Feminism Produced Price Drop for Sex, Price Hike for Commitment

August 10, 2011

The blogging gods continue to smile on Hooking Up Smart as a new study delves more deeply into the reality of sexual economics. Well-known social psychologist Roy Baumeister presented “Sexual Economics: A Research-Based Theory of Sexual Interactions, or Why the Man Buys Dinner,” at the recent annual meeting of the American Psychological Association.

Baumeister has been studying sexual economics for some time; he published Sexual Economics: Sex as Female Resource for Social Exchange in Heterosexual Interactions in 2004.

His recent study shows that “there’s more sex in countries with higher gender equality than in those with less.” That translates to: feminism encourages casual sex. No surprise there. What is more interesting is the effect of casual sex on the “price” of sex.

“Baumeister, a psychologist, explained how applying economic principles helps understand people’s sexual decision-making, especially when they’re just beginning a relationship.

“Women’s sexuality has a kind of value that men’s sexuality does not,” he says. “Men will basically exchange other resources with women to have sex, but the reverse doesn’t work. Women … can trade sex for attention, for grades, for a promotion, for money, as in prostitution or sex with a celebrity.”

The idea, he says, is that men want sex more than women do (on average) and that sex in a relationship begins when women decide it’s time. Supply and demand rule, so whichever sex is more scarce has more power.”

Factors Influencing Sexual Exchange (Baumeister, 2004)

Preconditions of market exchange:

  • In general, men want sex more than women want sex.
  • In general, men have resources women want.
  • Women are free to make sexual decisions.
  • The man and woman live in a culture in which information about others’ sexual activities is known or hinted about, so that each person knows the current market price.

 Individual Factors

Effect on Price of Sex

Woman’s age is past young adulthood

Lowers
Woman is unattractiveLowers
Other women also want the man (competition)Lowers
Woman has high sex driveLowers
Man has much higher status than the womanLowers
Woman lacks alternate access to resourcesLowers

Woman has had many prior sexual partners or has the reputation of having had many sex partners

Lowers
Woman is attractiveRaises
Woman is in young adulthoodRaises
Woman wears sexy clothingRaises
Other men also want the woman (competition)Raises
Man has high sex driveRaises
Woman has had few or no prior sexual partners, or has the reputation of having few or no sex partnersRaises

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Market factors

Effect on Price of Sex 

Larger pool of women than men (supply exceeds demand)Lowers
Permissive sexual norms (low market price)Lowers
Men have easy access to pornography or prostitutes (low-cost substitutes)Lowers
Larger pool of men than women (demand exceeds supply)Raises
Female collusion to restrict men’s sexual access to women (monopolistic manipulation)Raises
Men have few opportunities for sexual satisfactionRaises

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“His new research, published in The Journal of Social Psychology earlier this summer, used two data sets on 37 countries, including an international online sex survey of 317,000 people and data specific to gender equity and related subjects. He found that countries ranked higher in gender equality also generally had more casual sex, more sex partners per capita, younger ages for first sex and greater tolerance/approval of premarital sex.

“In countries where women are at a big disadvantage, they restrain sex, so the price is high and men make a lifetime commitment to support them to get sex,” Baumeister says. “Men will do whatever is required for sex.””

Tracy Clark-Flory of Salon weighs in, straddling the tightrope she’s been walking for a while now:

“This might seem like excellent news, just one more argument in favor of equality — and it is! But it also paints a mathematical, emotionless portrait of relations between the sexes.

…The result is a world where women use sex to get what they want from men — whether it’s a free dinner or a lifetime commitment. It’s similar to an argument made by Mark Regnerus…who talked to me earlier this year about his belief that feminist advances have driven down the price of sex to an all-time low in the U.S. These are compelling theories and it’s hard to argue with the cold, hard facts that they present — but certainly economics alone can’t adequately explain the complexities and idiosyncrasies of sexual and romantic relationships.”

Of course economics can’t explain individual idiosyncratic relationships, and it’s not meant to. What it does explain is the correlation among feminism, relaxed sexual mores, and relationship commitment, which is the “price” of sex. This puts feminists in an uncomfortable bind – feminism has led to women getting less of what they want, in general. For women who proudly call themselves sluts this is not necessarily problematic, in that they don’t appear to want what most women want, i.e. emotionally intimate relationship sex. Still, it means that feminism is now relevant primarily to a very small slice of the sisterhood.

Most feminists will continue to fall back on the urgent call to reeducate men. From the ever-entertaining and muddled thinker Amanda Marcotte:

“A lot of us feminists who came up online have been promoting a model of sexuality called “enthusiastic consent”, and I think that one thing that could strengthen this is tackling the market model of heterosexuality.  Because, to put on my Twisty Faster hat, if we cast men as buyers and women as sellers, that means that women are assumed to be in a perpetual state of consent just as that gallon of milk at the store is assumed to be on sale for anyone who can cobble together the $5 to buy it.  As long as the market model of heterosexuality is in play, the notion that sex should be a mutual exchange between two individuals will not make so much sense to people. 

…I actually would say that my ideal is a world where everyone is kind of selling a little, but no one is cast as a buyer.  I think that people’s friendships work this way, in fact.  People shouldn’t feel entitled to have the time or affection of others, but instead should assume the responsibility of being charming enough to have people give it to them of their own free will. I do see a turn towards this in our culture somewhat, with men actually starting to think a little harder about being what women want instead of just meeting the metaphorical price tag that they are socialized to think is hanging off women.  We just have a long way to go.”

Feminists certainly do have a long way to go, and they’re never going to get there, because they cannot dictate market conditions, which reflect human biology.

  • Jonathan Manor

    Great article Susan. Feminism has widened the angle of casual sex, making actual relationships become an almost mythical idea.

  • Johnny Milfquest

    Baumeister writes:

    Women’s sexuality has a kind of value that men’s sexuality does not

    and

    Men will basically exchange other resources with women to have sex, but the reverse doesn’t work. Women … can trade sex for attention, for grades, for a promotion, for money, as in prostitution or sex with a celebrity.

    SMH. Baumeister sounds like a trick. Very Blue Pill.

  • JM

    I’m curious what your table for factors on the price of commitment would look like.

    • @JM
      Those are not my tables – they’re Roy Baumeister’s. I suspect the tables for commitment would simply be the inverse. As the price of sex goes down, the price of commitment goes up.

  • Jonny

    What a joke this “Amanda Marcotte” is. Why are they constantly trying to invent the pretense of sex? Is sex sex? Or something else?

    As long as the man convinced a woman to sleep with him, he has won the battle. The war could be something else entirely of the woman’s imagination. I suppose there’s a new lesson here for men to try out on women, but perhaps he isn’t sleeping with Amanda Marcotte.

  • tenthring

    “Feminists certainly do have a long way to go, and they’re never going to get there, because they cannot dictate market conditions, which reflect human biology.”

    Feminists can’t acknowledge that men and women are different in any but the most superficial ways. Until you get passed that feminists can’t process simple straightforward arguments like this.

    Feminism is basically about women who want to be men making women feel bad about being women. Since they imagine they are better at being men then women, they want to redefine value arrangements so that their masculine qualities are seen as more valuable then feminine qualities. At the same time they don’t want to compete with men themselves in a masculinity contest, so they try to emasculate them. Since they are confused genderless hermaphrodites they naturally resent anyone with a strong gender identity that they don’t have.

  • sandy

    “In countries where women are at a big disadvantage, they restrain sex, so the price is high and men make a lifetime commitment to support them to get sex,” Baumeister says.

    This completely ignores all other benefits that men get from traditional marriage besides sex: lifetime commitment of the wife(sexual and emotional), children (which cannot be taken away on a whim), cooking, cleaning and all other good stuff

    “Men will do whatever is required for sex.””

    This is idiotic. There is always a price ceiling for sex. How many men would die to get sex? Or pay $100K to get one-time sex? Or rape to get sex? Or go for a 60 year old woman who weighs 300 lbs? While some men might do it, the vast majority won’t do it

  • Jonny

    This is idiotic. There is always a price ceiling for sex

    This is very true, even for the desperate man.

  • Matt

    I think these are all great studies, but I wonder if there are simpler explanations for the lower “price” of sex with women. Egalitarian socities necessarily have widespread access to the pill because treating pregnancy as a choice is key to women’s equality (hence the reason, for example, that Roe v. Wade pre-dated the seminal cases establishing sex as a suspect classification). Widespread access to the pill increases the supply of potential female sexual partners. And that increase in supply led to a drop in the price.

    Men have always sought quantity over quality because the opportunity cost of having any given sexual encounter with men is relatively low. The opportunity cost for women used to be high — But now that that’s not true, women can seek quantity over quality.

    • @Matt
      I think your comment is in line with the findings in the study.

      Egalitarian socities necessarily have widespread access to the pill because treating pregnancy as a choice is key to women’s equality

      The role of the Pill in helping to bring about the Sexual Revolution is not disputed. Certainly, there would have been some relaxation in female sexual behavior to avoid pregnancy. But the Sexual Revolution went a lot farther than that – sex became something an emancipated woman should experience outside the constricting role of marriage, or even relationships. The SR could not have happened without the trifecta of the Pill, Roe and feminism.

