Female Supremacy Articles

Men have been reduced to sperm donors, says Buerk

By Martin Hodgson

Published: 16 August 2005

The veteran BBC newsreader Michael Buerk has complained that "almost all the big jobs in broadcasting [are] held by women," and that men have been reduced to "sperm donors".

The former Nine O'Clock News presenter, who now reads the news on BBC World, also said that the "shift in the balance of power between the sexes" has gone too far, saying that "life is now lived in accordance with women's rules".

Buerk, who was promoting a new channel Five series, said that when he started making the programme he saw that changes that have taken place in modern society were reflected in his own experiences.

"Almost all the big jobs in broadcasting were held by women - the controllers of BBC 1 television and Radio 4 for example. These are the people who decide what we see and hear," he said in an interview with Radio Times.

At the time the programme was being made, the BBC 1 chief was Lorraine Heggessey, the channel's first female controller. She resigned in January after four years at the head of the channel.

Ms Heggessey was one of several female broadcasting executives who were promoted by the former director general Greg Dyke to senior BBC positions as part of a campaign to rid the corporation of its image as a network of middle-class white men. Others included the director of television, Jana Bennett, the BBC Radio director, Jenny Abramsky, the head of entertainment, Jane Lush, and the director of BBC News, Helen Boaden.

In October last year, another former director general, Alasdair Milne, sparked a furious response when he said that the dominance of female executives was to blame for too many "dumb, dumb, dumb" lifestyle and makeover shows.

Ms Heggessey has been replaced as BBC 1 controller by a man, Peter Fincham, while Radio 4 is still run by Janice Hadlow.

Buerk said that social changes were not only felt at the BBC, and that the majority of middle management positions were held by women - a development which has "changed the nature of almost every aspect of the marketplace".

He continued: "Products are made for women, cars are made for women - because they control what is being bought.

"Look at the changes in the workplace. There is no manufacturing industry any more; there are no mines; few vital jobs require physical strength.

"What we have now are lots of jobs that require people skills and multi-tasking - which women are a lot better at."

Buerk spent 20 years as a foreign correspondent before becoming one of the main anchors on the BBC's flagship news programme, but he is still best-known for his reporting from the 1984 famine in Ethiopia.

In the interview, he said that typically male characteristics have been sidelined.

"The traits that have traditionally been associated with men - reticence, stoicism, single-mindedness - have been marginalised," he said.

Buerk said that the result is that men are becoming more like women. "Look at the men who are being held up as sporting icons - David Beckham and, God forbid, Tim Henman," he said.

He admitted that some changes have been for the good, but asked: "What are the men left with?"

He said that, while men measure themselves in terms of their jobs, many traditionally male careers no longer exist.

"Men gauge themselves in terms of their career, but many of those have disappeared," he said.

"All they are is sperm donors, and most women aren't going to want an unemployable sperm donor loafing around and making the house look untidy. They are choosing not to have a male in the household."

Boys Bending Over

Straight couples and male anal pleasure

by Marcy Sheiner

Anal penetration is fast becoming the sex du jour among het couples -- but not in the way you might think. Time was when guys were desperate to (take) their gals up the ass, and many females were reluctant -- because, dammit, it hurt. According to a recent survey conducted by Underwire, the issue of coming in the back door still leads to power struggles. Well, pucker up, fellas -- it's your turn to bend over. These days the focus is on gals sticking it to their menfolk.

The rise in the number of straight men who take it up the ass comes to us courtesy of sex toy technology. It turns out that the mighty dildo has even greater potential than its obvious uses for masturbation and lesbian sex. A woman can strap one on, lube it up, and (take) her man, a genderbending role reversal if ever there was one.

Anal sex, though, isn't for the faint-hearted. The delicate rectal tissues are prone to tearing, so careless anal sex can be painful. Anal sex in general can also be a high-risk activity for transmission of HIV and other STDs. Therefore, a bit of preparation is required before plunging in. Lubrication and communication are essential, and condoms are highly recommended even if you don't intend to share your new cock between two buttholes -- condoms will help keep your toy clean and make the ride up his back door a little smoother. In addition to this, self education about gear and methodology is a good idea.

That the activity has become popular among adventurous and even ordinary souls is proven by the success of such books as Jack Morin's Anal Pleasure and Health (Down There Press). Reading about sex, though, can be dry; Fatale Video saw a hole and filled it with Bend Over Boyfriend.

True to the current trend in sex videos, BOB is equal parts education and titillation. Sex educators take viewers through the ins and outs of male-receptive anal intercourse, and the information is interspersed with scenes of couples doin' it for themselves. Two of the couples are novices, while the third, Carol Queen and Robert Morgan, are experienced players. For those who are squeamish or turned off by anal penetration of either gender, a view of Carol strapping it on and tenderly fucking her boy is guaranteed to open your mind, if not other body parts.

A sequel to BOB dispenses with education and cuts right to the chase: The purpose of the second video, like most porn, is to get viewers hot. Whether it gets you hot will, of course, depend on your proclivities: When I told my sister I was writing this piece, she said, "Oh my God! I had no idea that people did such things!"

