Wayne
15-02-2013, 12:57 PM
From today's SMH. Interesting stuff.
“Today’s young men spend their young adulthood having abundant sex with multiple partners, and that seems to us to be an exceptionally poor preparation for a lifetime of sexual starvation.”
That is an extract from a Florida State University paper presented by researchers in the journal Society issued in October last year.
I’m not sure what’s more surprising; the doom forecast or the fact it was issued in October last year and not 1953.
And before we get into whether you agree or disagree with the general thrust of the argument perhaps a little context is necessary, and a brief overview of sexual economics theory is probably advisable.
(Theory first) The basic principle of sexual economics is this: There exists a sexual marketplace where people meet to trade what they have for what they want (sex).
Traditionally, men come to the market offering power, status and wealth in exchange for sex, and women come to market with little more than their bodies and their consent.
In other words, men have everything except the one thing they really want, and women have nothing, except the one thing men want; sex.
And so they trade, and so sex is got, and so the world makes sense again. Now, I love economics, and I appreciate this market scenario is reflected in reality.
But it’s far too simple to be true, and far too offensive to men and women to be right.
We all know sexual exchanges are actually far more complicated, and we know that sex isn’t something that has a standard, universal value.
What (mostly male) sexual economic theorists tend to overlook, for example, is that women don’t definitively hate sex, men don’t definitively crave sex, and men and women don’t necessarily want to have sex with each other.
(Right, now that’s sorted).
What’s interesting about this article is how the authors have used sexual economic theory to try and understand the ‘modern’ marketplace.
They seem to say great social revolution (ie the wacko war waged by them wymynist types) has basically destroyed the sex-trade system which had worked so well (for men) in favour of women (she devils!).
To wit, women now have power, status and money to trade as well as sex, and because women are reticent to ‘give up’ sex, they’re far less likely to even entertain the idea of exchanging with men in the first place. Or for the most part of their lives at least – as the opening quote suggests, the authors do allow for some sexual desire to exist in both men and women while they’re young...
But here’s the funny thing.
According to the paper, young men trading in the sex market today are particularly advantaged – possibly even more so than they were before feminism came along and menstruated all over the party.
This is because blokes used to have to throw marriage and security into the bargain before a lady would agree to be shagged.
Now, because of ‘equality’ women can win their own bread, so they’re less likely to demand a ring before a fling.
To quote: “..even a man with dismal career prospects (e.g., having dropped out of high school) can find a nice assortment of young women to share his bed.
“So maybe the young men don’t care that much about how the major social institutions in the world of work have become increasingly rigged to favor women.
"Sex has become free and easy. This is today’s version of the opiate of the (male) masses.”
And to how the authors arrive at the idea young men are doomed to lifetime of sexual starvation: “The female contribution of sex to the marriage is evanescent: As women age, they lose their sexual appeal much faster than men lose their status and resources, and some alarming evidence even indicates that wives rather quickly lose their desire for sex (Arndt 2009).
"To sustain a marriage across multiple decades, many husbands must accommodate to the reality of having to contribute work and other resources to a wife whose contribution of sex dwindles sharply in both quantity and quality — and who also may disapprove sharply of him seeking satisfaction in alternative outlets such as prostitution, pornography, and extramarital dalliance.”
Ooooookaaaaay... So. I’m not interested in getting on a high horse bedecked in ranty-panties – because I’m sick of shouty angst for a start – but I am interested in reading your reactions the ideas presented above.
Do you accept the premise of sexual economic theory, either it’s older or slightly updated (but seemingly backwards) version?
Or do you disagree? Do you, like me, reject the idea men prioritise sex drastically more than women, who are naturally strongly opposed to sex and especially sex with the man they love so much they’ve decided to wed, that married men and women are doomed to a lifetime of woe, and it’s only going to get worse the more egalitarianism strangles the world...?
“Today’s young men spend their young adulthood having abundant sex with multiple partners, and that seems to us to be an exceptionally poor preparation for a lifetime of sexual starvation.”
That is an extract from a Florida State University paper presented by researchers in the journal Society issued in October last year.
I’m not sure what’s more surprising; the doom forecast or the fact it was issued in October last year and not 1953.
And before we get into whether you agree or disagree with the general thrust of the argument perhaps a little context is necessary, and a brief overview of sexual economics theory is probably advisable.
(Theory first) The basic principle of sexual economics is this: There exists a sexual marketplace where people meet to trade what they have for what they want (sex).
Traditionally, men come to the market offering power, status and wealth in exchange for sex, and women come to market with little more than their bodies and their consent.
In other words, men have everything except the one thing they really want, and women have nothing, except the one thing men want; sex.
And so they trade, and so sex is got, and so the world makes sense again. Now, I love economics, and I appreciate this market scenario is reflected in reality.
But it’s far too simple to be true, and far too offensive to men and women to be right.
We all know sexual exchanges are actually far more complicated, and we know that sex isn’t something that has a standard, universal value.
What (mostly male) sexual economic theorists tend to overlook, for example, is that women don’t definitively hate sex, men don’t definitively crave sex, and men and women don’t necessarily want to have sex with each other.
(Right, now that’s sorted).
What’s interesting about this article is how the authors have used sexual economic theory to try and understand the ‘modern’ marketplace.
They seem to say great social revolution (ie the wacko war waged by them wymynist types) has basically destroyed the sex-trade system which had worked so well (for men) in favour of women (she devils!).
To wit, women now have power, status and money to trade as well as sex, and because women are reticent to ‘give up’ sex, they’re far less likely to even entertain the idea of exchanging with men in the first place. Or for the most part of their lives at least – as the opening quote suggests, the authors do allow for some sexual desire to exist in both men and women while they’re young...
But here’s the funny thing.
According to the paper, young men trading in the sex market today are particularly advantaged – possibly even more so than they were before feminism came along and menstruated all over the party.
This is because blokes used to have to throw marriage and security into the bargain before a lady would agree to be shagged.
Now, because of ‘equality’ women can win their own bread, so they’re less likely to demand a ring before a fling.
To quote: “..even a man with dismal career prospects (e.g., having dropped out of high school) can find a nice assortment of young women to share his bed.
“So maybe the young men don’t care that much about how the major social institutions in the world of work have become increasingly rigged to favor women.
"Sex has become free and easy. This is today’s version of the opiate of the (male) masses.”
And to how the authors arrive at the idea young men are doomed to lifetime of sexual starvation: “The female contribution of sex to the marriage is evanescent: As women age, they lose their sexual appeal much faster than men lose their status and resources, and some alarming evidence even indicates that wives rather quickly lose their desire for sex (Arndt 2009).
"To sustain a marriage across multiple decades, many husbands must accommodate to the reality of having to contribute work and other resources to a wife whose contribution of sex dwindles sharply in both quantity and quality — and who also may disapprove sharply of him seeking satisfaction in alternative outlets such as prostitution, pornography, and extramarital dalliance.”
Ooooookaaaaay... So. I’m not interested in getting on a high horse bedecked in ranty-panties – because I’m sick of shouty angst for a start – but I am interested in reading your reactions the ideas presented above.
Do you accept the premise of sexual economic theory, either it’s older or slightly updated (but seemingly backwards) version?
Or do you disagree? Do you, like me, reject the idea men prioritise sex drastically more than women, who are naturally strongly opposed to sex and especially sex with the man they love so much they’ve decided to wed, that married men and women are doomed to a lifetime of woe, and it’s only going to get worse the more egalitarianism strangles the world...?