Female Led Society

[Lucy_Lastic]

Well, if you want to get non-fetishistic about it… sure.

I think if a guy fetishises about it its because he has a thing for dominant women being in control.

If I think about it I just imagine a world where people don't shit on me any more.

From a fetishistic point of view it won't work for me. I don't want men to be my underlings or under my control. Just a bit more respect and equality would be nice!

I fetishise certain aspects of masculinity but not treating them like men (in society, not all individual men as such) treat women.

 

[Yarglenurp]

I think if a guy fetishises about it its because he has a thing for dominant women being in control.

If I think about it I just imagine a world where people don't shit on me any more.

From a fetishistic point of view it won't work for me. I don't want men to be my underlings or under my control. Just a bit more respect and equality would be nice!

I fetishise certain aspects of masculinity but not treating them like men (in society, not all individual men as such) treat women.

Yeah, makes sense.

I too wish it was a world where women were in charge. I think it’d be more peaceful and less horrible for both men and women.

Sadly, outside of fiction, matriarchal societies are likely a pipe dream because men can be far more aggressively sociopathic than women. The world is run by hyper-aggressive sociopaths. The number of non-psychos in power is vastly swamped by the number of literal sociopaths at the upper tiers of society.

Until the core aspects of humanity change so that sociopaths do not have such strategic advantages in every society, we can only live such a paradise in dreams.

 

[policywank]

I think that for starters we would have to establish some sort of new deal that respects men and recognizes the important role they play in society (none of this "we don't need men" crap). And part of that would involve women stepping up to take responsibility to manage ourselves objectively. For instance, we would absolutely want to make changes that would more effectively deter and punish any kind of sexual assault, but we couldn't indulge in the silliness of equating accusation with conviction.

In my opinion there is no such thing as a group (gender, ethnic, race, whatever) that isn't perfectly capable of being tyrannical if appropriate checks and balances are not in place. And generally speaking groups that have been disadvantaged tend to get a pass for having an unbalanced attitude towards those that have been in control. That is understandable, but can't be carried into an environment where the roles are reversed. We would need to conduct ourselves with that in mind.

On the relationship front I think it might be much more common for women to have a husband and one or more boyfriends. The reality is that traditionally the criteria we look for in a husband is different than it is for an ideal sexual partner. Sometimes it all comes in the one package, but a lot of the time it doesn't. Up until recently we were compelled to pick one or the other and non-monogamy was not viable for women so we were highly likely to compromise on our sexual needs - a significant proportion of wives who appear to express limited interest in sex are actually quite sexually desirous, but just not that interested in sex with their husbands.

Likewise some women would choose to not marry at all. But I don't think that would be as common as most people think. To the extent that we see a trend that way now it is partly because we are given only two choices - monogamy or being single. If we had a more openly accepted third option of being married and non-monogamous with the latitude to pursue our own sexual fulfillment that might be the more popular option.

While men would not have to be monogamous (even if their wife is not) there would be a trend in that direction with special accommodation. Reality is that most men cannot compete with women in a truly open sexual marketplace and their attempts to do so would destabilize society. Meanwhile a bunch of sexually frustrated men is also destabilizing. The female leaders would need to recognize and embrace male sexual desires. Women would be encouraged to adopt the thinking that taking care of their husband's sexual needs is a duty and a sort of quid pro quo for being able to have her boyfriend(s) on the side. Likewise prostitution would be legalized and regulated and using their services would be normalized, including for married men.

The male population would tend to bifurcate into those that are deemed sexually desirable and share their attentions among sexually desirous women and those that are deemed suitable husbands or single beta males for which the female led society makes accommodation. Those lines might be blurred and we would need to find away to install attitudes that don't vilify one group of men over the other. As it stands the patriarchy separates women into virtuous marrying material and dirty sluts. if the roles were reversed men might be inclined to glorify the sexually desirable men and denigrate the others. But who knows how it would pan out over time. The female leadership would need to take strong measures to avoid abuses and support the men who don't get their desired role. Reality is that this happens in today's society as well - which just tip toe around it and ignore the elephant in the room so as not to offend male sensitivities. This would have to go in a female led world by being more direct with men but supporting them at the same time.

 

[TheDubbs]

Not gonna lie, Lucy dropping some truth bombs in here!