Apparently, people do.

(Marcy Sheiner is editor of the Herotica series and The Oy of Sex: Jewish Women Write Erotica. She has written for Playboy, Penthouse,TheSan Francisco Bay Guardian, and many other publications.)

The Pleasure of the Pain: Why some people need S&M"

Psychology Today - September/October 1999

by Marianne Apostolides

Bind my ankles with your white cotton rope so I cannot walk. Bind my wrists so I cannot push you away. Place me on the bed and wrap your rope tighter around my skin so it grips my flesh. Now I know that struggle is useless, that I must lie here and submit to your mouth and tongue and teeth, your hands and words and whims. I exist only as your object. Exposed.

Of every 10 people who reads these words, one or more has experimented
with sadomasochism (S&M), which is most popular among educated, middle- and upper-middle-class men and women, according to psychologists and ethnographers who have studied the phenomenon. Charles Moser, Ph.D., M.D., of the institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality in San Francisco, has researched S&M to learn the motivation behind it--to understand why in the world people would ask to be bound, whipped and flogged. The reasons are as surprising as they are varied.

For James, the desire became apparent when he was a child playing war games-he always hoped to be captured. "I was frightened that I was sick," he says. But now, he adds, as a well-seasoned player on the scene, "I thank the leather gods I found this community."

At first the scene found him. When he was at a party a female professor chose him. She brought him home and tied him up, how bad he was for having these desires, even as she fulfilled them. For the first time he felt what he had only imagined, what he had read about in every S&M book he could find.

James, a father and manager, has a Type A personality--in-control, hard-working, intelligent, demanding. His intensity is evident on his face, in his posture, in his voice. But when he plays, his eyes drift and a peaceful energy flows through him as though he had injected heroin. With each addition of pain or restraint, he stiffens slightly, then falls into a deeper calm, a deeper peace, waiting to obey his mistress.

"Some people have to be tied up to be free," he says.

As James' experience illustrates, sadomasochism involves a highly unbalanced power relationship established through role-playing, bondage, and/or the infliction of pain. The essential component is not the pain or bondage itself, but rather the knowledge that one person has complete control over the other, deciding what that person will hear, do, taste, touch, smell and feel.

We hear about men pretending to be little girls, women being bound in a leather corset, people screaming in pain with each strike of a flogger or drip of hot wax. We hear about it because it is happening in bedrooms and dungeons across the country.

For over a century, people who engaged in bondage, beatings and humiliation for sexual pleasure were considered mentally ill. But in the 1980s, the American Psychiatric Association removed S&M as a category in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. This decision--like the decision to remove homosexuality as a category in 1973--was a big step toward the societal acceptance of people whose sexual desires aren't traditional, or vanilla, as it's called in S&M circles.

What's new is that such desires are increasingly being considered normal, even healthy, as experts begin to recognize their al psychological value. S&M, they are beginning to understand, offers a release of sexual and emotional energy that people cannot get from traditional sex. "The satisfaction gained from S&M is something far more than sex," explains Roy Baumeister, Ph.D., a social psychologist at Case Western Reserve University, "It can be a total emotional release."

Although people report that they have better-than-usual sex immediately after a scene, the goal of S & M itself is not intercourse: "A good scene doesn't end in orgasm, it ends in catharsis."

South Africa anti-rape condom aims to stop attacks

Wed Aug 31 2005,11:46 AM ET


KLEINMOND, South Africa (Reuters) - A South African inventor unveiled a new anti-rape female condom on Wednesday that hooks onto an attacker's penis and aims to cut one of the highest rates of sexual assault in the world.

"Nothing has ever been done to help a woman so that she does not get raped and I thought it was high time," Sonette Ehlers, 57, said of the "rapex", a device worn like a tampon that has sparked controversy in a country used to daily reports of violent crime.

Police statistics show more than 50,000 rapes are reported every year, while experts say the real figure could be four times that as they say most rapes of acquaintances or children are never reported.

Ehlers said the "rapex" hooks onto the rapist's skin, allowing the victim time to escape and helping to identify perpetrators.

"He will obviously be too pre-occupied at this stage," she told reporters in Kleinmond, a small holiday village about 100km (60 miles) east of Cape Town. "I promise you he is going to be too sore. He will go straight to hospital."

The device, made of latex and held firm by shafts of sharp barbs, can only be removed from the man through surgery which will alert hospital staff, and ultimately, the police, she said.
It also reduces the chances of a woman falling pregnant or contracting AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases from the attacker by acting in the same way as a female condom.

South Africa has more people with HIV/AIDS than any other country, with one in nine of its 45 million population infected.

Ehlers, who showed off a prototype on Wednesday, said women had tried it for comfort and it had been tested on a plastic male model but not yet on a live man. Production was planned to start next year.

But the "rapex" has raised fears amongst anti-rape activists that it could escalate violence against women.