      The opportunity cost for women used to be high — But now that that’s not true, women can seek quantity over quality.

      The cost is certainly lower in terms of pregnancy risk, and in terms of cultural pushback. It’s higher in other ways: disease, the sexual double standard remains, commitment is scarce, leading to a declining marriage rate. On balance, I believe it’s a huge loss for women.

  • Bob

    This completely ignores all other benefits that men get from traditional marriage…

    Funny how many of those other benefits are much more common, and more likely to stick around for more than a few years, in countries with less gender equality. It does raise the interesting point that when a society’s women restrict sex, there is also a smörgåsbord of side benefits offered, probably to further increase the value. Personally, I can cook and clean just fine on my own, and am young enough that kids and lifetime commitment don’t hold a lot of appeal to me, so viva le egalite.

    There is always a price ceiling for sex.

    For most men, yes. Some few either have no price ceiling, or have one so high it’s effectively nonexistent. Men have died, raped, and paid good money for it, and a proportion will continue to do so – though let’s keep in mind that those prices listed are unlikely to be the lowest prices in the market for the foreseeable future.

    Clark-Flory’s dismay is amusing. “…it’s hard to argue with the cold, hard facts…” Yes, ma’am, it is. That’s why you will predictably choose to ignore them, to rationalize them away and continue doing what you’ve always done, and continue getting what you’ve always gotten. A quick Google search didn’t show any husband or long-term boyfriend, only that she wrote “In Defense of Casual Sex,” so I can only assume she’s either a sex-pozzie or pretends to be one.

    I’m not quite grasping Marcotte’s logic. If a woman is a seller, then how is she always in a state of consent? A product for sale cannot be taken unless the price is met; even (especially?) a sex-pozzie has a price, even if it’s just the right words spoken in the right way at the right time (and by the right Alpha). The milk really is for sale for anyone who can cobble together the five bucks; it’s just a matter of what that money represents in the somewhat-strained metaphor. Frankly, I’m not going to take sex-pozzies seriously until sluts start putting out for lonely nerds in larger numbers. Until then they’re just self-deluding Alpha-chasers, not truly trying to make society more sexually liberated.

    • @Bob

      A quick Google search didn’t show any husband or long-term boyfriend, only that she wrote “In Defense of Casual Sex,” so I can only assume she’s either a sex-pozzie or pretends to be one.

      In the Defense of Sex article, IIRC, she wrote about a partner who was loving the casual arrangement, and she was feeling good about it too, i.e. sex positive. She has since written about the end of that relationship, which disillusioned her quite a bit. I got the impression he kept her in the “sex pile” rather than move her to the “commitment pile” but I could be wrong about that. In any case, that seems to have marked a turning point in her writing – she’s still a feminist, but she has some reservations about the hookup culture. Interestingly, and predictably, her writing has come under fire recently from Marcotte et al.

      I’m not quite grasping Marcotte’s logic

      I never can – she is obtuse. Hence the muddled thinker label.

  • Doug1

    The headline of this post and the opening paragraphs talk about feminism driving up the cost of commitment (marriage) as well as lowering the cost of sex. Then the entire rest of the article other than one graph at the top focused exclusively on feminism’s driving down the cost of extramarital sex.

    One of the main ways that feminism has driven up the cost of commitment is by driving way up the cost of divorce to men, and hence the financial risks of marriage.

    Feminists drove up to sky high levels the cost of child support=also stealth alimony in the late 80s and also early nineties. Soft (cultural) Marxist 2nd wave feminists brought in the concept that marriage should always be viewed as an equal economic partnership regardless of the actual contributions of the woman in the 1970, giving her rights to half his wealth or at least half his wealth earned entirely by him in the marriage, no matter how great. Feminists in the 90s even started to quietly but effectively lobby to breing back lifetime alimony in the case of long marriages lasting 10 years or more, after initially claiming in their bid for legitimacy in the late 60s and 70s that they foresaw a time when alimony should not be paid since both genders could work equally in the marketplace. Further in the ever increasingly misandrous atmosphere of American culture fostered by feminists in the media and intelligencia, rape and domestic “violence” hysteria, and lobbying of the divorce industry, feminists have pushed “family” courts to be ever more biased against men. Men are guilty there until proven innocent, while the reverse is true for women, and the level of proof against them must be high.

    • @Doug1

      Then the entire rest of the article other than one graph at the top focused exclusively on feminism’s driving down the cost of extramarital sex.

      Point taken. It’s the sex-positive feminist media that has responded to the study, which did indeed highlight the decreasing cost of premarital sex. I have no doubt that many men consider the financial and personal risks of marriage as well. The declining marriage rate is surely a function of all of these factors, all of which were introduced or exacerbated by feminism.

      It would be great if some mainstream media types would address this from the male perspective. Why aren’t conservative male bloggers taking this up?

  • Doug1

    I love this blog but hate this website.

    It’s the slowest one by far that I regularly visit. The time to complete posting any comment most of the time is LONGGGGGGGG. The time to refresh for new comments is as well. Move to a different server? The blog software?

    • @Doug1

      It’s the slowest one by far that I regularly visit. The time to complete posting any comment most of the time is LONGGGGGGGG. The time to refresh for new comments is as well. Move to a different server? The blog software?

      Really? That’s bad news. I’ll investigate, thanks for letting me know. Believe it or not, you’re the first person to say so.

  • Tom

    Widespread access to the pill increases the supply of potential female sexual partners. And that increase in supply led to a drop in the price.
    _____________________
    great post……

  • Abbot

    Most feminists will continue to fall back on the urgent call to reeducate men.
    .
    Because sex is the only issue for feminists that actually requires “having” to deal directly with men. But they are not used to that tactic. Thus the protests, lobbying, ranting, article writing..and on an on. Feminists can’t go to their daddy government and demand some type of legislation to make it fair. They can’t go invade human resource departments at large corporations to inject their brand of social Marxism to squash this one.

  • I wonder what the male birth control pill will do to the cost of commitment?

  • Abbot

    Widespread access to the pill increases the supply of potential female sexual partners. And that increase in supply led to a drop in the price.
    .
    for the 15% of men who are fucking nearly all of them. But it led to a heavy price for the men who they will later grovel to for marriage, begging them for forgiveness for their pill induced unwifely ways.

  • Second person here comment of the slowness and choppiness of how the site loads. Frankly, it’s pretty bad. If it weren’t for the superb content, I wouldn’t visit here very much.

  • Abbot

    they’re just self-deluding Alpha-chasers, not truly trying to make society more sexually liberated.
    .
    Yes, self serving and raised by failed parents. They are liars who collectively wave the banner of liberation. Hollow souls who deride the fact that they occasionally need men to get them off sexually and then denigrate the same and other men who shun them for their prolific devaluation of what is considered a high value deep intimate act. That sums it up and dismisses them for what they are. The only thing that is sex positive is sexual value and therefore they are not sex positive at all. They are, however, asshole positive or ass pozzy.

  • Matt C

    Maybe you do need to do more moderating. This thread makes it firmly look like your blog has been hijacked by the MANosphere.

    • Maybe you do need to do more moderating. This thread makes it firmly look like your blog has been hijacked by the MANosphere.

      And this from a man!

  • Matt C

    SMH. Baumeister sounds like a trick. Very Blue Pill.

    No way. I think it is true that men trade resources for sex. That is the way it has been for a loooooooooong long time. The only difference in today’s market is that the price of sex is so low that men only have to exchange status and good feelings in order to get laid.

    Also, women’s sexuality is a hell of a lot more valuable than male sexuality. Why are there women escorts who make 6 figures off of celebrities having sex with them, while a gigolo can only make some scratch off of having gay sex?

  • Matt C

    And this from a man!

    First, I apologize for trolling a little in a couple of the previous threads. I am 19-year-old guy who’s got waaaay too much time on his hands during summer break.

    Second, I think you should have a three strike rule or something with the men/feminists. You say three ridiculous things that drive young women away and you’re out!

    It’s just a suggestion. I’m only saying this because I think you are losing your main audience with all these angry men on here. Your comment section should be more for young women to discuss the current sexual market and how to sift their ways through the current problems to find a good guy to commit to them. It shouldn’t be a bunch of guys complaining about how “the current market SUX! there are too many entitled SLOOTS!” There’s the spearhead for that kind of talking.

    • @Matt C
      First, you are most welcome here. Second, I actually do want HUS to be a place where guys can learn and yes, even share/vent a little. Women too. There is a balance to be struck, and that can be kind of tricky. It varies from month to month sometimes. Long-time readers know that I’m loathe to censor or manage the conversation too directly, but when the tone gets negative and I hear complaints from readers I do listen. Thanks for the input, and yes, by all means, men who are not fond of women can head on over to a site where that’s the stock and trade.