 

[Yarglenurp]

I think that for starters we would have to establish some sort of new deal that respects men and recognizes the important role they play in society (none of this "we don't need men" crap). And part of that would involve women stepping up to take responsibility to manage ourselves objectively. For instance, we would absolutely want to make changes that would more effectively deter and punish any kind of sexual assault, but we couldn't indulge in the silliness of equating accusation with conviction.

In my opinion there is no such thing as a group (gender, ethnic, race, whatever) that isn't perfectly capable of being tyrannical if appropriate checks and balances are not in place. And generally speaking groups that have been disadvantaged tend to get a pass for having an unbalanced attitude towards those that have been in control. That is understandable, but can't be carried into an environment where the roles are reversed. We would need to conduct ourselves with that in mind.

On the relationship front I think it might be much more common for women to have a husband and one or more boyfriends. The reality is that traditionally the criteria we look for in a husband is different than it is for an ideal sexual partner. Sometimes it all comes in the one package, but a lot of the time it doesn't. Up until recently we were compelled to pick one or the other and non-monogamy was not viable for women so we were highly likely to compromise on our sexual needs - a significant proportion of wives who appear to express limited interest in sex are actually quite sexually desirous, but just not that interested in sex with their husbands.

Likewise some women would choose to not marry at all. But I don't think that would be as common as most people think. To the extent that we see a trend that way now it is partly because we are given only two choices - monogamy or being single. If we had a more openly accepted third option of being married and non-monogamous with the latitude to pursue our own sexual fulfillment that might be the more popular option.

While men would not have to be monogamous (even if their wife is not) there would be a trend in that direction with special accommodation. Reality is that most men cannot compete with women in a truly open sexual marketplace and their attempts to do so would destabilize society. Meanwhile a bunch of sexually frustrated men is also destabilizing. The female leaders would need to recognize and embrace male sexual desires. Women would be encouraged to adopt the thinking that taking care of their husband's sexual needs is a duty and a sort of quid pro quo for being able to have her boyfriend(s) on the side. Likewise prostitution would be legalized and regulated and using their services would be normalized, including for married men.

The male population would tend to bifurcate into those that are deemed sexually desirable and share their attentions among sexually desirous women and those that are deemed suitable husbands or single beta males for which the female led society makes accommodation. Those lines might be blurred and we would need to find away to install attitudes that don't vilify one group of men over the other. As it stands the patriarchy separates women into virtuous marrying material and dirty sluts. if the roles were reversed men might be inclined to glorify the sexually desirable men and denigrate the others. But who knows how it would pan out over time. The female leadership would need to take strong measures to avoid abuses and support the men who don't get their desired role. Reality is that this happens in today's society as well - which just tip toe around it and ignore the elephant in the room so as not to offend male sensitivities. This would have to go in a female led world by being more direct with men but supporting them at the same time.

lol, the realist in me is like, “uh-huh… and where do we park the unicorns?”

But since we’re just fantasizing about a theoretically feasible feminist utopia, I’d say that that the foundations of a feminist utopia would have less basis on sexual practices and more on elevating childcare as a high calling and an economically rewarding path.

 

[policywank]

lol, the realist in me is like, “uh-huh… and where do we park the unicorns?”

But since we’re just fantasizing about a theoretically feasible feminist utopia, I’d say that that the foundations of a feminist utopia would have less basis on sexual practices and more on elevating childcare as a high calling and an economically rewarding path.

Oh for sure. Sex would not be the primary foundation. But if such a society came into being women would be inclined to adopt a more honest view of their own sexuality and sexual needs without feeling the need to subordinate themselves to male expectations.

 

[Mike302]

I think that for starters we would have to establish some sort of new deal that respects men and recognizes the important role they play in society (none of this "we don't need men" crap). And part of that would involve women stepping up to take responsibility to manage ourselves objectively. For instance, we would absolutely want to make changes that would more effectively deter and punish any kind of sexual assault, but we couldn't indulge in the silliness of equating accusation with conviction.

In my opinion there is no such thing as a group (gender, ethnic, race, whatever) that isn't perfectly capable of being tyrannical if appropriate checks and balances are not in place. And generally speaking groups that have been disadvantaged tend to get a pass for having an unbalanced attitude towards those that have been in control. That is understandable, but can't be carried into an environment where the roles are reversed. We would need to conduct ourselves with that in mind.