"If a victim is wearing such a device it may enrage the attacker further and possibly result in more harm being caused," said Sam Waterhouse, advocacy co-ordinator for Rape Crisis.
Other critics say the condom is mediaeval and barbaric -- an accusation Ehlers says should be directed rather at the act of rape.

"This is not about vengeance ... but the deed, that is what I hate," she said. 

Photo: South African inventor Sonette Ehlers demonstrates her new anti-rape female condom in Cape Town, South Africa


By Virginia Vitzthum


As a Patti Smith-lovin', tomboy-turned-feminist, I've always resisted the notion that being a woman means being submissive. I want to move through the world as the subject not the object, the bee not the flower. And yet I never minded being the girl in bed. Being the one penetrated is so basic I didn't really see it. It was the one part of female destiny I never mourned. This is partly because heterosexual sex never lived up to the dire warnings it came with: that his gain would be my loss; that I'd get attached, enslaved and heartbroken; that I'd end up yesterday's garbage or, if I was lucky, monogamy's ball and chain. Thankfully, sex never felt like the war described by Republicans and mothers.

Sex, those parties say, is something men want and women deny. The boys hear the same message, which makes them ashamed of their filthy urges at the same time it lets them off the hook. Boys will be boys, and if sex happens, it's the girl's fault. Since sex is our responsibility, I realized early on, part of my job was to obviate the shame that men carried into bed. Though that context has eroded considerably over the past 30 years, women's sexual power is still largely that of withholding something that they generally want too. Though politically I resent this ancient, absurd assignment, it does have its sweetness sexually: Submitting is both transgression and absolution, a blessing bestowed and a taboo broken. Even the most confident lover betrays an initial shock and gratitude that he's welcome inside my body.

Women's hold on the supply side of sex may explain some of the patriarchy's most tenacious tenets: Outspoken, independent women still get tagged as dykes, bitches, Dominatrixes. The rape victim -- if she can be portrayed as sexual in any way -- still asked for it. Single women are suspect while they're nubile, and after that they're invisible. But other attitudes lurking in the public sphere can't be traced to the supply and demand of sex -- especially not nowadays, when women generally do give it up to the men they date. Why has contempt for the slut persisted? Why does the military struggle so hard to keep women and gay men out? And why is homophobia as murderously vehement as ever?

Sociological, historical, economic and biological theories of male domination and privilege don't fully answer those questions. They can't explain the anger and contempt for women and gay men that keeps bubbling up into the culture. The dissonance is sad and baffling, because I like men and often identify with them. Men are straightforward, generally easy to get along with, and I like having sex with them.

All these contradictions carved out a blind spot, a gap between the personal and the political that made room for what I can only call an epiphany -- a glimpse of something not in me, but out there, pervasive and invisible as air. I had my revelation about the patriarchy when -- I challenge the gentle reader to put this more delicately -- I strapped on a dildo and fucked my boyfriend in the ass.

Before Adam, I'd never considered the business end of a dildo, partly because I hadn't known a heterosexual man who wasn't utterly cowed by the taboo. I'm not interested in being anally penetrated myself, but I'm not interested with much less intensity than the noninterested guys I know. Women have no analogue to the horror -- not universal but widespread among straight men -- of taking it up the butt. It's so frightening that other men's allowing it is an affront. I've heard tolerant, sane men equate anal penetration with castration, an act with the almost magical power to transform men into "bitches" or "little girls." Adam certainly had lugged this baggage around America, too, but managed to set it down so we could have our adventure.

It was autumn when we took up. We were both coming off chilly partners who'd left us frustrated, each convinced we were undesirable, oversexed. We were as grateful as teenagers to find each other, and we spent eight months in a fever state, a long erotic crescendo. We never fell in love; we were not soul mates, but perfect sexual playmates.

From the start, I noticed role reversals outside of bed. I talked more than he did in groups; he would fret later about not being articulate. (But inarticulate men make the best lovers; as Colette said about a reticent paramour, "Speech is not his language.") Adam was vain and fussed more with his hair and clothes and imaginary fat than I did. He was insecure, which sometimes manifested male, in bragging and resentful ranting. In bed, though, his desire to please went beyond experienced-guy pride in competence and his affection for me. There was something warm and yielding in him, a sexual fantasy looking for a creator. This self-gifting reminded me of Marilyn Monroe. Since I was writing a play, I decided that made me Arthur Miller. I was the smart one and he was the pretty one.

But he had the medical information that got us thinking. He told me how the prostate gland was, sensation-wise, an extension of the penis and ran right up alongside the rectum. This was revelatory: I had assumed that all the bottoms of the world, men and women, were just good sports. So I'd not done much knocking at my boyfriends' back doors. Adam was initially embarrassed to tell me how erogenous a zone it was for him because, he said, of the homosexual implications. I assured him that, to me, the fact that his body derived pleasure from certain sensations meant only that. His gratitude for such basic tolerance made me wonder about the women who'd come before me.