  • GudEnuf

    Recall from Econ 101 that cartels/monopolies reduce buyer surplus more than they increase seller surplus. That is why we have anti-trust laws. Why should we encourage women to form a nookie cartel, given that such cartel would hurt men more than it helps women? What’s your problem with the free market?

    • Why should we encourage women to form a nookie cartel, given that such cartel would hurt men more than it helps women? What’s your problem with the free market?

      I don’t have one. I’m just pointing out some problems with the pricing strategy. You know, when I was consulting we only got called in when things weren’t working. The strategy wasn’t producing the desired results. If we did our job right, we left the client with a different approach that was more profitable and efficient. That’s essentially what I’m trying to do here – address the very real conditions of the SMP, which in relationship terms is in Chapter 11, and come up with some suggestions for restructuring. Of course, the marketplace assessment shows a fairly hostile environment, which means that the best possible outcome might be a form of damage control. That is, there will be isolated opportunities, but overall the outlook remains poor.

  • Dogsquat

    Matt C, I agree with your assessment.

    I like reading what smart women think about this stuff, and all I’ve got to go on is Tom.

    (apologies to SayWhaat, Jamie, Stephenie, Sandy, BF, and whomever I’ve forgotten to mention her. Also, sorry Tom.)

  • Like I said, come back from vacation and spitting fire.

  • Johnny Milfquest

    Matt C wrote:

    No way. I think it is true that men trade resources for sex. That is the way it has been for a loooooooooong long time. The only difference in today’s market is that the price of sex is so low that men only have to exchange status and good feelings in order to get laid.

    A guy who trades resources for sex is just a trick. However you slice it.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Your comment section should be more for young women to discuss the current sexual market and how to sift their ways through the current problems to find a good guy to commit to them. It shouldn’t be a bunch of guys complaining about how “the current market SUX! there are too many entitled SLOOTS!” There’s the spearhead for that kind of talking.

    And yet I like entering into dialogue with people like Sue, SayWhaat, Jamie, Stephie, and brightstormyday. I might have been bitter, angry, and resentful, but I wasn’t just looking for a place to vent. I enjoy the different points of view, and I appreciate people taking me to task for muddled thinking or unfair generalizations.

    I think the great thing about Sue’s site is the dialogue between the sexes. We’re talking about how the sexes relate to each other. Doesn’t it make sense to have people from both sides commenting?

  • the suede

    I thank you for this wonderful post which is the best I have ever read about female-male relationships.
    I think that the real reason for men lack of commitment is that he gets very little from committing and suppress his immediate sexual needs to the long term needs of the female. The gains from marriage for men has decreased a lot more than the price for casual sex.
    I think that a lot of men would be willing to marry if the laws were more on their side because I believe that many men feel that GAME is demeaning to them. But as marriage are constructed these days I do not advice my sons to get married – although I am married myself and has been a strong proponent for marriage.
    I believe that the only way to restitute marriage to day may be to deny the woman’s right to divorce once married – no matter the circumstances. I admit that this is rather harsh but I think it might be necessary – at least if not society is doing something rather quickly to motivate men to marry again.
    Something very serious is happening in society these years and the least price paid by women is the difficulties to get a man to commit. Men used to work to support their family. Most men in the future will have no family, and as a consequence they do not need to work as much as before. In fact it might be an advantage for a man not to earn so much money – as he cannot be skinned so much should he marry and should he be divorced.

    So, in feminist society men can decrease their workloads without suffering economic shortcomings as men are not supposed to support the family (I use to say that my generation of males was the last generation where males raised to believe that they should support our family and women believed that they should support themselves. At least here in Scandinavia where the divorce rules are not as anti-male biased as in US I think that today’s generations are raised knowing that it is the female who should be able to support the family and the male who only needs to support himself).

    As men who work less they will produce less and this will either force women to work more or make women poorer. As men who earn less will pay less in tax women will not be able to count on the state for support.

    There is another price to be paid by women – and which many moms are paying this very moment. The price to se your son’s sitting before the computer playing day and night, not going to school turning into a totally asocial individual.

    I think, however, that the worst aspect of feminism to women is that men may choose to separate sex and child rearing more radically than today. Many men might choose to impregnate women as sperm donators and have a vasectomy not to bother about any children coming out of having sex.

    In this situation the woman will be a breeding machine unable to decide which man should bed the father of her child. Forced to leave her child in childcare because she needs to work she will not have a life worth a human being. She will only be a breeding machine whose biological need for a child will be abused by those in power.

    And – to the disappointment of feminists: those with the power will still be men.

    • @the suede
      Welcome, and thanks for your kind words. I appreciate your leaving a comment! Although your view of the future is bleak, I don’t have much difficulty imagining it. Let’s hope it’s the worst case scenario, and that changes occur to halt the decline. The fact that studies like this one are being completed and disseminated is important – we are learning what does and doesn’t work between the sexes, and the reasons for that. Whether we can put that newfound knowledge to sensible use remains to be seen.

  • Abbot

    But attractive men still compete with other attractive men. They have not colluded together
    .
    Very lucky for casual sex women, ALL of whom service them. Collusion would not be good for them at all. Imagine the website, the pic sharing, the ratings….that would serve to ice them from the already fleeting fragile husband market altogether.

  • They have not colluded together, as Susan is recommending women do.

    No, I’m not suggesting price fixing en masse. I’m encouraging each woman to set her own price, and to explore new buyer markets. I do believe that change happens one person at a time – at some stage there may be a tipping point, which shifts the culture.

    If you’re referring to slut shaming, I never proposed a march on Washington, lol. Again, I’m talking about how women manage their own relationships, friendships and reputations. This is all happening at the micro level.

  • Abbot

    A guy who trades resources for sex is just a trick. However you slice it.
    .
    Usually its a suggestion that resources will be shared. It makes the other person feel better. Being duped is better than nothing at all.

  • Mike C

    No way. I think it is true that men trade resources for sex. That is the way it has been for a loooooooooong long time. The only difference in today’s market is that the price of sex is so low that men only have to exchange status and good feelings in order to get laid.

    @ Matt C,

    Depends on the guy. My first red pill was David DeAngelos material, and he breaks guys into two categories, Lovers and Providers. That was before I ever heard the term alpha and beta but loosely alphas are your lovers and betas your providers.

    Anyways, the “cost” of sex for providers is high. For some women, if they throw you into the provider box, they will charge a high price. You will have to exchange resources, wine and dine them, spend money, etc. before you get laid. Lovers are the men that women find immediately instinctually attractive and their cost of sex is very low. In fact, sometimes they can even charge the woman for sex. I know a woman with a live-in boyfriend. He doesn’t work, he lives there for free, she buys his groceries and buys stuff for him. But he is definitely bad-boy high status. And she is actually pretty attractive but insecure.

    Bottom line, if you want your cost of sex to be low, you have to be in the Lover category. And note to the women. I think where guys can get really angry is when they find out that you have been charging two different prices, an extremely low give-away price for one group of men while charging that guy a very high price. It makes the guy feel like he has been conned. The lesson I think is charge one price and make sure your price is transparent. Otherwise, down the road, the guy who got charged the high price is likely to get buyer’s remorse and probably sell you back into the market.

  • Matt C

    @ Matt C,

    Depends on the guy. My first red pill was David DeAngelos material, and he breaks guys into two categories, Lovers and Providers. That was before I ever heard the term alpha and beta but loosely alphas are your lovers and betas your providers.

    Anyways, the “cost” of sex for providers is high. For some women, if they throw you into the provider box, they will charge a high price. You will have to exchange resources, wine and dine them, spend money, etc. before you get laid. Lovers are the men that women find immediately instinctually attractive and their cost of sex is very low. In fact, sometimes they can even charge the woman for sex. I know a woman with a live-in boyfriend. He doesn’t work, he lives there for free, she buys his groceries and buys stuff for him. But he is definitely bad-boy high status. And she is actually pretty attractive but insecure.

    Bottom line, if you want your cost of sex to be low, you have to be in the Lover category. And note to the women. I think where guys can get really angry is when they find out that you have been charging two different prices, an extremely low give-away price for one group of men while charging that guy a very high price. It makes the guy feel like he has been conned. The lesson I think is charge one price and make sure your price is transparent. Otherwise, down the road, the guy who got charged the high price is likely to get buyer’s remorse and probably sell you back into the market.

    I disagree. I think this is true only in countries like the U.S., U.K. and Western Europe. Places where feminism is strong.

    Seriously, I have re-written what I was gonna say like five times. This is so frustrating because there are multiple perspectives on this situation and it is all circumstance based.

    In modern American society, taking provider route is the fast path to failure. In places like Eastern Europe and South America, the provider route is the ultimate way to success.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Steph,

    But that breaks the feminist fantasy market. The ideal is for them to sell low, or give for free, for the younger years to a select group of guys (highly sexually attractive men) because is fun and easy for them to do, their bodies compel them to do so and then sell the same item high for an entire different group of guys that are not “fun” so the woman has to do an effort to feel compelled to please (I wonder if there is a link in this with sexless marriages, if the guy is not providing to a satisfactory level then he doesn’t deserve more than the woman is willing to give that hence “I got headache honey for the next 10 years…” ). It seems to me that the “logic” behind is that if you are sexually attractive you deserve free sex but if you are not sexually attractive you don’t deserve free sex then you have to pay for sex with commitment, gifts, emotional support, company and so on.
    So from the POV of a young woman, she is indeed making a personal sacrifice by having sex with the guys she is not that attracted sexually event though she might be attracted to other traits. So I think the point is that promiscuous women have a different prize for sex according to the buyer.