On the relationship front I think it might be much more common for women to have a husband and one or more boyfriends. The reality is that traditionally the criteria we look for in a husband is different than it is for an ideal sexual partner. Sometimes it all comes in the one package, but a lot of the time it doesn't. Up until recently we were compelled to pick one or the other and non-monogamy was not viable for women so we were highly likely to compromise on our sexual needs - a significant proportion of wives who appear to express limited interest in sex are actually quite sexually desirous, but just not that interested in sex with their husbands.

Likewise some women would choose to not marry at all. But I don't think that would be as common as most people think. To the extent that we see a trend that way now it is partly because we are given only two choices - monogamy or being single. If we had a more openly accepted third option of being married and non-monogamous with the latitude to pursue our own sexual fulfillment that might be the more popular option.

While men would not have to be monogamous (even if their wife is not) there would be a trend in that direction with special accommodation. Reality is that most men cannot compete with women in a truly open sexual marketplace and their attempts to do so would destabilize society. Meanwhile a bunch of sexually frustrated men is also destabilizing. The female leaders would need to recognize and embrace male sexual desires. Women would be encouraged to adopt the thinking that taking care of their husband's sexual needs is a duty and a sort of quid pro quo for being able to have her boyfriend(s) on the side. Likewise prostitution would be legalized and regulated and using their services would be normalized, including for married men.

The male population would tend to bifurcate into those that are deemed sexually desirable and share their attentions among sexually desirous women and those that are deemed suitable husbands or single beta males for which the female led society makes accommodation. Those lines might be blurred and we would need to find away to install attitudes that don't vilify one group of men over the other. As it stands the patriarchy separates women into virtuous marrying material and dirty sluts. if the roles were reversed men might be inclined to glorify the sexually desirable men and denigrate the others. But who knows how it would pan out over time. The female leadership would need to take strong measures to avoid abuses and support the men who don't get their desired role. Reality is that this happens in today's society as well - which just tip toe around it and ignore the elephant in the room so as not to offend male sensitivities. This would have to go in a female led world by being more direct with men but supporting them at the same time.

Fucking brilliant!

I do think most men aren't needed. Except to work. If those men could be included in this society that would be great, but they'd have to be kept in check.

Lately I've had the thought of men being regarded as horses. Draft horses, racehorses, ponys, etc. They do have opinions and need their needs met or they can become a problem. They need training, care, a role, and rewards. They are simpler creatures than the rider for sure. They need to understand the benefits of living within their role and consequences of not. Perhaps that is already happening?

 

[Yarglenurp]

Fucking brilliant!

I do think most men aren't needed. Except to work. If those men could be included in this society that would be great, but they'd have to be kept in check.

Lately I've had the thought of men being regarded as horses. Draft horses, racehorses, ponys, etc. They do have opinions and need their needs met or they can become a problem. They need training, care, a role, and rewards. They are simpler creatures than the rider for sure. They need to understand the benefits of living within their role and consequences of not. Perhaps that is already happening?

lol, is this fetish fuel or actual thought?

If it’s fetish fuel, then sure, I’d jerk off to it.

IRL, guys are not going to think “I’m just going to be happy as a work horse.” Half the reason we’re in this political mess is that people want more for themselves without regard for anyone else’s suffering, and the other half is that there are sociopaths willing to turn that into a reality.

 

[Mike302]

lol, is this fetish fuel or actual thought?

If it’s fetish fuel, then sure, I’d jerk off to it.

IRL, guys are not going to think “I’m just going to be happy as a work horse.” Half the reason we’re in this political mess is that people want more for themselves without regard for anyone else’s suffering, and the other half is that there are sociopaths willing to turn that into a reality.

Thought.

I did mention men do need care and rewards. My wife and I take care of eachother.

 

[Yarglenurp]

Thought.

I did mention men do need care and rewards.

Sure. So do horses.

Again, as fetish fuel, I love it. Put me in chastity, peg me hard, and whip my balls as you tell me about all the lovers you had this month.

But in an actual functioning society, I’m pretty sure that’s not gonna work well, or about as much as it had worked for our actual modern society (which isn’t “well”).