Meanwhile sex was getting better than I knew sex got. Adam tended me like a gardener, coaxing orgasm after orgasm from my body. He plowed like a champ too; I'd never been fucked so exhaustively. He could reduce me to a small puddle, and from that grateful goo a resolve formed -- to give back. I wanted him to know the joy of being pounded into, rocked and rolled. And now I knew he wanted me inside him. Still it shocked me when, looking down on his high narrow hips while he slept on his stomach, I heard myself think, "I want to fuck him." It was the first time in all my gender-questioning, sex-experimenting life I'd had such a thought.

A few nights later, we found ourselves shopping in a marital aids boutique. Adam, always thoughtful, wanted something with a knob that would penetrate me while I wore it, but we found no such animal. We settled on a battery-powered vibrating number mounted on rather ghastly "flesh-colored" rubber panties that Velcroed on the side. It was called the Boss. I kept saying, "Are you sure? This is huge," but Adam nodded stoically. As we picked it off the shelf, a male stranger gave Adam a congratulatory pat on the back that confused both of us. The sales clerk, a perky dyke, tried to put us at ease as we paid (Dutch treat).

We unpacked it back at my house. I decided not to fill out the warranty card. Again, I worried about the size. Adam closed his eyes, angled it out from his lap and grabbed it with a practiced hand. "Mine's wider," he reassured me. It was true, but I couldn't imagine either one buried in my butt.

I felt embarrassed and shy as I Velcroed myself in, unsure of how to play the man. We lubed the thing liberally, than Adam got up on his hands and knees. I gingerly poked at him from alpha doggie position; he stopped me and flipped onto his back. He wrapped his legs around my waist, which sent the first shock of non-recognition. What had always felt rather take-charge from below felt completely passive from above, a nervous welcome. The Boss had a weird consistency, so I rolled a condom over it. As Adam reached up to help, as I had so many times, I felt the second shock. As his hands fluttered around this missile in my lap, he was like a child playing at a grown-up task. I marveled at how much the penetrator drives every part of this act, something that had never been apparent to me as penetratee. Adam's eyes widened as I pushed in slowly, a little at a time, stopping to ask "OK?" every minute or so. His breaths were shallow; he urged me on.

As "my" huge appendage disappeared inside him, his eyes showed shame, trust, fear and a sort of helpless adoration. In a way I'd never understood those words before, he was mine. The knowledge I could really hurt this person by being less than careful made me feel responsible, protective. The vulnerability appalled me at the same time; it was vaguely disgusting that he would let someone do this to him. Mixed in with the disgust was possessiveness. The thought of anyone else penetrating him seemed revolting. These observations clicked into place in quick succession; I felt like a projector being loaded with slides of maleness, of male seeing.
I saw all this as if from a distance, perhaps because my nerve endings weren't involved directly in the drama and perhaps because Adam and I weren't in love. Were souls entwined, I imagine, the Boss would dive much deeper into power, identity, empathy. But my experience was weirdly sociological and clarified much that had confused me. I saw why men feel entitled to women as possessions, why women must be protected from other men, especially from sex with them. Why a woman's, not a man's, virginity is "lost" and why her sexual activity inspires disrespect. I also felt the allure of a virgin, of being singled out for that gift.

This view of heterosexual sex looked far less like a mirror than my woman's view. I realized as I fucked Adam that at some of the most connected-feeling moments of my life, I was having an utterly different experience than the man pushing into me. Regardless of who's initiating, who's on top, or who holds what emotional reins, I realized, surrender is at the center of my sexual experience; invasion at my male partner's.

With the Boss, I was conquering, silent, responsible, the taker. With his legs spread, Adam was agreeable, inviting, ashamed, taken. I felt closer to him that night than any other time, because we changed in front of each other's eyes. Parts of ourselves that had been locked away from it engaged in sex for the first time.

The world looks different since then. I was riding up a steep escalator a few weeks after I took Adam's cherry, idly watching the butts up ahead of me as I usually do -- as a pleasing shape. And suddenly a slide clicked over the round female bottom perched above me: Access. Men aren't just admiring the curve of a butt the way women do; they're negotiating access. It's a hill to be taken.

And men do love access. Clubs, fraternities, committees, old-boy networks -- they've built a world where access is power. They like slit skirts, open-toed shoes, crotchless panties. They like finding a way in. I think the name of the highest-profile condom brand is no accident -- the Trojan Horse was the original tool of access!

Adam and I never took the Boss out on that particular ride again; we both discovered our loyalty to the home teams. That night shook my heterosexuality much less than it shook my feminism, my wishful thinking about natural similarity. The fuckers are different. Getting in looks male now, and giving in seems female, something I never wanted to believe. Perhaps fucking, or the man's-eye view of it, is the template for much more of the world than I ever realized. Which is somewhat limiting in the bedroom and terribly so out in the world. A template offering two choices to nearly 6 billion people is bound to punish, squelch or misrepresent the female tops, the male bottoms, the complexly gendered and everyone else who falls somewhere between a Cosmo quiz and a Desert Storm on the vast continuum between prissy and macho.

But if our differences do stem from sex, what better place to explore what feminine and masculine really mean? Digging around at the roots of those distinctions was not only more fun than a women's study seminar or a lawsuit -- it was more illuminating.