    I mean is like you have a diamond and you know Donald Trump can pay a million bucks for it, but John Smith can pay half that and you sell accordingly because you have to fill a quota of diamonds sold by week and your profit with Donald Trump can cover for all the diamonds you have to sell cheap. There is a name for that? When you offer according to how much the buyer can afford?”

    See this is my whole issue with terms like SMP and SMV. The medium is the message. When we talk about relationships in terms of economics, we begin to think of people as commodities. Value is determined by what people can do for us.

    I think we need a new metaphor.

  • SayWhaat

    In this situation the woman will be a breeding machine unable to decide which man should bed the father of her child.

    Holy moly what kind of post-feminism SMP is this?! 😛

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Steph,

    Sure, it’s a way of understanding, but every signifier, while illuminating certain aspects of the signified, blinds us to others. I just wonder if a lot of what’s missing in relationships today (commitment, intimacy, etc…) is inherent in the language we use to understand those relationships.

    I don’t have a new metaphor yet. But I’m mulling it over.

    Is like calling Chaos Theory, the Butterfly effect. Many people understand the latter more than the former and yet both describe the same principle.

    They may describe the same principle, but the two terms influence our perspective on that principle in very different ways. Chaos suggests mayhem and disorder, while the word butterfly suggests… idk, whimsy and caprice.

  • Mike C

    I mean is like you have a diamond and you know Donald Trump can pay a million bucks for it, but John Smith can pay half that and you sell accordingly because you have to fill a quota of diamonds sold by week and your profit with Donald Trump can cover for all the diamonds you have to sell cheap. There is a name for that? When you offer according to how much the buyer can afford?

    Steph,

    You are going to force me to try and remember my economics class from MBA school. 🙂 Its been 10 years so I’m a bit rusty.

    I think the concept that fits would be that of marginal pricing or even discriminatory pricing. Airlines use this model. A Thursday night flight to Vegas for that weekend is going to cost a heck of alot more then a flight booked 4 months in advance. Two people could be sitting next to each other and one might have paid 3-4x much for the same flight.

    The other idea is that of consumer surplus:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_surplus

    Consumer surplus is the amount of value the consumer gets that is the difference in price between what was paid and what was willing to be paid. Putting this in SMP terms, women can extract different amounts of surplus from different men.

    For a highly attractive man with options, pussy is essentially a fungible commodity that has zero scarcity value. For an unattractive man with little to no options, pussy is like a rare precious metal like platinum and he must pay up.

  • Mike C

    I disagree. I think this is true only in countries like the U.S., U.K. and Western Europe. Places where feminism is strong.

    Well…I was born in the U.S. and lived my entire life in the U.S. so my perspective is U.S. based.

    In places like Eastern Europe and South America, the provider route is the ultimate way to success.

    This may be true, but not sure I’d want that type of “success”. Sure, if you go to a society or culture where women’s economic opportunities are limited, and you demonstrate wealth, that makes you “attractive”. But I would say you are still much better off trying to cultivate attractiveness from the Lover archetype then Provider to the degree possible.

  • Mike C

    Of course like in every system there were people that weren’t that happy in it but things worked for the community well and no human system is perfect. The picture was that the whole the system was functional because it was based on fulfilling both practical needs and also emotional ones.
    .
    One expression I really like is “The perfect is the enemy of the good”.

  • Mike C

    Interesting… so are feminists right? The Airlines had been doing business for decades so the model works for them, do you think it works for women too? and in the end they can indeed place whatever price they want and the majority of them will succeed?</em>
    .
    Yes, I think so, because really there is only 10-20% of men who are price-setters, the other 80-90% are price takers. The marriage rate is declining but I don’t see some massive exodus/marriage strike. 5 years from now? 10 years from now? I don’t know. My crystal ball is fuzzy. If you know tell me, and maybe I can find some contracts on marriage rates to trade 🙂 (http://intrade.com/v4/home/)

    My player co-worker and I were bullshitting about our other co-worker today who is basically just his wife’s bitch. He was telling me about “their” dog that was her idea and how it shits all over the house, and she just leaves it for him to clean up when he gets home. I think there alot of men who will put up with alot and pay a very high price to have somewhat steady access. The guys who “get this” whole thing and refuse to pay up are still a minority.

    So yes most women can charge and get what they want.

  • “No, I’m not suggesting price fixing en masse. I’m encouraging each woman to set her own price”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2niwpSKDkYQ&feature=related

    “And she is actually pretty attractive but insecure.”

    It does seem that beauty brings insecurity, but this is actually logical – someone who sees her worth in her looks and tends to them is not going to be all that secure about her worth. On other words, her insecurity is part of what motivates her to stay hot. (Also there was a six-month or so period in my life where almost every attractive woman I knew revealed she had at some point had an eating disorder.)

    This is another reason I tell guys to just game whoever they are interested in, forget about “league.” I don’t advocate preying on insecurity, that’s not really what I mean, but the point is that guys with a bit of backbone have a better shot at hot chicks than they think.

  • (Off topic; meta discussion)

    Doug1 wrote:

    I love this blog but hate this website.

    It’s the slowest one by far that I regularly visit. The time to complete posting any comment most of the time is LONGGGGGGGG. The time to refresh for new comments is as well. Move to a different server? The blog software?

    Yes, there is problem on blog entries which have lot of comment entries (say > 500).

    I guess that for new comments there is demand of javascript plugin which retrieves new comments from server without reloading whole page. That is link more comments on end of page (for example). Of course that requires support from server. I do not know if that kind plugin exists, but I have seen that on some sites.

    (There is already javascript plugin in use which allows editing already posted comments (for a moment). )

    Another what can help is splitting comment entries to several pages. I have seen that quite often on sites. Some times that breaks links to comments. That happens if comment travel between pages (because adding or deleting comment entries between). So that this does not happen, link given on time of comment (for example on August 10, 2011 at 1:20 pm) can not be just page-url#comment-53321 but instead invariant url of comment (independent of that on what page comment is).

    Just random idea.

    Time to complete posting any comment includes also reloading of page so reloading time of big comment chain is factor on here.

    Reloading of page is required here (otherwise commenting is possible only if javascript is enabled and supported.)

    • @Kari
      Thanks for the technical suggestions re comments. That gives me some ideas about how to proceed.

  • tenthring

    Perfect markets require perfect information.

    The “problems” are two fold:

    1) Young women don’t understand their own needs/desires (among other things, young people are, obviously, inexperienced).

    Young women want excitement and commitment. Alpha and beta. The problem introduced one of time and information. On the time front women have a very short window of maximum SMV (their 20s, even their early to mid 20s if you want to be strict). Many women simply do not understand this, that the time to “sell” (get commitment) is at the height of their SMV (there are other advantages, like easier and safer childbearing). Only older women, who have actually been through the aging process, understand this. That’s why until the last century the mothers of young women told them what to do, because they didn’t know better.

    The second is information. In a era of Victorian monogamy, a female six can snag a male six. But in the women’s lib era a female six can snag a male nine with enough alcohol and a low enough price. The problem here is that for women sex and commitment are closer entwined. For men they aren’t. So the six get’s a false signal along the lines of “you are a nine or can at least snag nines” when in reality she can’t. Couple this with the age factor (you used to be an eight but now you are a six) and now women are extremely confused about what kind of man she can get to commit to her. Her sex standards remain low (she puts out easier for alphas) but her commitment standards remain high (she turns down commitment offers from men she can actually get in the hope of snagging men she can’t just because they dump a fuck in her now and again).

    Now, we shouldn’t be too hard on the girl here. She is simply following her natural hypergamic urges. You can’t marry a guy you are not attracted too. I think the process is two fold. First, girls need to screw around less, because pair bonding and hypergamy control is easier the less partners you’ve had. You might say getting around gives experience, but there is a difference between experience fucking and experience in meaningful relationships. Is fucking around fun? Yes. So is drinking too much, eating too much, etc. Too much of a good thing is always bad. At least when you drink to much you get a hangover to tell you not to do it anymore. When you slut around too much you just have guys not commit to you and end up 35 with cats. There isn’t the kind of immediate negative feedback humans usually need.

    The second relates to men, so let’s jump straight to them.

    2) A large number of men don’t understand what women want.

    Part of this is that what women want has changed a lot over the last 50 years. Economic plenty from modern technology has diminished the importance of the provider role permanently. The advice your fathers give you isn’t necessarily good, it worked for them but not for you. Men need to understand new things are required of them.