 

[forgotmyantidepressants]

Women would be encouraged to adopt the thinking that taking care of their husband's sexual needs is a duty

Like it is now?

 

[forgotmyantidepressants]

Rape is a capital offense.

If some man catcalls me on the street, I have the right to beat him up.

 

[policywank]

Like it is now?

No, not like it is now. Now we still have a patriarchy that attempts to compel women to behave in certain ways at their behest. Under no circumstances should anybody have the power to compel certain behaviour from another.

But in loving relationships we do have duties to one another without either party being compelled. In a world where married women have ultimate sexual freedom and their husband has no right to compel certain behaviour it would be appropriate for her as the leader on her own volition to take up the duty to see that he also has a chance to be sexually fulfilled.

And while we are at it I do believe that both partners have a duty to support one another in many ways including sexually. Not on demand or under duress, but yes it is a duty. One that cannot be imposed upon us but which we choose to take on in a mutually supportive relationship.

 

[forgotmyantidepressants]

No, not like it is now. Now we still have a patriarchy that attempts to compel women to behave in certain ways at their behest. Under no circumstances should anybody have the power to compel certain behaviour from another.

But in loving relationships we do have duties to one another without either party being compelled. In a world where married women have ultimate sexual freedom and their husband has no right to compel certain behaviour it would be appropriate for her as the leader on her own volition to take up the duty to see that he also has a chance to be sexually fulfilled.

And while we are at it I do believe that both partners have a duty to support one another in many ways including sexually. Not on demand or under duress, but yes it is a duty. One that cannot be imposed upon us but which we choose to take on in a mutually supportive relationship.

That's fair. Thank you for clarifying.

 

[Yarglenurp]

No, not like it is now. Now we still have a patriarchy that attempts to compel women to behave in certain ways at their behest. Under no circumstances should anybody have the power to compel certain behaviour from another.

But in loving relationships we do have duties to one another without either party being compelled. In a world where married women have ultimate sexual freedom and their husband has no right to compel certain behaviour it would be appropriate for her as the leader on her own volition to take up the duty to see that he also has a chance to be sexually fulfilled.

And while we are at it I do believe that both partners have a duty to support one another in many ways including sexually. Not on demand or under duress, but yes it is a duty. One that cannot be imposed upon us but which we choose to take on in a mutually supportive relationship.

I think I’ve heard you say this before and I do like this ideas. I also think it would be useful cultural tool because it encourages men to support this type of matriarchal society. A critical flaw of current “balancing” policies is that, for a lot of guys, it ends up being a world where being a supportive guy is basically supporting his own irrelevance and neglect. Like, why would a guy work hard to support his wife and kids just to see her go out and screw other dudes? In one in which she spends more time with him, he might see the upside of having an attentive wife.

One thing that this world doesn’t account for, though, is that I think a lot of women just aren’t as interested in sex. I suspect many women would use their sexual freedom to just instead go out and do whatever. Play mini-golf, maybe?

 

[policywank]

I think I’ve heard you say this before and I do like this ideas. I also think it would be useful cultural tool because it encourages men to support this type of matriarchal society. A critical flaw of current “balancing” policies is that, for a lot of guys, it ends up being a world where being a supportive guy is basically supporting his own irrelevance and neglect. Like, why would a guy work hard to support his wife and kids just to see her go out and screw other dudes?

One thing that this world doesn’t account for, though, is that I think a lot of women just aren’t as interested in sex. I suspect many women would use their sexual freedom to just instead go out and do whatever. Play mini-golf, maybe?

I think that the portrayals of supportive guys that you refer to are largely generated by or for guys interested in the cuckolding fetish, which is a sort of psychological BDSM. That is fine if that is what they are into, but I think that is small a minority of the men who are open to their wife being non-monogamous. It is also promoted by some dudes who see themselves as the "bull", most of whom I expect are delusional.

Women's perspective on sex is certainly different than men's. In a female led society I don't women would have any interest in simply swapping roles. I am not sure if we are less interested in sex or just less interested in the sex and all of the associated conditions that are on offer in a patriarchal society.