Time for women to rule


Posted Wed, 11 Aug 2004

Former Anglican archbishop of Cape Town Desmond Tutu on Tuesday waxed lyrical about women, suggesting that a "feminine revolution" take place so that the fairer sex can rule the world.

Tutu was speaking at a signing ceremony between the Desmond Tutu Peace Trust and the City of Cape Town which brought a step closer the erection of a building bearing his name in the city CBD.

"Some of the best initiatives are those that occur because women are involved... It is almost a tacit acknowledgement of the crucial role that women play in nurturing, nurturing life," said Tutu in his tribute to women a day after Women's Day.

Tutu, who was seemingly mentally spurred on by Cape Town's sobriquet "Mother City", said that men had been given centuries to rule the world, but "have made a heck of a mess of things".
Tutu said the revolution he referred was one of women who were not afraid to be feminine, and who did not ape men in, for example, the stereotypical aggression.

"This revolution...is the last, best chance for making this globe hospitable to peace, to make this globe hospitable to compassion, hospitable to generosity and caring," he said.


Enforced Male Chastity

By Goddess M

Friday, May 13, 2005

(I am a thirty something woman, happily married to a wonderful man I like to call Asskisser. His name reminds him of his favorite privilege, and his status in our relationship.)

I am a firm believer in the importance of enforced chastity for males. I will endeavor to explain why I place such a strong emphasis on such control.

One of the best things about living a female supremacy lifestyle is that it is a decision driven way of life. Rather than simply reacting to the random everyday events that effect our lives, allowing chance to be one of the primary sculptors of our future, the female supremacist is a very proactive decision maker and planner.

The fact that the female focuses so strongly on decision making for her male; what he eats, where he sleeps, when he orgasms, and every other facet of his life, causes her in return to clearly focus on her own goals, needs, and desires. This assures, to the greatest extent possible that her life ends up becoming exactly what she desires. Contrast this with the lives of average people, as they only react to events, so much is left to random chance, leading to frequent frustration and disappointment.

Active decision making is often avoided because people think that it is easier to just let events take their course. This is undoubtedly incorrect, and it is always easier to achieve ones aspirations if decisions are made proactively across all facets of life.

I have heard some females talk about control of their males sexuality as just another chore, and how much easier it is to just leave the decision to orgasm up to the male. This is a prime example of incorrect thinking. Enforced chastity of the male is the very best, and I might add, the easiest way for a female to have her goals and aspirations met on both a long term and a short term basis.

If the female will take some time to make an active decision about how often, and indeed in what ways, her male will be allowed to orgasm, and if she takes a few moments each day to enforce her decision, she will find that her life will become immeasurably easier as his focus naturally moves away from his own gratification and towards hers. Thus, enforcing control over the male orgasm is not added work, rather a very effective method of reducing the female's workload, and molding the males behavior to better match her desires.

Females should think:

How do I feel about the male orgasm itself? Do I enjoy watching it? Is it disgusting to me? Offensive to me? Do I just not care one way or the other? The answer will help to serve as a guide to proper decision making.

Using the above answer as a guide, and whatever desire she has for her own sexual use of her males cock, she can then easily decide how often he should be permitted orgasm. Weekly, monthly, quarterly, only on special occasions, yearly? The possibilities are indeed endless. Other frequencies used fairly often by female supremacists include: only on days she intends to permit intercourse so that the male can perform properly, or indeed, as many females have decided, never.

Done properly, there is no risk to the male if he leads his life under severe orgasm control including living out the rest of his life without another orgasm. Prostrate massage is the key to keeping a male undergoing long term orgasm denial healthy. Resources about prostate massage abound on the internet.

Strict and ongoing control of the male orgasm is so important to the female supremacist because of the profound effects it has on male behavior. These positive effects are the result of his instincts for reproduction.

All males who are not under strict orgasm control are completely sexually satisfied at all times. This is because all males use masturbation every time relief of their biological drive is needed. To believe anything different about male masturbation is to be dishonest with oneself.
A sexually satisfied male is, due to his instincts, a male who is no longer motivated to completely please the female in his life. His instincts cause this lack of interest in pleasing her because his drive to reproduce has been temporarily met. Without the instinctual drive for reproduction pushing him forward, the male cannot be properly focused on her needs, wants, and desires. Rather the male will always place his own needs and wants first.

This is not learned behavior, and this is not somehow the males fault. Neither is it something which he can change. It is simply how the male gender functions as a result of the instincts it possesses.

Contrast this with a male who lives under strictly enforced orgasm denial. The denied male, when not in a sexually satisfied state will have his entire focus on fulfilling the needs, wants, and desires of the female in his life. All of the males otherwise wasted energy will be directly focused on her pleasure, not only her sexual pleasure, but in all areas of her life.

Again, this is not something that the male has learned, or that he can change, it is simply male instinctual response.

His instincts force his energies towards satisfaction of his need to reproduce, this naturally translates into behaviors in which he does everything possible to earn the affection of the female who controls his ability to orgasm.

