Most people think of culture, including sexual culture, as something esoteric and metaphysical. Something that has evolved over millennia.

But, why, then, is there often a marked change of culture, including sexual culture, when we cross national boundaries. Clearly marked boundaries as we know them today are a rather recent development in many parts of the world.

Earlier empires, until as recent a time as pre-World War II, in most parts of the world didn't encompass definite areas throughout which their governments uniformly exercised their authority. Rather, they exercised strong authority in their core areas, while towards the edges, their authority fizzled out.

In many parts of the world, clearly marked boundaries only exist for a few decades, but they have already resulted in grossly diverging cultural developments (cross between Vietnam and China, or between Thailand and Malaysia, to get a feel for what I say).

The explanation is that culture, including sexual culture, is, to a much further extent than people commonly realize, just an offshoot of the laws a government enforces over an area it controls. Cultures are easily changed within just a few years, and the changes can be radical indeed.

Japan experienced a significant change of culture within just a few years between 1939 and 1949, and so did Germany. There was a total change of culture in China between 1940 and 1950, and others, albeit not that extreme, during the Cultural Revolution and between 1978 and 1988.

The point is: humans are highly adaptable, and so is culture. Humans anywhere in the world are likely to avoid behaviors that would get them beheaded or thrown into jail, and they will develop patterns of behavior and thought that will be advantageous for them. And voila, the result is culture.

In the US, "sexual harassment" legislation with a strong anti-male bias has had a great influence on US sexual culture. Radical feminists, or feminazis, do not have to work through the minds of the people to effect the changes they wish for. They only have to have a few laws changed, and the changes enforced by the police. The minds of the people will change all by themselves, and this happens rather quickly.

As indicated above, the minds of people change in two ways, in accordance to threats expressed by the law, and corresponding to potential perks offered by the law.

The threat tread is easy to comprehend. Men avoid behaviors and emotions that could land them in prison.

The perks tread works similarly. Women who become aware that being sexually harassed or sort-of raped (when the rape is only in her perception) will develop behaviors and emotions that could land them huge compensation payments.

Both men and women do not have to be aware of how their emotions change. Their interests will effect these changes all by themselves.

Thus, in a sexual culture in which it is easy to get trapped in sex-related law-suits men will develop sexual docility and women whose vulnerability is socially overemphasized will develop over-sensibility.

It’s probably easier to understand how a permanent threat develops docility, rather than how overemphasized vulnerability develops over-sensibility, so for the second case, I do want to further explain the mind mechanism.

I do not mean that women who show up at police stations, or who, during what started as consensual intercourse, all of a sudden shout “rape” are mere pretenders, or that they are willfully acting in order to collect compensations or settle a score.

It’s rather that the awareness of how easy it has been in many cases for women to collect compensation, or even just to settle a score, leads to an unconscious attitude or preparedness. So, when the opportunity arises to claim sexual harassment or rape, the consciousness of women moves into an “as if” mode, even if everything was consensual. We do not only see what we want to see; we also feel what is advantageous for us, and remember what suits our interests (when they are in constant need of money, some people can remember very strongly that somebody else owes them money, even if this is totally false).

This phenomenon explains why the courts in the West have to deal with an ever increasing number of cases in which women claim that they have been raped, even when there is video evidence that they weren’t.

In the US, if you have a promiscuous lifestyle, you are by now (because of according legislation) better off if you are homosexual. Pursuing a promiscuous heterosexual lifestyle is much more likely to get you into trouble. That is: if you are male. If you are female, you are very well protected.

If you are male, heterosexual, and highly promiscuous, the trouble you may run into includes sexual harassment charges long before you had any sex with that person, and false rape charges after sex. In rape cases, it’s not quite sure what has to be proven: violence (by the woman), or the absence of violence (by the man). Anyway, feminist organizations will always be very vocal in supporting the alleged victim. I know of no court case in which feminist organizations would have found fault with an accused women. Not a single one.

On the other hand, a 17-year female can have sex as she wishes, and even expect a lot of non-sexual gratifications without having ever to fear legal reprisals. But her male partners (if they don't behave in accordance with her wishes) are threatened with lifelong prison sentences.

And what happens if the testimony of a raped woman sends the wrong man to prison for decades? Nothing. She'll just say sorry. She will never be charges for anything.

Blatant anti-male legal bias is, of course, not restricted to the US. Sweden, a European country where feminists have been calling the shots for a number of years, has implemented, and enforced, legislation by which it is legal to sell sexual services, but illegal to buy them. This results in a situation where, in a consensual transaction, only the usually male buyer can be prosecuted. There, legally, the man in commercial sexual transaction is always guilty, and the woman never is. It’s as simple as that (please run a Wikipedia research on Sweden prostitution).

