Posit this: a group of elites has managed to construct a society of humans where, instead of humans coming together to protect one another from suffering, humans use social structures to rationalize neglecting one another. Those individuals who "win," within the rules of the society, have a lot of stuff. Those who lose can not only have no stuff; they can also have negative stuff, and be indebted to others for years in the future.
E.g., the current world economy. Zero sum games stacked on top of one another. Society where, even outside of war, if you run out of food, medical care or shelter, you are badly harmed or die, because everyone else knows that, if they themselves contribute to your well-being, nothing guarantees that they will be so taken care of if they're the one down on their luck that day.
Hoarding (individual "saving") is encouraged, and in fact, becomes a "healthy" behavior. Individuals accumulate far more than they need, because they know that, if they run out of resources, they're the hobo fighting for a spot on the floor of the YMCA basketball court nearest the bathroom. There is never too much to own, because you're playing against death.
That works pretty well, in a Machiavellian sense. People trade currency for resources, and hundreds of years of clusterfuck D&D-style overcomplicated concepts of legal ownership and financial economy keep the game well enough rigged that most people spend their lives striving against their fellow humans to be a little higher on the hill. They're fighting one another so hard there's often no time--or motivation--to ask the questions, "Why are we on this hill?" or "Is there a better way?" After all, that would be, depending on the century, "ungodly" or "red" or "unrealistic."
But there's one major problem that keeps popping up to threaten the grift: humans are sexually reproductive beings. Millions of years of development led to the persistent birthing of humans with different types of genitalia and brain chemistry who seem to naturally want one another's company--and want it a lot, almost as if it's the driving force of their entire existence.
This is bad for the system. When people want something so badly that they're willing to disregard artificial things like "reputation" and "moral codes" and "law" and "money" to get it, that's a chaotic passion--a beautiful swirl of life resisting antilife that can lead to unintended consequences. For example: forming meaningful intimate relationships with more than one person; marrying someone in a lower caste, of a different race, from a different country, etc., just because he's so handsome your loins or heart drive you forward; feeling pity for a beautiful, dead child, and asking the forbidden question-- "What if s/he grew up and could have been a friend to me or my child? Maybe dropping bombs isn't such a good idea. Maybe it doesn't just hurt 'other people,' but also me and all of us."
And that stuff's bad. When people look for love, life and meaning outside of things like exclusive marriage, restricted ("straight") sexuality, and the linking and severing of divorce court, it could lead to breaking the system.
Pretend we're the elites--how can we stop that? Well, the obvious first is to use it. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. So elites like to throw up a lot of flak between people. For example, complicated moral, religious or legal codes that try to limit love and sexuality. This kind of sex is right, this kind is wrong.
By hammering into little kids from birth that they shouldn't be a "slut" (girl) or a "patriarchal asshole" (boy), we instill a fear of their own sexual desires that leads to a lifetime of repression. Yeah, Catholic priests and the guy in American Beauty have wacky, repressed explosions that result in awful violence. Most people get that, now--on some level, they understand that repression doesn't work. The repression they can see. But like the old driver's manual maxim "the car you don't see is the most dangerous," the repression that most people don't see is the unquestioned assumptions. For some, it's that "marriage" or "commitment" is good, and "cheating" is bad. For others, it's "being straight" that's good, and "being gay" that's "unnatural" or wrong on some other level. "Public health"? Choose your repression.
We'll stay away from the really deadly elephant right now, but one almost as stridently at issue is the ability of women (generally not people; just women) to buy and sell their company as commodities on the economic market.
Continued in Part 2.