When the female muzzles her male with an effective chastity device, and exercises an effective release schedule, she will have a male uniquely devoted to her happiness. When she does not do these things, his instincts force his behavior to fall far short of the ideal.

An interesting side benefit of enforced male chastity is that the male who is sexually unsatisfied will have more energy than he would if he were sexually satisfied. This is a biological response in the male that can be quite profound, and extremely positive.

In most males this extra energy is manifested as creative energy, in others as physical energy. Either way, it can be of great benefit to the female supremacist as she uses it for her increased pleasure.

Behavior modification is another tremendous benefit brought about by the males lack of sexual satisfaction. As females we need to admit to ourselves that we all have a desire to change our male. We want him to more often exhibit behaviors which please us, and less frequently exhibit behaviors that are displeasing to us.

Females are taught by society that it is not right to want to change the male, and that even if it were ethical, it can't be done anyway. The conclusion we are to draw is that if we try to change our male our efforts will fail and we will be deeply disappointed.

This is a lie, a lie of course foisted upon females by our prevailing patriarchal society. A lie which should not be allowed to stand as we females create our future gynarchy.

Male behavior will change and improve dramatically when the female supremacist removes her males sexual satisfaction. His instincts will drive him to exhibiting pleasing behavior towards her, and will make it much more difficult for him to exhibit behaviors which she does not approve of. As females, control of the male orgasm is our best opportunity to improve our males behavior patterns and mold him more closely into the "man of our dreams."

Through enforced chastity we can change the male with relative ease, and we should do so.
When discussing enforced male orgasm control it must be remembered that there is a significant time delay as the male moves from a state of sexual satisfaction to a state of sexual dissatisfaction. It is not instantaneous or even quick, and a control only exercised for a few hours or a few days will not yield the desired effects.

A good rule of thumb is that it takes about a week in the average male. If he is allowed orgasm on Sunday for example, and is denied orgasm until the next Sunday, he will be getting his orgasm at about the same time as he was finally becoming sexually unsatisfied and his instincts were beginning to align his focus on the females needs and wants.

Thus a male who is granted one orgasm per week will never be able to give the female his proper focus. She will not receive the benefits of enforced chastity because she is not allowing enough time for him to become sexually unsatisfied.

A helpful way for females to consider this is by thinking about it as a vacation. Every time the male achieves orgasm his focus will move away from her for about one week. During this time he will be "on vacation" as he will not be serving the female to the best of his ability.

With that in mind, when thinking about how often her male should be allowed orgasm, the female should consider how many weeks per year she wants his focus to be away from her, and how many weeks of "vacation" he should be granted.

The female supremacist does well to remember that:

One male orgasm per week translates to 52 weeks of "vacation" per year.
One male orgasm every other week translates to 26 weeks of "vacation" per year.
One male orgasm per month translates to 12 weeks of "vacation" per year.
One male orgasm per quarter translates to 4 weeks of "vacation" per year.
One male orgasm every six months translates to 2 weeks of "vacation" per year.
One male orgasm per year translates to 1 week of "vacation" per year.

Completely doing away with the male orgasm through permanent enforced chastity will result in the male always being focused on the fulfillment of the females wants, needs, and desires.

As female supremacists we should ask ourselves, how many weeks of vacation does the average employee receive per year? How many weeks per year should we be willing to tolerate our males focus being on his desires, rather than our own?

As females, when we consider these questions, the best answers for ourselves, and our relationships will come.

Once it is decided through an active and thoughtful decision making process how often the male will be permitted orgasm, the male should simply be informed of the decision, and expected to obey without complaint.

The female must of course hold true to her decision and not allow temporary weakness or pity to soften her resolve. If she does not enforce her decision, all of her efforts will be for naught.
As mentioned, the male should not be allowed to complain, or even to request an orgasm.

Complaints, requests, and whining are poor behavior that should be punished.
In the chastised male who belongs to a female supremacist with a strong resolve, a request for orgasm is nothing more than whining for attention. Knowing that, the female must use care in her choice of punishment.

The male should not be whipped or beaten because to do so would be giving in to his true motivation, which is to get undeserved attention. More whining and other bad behaviors would directly result from such punishment.

Instead of a beating, a "time out" is a much more effective punishment in this instance because it totally denies that which underlies the poor behavior.

If the male complains, whines, or asks for an orgasm he should be placed in a closet with the door closed for a few hours. If desired, and issues of safety are considered, he can be tied and gagged while locked away.

I am very lucky in that my home includes an outhouse left over from the days when indoor plumbing was not available. Unlike most around the country, mine has always been kept in good repair through all these decades of disuse. Thus I have a perfect "time out" place. I can lock a male in the outhouse for hours on end which not only punishes him by denying his desire for my attention, but by the nature of it's intended use serves as a perfect form of humiliation. With a male locked in the antique outhouse I don't even need to think about his bodily functions, and in theory if some water and food was periodically delivered I could punish a male in this way for days. While I can't imagine this would ever be needed or desired, it is nice to know that the option remains always available to me.

