How (and Why) Does Sex Happen?

Feminists seem confused about basic reproductive biology

Why do we have sex? And how does sex happen? You don’t need a Ph.D. to understand this. Human beings are mammals. If you flunked eighth-grade biology class, maybe you need me to explain how mammals reproduce, but I’m going to take for granted that most of my readers are sufficiently familiar with the whole gametes-and-zygotes process. Because of their different roles in the process of reproduction, men and women differ not only in their genitalia, but also in their patterns of sexual behavior.

However, there are crazy people who insist on pretending that male-female differences aren’t real. We call these crazy people “feminists.”

Until the 1970s, crazy people were locked up in lunatic asylums, but then progressives came up with a “reform” program, and all the crazy people were sent to universities and became Women’s Studies professors. So now we have a generation of young people who have been taught that “gender” (i.e., the difference between men and women) is “socially constructed.” Evidence contradicting feminist gender theory is so obvious that anyone with two eyes and a brain can understand it, but the feminist cult’s hegemonic control of academia prevents anyone on a college campus from mentioning this.

Let’s quote a bisexual feminist university student on Tumblr:

It’s weird how men think that just because they like tits any instance where a breast is visible must be sexual and specifically for them, but like I’ve been modelling for over four years and I still haven’t assumed that I can look at other models’ breasts when they’re getting changed or even just round the flat in their underwear because, you know, it’s not done for me just because they’re attractive? Like I’ve never struggled with working this out regardless of how horny I might be or my inbuilt difficulties with reading social cues? It’s not fucking hard?

Permit me to begin by saying that most men are capable of restraining their sexual urges, and do so habitually. The vast majority of men do not slobber like Pavlov’s dog when they catch sight of a woman’s cleavage. Depending on the context, most men are capable of withstanding exposure to the female form in all its glory without becoming sexually aroused.

For example, if a guy lives in a beach resort community — Miami or Malibu — he probably becomes accustomed to seeing attractive young women flouncing around in bikinis, without his sexual impulses being unusually provoked. However, the average guy in Minneapolis or Manhattan might go into a state of near-frenzied arousal at the sight of a woman in a bikini. Context matters, which is why the Tumblrina’s claim that “men think . . . any instance where a breast is visible must be sexual and specifically for them” is false.

Yet notice that, in disparaging male sexuality — asserting that men are incapable of rational discernment about sexual clues — the bisexual feminist compares this to her own lack of arousal in changing-room situations with other women. To which the appropriate answer is, “Duh.”

Of course women (even lesbians) don’t have a typical male’s reaction toward female nudity, for two reasons:

  1. Most women make a point of never getting naked in the vicinity of male strangers; and
  2. Men and women are different.

This is what I meant in asking the question, how does sex happen?

What is the necessary precondition of sexual intercourse?

Oh, that’s right — male arousal.

In order for human beings to reproduce, the male must have a certain reflex response: “Penile erection is the result of a complex interaction of psychological, neural, vascular and endocrine factors . . . erection is initiated by the parasympathetic division of the autonomic nervous system (ANS) with minimal input from the central nervous system.”

In other words, male desire is the driving force — the engine that moves the machinery — in terms of human sexual reproduction. Anyone with common sense can figure this out, but feminism isn’t about common sense. No, feminism is an anti-male hate movement and its theoretical foundation involves a deliberately prejudicial interpretation of male behavior. Everything any man says or does is always wrong, according to feminists, who go out of their way to find excuses to condemn male behavior.

“What? Men interpret female nudity as . . . sexual? How dare they!”

Feminist discourse surrounding “objectification” and “beauty standards” — which I have previously discussed at length — is based on nothing but hatred of normal male behavior. As I have said, this discourse prompts the question: “Are feminists against heterosexuality, per se?”

By the way, the bisexual feminist university student I quoted above has explained elsewhere on her Tumblr blog that she’s in psychiatric therapy, and may have borderline personality disorder. Everybody hates her because they think she’s weird. Also, she keeps missing university classes due to her irregular sleep patterns and is “£30k in debt” for her education, but why should we object to her lecturing everybody on the Internet about what’s wrong with the world and “how systems of oppression work”?

Being unhappy is not the same as being “oppressed,” but no one in a position of authority at a 21st-century university would dare try to explain this distinction to their hypersensitive young students. However, is it expecting too much for us to hope that someone at the university would at least explain to these kids what sex actually means, from a biological perspective? This is why the entire feminist movement has gone bonkers:

Feminism is anti-motherhood. Feminists support abortion, contraception and homosexuality — anything that prevents the birth of children is good, according to feminist ideologues. . . .
Hating babies and condemning motherhood as “slavery” are core principles of feminist ideology.

Once you separate sexual behavior from its procreative function, so that “sex” is no longer about men and women forming permanent pair-bonds for the purposes of raising families, everything goes haywire. If “sex” is merely about hedonism, and if we can only discuss “sexuality” and “gender” as amorphous intellectual abstract concepts based on our emotional moods, then we can expect endless confusion and misery to follow. All this whining about “sexuality” from young women is evidence that feminism has failed, and yet feminists insist that the only possible solution is more feminism.

No, ma’am, what we need is some good old-fashioned jungle love.

“Me, Tarzan. You, Jane.”

A simple story — man finds his mate. Happily ever after. The end.

FOLLOW The Patriarch Tree on Twitter