    The second part is that women tell them the wrong things about what they want. They tell you they want X when they really want Y (I blame feminism). On top of that there is an entire PC culture telling them masculinity is bad, when its exactly what women actually want. And finally, women don’t understand what women want, so naturally they can’t do a good job of telling men.

    Both problems #1 and #2 are, luckily, partially solved by getting more information. Which I guess is the whole point here.

  • Susan Walsh wrote:

    Really? That’s bad news. I’ll investigate, thanks for letting me know. Believe it or not, you’re the first person to say so.

    If there is 1000 comment entries on page, then reloading of page, which is required for posting of comment, may be expensive (time consuming):
    • retrieving comments from database may take some time (page is changed so it can not be cached),
    • transferring of huge page over network may take some time, and
    • formatting of huge html page make consume couple of CPU cycles on browser.

    This is just guess. Actual analyzing may require timing of different factors and this is difficult.

  • suede wrote:

    Forced to leave her child in childcare because she needs to work she will not have a life worth a human being.

    I have impression that on Finland that happened because female work force was needed.

  • 108spirits

    I’m curious, Susan. Has any young girl you’re mentoring finally understood why men are so reluctant with commitment and marriage?

    We can debate here till the cows come home, but it’s obvious that the men already know why, while we’re sort of unsure about whether the women get it or not.

    • @108

      Has any young girl you’re mentoring finally understood why men are so reluctant with commitment and marriage?

      I think they all get it re commitment/LTRs in terms of the supply and demand equation. What I find women are completely ignorant of, and this includes women my own age, are the disincentives in the legal system that penalize men very heavily in the event of divorce. I had lunch yesterday with a 60 yo woman, and when I referred to Massachusetts alimony laws (the worst in the country, I believe) she had no idea what I was talking about. When I explained that upon remarriage a man’s income is recalculated to include the second wife’s income for alimony purposes, she was aghast. She doesn’t know because she hasn’t lived it, and no one she knows has lived it. There’s got to be a way to get this information across more effectively. I think it’s hard to get people worked up about divorce law because unless they’ve been through it or are facing it, they’re eager to believe that it would never apply to them.

  • chris

    I still prefer evo-psych and evo-bio to economics to analyse mating behaviours.

    http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/Group/BussLAB/pdffiles/Human%20Mating%20Strategies.pdf

    Also, for those who don’t like Sexual Market Place or Sexual Market Value, you can use terms inspired from evo-psych and evo-bio such as Mating/Dating Pool/Population/System and Reproductive/Mating Value/Status.

    Also, a nice evo-psych and evo-bio way to describe the current Mating System from the male perspective is one that has been developed (socially engineered) to allow/sanction the reproductive exploitation of men.

    Feminists are reproductive exploiters.

    • @Chris
      I’m a big fan of David Buss. Honestly, the evo psych and evo bio researchers are embracing sexual economics. Roy Baumeister is definitely in that group. The language is a matter of semantics – as you say, there are numerous terms that function identically.

      I get why people hate to think of relationships in economic terms, but the truth is that in every choice humans make, we weigh cost vs. benefit. We may not be thinking clearly when we “fall in love at first sight” but in the long-term, we’ll be making choices, for better or worse.

  • Feminists like Marcotte will continue staring at the truth and either denying its existence or calling for the truth to be changed, preferably by government mandate.

    Frank and Baumeister are on the right track. Now someone needs to look at government interference in the marriage market. Intuitively, we may posit that government’s redefinition of marriage has lowered men’s demand, but it would be great to see that quantified.

  • Matt M

    First, thanks to Susan for this blog. I found it through Dalrock’s and Athol Kay’s blog, a wealth of information. If only I had known this 15 years ago…

    I think the economic model is very valid, more so than some here give it credit. There’s a sense that economics is the cold province of green-visored eggheads, but people start talking about the sexual market place, and mutual transactions (see Marcotte above) without realizing these are economic terms. To re-write Ms. Marcotte’s hopelessly flawed example, women aren’t the milk, they’re the owner of the dairy. Or better yet:

    As long as the market model of heterosexuality is in play, the notion that sex should be a mutual exchange between two individuals will not make so much sense to people. (Marcotte)

    Of course, I should expect this lack of critical thinking from Ms. Marcotte. What else is the market but a mutual exchange between two people? The seller has the perfect right to charge whatever she chooses based on her motivations (hypergamy, in this case), and the buyer can meet that price or go somewhere else.

    • @Matt M
      Welcome, thanks for the support. Like so many others, I’m fascinated by behavioral economics, and I think sexual economics falls within that field. It also overlaps with other academic disciplines as I mentioned above. It’s exciting that research in this area is getting funded and receiving media attention. I think it has the potential to cause a major cultural realignment over time.

  • detinennui32

    Tracy Clark-Flory shrieks “NAWALT!” in response to applying economic models to sexual behavior.

    Amanda Marcotte says “I don’t like the market theory of sexuality; but I acknowledge a different one should be used in which there are no buyers, but only sellers. So I want people to put themselves into a different market model that benefits women only.”

    CLark-FLory: Well, of course economic theory doesn’t explain every sexual or relationship transaction. But it does explain the overall trends. It also allows for reasonable predictions. Rather than having men and women feel their way blindly around the SMP, wouldn’t it be better to have a workable model that allows the average person to predict what could happen or what is within the reasonable range of likely outcomes?

    Marcotte: So first you say you don’t like the market, then grudgingly acknowledge that there is a marketplace. It’s already the case that all are selling a little – Men sell commitment. Women sell sex.

    But at some point, someone has to make the purchase, give up to get something in return. Crassly put, men sell their commitment for regular sex at reasonable intervals, and to know that if they have kids they are his, so as to make sure he gets a return on his investment. Women “sell” sex to secure the commitment and resources. Her return on investment is financial and bodily security.

    Where we get messed up is trying to fit this basic behavior pattern into something else, something foreign. It doesn’t work and it won’t work.

  • Jack

    @ Stephanie what you’re describing is known as first degree price discrimination.

  • I think there is truth to the economic model of dating and people who ignore or deny those truths are foolish and lying to themselves.

    However I think there is MORE than just economics involved so people who try to shoehorn everything about relationships into the business model are also doing themselves a disservice.

    In my experience real relationships tend to be messier, but also more magical than that. Sometimes you have to let go what you know, trust yourself and take that leap.

    The control freak side of my personality hates it, but the passionate part of me enjoys it. Keeps me learning and growing and facing both the good and bad parts of myself and others and forces me to learn to deal with them…sometimes whether I want to or not 😉

  • Höllenhund

    Second, I think you should have a three strike rule or something with the men/feminists. You say three ridiculous things that drive young women away and you’re out!

    When young women hear the hard truths about the current SMP, many of them will probably become angry and offended. Tough sh*t, I say.

    It’s just a suggestion. I’m only saying this because I think you are losing your main audience with all these angry men on here.

    Could you point out where exactly are the “angry men” on this thread?

    Your comment section should be more for young women to discuss the current sexual market and how to sift their ways through the current problems to find a good guy to commit to them.

    Yes, because a bunch of young women talking to each other about their experiences with no male input will really improve their chances in the SMP. LOL!

    • Yes, because a bunch of young women talking to each other about their experiences with no male input will really improve their chances in the SMP. LOL!

      Ha, you’ll be happy with an upcoming guest post by Frost – Why You Don’t Have a Boyfriend: Harsh Truth Edition. As he put it, that post will be a fire hose compared to my usual drinking fountain 🙂

  • ExNewYorker

    @Susan

    Ha, you’ll be happy with an upcoming guest post by Frost – Why You Don’t Have a Boyfriend: Harsh Truth Edition.

    .
    That should be a fun read. His “AAAH” series was really good, but those who would benefit from reading the truth didn’t particularly care for it, but then again, truths aren’t usually popular. “Myths and reassuring lies are much easier to find and believe”.

  • Gisela

    You know who gets paid for having sex with men? A prostitute. So your sexual marketplace model basically turns all women into prostitutes, particularly the married wifeys you seem to admire so much. Is that what you want? Is that what you see yourself as?

    I don’t need a man to buy me dinner. I can pay for my own bloody dinner. Nor do I need a man to pay for my other expenses, cause I pay for my own. Bribery won’t make me jump into bed with a man I don’t like.

    Oh yes, and sex can actually be enjoyable for women. If you’ve never experienced that, I’d suggest a change of partner.

    Really, your model is completely flawed and you’re turning even the “good girls who hate sex” into prostitutes.

    • @Gisela

      So your sexual marketplace model basically turns all women into prostitutes

      But it’s not my marketplace model. This is the work of esteemed psychologist Roy Baumeister.

      The truth is that human beings give and get. We negotiate nearly everything in life. Our lives are filled with transactions of all kinds. Even falling in love has an element of negotiation in it. For example, I agree to take a risk, and you repay me by demonstrating I will not be disappointed.

  • Thin-Skinned Masta-Beta

    Ms. Walsh, as a student of economics, I am familiar with scarcity and supply and demand.