The female supremacist should never feel that denying her male orgasm for long periods of time is overly cruel. In fact, rather than cruelty, long term orgasm denial is a gift she provides her male. This is because for the male in a relationship based upon female supremacy, being granted an orgasm is a false mercy.

His instincts drive him to an extremely powerful desire for orgasm, but deep down, in the core of his being, he does not truly desire sexual release.

From a practical standpoint, after orgasm it is much harder for the male to serve the female, and he finds much less fulfillment and joy in his service to her. Intellectually, the male knows this which is why so many males seek out a female who is willing to limit male orgasms. Males are much happier in their role when they remain sexually unsatisfied.

From a less practical standpoint, when the male achieves orgasm it is accompanied by a release of all sexual tension. As being in a state of sexual tension is so blissful, the male orgasm is always to one extent or another a disappointment.

As female supremacists working to improve our lives, and striving for a female led society, we need to use our intellect to decide how to best regulate the orgasm in our males. Males can't do this themselves because their baser instincts cause them to abandon their own intellect in favor of following their "idiot stick." Strict control of the male orgasm will greatly improve the life of the female who is willing to exercise that control, it will also however serve to improve her males life as she uses her intellect to overrule his "idiot stick."


Bad news: men doomed
Good news: no problem

Brendan Bourne

A WORLD free from war and tyranny is at hand. Men are doomed to extinction and women will rule the planet supreme.

So says Bryan Sykes, professor of human genetics at Oxford University, in a book that envisages the "Sapphic reproduction" of women by genetic manipulation.

Sykes contends that a world without men is the logical consequence of the decaying human Y-chromosome, the only piece of DNA that men possess and women do not.

A "genetic ruin littered with molecular damage", the Y-chromosome cannot repair ; itself nor arrest the steadily accumulating damage, he reports bleakly in Adam's Curse.

"Like the face of the moon, still pitted by all the craters from all the meteors that have ever fallen onto its surface, Y-chromosomes cannot heal their own scars. It is a dying chromosome and one day it a will become extinct."

So far, so bad. The decline of the Y-chromosome has been well chronicled by scientists. What is new is Sykes's description of the implications and the stark choices to be faced by the human race.

Sykes is a leading authority on DNA who traced all humans through female genes to a few ancestral women living thousands of years ago. He says that because the Y-chromosome's main function is switching on male embryos in the womb, its demise spells curtains for men. By his estimate, the male of the species will go belly-up in about 125,000 years.

What seems like an eternity is, of course, only a blink of geological time. There are urgent matters to consider. Sykes voices the most burning one: "Do we need men? Can we do without them?"

He cautions ultra-feminists against rejoicing too soon. "Destroying the male sex would be a very short-lived victory. Men are still required for breeding, if nothing else."

But not for much longer, it seems, if Sykes's radical solution is adopted — abandon men altogether. Chillingly, he states: "From the genetic point of view, very little stands in its way."
His strategy for perpetuating a new female race, free of their aggressive mates, depends on tweaking the proven technique of injecting sperm into eggs. Instead, the nucleus from a second egg would be injected.

With present technology, the embryo would not develop normally, he admits. "But it is short-sighted to say that it is fundamentally impossible."

However, assuming this glitch is overcome, the only difference from any other birth would be that the baby would always be a girl. "The entire process has been accomplished without sperm, without Y-chromosomes and without men," Sykes exults.

Importantly, the girls would not be clones, but comprise the same mixture of their parents' genes, shuffled by recombination, as today's children. But there would be one other difference: both parents would be women.

"Lesbian couples already enlist the help of' a man to donate his set of chromosomes to fertilize the eggs of one of them. At some point these couples will want to have a baby to whom both, rather than just one of them, are parents."

It is almost bound to happen, says Sykes, who can find no moral objection. "Men are now on notice," he states.

The professor does not venture what would pass for sex once men disappeared entirely. All reproduction would need to be assisted genetically.


Matriarchy: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow

by Charlene Bond

"If one is to believe various sources Matriarchal/Matercentric societies have existed in the ancient past as well as the not so ancient past. There are ruins of a Matriarchal nature that date 23,000 BCE. One of the most flourishing of such cultures was that of Minoan Crete, lasting through three periods to as recently as 1450 BCE. Many sources reveal that society was as a whole womyn centered until approximately 3000 BCE, but the wholesale subjugation of womyn did not begin until 2000 BCE. The Matriarchal Picts flourished until the 1600's CE, while the Matriarchal societies of Kerala, India and the Owan people of Nigeria were not introduced to patriarchy until approximately 1900 CE. One Polynesian culture did not reflect this shift until 1500 CE.

Accounts of these various Matriarchies have certain things in common. Womyn were revered for their life giving powers. Womyn seemed magickal in that they could create life, produce food (breasts) and bleed without dying (menstruation). A Goddess spirituality based on love, compassion and unity was the Matercentric way. Communal cooperation was the way of life. Monogamy was unheard of, there were no long drawn out sexual associations (marriage, pair bonding) as we know it. The communal pattern was evident in sexual as well as econmic relations. Womyn were the faithkeepers, counselors, teachers and caregivers.

