The traditional way to control female sexuality was marriage, which was a lifelong exclusivity contract. Originally, marriage was a collusion between women and the elite, benefiting these two classes against the interests of the majority of men: The initial form of marriage was, of course, polygyny, where the elite got all the women, while women themselves used their young-age sexual power to secure providing into their old age, even after all their attractivity had withered and vanished.

Monogamy is a recent thing, a grudging concession of both the elite and women to lower class men. When we say that "monogamy was good", this is only in relation to polygyny. Monogamous societies had a greater degree of social cohesion than polygynous ones. This comparison, though, does not take into account pre-marriage societies, "free sex" societies.

Unchecked female hypergamy corrodes social cohesion. Nature never meant female sexuality to be unchecked - and that is why it made men physically stronger. An absolute control over life's gateway to the future is too much of a power. If females could have it, and be so much better off than men in this regards, there would be no reason for the existence of men, we'd all be female.

Now the issue is whan ways men possess in order to control female sexuality. Traditionally, there was restriction over when it was acceptable for women to have sex. This is not a male control strategy. As Roy Baumeister argues in what is, I believe, one of the most important papers around female sexuality ever, the view that marriage and practices like virginity, slut shaming, and even female genital surgery, is male control over female sexuality, i.e. the traditionalist view, "received hardly any support and is flatly contradicted by some findings. Instead, the evidence favors the view that women have worked to stifle each other’s sexuality because sex is a limited resource that women use to negotiate with men, and scarcity gives women an advantage".

Another important reason why restricting female sexual activity was up to recently the standard, is that the elite used sex as currency. "Don't forget your Freud: Civilization is built on blocked, redirected, and channeled sexual impulse, because men will work for sex." By "civilization", of course, the elite mean the status quo, the continuous ruling by themselves. Female sexuality is the carrot of the system, and the elite don't want it to be readily available to the plebes.

Finally, the modern age with Tinder and the hookup culture clearly demonstrates that the attempt to control females' capacity to choose is vain. In fact, there is even evidence that male jealousy, mate guarding and male pair-bonding is a service to the female, a convenient way to drive away males of lesser value, while the female's option to engage in sex with a higher value mate can never be totally thwarted.

If then the attempt to control when women have sex is futile, is there another way to control female sexuality? Of course there is. Instead of limiting who women are allowed to have sex with, we could restrict who women are allowed to deny sex from. That was the solution that operated in the early human communities, and it is the only solution compatible with a society of male primacy. I realize that this may sound as total hubris, in a society where female primacy has so deep roots as to consider any instance of males being the sexual selectors as, effectively, rape. Furthermore, it requires a departure from the mainstream view that men are primarily interested in paternity certainty. Well of course they are, when their sexuality is so restricted. But the pure male sexual strategy is to seek maximization of their sexual encounters, not the beta fall-back to a, convenient for the females, role of parental provision.

In the core of this approach, manocentricm, is the notion that society should belong to men, as opposed to the elite and the global Sisterhood, which is the case today. It is the idea that men can bring about a rational allocation of resources, female sexual access being one of them - in fact the most important one.

Is this notion Utopian? First thing, this was how things were in the past. We can observe such social arrangements today, as a proof of concept, in the case of some primates, where females have sex with all the males when entering a tribe. There is also the very specific anthropological examples of Vladimir town and the Canela tribe: In 1917, in the town of Vladimir, every eighteen year old girl was required to register to the bureau of free love. Men in possession of a certificate showing that they belonged to the proletariat would have the right to these women. Note the context: this was long before Stalin became a dictator, and these were men that against all odds had organized, fought and won against the Tsar, one of the most powerful Monarchies that ever existed - and were now claiming what though was theirs. Isn't this a very consistent example of the Marxist "from each according to his ability to each according to his need"?

In the Amazonian tribe of Canela, girls, before marriage, are expected to provide sex to men. During their summer festival they are expected to have sex with as many as 25 men, sequentially.

Another example is the pristesses-prostitutes of the Ancient Greek world. These were actually daughters of the elite, devoted to temples, that had the duty to provide sex to men of their society - until they would end their service and marry, carrying no shame. So, the idea of a male control against the female sexual veto is not simply theoretical.

Now is the notion that I describe Utopian in today's society? Perhaps. The good thing is that even the half-assed, unsatisfactory solution of a return to monogamy, with a sexually faithful woman, seems Utopian nowadays. It is understandable that the first reaction to a crisis, as is the modern crisis of the male identity, is to play it safe and revert back to "the good-old ways". This is a conservative, middle-of-the-ground solution. It is also a waste of the opportunities this crisis presents us: to question everything, and re-discover, at least in theory, what a real male dominance would mean.

-Adam