sex-service and who will lose? The critics of the legalization of prostitution worry about fairness. A market for sex-service, they argue, would benefit the rich at the expense of the poor because women would then be allocated to those most willing and able to pay. Obviously rich men and all women are beneficiaries and poor men are losers. Rich men can buy many sex-services from different women. For women, paid sex-service strictly dominates free sex-service, as a rational person, the only thing she need to do is deleting dominated strategy. You can find a common phenomenon that the poorer the man is, the more he wants to talk about love, because he can't afford the price. That is the only one reason why prostitutes don't want to make friends with them, because women don't want to provide free sex-service. Rich man doesn't talk about love, but the only price enough. In my view, any fuck without money is deluded fuck by poor guys. What would happen if the legalization of prostitution all over the world? It threatens the current marriage system immediately, because free sex-service, as a dominated strategy, must be deleted by woman right away. Like I proved before, prostitution is always equilibrium between two sexes from beginning to end, and women are born to prostitutes, and men to whoremasters. Summary, you can't believe in modern civilization, prostitution is forbidden in many countries, the real reason is men collude together to force women to provide free sex-service under the guise of love. This is a huge conspiracy. Additional, what I can't understand is lots of countries ban prostitution but allow premarital sex. According to wikipedia: 

Premarital sex is sexual activity practiced by people who are unmarried. Historically, premarital sex was considered a moral issue which was taboo in many cultures and considered a sin by a number of religions, but since about the 1960s, it has become more widely accepted, especially in Western countries. A 2014 Pew study on global morality found that premarital sex was considered particularly unacceptable in "predominantly Muslim nations", such as Malaysia, Indonesia, Jordan, Pakistan and Egypt, each having over 90% disapproval, while people in Western European countries were the most accepting, with Spain, Germany and France expressing less than 10% disapproval.The Roman Catholic Church calls premarital sex a deadly sin, that must be forgiven in confession.

What is the fucking logic? If a woman provides the same services in bed, it is illegal to charge men but legal not to charge men? How absurb the logic is! If you ban prostitution, you must ban any non-marital sex, including premarital sex and adultery. That is following the same logic. I was surprised to find that West is not all correct and Muslim nations are not all wrong. In Muslim, some versions of Sharia law require that married or divorce persons found guilty of Zina (adultery) be executed by stoning or honor killing. An honor killing or a shame killing is the homicide of a member of a family, due to the perpetrators' belief that the victim has brought shame or dishonor upon the family, or has violated the principles of a community or a religion, usually for reasons such as refusing to enter an arranged marriage, being in a relationship that is disapproved by their family, having sex outside marriage, becoming the victim of rape, dressing in ways which are deemed inappropriate. Now I can understand why premarital sexual intercourse is viewed as sexual offense, and deserve a sentence of stoning to death or severe flogging or honor killing. The answer is simple: Free services disrupt normal market order of trade. I haven't done any research about that, but I guess the fathers who have daughters and rich man in upper class are both hate premarital sex and adultery best, because almost all premarital sex and adultery are free and they are the victims of free sex-services. You can find that only poor men and ignorant women praise love, because one of them is Cheats and the other is Suckers, and they will destroy the market order. As a result, fathers and rich man, as Grudgers, must try to maintain market order. I don't agree with the honor killing, but I understand. You must think I'm cold-blooded, but that's the truth. Irrational women disturbed normal economic market order because any free goods and services do. I strongly recommend that American should use the brain to think why a civilization lasted for so many years before condemning it or total repudiation. 

I bet prostitute exists in every country, just aboveground or underground economy. Why? Answer this question with a typical economic language: where there is a demand, there will be a supply. “The underground is a good measure of the progress and the health of nations,” Schlosser writes. “When much is wrong, much needs to be hidden.” Schlosser's implication was that much is wrong in the United States. How are the gains from trade shared between the trading parties? For both parties to gain from trade, the price at which they trade must lie between the two opportunity costs. Both sexes can gain by opening up trade and specializing based on comparative advantage. I am united in the support of free sex trade. Who would be prostitutes after the truth of female orgasm becomes known to all public? The principle of comparative advantage states that sex service should be produced by the women who have the smaller opportunity cost of providing sex service. This process is the professionalization of sex workers. Don't make me wrong, I approve of the legalization of prostitution, but it doesn't mean every woman must sell sex for survival, what I want to do is to fight for a right that women can sell a natural resource givn by God for survival. What is the price of sex-service? The price need not be exactly in the middle for both parties to gain in a mutually advantageous trade, but it must be somewhere between them. These two people can bargain face to face and allocate surplus between them. Vagina, as a scarce resource with asymmetry, only belongs to woman. The more scarce resource is, the more valuable. The only difference between prostitution and those women, who enter P-V model, is in the price of contract; one is providing paid sex-service and the other is providing free sex service. In fact, the institution of marriage was also a form of prostitution. As a defender of free market, I have two principles of sex-service to state: one is both adult; two is both voluntary. “Consenting adults should be able to make economic trades when they think it is to their mutual advantage,” said Greg Mankiw, a Harvard economics professor. Adam Smith called it “the invisible hand”—the mysterious power that leads innumerable people, each working for his own gain, to promote ends that benefit many. Out of the seeming chaos of millions of uncoordinated private transactions emerges the spontaneous order of the market. Free human beings freely interact, and the result is an array of goods and services more immense than the human mind can comprehend. Indeed, the more an economy is planned, the more it is plagued by shortages, dislocation, and failure.

