>>509419395It's even worse than that, since the asymmetry in moral accountability means the burden to initiate shouldn't even be equal, it should primarily lie with women.
If a man makes a wanted move then great.
If a woman makes a wanted move then great.
This is equal.
If a man makes an unwanted move he's a creep, rapist, etc => people get hurt.
If a woman makes an unwanted move no man is going to be offended, they'll be flattered, it will boost their confidence etc => nobody gets hurt.
This is not equal.
Nothing can go wrong when a woman makes the move, therefore the burden of making the move should lie with the woman because this avoids the possibility of people getting hurt. The problem is women don't do this because of their biology. They need men to make the move because their sexual psychology isn't geared around love, it's geared around separating the wheat from the chaff, and thus they want men to put themselves at risk of hurting themselves and others as a kind of test-of-fitness. When you take feminist morality and combine it with female nature you make it impossible to achieve the optimal outcome where people behave in the manner in which it's guaranteed that nobody gets hurt. Under feminist morality the nobody-gets-hurt option is the one where women make the move, but female psychology always wants the men to make the move to prove their fitness, so K-selected men just get stuck in this awkward position where being moral means being unfit and where being fit means being immoral, while r-selected men don't care and just put their dicks in everything. This r/K asymmetry is why the middle class is experiencing a fertility crisis while the ultra-rich and ultra-poor are shitting out kids constantly.
The rich are mostly K-selected in a K-selecting environment => they can breed.
The middle class are mostly K-selected in an r-selecting environment => they can't breed.
The poor are mostly r-selected in an r-selecting environment => they can breed.