    I believe that you are making a big mistake lumping all women together as undifferentiated commodities. A choosy wholesome lady is hardly interchangeable with a slut.

    Can’t speak for everybody else, but this choosy fella would rather have no sex than slumming it with some yucky skank.

    If more women are sleeping around as Ms. Marcotte etc suggest, the pool of choosy chaste women has shrunk to vanishingly small.

    Not being a religious fellow, I seldom encounter any ladies who are similarly secular and modern but with a more restrained traditional attitude about sex. Don’t mistake me for asserting a right to that double standard about which all those promiscuous sluts complain. I expect no more restraint than I practice myself. I just can’t imagine getting excited about a woman, no matter how attractive, who will just give it up for just about anybody.

    So to sum it up, with the veritable extinction of of chastity, much less virginity, the value of the last remaining specimens with more traditional has just rocketed…

    • @Thin-Skinned

      I believe that you are making a big mistake lumping all women together as undifferentiated commodities.

      That is not my intention. If it was I’d have nothing to blog about – one of my objectives is to help women learn how to differentiate themselves. However, it is also true that in aggregate women are more promiscuous today. So there’s the macro, and the micro, as usual.

  • Abbot

    From the trap of Amanda Marcotte:
    .
    “Women, like men, enjoy sex. In a patriarchal system, women’s bodies are seen as objects to control, and women’s sexual desires threaten the system because women will make choices based on what they, as women want, and not what men want them to do. So women’s sexuality is systematically surpressed. Women enforce the rules because the system penalizes them for not doing so, but if women collectively stop enforcing the rules, i.e. become feminists, then the system collapses. And women, liberated from patriarchal domination of their sexuality, start having the same kind of variety of sex (casual, commited, somewhere in between) that men have always preserved for themselves alone”
    .
    In the US, how exactly is that suppression being carried out?
    .
    How is their sexuality being dominated?
    .
    With whom are these so-called non-dominated women having this “same kind of variety of sex” with? The formerly domineering men?
    .
    Any female readers really still want to be a “feminist” after reading this odd crap?
    .
    http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2011/08/10/anti_feminist_market_theories_of_sexuality_fail_to_explain_the_d.html

  • Abbot

    Is this really the story of feminism? who knew
    .
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_2LpLhOsc4
    .
    The 2007 Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defined prostitution as:
    “Prostitution:
    1 : the act or practice of engaging in promiscuous sexual relations especially for money
    2 : the state of being prostituted : DEBASEMENT”

    2007 – Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

  • Abbot

    In a patriarchal system, women’s bodies are seen as objects to control, and women’s sexual desires threaten the system because women will make choices based on what they, as women want, and not what men want them to do.

    .
    THIS IS THE REASON WHY MARCOTTE AND HER ILK PROMOTE PUSH MANDATE DEMAND THAT WOMEN FUCK AROUND DISCOVER THEIR SEXUALITY AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE [WHICH IS NO ACCOMPLISHMENT WHATSOEVER]. THEY CLAIM ITS FOR THE BENEFIT OF WOMEN BUT ITS NOT ABOUT THAT. ITS AN ACT OF REVENGE AGAINST MEN SO THEY CAN NO LONGER REAP THE FEEL-GOOD “BENEFITS” OF SEXUALLY SPECIAL WOMEN VS PROSTITUTES. THESE FEMINISTS DO NOT WANT WOMEN CATEGORIZED BASED ON SEXUAL BEHAVIOR IF THAT CATEGORIZATION IS BEING DONE BY MEN. THAT IS, THESE WOMEN ARE COLLECTIVELY SCORNED AND THEY ARE OUT TO SETTLE A SCORE.

  • Dogsquat

    Gisela said:
    “You know who gets paid for having sex with men? A prostitute. So your sexual marketplace model basically turns all women into prostitutes, particularly the married wifeys you seem to admire so much. Is that what you want? Is that what you see yourself as?”

    Lots of people mow their own grass and fix their own sprinklers. That doesn’t make them landscapers. Lots of people shoot rifles – they aren’t all Marines. Lot’s of people give their kids Advil for fevers, and some even stop and help out at car wrecks – doesn’t make ’em paramedics.

    A woman who decides to be monogamous with a man who has qualities she finds attractive is not a prostitute.

    See what I’m saying?

  • Abbot

    A woman who decides to be monogamous with a man who has qualities she finds attractive is not a prostitute.
    .
    and that is a non prostitute by definition

  • filrabat

    Two non sequitors here:

    Woman has high sex drive: Lowers.

    For the Alphas (and maybe Upper Betas too) yes. For the rest. No. This applies to several individual sex value dropping factors too.

    Woman wears sexy clothing: Raises

    ONLY if the guy isn’t choosy. Even the choosier segment of players are likely to see laying her as a high STD risk (even with a loose interpretation of “choosier”).

    • @filrabat

      Woman wears sexy clothing: Raises

      ONLY if the guy isn’t choosy. Even the choosier segment of players are likely to see laying her as a high STD risk (even with a loose interpretation of “choosier”).

      Yes, I was surprised by this one too. I think it may be similar to my claims that women reject manwhores – the incidence of STDs is altering preferences in the SMP. Baumeister wrote these tables in 2004 – and there’s been a steady increase in the STD rates since then. Of course, YMMV – there are plenty of people who still choose “hot” over “healthy.”

  • Abbot

    Virgin shaming. Only women that hate sex can be good girls.
    .
    also an attempt to shame men by redefining for them what makes a good girl. That is, this group of propagandists is attempting to make it seem like men define a girl as bad if she likes sex. Its an attempt to make men look stupid or silly or domineering or brutish for having this attitude, which they do not have. Nice try. Take another spin at the wheel dumb ass.

  • Blues

    In modern American society, taking provider route is the fast path to failure. In places like Eastern Europe and South America, the provider route is the ultimate way to success.

    I’ll agree that in South America it’s not as bad as the USA situation (that said if local laws start emulating the American ones i’ll immediately ditch the idea of marriage), however i’ll let you know that Mike C does have a point, even over here Lovers do rake in even with women that seek for Providers and quality women alike.

    My advice is to be a Lover type first if you want things to take off, if you choose to also be a provider that’s fine, but make sure she sees you as a lover first and foremost.

  • Blues

    See this is my whole issue with terms like SMP and SMV. The medium is the message. When we talk about relationships in terms of economics, we begin to think of people as commodities. Value is determined by what people can do for us.

    I think we need a new metaphor.

    A necessary evil sadly, yes it can be seen as dehumanizing, but it’s what is needed to understand without subjective feelings getting in the way while helping predict outcomes. Way better for finding love to be closer to a science than this magical but inexplicable thing that they tell you that makes no sense and where you only keep losing by virtue of nothing at all while assholes enjoy it madly. Not always ignorance is bliss.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    A necessary evil sadly, yes it can be seen as dehumanizing, but it’s what is needed to understand without subjective feelings getting in the way while helping predict outcomes. Way better for finding love to be closer to a science than this magical but inexplicable thing that they tell you that makes no sense and where you only keep losing by virtue of nothing at all while assholes enjoy it madly. Not always ignorance is bliss.”

    Yea, I don’t really buy into the market metaphor.

  • Blues

    Yea, I don’t really buy into the market metaphor.

    You don’t have to, a metaphor is just a way to simplify an abstract concept into a simpler, easier to understand way, not 1:1 match in every way.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Like I said to Stephie, i think that the medium is the message. When we talk about relationships in terms of economics, I think we encourage a view of people as commodities.

  • JM

    “All’s fair in love and war…”

    Just as operations research made its way into struggles for survival, I guess it was only a matter of time before a similar thought process made its way into struggles for reproduction (or “reproduction”). Which came first, the dehumanization, or the dehumanizing metaphor?

  • Doug1 wrote:

    One of the main ways that feminism has driven up the cost of commitment is by driving way up the cost of divorce to men, and hence the financial risks of marriage.

    And when legal marriage is often replaced with avoliitto (cohabitation/common-law marriage/domestic partnership) laws are started to changed. Domestic partnership is taken account. Now (since 2011-04-01) in Finland there is financial risks on domestic partnership if it is long enough (5 years) or if there is children.

    Ministry of justice, Finland: Laki avopuolisoiden yhteistalouden purkamisesta voimaan 1.4.2011 / Lagen om upplösning av sambors gemensamma hushåll träder i kraft 1.4.2011 / Act on the Dissolution of the Household of Cohabiting Partners entered into force on 1 April

  • namae nanka
  • Abbot

    Dear Abby rocks!
    .

    Dear Abby: I am dating a woman who is a prostitute and have developed feelings for her. The problem is her “job” gets in the way. I thought I could be OK with this, but I am not. She says she needs me and wants me in her life. She has talked about getting another job, but nothing ever happens. What should I do?

    My Name’s Not John

    Dear Not John: This woman has already demonstrated that she is not going to change professions. What you should do is find a woman who isn’t a prostitute and whose profession doesn’t “get in the way.” It will be healthier and less frustrating for you.