If they think in Sweden that buyers are to blame for the existence of an illegal market, e.g. the sex trade, why don’t they try the same approach with the drugs trade. But in the drugs trade, it’s always the sellers who are at fault.

The realty is that regardless of whether it’s the drug trade or the sex trade, the fault will always have to be with adult males.

As men so far feel no urgency to organize, while feminazis have long established their NGO pressure groups all around the world, you can expect more anti-male legislation of the Swedish kind, and corresponding quick cultural change, anywhere around the world.

Most people think of culture, including sexual culture, as something esoteric and metaphysical. Something that has evolved over millennia.

But, why, then, is there often a marked change of culture, including sexual culture, when we cross national boundaries. Clearly marked boundaries as we know them today are a rather recent development in many parts of the world.

Earlier empires, until as recent a time as pre-World War II, in most parts of the world didn't encompass definite areas throughout which their governments uniformly exercised their authority. Rather, they exercised strong authority in their core areas, while towards the edges, their authority fizzled out.

In many parts of the world, clearly marked boundaries only exist for a few decades, but they have already resulted in grossly diverging cultural developments (cross between Vietnam and China, or between Thailand and Malaysia, to get a feel for what I say).

The explanation is that culture, including sexual culture, is, to a much further extent than people commonly realize, just an offshoot of the laws a government enforces over an area it controls. Cultures are easily changed within just a few years, and the changes can be radical indeed.

Japan experienced a significant change of culture within just a few years between 1939 and 1949, and so did Germany. There was a total change of culture in China between 1940 and 1950, and others, albeit not that extreme, during the Cultural Revolution and between 1978 and 1988.

The point is: humans are highly adaptable, and so is culture. Humans anywhere in the world are likely to avoid behaviors that would get them beheaded or thrown into jail, and they will develop patterns of behavior and thought that will be advantageous for them. And voila, the result is culture.

In the US, "sexual harassment" legislation with a strong anti-male bias has had a great influence on US sexual culture. Radical feminists, or feminazis, do not have to work through the minds of the people to effect the changes they wish for. They only have to have a few laws changed, and the changes enforced by the police. The minds of the people will change all by themselves, and this happens rather quickly.

As indicated above, the minds of people change in two ways, in accordance to threats expressed by the law, and corresponding to potential perks offered by the law.

The threat tread is easy to comprehend. Men avoid behaviors and emotions that could land them in prison.

The perks tread works similarly. Women who become aware that being sexually harassed or sort-of raped (when the rape is only in her perception) will develop behaviors and emotions that could land them huge compensation payments.

Both men and women do not have to be aware of how their emotions change. Their interests will effect these changes all by themselves.

Thus, in a sexual culture in which it is easy to get trapped in sex-related law-suits men will develop sexual docility and women whose vulnerability is socially overemphasized will develop over-sensibility.

It’s probably easier to understand how a permanent threat develops docility, rather than how overemphasized vulnerability develops over-sensibility, so for the second case, I do want to further explain the mind mechanism.

I do not mean that women who show up at police stations, or who, during what started as consensual intercourse, all of a sudden shout “rape” are mere pretenders, or that they are willfully acting in order to collect compensations or settle a score.

It’s rather that the awareness of how easy it has been in many cases for women to collect compensation, or even just to settle a score, leads to an unconscious attitude or preparedness. So, when the opportunity arises to claim sexual harassment or rape, the consciousness of women moves into an “as if” mode, even if everything was consensual. We do not only see what we want to see; we also feel what is advantageous for us, and remember what suits our interests (when they are in constant need of money, some people can remember very strongly that somebody else owes them money, even if this is totally false).

This phenomenon explains why the courts in the West have to deal with an ever increasing number of cases in which women claim that they have been raped, even when there is video evidence that they weren’t.

In the US, if you have a promiscuous lifestyle, you are by now (because of according legislation) better off if you are homosexual. Pursuing a promiscuous heterosexual lifestyle is much more likely to get you into trouble. That is: if you are male. If you are female, you are very well protected.

If you are male, heterosexual, and highly promiscuous, the trouble you may run into includes sexual harassment charges long before you had any sex with that person, and false rape charges after sex. In rape cases, it’s not quite sure what has to be proven: violence (by the woman), or the absence of violence (by the man). Anyway, feminist organizations will always be very vocal in supporting the alleged victim. I know of no court case in which feminist organizations would have found fault with an accused women. Not a single one.

On the other hand, a 17-year female can have sex as she wishes, and even expect a lot of non-sexual gratifications without having ever to fear legal reprisals. But her male partners (if they don't behave in accordance with her wishes) are threatened with lifelong prison sentences.

And what happens if the testimony of a raped woman sends the wrong man to prison for decades? Nothing. She'll just say sorry. She will never be charges for anything.