 

[subdudeme13]

I think that the portrayals of supportive guys that you refer to are largely generated by or for guys interested in the cuckolding fetish, which is a sort of psychological BDSM. That is fine if that is what they are into, but I think that is small a minority of the men who are open to their wife being non-monogamous. It is also promoted by some dudes who see themselves as the "bull", most of whom I expect are delusional.

Women's perspective on sex is certainly different than men's. In a female led society I don't women would have any interest in simply swapping roles. I am not sure if we are less interested in sex or just less interested in the sex and all of the associated conditions that are on offer in a patriarchal society.

I don't have an opinion one way or the other on a female led society. I think a mix is what will emerge. When I look at nature it is the lioness who rules the roost. Bucks fight for supremecy in the deer world and the winner gets the breeding rights and then takes off till next year. I don't know much about the primate world so I may investigate and I obviously have my own outlook on humans.

 

[whenagain]

I think also there’s a certain danger in letting ones kinks direct their social/political beliefs.

 

[policywank]

I think also there’s a certain danger in letting ones kinks direct their social/political beliefs.

It certainly would not be wise to let one's kinks direct how a society is managed. However, if society was female led we would be more free to express our sexual preferences.

 

[whenagain]

It certainly would not be wise to let one's kinks direct how a society is managed. However, if society was female led we would be more free to express our sexual preferences.

Oh for sure. And I’d be good with that.

But I’m not gonna pretend that my submissive side/love of powerful women comes from a thoughtful, progressive place— it comes from a dinosaur brain part of me that’s always thought strong women are sexy.

 

[SlutAddicted]

Oh for sure. And I’d be good with that.

But I’m not gonna pretend that my submissive side/love of powerful women comes from a thoughtful, progressive place— it comes from a dinosaur brain part of me that’s always thought strong women are sexy.

I expect that in a female led society, catering to our submissive desires would not be on the agenda. Perhaps women would be more open to indulging us periodically if we support them in their leadership. And maybe that environment will cultivate the strong women we so admire. But as men we would need to accept that if they are in charge they lead as they see fit, not as we would like to fantasize about.

 

[Yarglenurp]

Oh for sure. And I’d be good with that.

But I’m not gonna pretend that my submissive side/love of powerful women comes from a thoughtful, progressive place— it comes from a dinosaur brain part of me that’s always thought strong women are sexy.

Porque no los dos?

It seems entirely possible to both want a better society and also be sexually aroused by an aspect of that better society. Like, a guy can enjoy the taste of cantaloupes and also have a fetish for fucking cantaloupes.

I expect that in a female led society, catering to our submissive desires would not be on the agenda. Perhaps women would be more open to indulging us periodically if we support them in their leadership. And maybe that environment will cultivate the strong women we so admire. But as men we would need to accept that if they are in charge they lead as they see fit, not as we would like to fantasize about.

I think it’d just be considered a “trad husband” thing, except in reverse. It would just be a spectrum of behaviors that would be rejected by some, tolerated by some, and openly embraced by some.

 

[yowser]

This is a bit of a tangent, although thematically related, as I don't want to sidetrack the more serious parts of the discussion, but I've done a Sci-Fi/Fantasy piece about a matriarchal society, a riff off the Burning Man festival. Some of you may enjoy this sort of thing.

 

[SlutAddicted]

I think it’d just be considered a “trad husband” thing, except in reverse. It would just be a spectrum of behaviors that would be rejected by some, tolerated by some, and openly embraced by some.

Arguably the patriarchy hasn't been just about men occupying leadership positions. It also included the oppression women in order to compel certain behaviours that benefit men. The double standard was truly different rules for men and women both formally and informally. Women didn't always behave accordingly, but even when they didn't those rules were part of heir existence. That still exists but has been substantially diluted.

If society became a matriarchy would women do the same and implement different rules for men and women? Or would it be more a matter of leading, but with roughly similar rules except for who occupies the leadership positions?

 

[policywank]

Oh for sure. And I’d be good with that.

But I’m not gonna pretend that my submissive side/love of powerful women comes from a thoughtful, progressive place— it comes from a dinosaur brain part of me that’s always thought strong women are sexy.

If women truly embraced the matriarchy I think we would be more accepting of submissive men. It is one thing to want the trappings of leadership and another to actually lead. Doing so would require us to adopt a strong position and not look down upon the men who choose to be submissive.