Elias is useful for understanding the current evolution of gender relations for mainly three reasons. From the end of the 1960s, has taken place a kind of generalized “don’t touch!”, a growing resistance to any hold on the body or to forced physical proximity in any relationship where there is an imbalance of power. One can always make a claim on the body of the Other in that case, but only if one “asks”. This shift in the threshold of sensitivity to physical control in those situations is what I have called a “crisis” of “close domination” (“domination rapprochée”). This particular accentuation in the process of individuation has obviously affected the status of women both as sexual objects and as procreative bodies, but also as managers of authority relationships. In the more specific area of procreation, moreover, the history of gender relations was recently marked too by the succession of two regimes of feminine self-control. The first regime—a remarkable rationalization since the 1960s of women’s relation to the biological at the beginning of life—could be analyzed by Elias as an expression of the emergence of a procreative “second nature”, a rather severe self-control of impulses and desires in maternity matters. The second type of self-control could be theorized by Cas Wouters, as a passage, in the 1990s, to a less rigid, less demanding procreative “third nature”, leaving room for improvisation and adaptation. Here, it’s the hold of “civilization” over the biological whose profound modification is at stake.