By Serge Kreutz

There is a direct correlation between implementing policies of sex-negative feminism and the level of violence human societies generate. And the more non-violent sexual conduct is defined as quasi-violence, the more will genuine violence ultimately be generated.

The policies, and social engineering, of sex-negative feminism one way or another restrict the supply of female sexuality. A restricted supply favors women of a low sexual market value who see the value of their sexuality improved.

Beyond that, restricted supply always works for suppliers, in this case women in general. They can, for example, ask for more emotional commitment than men interested in sex would otherwise be willing to invest.

Thus, large parts of a society’s women, especially those of declining sexual market value, will be against easy sex. More specifically, they will be against prostitution. The pretense, as usually, is to protect women. The real motivation is to restrict sexual supply.

In whatever way female prostitution may be conceptionalized, with as many safeguards against actual violence as can be imagined, it is predictable that sex-negative feminism will depict it as violence per se.

The final line of defense of sex-negative feminists is that female sexuality is not a merchandise.

But of course it is. Female sexuality is a merchandise just as male emotional commitment is. The two are commonly traded against each other. Both are intangible assets.

Other traded assets are more tangible. Economic security, family situations of material stability, a financially comfortable life. Women have always traded them for sexual access. Sexual economics explains human interaction more accurately than any other theory.

Prostitution is sex of comparatively low quality, and even in expensive countries, it’s comparatively cheap for men.

It is nevertheless potentially highly rewarding, in financial terms, for women as it requires very little investment of time per case.

Not all prostitution is forced. Prostitution isn’t forced per se. It is an acceptable decision of and for some women to trade sexuality for immediate financial benefits, rather than an uncertain long-term financial commitment.

Because prostitution typically affords female sexuality to men of low sexual market value who would otherwise go empty-handed and then go violent, prostitution, just like drug use, contributes to non-violence in human societies.

The imagination of sex-negative feminism is that men will forever compete against each other to be granted a slice of the limited pool of female sexuality, and that even low-value female sexuality will have many bidders. And that the supply is so restricted that necessarily, a large number of men not only do not get what they dream of. They get nothing.

And sex-negative feminists think that those men who get nothing will just try harder to please a woman, any woman.

That will not work. Losers will turn violent. One way or another.

Enlightened politics would sense a responsibility to somehow balance a society’s sexual economy. That is nowhere in sight. It’s politically not correct.

Lenient sexual morals for non-violent societies