Originally, a woman devoted her life, body, and mind to the clan or family. The respect she had for the leader was such that nothing else could get leverage on her, where even death was to be preferred over betraying her clan’s orders. The men would have a similar loyalty to their women, in the form of risking their life to protect them. So the women were said to bite their tongues out and drown in the blood if captured for nefarious purposes by enemies (sort of like the Romans did when captured) and the men would risk their lives to protect them from external enemies. Blood, honor, and authority.

This kind of society is very difficult to subvert by strangers or foreigners. Which is why the Left had to change some things.

Instead of a woman having most of her loyalty and authority taken up by her partner, the man, they fragment the loyalty so that women can feel just as much obedience to a male Democrat as they can to their fathers, brothers, lovers, etc. It distributes the emotions by fragmenting the relationship.

This makes men and women easier to mentally dominate using lower order techniques.

Most people think the issue is about some kind of consent or relationship quality. That is not the point of the Left’s black ops and propaganda.

It’s difficult to separate the art from one’s culture, and it is the culture that dominates civic awareness, not so much the laws. For example, if an invading force destroyed the rule of law, the culture would still exist to resist the invaders and their laws. It’s not about the rule of law but the rule of the culture.

Western culture has been destroyed from the inside out.

Art is the heart of one’s culture and the education centers for children are the mind. With both destroyed, a weak non existent spine cannot hold up the roof.

I’d say deconstructed: Art of the Painless Coup.

There’ll be a reaction. Hopefully it won’t go the way of the White Russians ….

They have been indoctrinated into feeling what they think they should feel and not feeling what they think they should not feel about it.

There is a very popular sex-advice columnist, Dan Savage (who himself is gay), who advocates the idea that infidelity should be an agreed-on part of heterosexual marriage more often. See this and especially this. As I said, he is very popular (especially with young adults) and I think his writings may have some influence. I also think it’s an example of trying to bring an attitude more common in the male gay community into the mainstream.