The basic philosophical insight is the same for women and men.

Our individual lives will have irreversibly passed once we have died. We cannot benefit after our death from anything we do before it. Thus, all rewards will have to be in this life, and not an imagined afterlife.

This is the same for women and men. And for women and men, this simple assertion completely disqualifies religions from the competition of sense-giving explanations.

Do we live to have offspring?

The idea that we live to procreate is at least based on our genetic program.

But I and my genes are not the same thing. Sure, biologically, my genes use me to procreate themselves. And because each of us is the result of the procreation of his or her genes, and because, furthermore, each of us is the product of genes that were better than other genes in reproducing themselves, and thus us, the idea of living to procreate indeed is firmly rooted in our existence.

However, this concept of nature is totally shattered with the advent of self-cognition. A major aspect of self-cognition is the awareness of each of our individual deaths. Self-cognition enables me to recognize that my individual interests can be quite different, and even the opposite, of the interests of my genes.

My own interest is to be sexually satisfied (because this is the ultimate pleasure), and not to suffer, and to die a gentle death. The interest of my genes is to replicate themselves, and, for the purpose of procreation, even live through the worst of torture. Suffering is the negation of my interests; but the negation of the interests of my genes would be not to replicate.

Self-cognition allows us to dissociate ourselves from our genes, and for this reason alone, self-cognition quite possibly is a dead-end mutation. We just haven’t reached our own termination point yet.

Logically, based on our ability of self-cognition, we do not live to have offspring. This again is the same for men and women.

Logically, for both women and men, only ultimate sexual satisfaction, and after that, a gentle death, are values that are in tune with our interests, not the interests of our genes.

And ultimate sexual satisfaction for both women and men means: to live time and again through those phases of sexual relationships that are the most rewarding from a perspective only of sexual satisfaction.

I know what this means for men: Usually, it is sexually most exciting to enter new sexual relationships. In most of my love affairs, I get the most sexual satisfaction in the beginning.

“In the beginning” doesn’t necessarily mean “during the first physical contact”. Actually, if during the first sexual contact, only kissing happens, and during the second, only breast touching, and during the third, genital touching above clothes, and the fourth, genital touching inside clothes, and so on…, I can spread raising sexual excitement over a good number of encounters. However, sooner or later, I will reach a phase when there is nothing new in subsequent events of love-making, and from that time on, the sexual satisfaction value of being with this person declines, unless there are incidents which potentate sexual excitement, for example jealousy. But even the power of jealousy diminishes, and we even get used to the unfaithfulness of a partner.

Now, quite possibly, the rising curve for women is more prolonged. Quite possibly, a certain number of repeats of the same kind of sexual incidents with the same partner still translates into raising sexual excitement. Maybe. I am not a woman, I cannot feel the manner in which female brains are wired as well as I feel the manner in which male brains are wired.

I guess that young and inexperienced women get more satisfaction mileage from being in a monogamous relationship for some time than do older women. I do know a good number of women, mostly above 30, who have an enormous sexual appetite for new and younger men. It is quite obvious to me that for them, pursuing sexual satisfaction in a highly polygamous fashion must be much more satisfying than being with an older man with whom they have been for decades.

Therefore, I reckon that female liberation basically is the same as male liberation: the victory over both biological and social limitations to the pursuit of optimal sexual satisfaction.

I do recognize, however, that the hurdles, both biological (genetic) and social, to female liberation are higher than those for male liberation. Which is why female liberation requires an additional step over general liberation (which liberates males).

Because males can sire a multitude of offspring by having different sex partners every day, a behavior that guarantees a maximum number of offspring is closer to a strategy of optimal sexual satisfaction for men than it is for women. Compared to men, women can have only a very limited number of offspring, and they are genetically primed to be more concerned about the wellbeing and survival of each individual offspring than are men.

Which is why we can rightfully assume that mother’s love is stronger than father’s love.

However, women are genetically more primed to feel attracted to a man who appears to have excellent genes, while men are primed to spread genes more indiscriminately.

But precisely because women have a smaller margin of error in partner choice for propagating their genes, they must be genetically primed to seek children from men with apparently good genes, and from more than one, if the opportunity exists, as this greatly reduces the risk of extermination in case the genes of an initial man just aren’t a good match.

Thus, the preference of many women in current, philosophically antiquated, societies for monogamous relationships can only partially be biological (genetic). The explanation would run like this: in insecure social climates, women are genetically primed to retreat into monogamous relationships faster than men.

The following three scenarios explain this theory:

1. A society of unfavorable natural and social conditions, paired with a low level of self-cognition: The natural environment is marked by a high risk of famine, a multitude of natural dangers in the pursuit of survival. The social environment is characterized by poverty and a high level of violence, in the form of both crime and war. People have some awareness, but no scientific knowledge of death, and thus are susceptible to lunatic religious ideas. In such an environment, both men and women will display a tendency to stable one-on-one sexual relationships.

2. A society of intermediate natural and social conditions, paired with an intermediate level of self-cognition: Just think of the present-day US society. The danger of internal war is limited, but crime is rampant. There is intermediate self-cognition by those who are capable of accepting their own death as the total individual cessation of life, but many people are not mentally prepared or capable to accept this truth. Thus, you have science and religions existing side by side. In such an environment, men are much more likely to liberate themselves sexually than are women. Thus, there seems to be a discrepancy between the polygamous inclinations of men and those of women, with men having to resort to “cheating” and the leverage afforded by a high individual wealth gap to get what they need. The “sexual opportunities” section of my website addresses men in a world of such intermediate natural and social conditions.

3. A society of favorable natural and social conditions, paired with a high level of self-cognition: Such a society would feature a very low incidence of crime, especially violent crime, and basic necessities of food and shelter would be very easy to meet indeed. Both men and women have a very high awareness and acceptance of the individual cessation of their lives, and the teachings of religious lunatics have very little influence. In such a society, in which the pursuit of optimal sexual experience, followed by a gentle death, are universally accepted basic values, both men and women will show pronounced tendencies towards multiple sexual relationships, and by and large, an equilibrium is established. I do not think that the first human societies along this line will be established in America (too much violence, too many religious lunatics), and not even in Europe (too much sexual pathogenicity of Christian tradition). Rather, my bet for the first type 3 human societies would be on East Asia, not only because these societies already have low levels of internal violence, but also because it’s the corner of the world where religious lunatics have had the least influence.

Genuine feminism will have to deal with the female liberation, which will be necessary to proceed to type 3 societies. And while there has been a period of genuine feminist activism in the 1960s and 1970s, this line of feminism has greatly been muffled.

By contrast, the current feminist trend, spearheaded by man-hating feminazis, is to wind back male sexual liberation and to mentally cripple men again into being largely monogamous, as they were in type 1 societies, characterized by material misery and constant fear, not only of the violence of other humans, but also of committing sins for which one would suffer, as imagined by Dante, eternally in hell.