Consent - An Ethical/Moral Dilemma

Since we're on the crazy train of ideas, let me pitch one at you, the reader that may seem odd or disconcerting (I used a pic of Wendy McElroy for shits and giggles and you'll see why in a bit).

Since the formation of America, there's always been one thing that defines us under the constitution, that "All Men Are Created Equal", over time, this started to include religious minorities, racial minorities, and women. Now think for a minute, since this precept began and ended where we are, what would have happened if we took a different path?

Well, for starters, we'd probably not be in the mess we currently are in, and things would be situated much like what the Roman Republic once had. What I'm proposing is that, according to the philosophy of men such as Plato and Aristotle, that they are different classes of people, that each benefit the one below it, save for the lowest class of beings, such as slaves or the homeless. Now as an ardent third positionist, I will leave out economic class as I believe that if everyone sought out their own selfish desires society would be in disarray but what about social class? like if Men were at the top, women next, then children, then workers, then the other assorted riff raff and let's include animals as a wild card as they are a part of God's creation, since I believe all morals descend from him, via the family that raises you to become who you are, hence morals are a part of a greater social fabric that encompasses the morals of your given tribe, family or ancestral line as well and how they are developed (in a Nietzschean fashion) through genealogy and fitted for the given circumstances of your greater social situation. 

Lets talk about consent, yes, this is about to get nuts.

If society were arranged in such a way through the idea of social class proposed by the ancient Greeks then everyone would seek the advantage of that position in society to advance the community toward greater ends. Now I'm no consequentialist, but the intent must be pure of heart as well, good intentions make for good consequences. For ages, say, since the breakdown of traditional families, women have sought to define their relationships they have with men on THEIR terms. What if, men, ultimately decided to define those relationships for themselves? Now the most knee jerk reaction would be "Good God! That's Rape!" But let me stop you there, don't you think its beneficial to society that men set their limits on what goes on between them and their inferiors, besides things such as economic voluntarism? aside from the economic democracy of said system, it bears a lot in common with how things were traditionally arranged between men and women, such as how the father decides when and who a woman is in a relationship with his daughter. Why would we not extend this to all men, provided that there is no "hoarding of women" and every man gets a woman of his social class? besides, there are enough, more than enough women to go around for every man, and this can even extent towards women and their children. Shouldn't a mother be able to decide what their children can and cannot do? "But of course" you would say, without hesitation. So what's wrong with the men of society doing what they choose to do with the women of their society if we believe in natural hierarchy? both systems can co-exist with one another in the greater social context, and nothing would be wrong about it. Its how its been for centuries and should continue as such.

What about the wild cards? Slaves and beasts of burden? 

Well, society should be able to use them to their advantage for society as well, since they fall below even the youngest of children bred within the society as they are commonly outsourced for labor. However since we are working on intention and not consequence here, we should treat them with a due amount of respect because if we did not, they would rebel like any other and overthrow the state. So we must treat them with just enough respect to keep them happy and never overworked, and always treat them as we would treat our families and never hurt them as it would cause rebellions toward our kinfolk and that would be our undoing. Now you're thinking, "Well we don't have slaves in modern society" in a way we do, look at how much outsourced labor we have in the call center department. These are not natives, but we treat "outsourced labor" like capitalist commodities in an exploitative employer/employee relationship. Labor should be held in common with them but they shouldn't also reside in our country, but rather live outside its bounds, just without the exploitation of capitalist institutions, but rather collectives softly directed by our state powers but never within city limits, always existing as an outside source of labor power.

But getting back to the central argument at hand

If we switched from female choice to male choice, I think there would be a lot less incels, don't you think? 

                                                                                                                    J./Adolf Stalin