Blatant anti-male legal bias is, of course, not restricted to the US. Sweden, a European country where feminists have been calling the shots for a number of years, has implemented, and enforced, legislation by which it is legal to sell sexual services, but illegal to buy them. This results in a situation where, in a consensual transaction, only the usually male buyer can be prosecuted. There, legally, the man in commercial sexual transaction is always guilty, and the woman never is. It’s as simple as that (please run a Wikipedia research on Sweden prostitution).

If they think in Sweden that buyers are to blame for the existence of an illegal market, e.g. the sex trade, why don’t they try the same approach with the drugs trade. But in the drugs trade, it’s always the sellers who are at fault.

The realty is that regardless of whether it’s the drug trade or the sex trade, the fault will always have to be with adult males.

As men so far feel no urgency to organize, while feminazis have long established their NGO pressure groups all around the world, you can expect more anti-male legislation of the Swedish kind, and corresponding quick cultural change, anywhere around the world.

I am not an utopist. States and nationwide governments are needed. They cannot just be abolished. (please note: the term “state” is used in its international meaning, referring to the ruling structure of a country; not in its US meaning, referring to a federal state of the US).

The principal function of states is to keep the peace between the members of a society, and to make a society as safe as possible for all who live in it. Furthermore, states have the obligation of defending a society against outside aggression. Beyond that, states should involve themselves as little as possible in the lives of the people.

Even states led by Marxist-Leninist governments have come to realize that a Communist economy, entirely managed by the state, just doesn't work as well as one based on private initiative.

Just as with respect to economic activities, some basic adjustments should also made to the way, crimes and settlements are handled. It may not be obvious but until now, the legal systems of modern states are based on the archaic idea that punishment primarily serves a god, or an abstract entity, whose social order was violated, and not the injured party.

There is no other explanation for the fact that even in cases where the perpetrator of a crime and the victim of a crime were to find a settlement, the state still insists on meting out a punishment.

In contrast to current legal practice, I hold that when the victim and the perpetrator of a crime can agree on a compensation (usually a payment, but both parties should be free to agree on other measures), then the state should give up a claim to punish a perpetrator.

When there is no agreement, the state would impose a punishment in accordance with pre-set ceilings, jus as in current legal systems.

If the maximum sentence for car theft is set as 5 years imprisonment, a victim may ask a court to have this punishment implemented. The court would decide whether there are circumstances that warrant a lower punishment.

But if the victim were satisfied with a compensation payment that is 10 times the value of the car (or anything the two parties agree on, then this punishment would be valid. In such a case, the state may, however, impose a charge on the perpetrator to recover investigation costs.

A society in which punishments would be victim-oriented, different standards would evolve in different strata of this society, and in the interest of personal freedom, I would welcome this.

The essence is that while the state would set limits of maximal punishments, everything below that would depend on what is considered appropriate in different strata of a society, or by victims in different strata of society.

In cases where the victim and the perpetrator of a crime can agree on a settlement, the function of a court should end with having established the guilt of the perpetrator.

In practice, would the proposed alternative legal theory mean that rich people would just pay up and walk free, and poor people can't? Would such a system favor the wealthy? Not necessarily. In many cases, it would mean that rich perpetrators would pay much more compensation than poorer perpetrators. This would even be more consistent with principles of social justice than the current practice, which typically imposes the same punishment on the rich and the poor.

Would the proposed system mean leaner punishments? Not necessarily either. If an injured party feels that only imprisonment will settle the score, then it shall be imprisonment, with the length of a prison term decided by a judge, Justas is current practice).

I do want to point out that my idea is quite different from the Islamic concept of blood money to settle murder cases. In murder cases, no redress is available in favor of the victim, so that in murder cases, the state should always impose a strict punishment.

Current legal theory forces its standards uniformly on all members of a society. This means that even the consensual activities of a group of people may be prosecuted because it violates state standards. A blatant example is the execution of consenting homosexuals in Iran. Another the prosecution of those who engage in consensual oral or anal sex ("against the order of nature") in Malaysia, Singapore, and Myanmar.

Western countries are not free of laws that punish consensual interactions between their citizens. They are not even free of laws that regulate what a person does alone, with his own body. If a person grows marihuana or poppy in a flower pot and smokes it himself, he may be severely punished in the US, even though there is no victim in the legal sense.

People within a society should be entitled to choose their own consensual lifestyle, without being restricted by the state. Then, different groups of people within one country would live very different lives. This is the essence of freedom.

I am aware of the fact that current political systems are unlikely to put such a new legal theory into practice, and to be able to then to fine-tune it so that it will indeed guarantee for a country’s population a new dimension of personal freedom. The political force that most likely could handle the task would be a elitist single state party, strongly guided by a sound ideology in accordance to which granting optimal personal freedom to a country’s citizens would be the primary goal of political rule (in addition to providing safety).