    .
    There is a razor fine line between prostitution and promiscuity. Feminists are loath to permit the public to connect the two
    .
    http://www.suntimes.com/lifestyles/abby/6970463-417/pregnant-girl-whos-showing-cant-prevent-parents-knowing.html

  • Tom

    @Abbott
    There is a razor fine line between prostitution and promiscuity. Feminists are loath to permit the public to connect the two
    _____________________
    You are out of your mind!
    Most promiscuous people are at least discriminating.. Whores who have sex for money, normally will do even the most discusting men for the dollar…

    Dude, seriously you need to get a grip on reality.

  • Abbot

    Most promiscuous people are at least discriminating
    .
    men or women?

  • Tom

    men or women?… Either or…..
    But I would say women are more particular, because they can be. Most men can not be as picky..

  • Tom

    Dog!!! Not you too?
    Arent you a nurse? You call me a woman?
    Get some life experience, and then come and talk to me

  • Abbot

    Most men can not be as picky..

    .
    Meaning: they have to work at it. Therefore, based on potentials relative to women, most men are not promiscuous.
    .
    Then, their view of promiscuous women approaches that of a prostitutes. Right or wrong, that is the perception.
    .
    There are two very different sexual cultures within the mainstream population in the US

  • Tom

    Resourses for sex? Really?
    Are you all really that shallow?
    There is a TON more to relationships and marriage than sex.. Geesus H. Christ!
    Y`all are obsessed, and wrong, I might add.

  • Tom

    Most women are not promiscuous either.. Face it there are a lot more good looking women than there are good looking men. The good looking men can be very promiscuous. Whether it is tougher for most men to get laid, is immaterial. It still boils down to numbers. A woman or man with a “3” number might not be viewed as promiscuous, while either sex with a “50” number will definately be viewed as promiscuous.

  • @Tom
    Incorrect.The woman is promiscuous, the man is a conqueror.

  • Abbot

    Whether it is tougher for most men to get laid, is immaterial
    .
    Its not immaterial to the sexual double standard. Its the root cause of it. However, if women are happy with and accepting of the double standard, then it is immaterial.

  • Höllenhund

    I’m looking forward myself to it, first because I hate taking birth control pills I don’t have side effects is just a drag to keep remembering at the same time every day, so I want to pass this responsibility to my husband

    I wonder how many women will actually be willing to forego taking their pills on the grounds that their sex partner promised to take his.

    But I’m also curious to see how women react to the fact that they cannot longer decide “who I need to be the father”

    That’s a largely rethorical question, of course. This is the main reason I believe many women will oppose the male birth control pill.

    • I wonder how many women will actually be willing to forego taking their pills on the grounds that their sex partner promised to take his.

      I certainly wouldn’t trust it.

      I wonder if a male Pill will screw around with his pheromones the way the female Pill does by suppressing ovulation. The best genetic matches are not going to occur with a woman on the Pill, or if they do it will be by chance.

  • Dogsquat

    Tom:

    “Dog!!! Not you too?
    Arent you a nurse? You call me a woman?
    Get some life experience, and then come and talk to me”

    Just busting your chops.
    No, I’m not a nurse.
    Life experience? I don’t want any more.

  • Dogsquat

    Susan said:

    “I wonder if a male Pill will screw around with his pheromones the way the female Pill does by suppressing ovulation.”

    For the time being, at least, hormones are out for controlling sperm production. Women drop one (rarely two) eggs per month*. Men can produce 1000 sperm cells per minute. The amount of hormones needed to significantly reduce sperm production is ridonkulous.

    The most promising reversible male contraception thingie is to inject sludge into the Vas Deferens. The sludge kills the sperm as it moves through the Vas Deferens from the testicle to the ready use magazine. When the guy want’s to breed, he goes and gets another injection, neutralizing the killer sludge.

    Near as I can tell, this wouldn’t screw with anything but the actual sperm, thus negating any pheromone change. It’s not a systemic drug like hormones are. Capping off dead sperm loads may cause it’s own problems, though.

    *when I turn my steely gaze upon a woman, it is not uncommon to see her rocket upwards 30-50 feet, propelled by a jet of high velocity girl-caviar blasting out of her bajingo.

    Or something.

  • Isabel

    Quick question about this male birth control pill. I’m assuming it acts in a hormonal capacity as opposed to mechanical. We know the female Pill acts by raising oestrogen levels and essentially mimicking pregnancy to prevent ovulation. The same oestrogen that has filtered slowly into our water supply and is blamed for the recent effeminacy and emasculation (derp) of Modern Man. Now. This male Pill is supposed to lower testosterone and make the sperm basically useless by removing an essential protein. It’s still produced in the same quantities but it’s about as useful in the creation of babies as orange juice. So wouldn’t the relatively high levels of oestrogen already present in the water supply combined with stalled testosterone production result in a new breed of girly boys? It’s not like a condom which you can just whip off but a pill that has a continuing effect on your virility for 3 months.

    So to all the those people who think this may radically change gender relations – I highly doubt it. If anything this would put the ball a little closer to the women’s corner as men with lower testosterone levels are less confrontational or aggressive and much more receptive to long-term commitment and parenthood than their counterparts.

    On a side note, does anyone else keep imagining a pregnant man? It’s a tad distressing really. Kinda like that episode in The Simpsons where Ned is wearing nothing at all. :/

  • Abbot

    Steinem, unsurprisingly, countered that sexism is far from over, though feminism has made great strides. She suggested that changing the way we think about masculinity is one of feminism’s great remaining challenges. After decades of feminism, she said, “we know that women can do what men and can do… But we don’t know that men can do what women can do.” And that needs to change, because “it’s really important that kids grow up knowing that men can be as loving and nurturing as women can.”

    .
    Really Steinem? Is that why your slimy ilk are all over this website? Because the BIGGEST block to this fantasy “equality” is men. No matter what women do, they will never get past that. Well, men certainly can’t fuck around like women can. Ya gonna change that, dumbass? Uh huh.
    .
    Imagine that! A POS feminist declaring what’s good for children! Yep folks, the same degenerates who will rant and screech about having the “choice” to chop em up knows best. Go fuck yourself Steinem. Along with all your self-serving followers.
    .
    http://www.hbo.com/documentaries/gloria-in-her-own-words/index.html

  • Ok, so I have a crazy theory. Tom is a man pretending to be a woman pretending to be a man. Tom is the king of all trolls.

  • @Kane

    TROLLCEPTION!

  • Blues

    @escarondito:

    TROLLCEPTION!

    Or a lesbian in a man’s body after a sex change operation to make him female.

  • That’s some serious deep cover right there.

  • “I certainly wouldn’t trust it.”

    Do you advise men to trust women who say they are taking the pill properly? Forgetting women who straight-up lie about being on the pill, people in America have huge problems paying their bills on time, showing up to work on time and taking accountability for their actions – that sort of general flakiness in America, especially among young people, gives me considerable pause in taking a woman at her word that she’s been adhering to her pill schedule. It’s not that I suspect her to be nefarious, it’s that people are flaky.

    People say that women have more to lose than men from ill-timed pregnancy so they should be intrinsically more responsible about birth control, but I find that fatuous – all I hear in that is the “women are the moral sex” canard. Also 30-50% of American pregnancies are “unintended” and that women get themselves involved in all sorts of high-risk sexual situations.

    For this reason plus that of microbes, condoms (or “condomes” as the Brits call them) are non-negotiable in my book.

    • Do you advise men to trust women who say they are taking the pill properly?

      No I do not! I’m with you – wrap it up! You risk becoming a walking ATM for 18 years. Once on Obsidian’s old blog, The Fifth Horseman stated that he always uses two condoms with a cotton ball between them at the tip. It’s a wonder he can feel anything! Also, Ferd has said that he pockets his used condoms and takes them home. He doesn’t want some woman inserting them inside-out after he’s gone.

  • Dogsquat

    Isabel said:

    “Quick question about this male birth control pill. I’m assuming it acts in a hormonal capacity as opposed to mechanical. ”

    The best male hormonal birth control trial I’ve seen reduces sperm production to about 10% of normal levels – still enough to get steel on target. More sane levels of hormones only drop sperm production to about 30% – even worse.

    I’d bet quite a bit of money that pharmacological male contraception (that actually makes it past trials and on to the market) will not primarily involve sex hormones.