Agriculture was invented by women in the Neolithic period. Womyn reached the apex of their influence in farming, arts, crafts and social influence. Clans were Matrilineal, wealth and property passed down mother to daughter, with collectivist principles. The elder women were revered as the womyn with the most power. It is believed that these communities were not merely a mirror image of patriarchy, but qualitatively different due to the different strategiew womyn employ compared to men. Some of these differences are testosterone influenced in regards to men. Religion played a role in these societies, a female Deity reflected the high esteem womyn as a whole received.

What happened? There are several theories. One popular one is that Indo-European invasions into Eastern Europe and Greece overtook the non-violent Matercentric cultures. Around 3000 BCE waves of aggressive sun-worshipping Aryan warriors from the Nothern Russian arrived on horseback and introduced the people to war, rape and pillage. Womyn became the first slaves as a forceful overthrow of Goddess worship replaced Her with male authoritarian godheads. A male god was contructed through historical record by men as needed to support and encourage male supremacy. Some womyn may have colluded in the creation of patriarchy. Unnatural, repressive and degrading gender roles and sexual morality codes instilled the belief that bodies were evil, passions to be repressed. Monogamy became the order of the day. Patriarchal religion denies womyn her divinity and is used as a tool of oppression and domination. Around 370 CE the library of Alexandria was burned to the ground, and possibly the most intelligent womyn in history, Hypatia, was killed by a mob of angry Christians. Womyn became trapped in a belief system, Christianity, that has no room for them.

In more modern times, in Kerala, India; the British arrived in the early 1900's and enacted laws requiring marriage to be monogamous. The nuclear family emerged as Matriarchal familes broke up, lost lands and wealth and family loyalty. Homeless people became evident for the first time in Kerala's history since womyn ruled. The Matriarchal system collapsed when land ceiling laws went into effect, men left for education and jobs taking their families with them, the nuclear family (man in charge) was seen as more modern and dwindling resources meant large household could no longer be financially maintained. British rule of the Owan people in Nigeria altered womyn's social position through the enactments of laws.

Today the influence of patriarchy, although dwindling, effects us in many ways. Many people suffer various emotional/mental disabilities from the brainwashing concerning sex as evil and dirty. Womyn are still considered immoral if they enjoy sex and talk about it. Womyn are still restricted in some social, political and religious areas. Some womyn continue to be under-represented politically, under-compensated economically for equal work and restricted in many major religions from access to positions of authority. The monogamous sexual morality code and patriarchal family structure is seen as "normal", while reflecting repression of natural instincts. The patriarchal family makes great demands on human nature, chastity and self-sacrifice on the part of womyn, obedience and discipline of the children, control by the father and is autonomous, rather than relying on a group as in Matercentric times. Sexual pleasure gives womyn a source of power over men, therefore our very nature must be denied as dirty and dangerous. Even now, sexual and physical abuse of womyn is so common that many people have become numb to it's reports. Yet even as womyn are condemned for their sexuality, men continue to enjoy it.

The womyn in charge, the Matriarch, has been showing up more and more lately. Seen as a product of men's sexual fantasies, certain people and groups believe there is more. Perhaps it is a genetic memory of times past or perhaps it is simply a crying out for Mother, but more and more men are being drawn to the philosophy of Female Supremacy. Not the cartoon image of brutal womyn aping the actions of terrorizing men, but strong, self-possessed intelligent womyn who enjoy leadership and guiding men to fulfill their destinies. These womyn can be found in all walks of life, in and out of the so-called "adult industry", many unaware of their nature and what it means. However, for the most part, it is only within the "adult industry", specifically that genre labeled Female Domination, that men who would have womyn rule have dared to come forward. The savvy Female Supremacist will look to the pages of the "adult industry" to find men suited to her lifestyle. Men are often confused by the posers, those who portray Female Supremacy but are really only trying to serve men through their fantasies. Many men have become disillusioned and don't believe real Female Supremacist womyn exist. Still other men hope they don't exist, they are having too much fun.

Matriarchy has coexisted with patriarchy, as evidenced by the Keralans and Owans, ceasing to exist only when pushed out of existence. Womyn of power are a threat to the patriarchal structure. Large movements of such womyn would not be allowed to last long. A grass roots movement is already underway. Strategies will need to be planned and plans carried out if Female Supremacy is to survive and a Matriarchy is once again restored. Many who proclaim belief will fall by the wayside when the going gets rough, or even dangerous. It is not a popular place to go against authority, and Matriarchy defies the authority of an entire culture, if not the entire globe. Modern Female Supremacists are not out to convert, they do not stand on corners preaching or handing out tracts, they do not pursue converts. The modern Female Supremacist is attractive by the example she sets, the life she leads and her adherence to Goddess inspired female values. Matriarchy will be established one Matricenter, a household devoted to Female Supremacy and Goddess training and networking, at a time

More Articles