Since we can't eliminate prostitution, we should try to regulate it and treate sex work much like any other kind of work. No doubt many of you work for a living. Sex work is work too. What is important is that they have the right to work safely and on explicit terms. They want full decriminalization and labor rights as other workers. To be honest, I believe that most of prostitutes are poor women, because in selling sex they have to lay down dignity. Most of those people would tell you that selling sex is degrading; there should be a law against it. People have all kinds of complicated feelings when it comes to sex. The legalization of prostitution is beneficial for the whole society. Both St. Augustine and St. Thomas asserted that the suppression of prostitution would mean the disruption of society by debauch: 'Prostitutes are to a city what sewers are to a palace.' In the early Middle Ages the mores were so licentious that whores were hardly needed; but when the bourgeois family was estabhshed and rigorous monogamy became the rule, a man had to look for pleasure outside the home. Schopenhauer was to put it pompously: Prostitutes are human sacrifices on the altar of monogamy. In my view, the greatest advantage of legalization of prostitution lies in breaking up the whole into parts. You can recall the Figure 1.7 that men's consumption preference I drawed in chapter 1. Because of the lifelong marriage now, lots of men don't have the money to buy a lifetime sex-service from a woman, and his budget line must reach the red line for one woman. What about his income is lower than the red line? He can vent his sex release through prostitution, because prostitution is one shot game. Here I'll give you another analogy to help you to understand it. Buying house and renting house. Not everyone can afford to buy a house of their own, because it costs you a lot of money at once, but you can choose to rent a house, and you only have to pay a small amount of rent every month. Renting has a great advantage that you can try different houses. You know what I mean. To be honest, I don't really believe in morality and law, but in a free market based on rational traders. If there is a desire, there must be a transaction to satisfy this desire and ultimately the market formed accordingly whatever legal or illegal, moral or immoral what they called efficient markets. The transaction price reflects all the available possible information under two key premises: (1) both sides are rational traders; (2) they have symmetric information; and they must reach equilibrium state, in particular some transaction which last thousands of years: prostitution. Only in this trade both parties are expected to gain. To be honest, we should pay more attention to the safety of prostitutes because prostitutes who go out alone is very dangerous. Recommend you to see a Korean movie: The Chaser (추격자) 2008. Keep in mind that women are always the victims of violent civilization because of the physical weakness. In ancient China, prostitutes were working in brothels, which were manipulated in strong men. These men not only played the role of pimp, but also played a role in protecting prostitutes. In essence, the relationship between these men and the prostitutes is symbiotic, because without protection of the muscles, after ejaculation the clients must decline to pay. 

The essence of marriage is contract. Where does the relationship between sexes head in future?  First going monogamy tenure must collapse finally, because it is not an equilibrium. Like prisoners' dilemma, in monogamy both of sexes have the incentive to cheat. In the language of game theory, women can be better off selling sex, and men can be better off buying sex, so it is difficult to estabilish and maintain cooperation between two sexes. Lack of cooperation is desirable from the standpoint of society as a whole. Put differently, the invisible hand guides markets to allocate resources efficiently only when markets are competitive, and markets are competitive only when firms in the market fail to cooperate with one another. Second, with the refinement of division of labor, women are also divided into different occupations: some of them are professional prostitutes; some of them are professional surrogate mother; some of them are professional doctor; some of them are professional teachers. If the time of 20^th Century is the time of emancipation of the black slaves, 21^th Century must be the time of emancipation of sex slaves. True equality between the two sexes does not exist even today, and now marriage becomes pseudo-equilibrium where the burdens weigh much more heavily upon woman than upon man. It can bring you a lot of benefits, if you take some time to get used to the logic of economic thinking. You will find an interesting phenomenon is that Socialism and Capitalism have different attitudes towards the two things: One is money, and the other is sex. Socialist countries educate people to despise these two things which are a violation of human nature; on the contrary capitalist country educate people to persue these two things which are human nature. Except in the Soviet Union, China and North Korea, modern woman is everywhere permitted to regard her body as capital for exploitation. Prostitution is tolerated in lots of European countries. Let's go back to America, so-called the most advanced civilization. I believe that almost all-American economists oppose such barriers to free trade, but monogamy and prohibition of prostitution are both such barriers to free sex trade. America has always advocated free trade, but why only set a restriction on sex trade? Does the U. S. government really know what justice is? I will talk about it in next chapter.