Le couple platonique amicale est-il la solution ?

The video discusses the views of a radical feminist, Manon de Maudice, on the nature of relationships and couples. The speaker expresses surprise at how radical feminist ideas have evolved, presenting a viewpoint that challenges conventional notions of romantic partnerships. A central argument presented is that sexuality is not the foundation of a couple. According to this perspective, many women mistakenly believe sexual compatibility is paramount, leading to self-imposed pressure and guilt. The feminist argues that the basis of a couple for women is not sexuality because sexuality is secondary. This is attributed to an "asymmetry of desire," where women reportedly have significantly less desire and libido compared to men. The speaker suggests that women project their own lower desire onto men, which is a misinterpretation. The idea that sex is the core of a relationship is described as a construct used by men and the patriarchy to subjugate women. The transcript then delves into a critique of this idea, suggesting that men who believe their bodies have needs and desires for sexual intercourse are actually mistaken, being victims of patriarchal indoctrination. The assertion is made that men's perceived desire for sex is an illusion, and their "little bird" (a euphemism for their penis) is lying to them, as they are victims of the patriarchy. The conclusion drawn is that men should become "deconstructed feminist men" to respect women. The speaker then outlines what a "deconstructed feminist man" should do, citing the previous feminist's ideas. This involves the man consistently paying for things for women and putting them in their names. Examples include paying for small restaurant outings and doing dishes occasionally to "help" the woman. This act of constant payment is presented as the way to respect women, with the understanding that the man receives "nothing" in return. This second feminist perspective reportedly suggests no sex and nothing in exchange, while the man still has the duty of fidelity. The speaker expresses concern for men in France, noting the radicalization of these ideas. The transcript reiterates the idea that being made to believe that a couple cannot exist without sex leads to men feeling guilty, forcing themselves into sexual activity, and fearing their partners will seek intimacy elsewhere. However, it is argued that the foundation of a couple is not sex but something "much more popular" and profound. The speaker then positions themselves as someone against couples, advocating for happy celibacy and solitude, stating that "there is no happy couple." According to this feminist viewpoint, a healthy couple is not based on sex, implying an abstinent relationship. Previously, it was suggested that the foundation should be money – men paying for a "healthy couple." Now, the argument shifts to something else: friendship, trust, and the solidity of the bond. This means a couple is essentially a friendship, and one's life partner is their friend. The speaker finds this concept difficult to grasp, noting that people have many friends without being in a couple with them. The speaker asserts that in a classic monogamous couple, sex is the only exclusive activity. Other activities like going to the cinema or playing badminton can be shared with a partner and with others. However, the feminist perspective denies this, stating that a couple is just friends who don't have sexual relations and are happy because of trust. The implication is that the woman expects a man to remain faithful without sexual relations, hoping his libido might awaken someday. This is framed as a sacrifice of sexual life for the sake of friendship. The video then touches upon the idea that 100% of couples experience sexual deserts. While the speaker agrees with this premise, they draw different conclusions. The feminist believes the couple must function on something else, like friendship, and that infidelity is not allowed. The speaker argues that the reason for sexual deserts is the asymmetry of desire, with women having less desire and men needing novelty and diversity, leading them to seek intimacy elsewhere. This, the speaker contends, is why couples cannot function. The transcript then discusses how sex fluctuates due to pregnancy, fatigue, life problems, and stress. The question is posed: yet, the couple endures, right? The response is a firm no. The problems mentioned are attributed to women's lack of libido, but the male perspective is also introduced: the "effect Kouic" (likely a slang term for male sexual drive) and women aging and becoming unattractive, leading men to desire other women. The feminist argument that the couple endures is refuted, with statistics on divorce and single people cited as evidence that couples do not last. The majority of women are single, and many men accept their situations due to a lack of perceived alternatives, hoping for at least some sexual satisfaction. The belief that sex is the basis of a couple is seen as putting pressure on women to force desire, but the speaker argues it's also problematic for men. The transcript highlights that the woman may not desire sex, and the man may no longer desire it with his partner, or he may desire it with others. This is presented as not symmetrical. The speaker criticizes the idea that men and women should not feel pressure, asserting that the situation is not equivalent. A woman might be content with her cat, while a man's desire "must come out at some point." The transcript then humorously suggests that a man who "doesn't hold up" and has no desire for his wife is so because she is unattractive and he wants to see someone else. The speaker expresses a lack of understanding as to how a man could have desire for such a woman, inviting comments. The idea that feeling inadequate because one doesn't perform sexually is dangerous is mentioned. The core argument is reiterated: the basis of a couple is not sex but friendship, the ability to understand each other. However, the speaker questions this, stating that friendship is not exclusive and one doesn't need to be in a couple to have friends. Furthermore, if a couple were solely based on friendship, it would have no reason to exist. Activities like having fun or supporting each other are cited. The phrase "hand in hand, no matter what" is interpreted as suffering together. The feminist perspective suggests mutual support, including financial support, leading to the conclusion that the man should pay. The idea that sexuality can return when friendship is present is mentioned, but framed as mere hope. The feminist acknowledges that 100% of couples experience a decline in sexual desire, but suggests that with friendship, kindness, gentleness, and understanding, it might return. However, the speaker expresses a lack of desire to wait for this to happen. The ideal for men is presented as the ability to instantly have a beautiful, desirable woman appear, and this is achievable outside of a couple. The transcript concludes by stating that even with good sexuality, there will be no more couples. While sexuality nourishes a couple and is a useful ingredient, it is friendship that makes a couple last. The speaker dismisses the feminist's attempt to elevate friendship over sexuality, calling it a joke. The speaker's personal reasoning is that the couple is dead, and radical Western feminist ideology is undesirable. The video ends with an invitation for viewers to share their thoughts in the comments and to send more feminist content for analysis.