What do you think about male chastity

Future of humanityEvolutionary Biologist: Many men will no longer find a sexual partner

In the animal kingdom, women choose. Whether crane, giant kangaroo or bird of paradise: the males of almost all species make an effort to get the females to mate. Meike Stoverock, who holds a doctorate in biology, describes it as follows:

"Attractive males with horns, antlers, ornamental feathers or bright colors make a huge blow: they sing, give, build, threaten, collect, dance and imitate voices that make the poor females dizzy with eroticism."

Usually the males have tons of sperm with which they want to mate the females. For the females, however, reproduction is much more complex, their eggs are precious, and brood care is exhausting. This is why they are picky - they determine which males can mate.

(imago / fStopImages / Malte Mueller) Nature, culture, gender - feminism and the small differences
Postulating equality is a cornerstone of modern feminism. Differences between the sexes are attributed solely to upbringing and culture. But what if they go back to nature?

A law of nature was overturned

Not all males get a chance, many remain without females and without sex. That's female choice, a law of evolution.

"Sex is a finite resource for males that the females control. That males try often and persistently to make sexual contact with females, and females almost always refuse those attempts, is not a fault of the system - it is the system."

Meike Stoverock spreads out the panorama of evolutionary biological relationships with relish - and the conclusion that comes to mind when reading this: humans are also only mammals. From a scientific point of view, the principle of female choice must also apply to them. That’s how it used to be, the author explains convincingly.

"Today's world population has about twice as many female as male ancestors, so in pre-cultural times around 70% of women mated with 35% of men."

Marriage prevents male sexual competition

So what happened that we live in a male civilization today? In a nutshell, Meike Stoverock explains it as follows: Around 10,000 years ago people settled in agriculture and women disappeared into private homes, where they looked after the children. From then on, men decided on the distribution of women. They invented marriage to contain male sexual competition and to secure access to sex.

(dpa / picture alliance / Jörg Sarbach) Marriage for everyone: Much achieved - still a lot to do
Three years ago the Bundestag decided on "marriage for all": a milestone in the emancipation of homosexuals. Joint adoptions of children were now possible. However, lesbian couples continue to suffer disadvantages when they want to have children and raise children in a marriage.

"This oppression [...] is the foundation on which today's states, political systems and cultures stand."

That is a radical thesis - and Meike Stoverock advocates nothing less than a new world order. However, as a connoisseur of evolutionary history, she does not think in terms of years and decades, but rather in terms of generations and centuries. And she does not want a return to female choice in its purest form, because, as she writes: "peaceful coexistence and high sexual competition" are mutually exclusive.

The Incels Phenomenon

But the time is ripe to rethink the coexistence of women and men - especially since gender relations are changing anyway; Women, at least in Western societies, are becoming freer and more independent.

"Culture, not evolution, has so far made women available to men - and women are breaking with it now."

Men must be brave when reading this book - because the biologist assumes that many of them will no longer find a partner. What is ignored in this biological perspective: Men and women are probably more than the sum of their instincts. They don't just bind to each other to complete an evolutionary reproductive program. However, the biologist is right in her observation that the so-called Incels, the involuntarily celibate men, can be dangerous. Incels also exist in the animal kingdom.

"They are the 'rest', the non-premium males who remain after the evolutionary process of screening and have no chance of reproduction. This phenomenon has only been suppressed to this day by the male civilization that has controlled and disenfranchised women."

Now Meike Stoverock makes suggestions as to what the coexistence of men and women could look like in a post-male civilization, a world order in which women tend to choose several alpha men in the course of their lives, but in which not every pot has a lid. She reckons with the institution of marriage, in which she sees an instrument of the oppression of women, and calls for a departure from the romantic notion that men and women can be happy in lifelong monogamy.

Men who can no longer find women in this new world order should be cared for in other ways - Stoverock thinks about sex assistants and the role of prostitution, she describes pornography as a possible "socially acceptable support" for men.

"Men who never or very rarely find sex partners must be given ethical and socially acceptable ways of meeting their sexual needs."

Meike Stoverock wrote a disturbing book. It's radical and provokes some resistance. She uses it wisely and with foresight and invalidates counter-arguments that can arise while reading. You don't have to like everything she writes, you can be outraged about her image of men and women, her rejection of marriage, the way she criticizes religion. But that is precisely why your book is so worth reading - because it prompts you to rethink the relationship between men and women and also: to argue.

Meike Stoverock: "Female Choice. The Beginning and End of Male Civilization",
Tropen Verlag, 351 pages, 22 euros.