Social Contract

Rousseau came up with the term "social contract" in an attempt to explain how society operates (or not). There is no social contract until the two genders are treated equally and equitably without force, threat of punishment, or any other brutish/subhuman resolutions, intentions, or behaviour.

What is stunning is that it is so blatantly obvious, in retrospect.  In the context of the social contract, it becomes crystal clear that we have been hiding from our Humanity all along.  

Of course, a sentient race was certain to stumble across the glaring gap in the social contract, sooner or later.  It just emphasizes how delusional we have made ourselves due to the subject of sex.  

   Game theory, with regard to the social contract and coitus, comes to mind, as well.  Only a win-win situation works best.  Duh.  That may well define any social contract.  Equals in all ways.

The social contract will never be complete until the human race (not this or that individual) shares without restraint at the most intimate level possible.  In fact, I think I could go so far as to say that the social contract is loving coitus.  Without it, there might as well not be a social contract.  No social contract can ever work without it.  Marriage is a sham.  Single life with lots of sex, in whatever form that works, may be best but, then...  No one can agree on the fine print of the social contract as long as coitus doesn't work as a sentient being damn well knows it should.  It is just so much gibberish without the human enactment of coitus.  Sex of any kind is not enough until the first, most important form of sex is available as a fulfilled form of love.  

It breaks both genders.  The most high functioning of both genders do their best to contain their rage amidst the missing element of their sentient existence.  Those that have accepted the reality of an animal will drudge along and make a mess of things.  Making it animal-like has nothing to do with sex other than it is the origin of the animal-like behaviour.   The human social contract requires more and men have not been willing to make up the difference in many cases.

One could say that is what the battle between the sexes has really always been all about.  Finding some way to make the playing field equal.  All of the brouhaha regarding sex has always been about the social contract.  We just never admitted it.  We never could commit to the single necessity because ... well, if I go there, I will rant.  You should know by now.  

Basically, let's say our past is littered with mistakes and assumptions in the absence of consideration of the most important act of life.  The blindspot that continues to wreck any chance at achieving an equally shared, sentient existence.  Coitus must be more for a sentient race.  Doing it only to make babies is a distortion of a sentient existence as long as it persists.

Instead of a social contract that works for all, we are told to pick sides.  Pick some delusional banner to cling to.  That might have been my first clue (not saying it was).  Whenever I was told to pick a side, I could always see both points of view.  No existing argument, no side, ever made that much sense.

Anytime I was pressured into picking a side, I would aver.  Because there should be no sides.  

First clue.  As long as we are required to pick sides, there is something seriously wrong.  I considered qualifying that statement a little but I'm not sure, it may be a blanket statement.