  • Abbot

    It seems that HUS is the only place a woman can turn to for slut cult deprogramming. Woman are relatively gullible and this dishonest and misleading crap serves them very poorly:
    .
    When it comes to sex, you know the drill — get tested, get birth control, get condoms. Once that’s taken care of, use your discretion about who to slip into the sack with. If you want to have more than one mattress mate, go for it. “Part of the fun of dating several men is the variety of booty,” says Vogels. Meaning, you get to sample more than one sexual style at once. If guilt dares to permeate your brain, consider this: Men do it all the time without shame or fear of judgment
    .
    Yep, consider that. A small number of men do it all the time because a higher ratio of women ALLOW them to. The joke is on women.
    .
    You may have bolted out of Rob’s bed in order to meet Jason for brunch and then run home just in time to go to a movie with Dave…but they don’t need to know that! “Resist volunteering details about who you’re dating,” advises Josey Vogels, author of Dating: A Survival Guide from the Frontlines. “You’ll only make the guy jealous and yourself feel awkward.”
    .
    Rob wins. Jason and Dave must now carry test tube cleaning kits to prepare this Cosmo trained self pimper. Would asshole Vogels suggest that her future husband does not need to know that? Once a woman refines this evasion skill, its permanent and no good man deserves to get stuck with her in a dishonest marriage, the slimy disgust factor notwithstanding.
    .
    http://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/dating-advice/muncho-men

  • Abbot

    Below is the theory of sex according to panty twisted Amanda Marcotte. The gist is this: The non-sexual control over women by men is directly linked to control over women’s sexual freedom [aka fucking men on a whim]. That is why she is staunchly “sex positive.” She firmly believes that the path to freedom from “patriarchy” is the enthusiastic consent by women to fuck men without any complaints from them or other men for having done so. When men give up control over when and with whom women have sex, then all control by men, sexual or otherwise, will cease to exist. Trouble is, its men they are having sex with and that is where it all falls apart.
    .
    “Women, like men, enjoy sex. In a patriarchal system, women’s bodies are seen as objects to control, and women’s sexual desires threaten the system because women will make choices based on what they, as women want, and not what men want them to do. So women’s sexuality is systematically surpressed. Women enforce the rules because the system penalizes them for not doing so, but if women collectively stop enforcing the rules, i.e. become feminists, then the system collapses. And women, liberated from patriarchal domination of their sexuality, start having the same kind of variety of sex (casual, commited, somewhere in between) that men have always preserved for themselves alone.”
    .
    So, men SEE women’s bodies as objects to control. Not actually controlling directly, but just seeing it that way. That is, its how men think. OK. But so what if some or all men think that way. They are merely thoughts. Somehow folks, this manner of thinking is a “system” labeled as “patriarchy.” Well then, men must have some really powerful brains as their collective thoughts control women. That or women are just so weak that they fall under the spell of mighty brained men. You getting this, you pesky little feminists? Take notes.
    .
    Women’s sexual desire threatens this view of women as objects to control leading to women doing what they want and not what men think they should do. Put another way, their desires threatens how men think of them and the expectations men have of what they want women to do. But what exactly do men want women to do? Is Marcotte finally getting to the point of almost admitting that men prefer to not marry sluts? Shame on her.
    .
    So women’s sexuality is “systematically” suppressed. Really? By whom, by what method? By men’s thoughts? By women deciding to pander to and appease men? Why would men suppress women’s sexuality? If they are dong that, there has to be some benefit to men. What exactly are those benefits? How does that increase men’s happiness. After all, they would not suppress if it did not lead to happiness. This also assumes that men at large, the millions across the country, are an organized group when it comes to women’s sexual affairs. After all, it is systematic. Takes a lot of dudes for that.
    .
    Women enforce the rules or face a penalty. Enforce what rules? What is the penalty? Not getting sex? Are men turning down women for sex because they are not enforcing rules?
    .
    When the yet to be defined rules created by men’s thoughts are no longer enforced by women then those women are transformed into feminists. Then feminism must be based on nothing that has anything to do with reality, except for some suspect thoughts that women assume men have. The old “system” of thoughts collapses? OK. Does that mean men change their minds? It would seem so. And women, liberated from patriarchal domination of their sexuality men’s thought control, start having the same kind of variety of sex that men have always preserved for themselves alone. OK But was it possible before this so-called liberation for men to have such variety if there were no willing women? Was it just prostitutes and wives “back then?” Is Marcotte saying that prostitutes are being displaced? That’s odd as there seems to be a lot of that around these days. So then, exactly whom are these women, now “liberated” having all this variety of sex with? Will Marcotte finally answer this question?

  • Abbot,

    That is wild. I like the term “slut cult.” With all the intrasexual peer pressure, it really does seem to be a sort of sorority – slutty women want to recruit co-conspirators so they don’t feel judged by their compatriots. PUAs go crazy about cockblockers who don’t want their girlfriends to get pounded by that night’s expert gamesman, but in the slut cults there are, I don’t know what you’d call them but they are actively pushing their friends into getting laid by another strange guy that night.

    • but in the slut cults there are, I don’t know what you’d call them but they are actively pushing their friends into getting laid by another strange guy that night.

      A woman just wrote to me and said that four of her friends had staged an “intervention” of sorts and asked, “Why don’t you ever hook up with guys? That’s just weird. Why are you such a prude? People are starting to wonder why we hang out with you.” She said that every one of them hooks up with randoms, gets their hopes up, never hears from him again, gets discouraged, and finds a new random. These are her old high school friends. I think she needs to leave them behind.

  • Mike C

    A woman just wrote to me and said that four of her friends had staged an “intervention” of sorts and asked, “Why don’t you ever hook up with guys? That’s just weird. Why are you such a prude? People are starting to wonder why we hang out with you.” She said that every one of them hooks up with randoms, gets their hopes up, never hears from him again, gets discouraged, and finds a new random. These are her old high school friends. I think she needs to leave them behind.
    .
    Seriously? Wow. I thought Steph was exaggerating when she talked of virgin/chaste shaming, but this seems to indicate it is very real. I’ve always thought the idea that the sex pos feminists were out to turn all girls into sluts was far-fetched, but you read something like this and wonder if there is some agenda to control ideas and exert peer pressure.

    To your last sentence about never hearing from the guy and getting discouraged and doing it again, Einstein said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again, and expecting a different result. The part that confounds me is that if you essentially allow yourself to be treated as a cum dumpster to dump a load in, why would you expect these guys to to get back with you for anything more. Most women MUST be completely unaware of the two ladders.

    • I’ve always thought the idea that the sex pos feminists were out to turn all girls into sluts was far-fetched, but you read something like this and wonder if there is some agenda to control ideas and exert peer pressure.

      I think all promiscuous women benefit from strength in numbers. In this case, I’m sure the motive was not political – more a case of the friends feeling “judged” in some way by the girl who doesn’t hook up. Even if the non-promiscuous woman never says a word, there is by definition an implied value judgment there, and I think girls indulging in casual sex can get pretty defensive about it.

      I’ve also heard from women whose guy friends tease them in the same way – either calling them prudes, or saying things like, “Seriously, are you like a virgin or something? You never get with anyone.” Of course, the guys saying this are players, and they’d love to see every girl be slutty.

  • Abbot

    Randoms? really? Slut cult recruits are led into this destructive life through shame and under the guise of feminist and empowerment security. Like any cult, the members are led by others, recruited and trapped by others. Its time to get Rick Ross involved with HUS.
    .
    The Rick A. Ross Institute’s mission is to study destructive cults, controversial groups and movements and to provide a broad range of information and services easily accessible to the public for assistance and educational purposes.
    .
    RI maintains a large archive on the Internet and is available to assist researchers, the media, professionals and those concerned with accurate information about various cults, groups and movements and related issues of interest.
    .
    One of the largest archives of information about controversial groups, some called “cults,” and related information on the Internet.
    .
    Resources and guidelines focused upon “getting help” for someone involved in a destructive group or movement.
    .
    http://www.rickross.com/

  • Blues

    A woman just wrote to me and said that four of her friends had staged an “intervention” of sorts and asked, “Why don’t you ever hook up with guys? That’s just weird. Why are you such a prude? People are starting to wonder why we hang out with you.” She said that every one of them hooks up with randoms, gets their hopes up, never hears from him again, gets discouraged, and finds a new random. These are her old high school friends. I think she needs to leave them behind.

    Or point them to HUS, if what i’ve read about female thinking is true it’s gonna be hard for her to ditch them completely unless she’s already dead set on the idea and just needs to take the step. Still the whole idea of female friends pushing for a girl to put out is fucked up and mind boggling weird from my POV, specially this case where the friends strike out constantly.

  • Abbot

    Critical thinking sadly is not encouraged in feminism is just listen to the sisters, we know better men know nothing or want to oppress you..
    .
    The strategic solution is to sexually satisfy random oppressors and show them a good time. Yeah, it really is a twisted cult way of thinking. No wonder so many woman refuse to identify as feminists.

  • mike

    I’m sorry if someone already said this, but…

    Marcotte (& her fellow feminists) problem is not that they can’t dictate markets – it’s that they don’t understand markets, refuse to accept the idea of a “sexual marketplace”, are communists, and are in all other ways fundamentally at war with reality and living in an ideological fantasyland.

    Seriously, just look at this garbage: “I actually would say that my ideal is a world where everyone is kind of selling a little, but no one is cast as a buyer.”

    It would take superhuman levels of restraint to keep from slapping someone who said something that stupid in real life. It’s up there with such brain-damaged quips as Rodney King’s “Why can’t we all just get along?” after driving 100mph through residential areas hopped up on PCP, or Lennon’s “What if they gave a war and nobody came?”

  • Abbot

    So many post here can be transformed into a paper:
    .
    http://www.genderacrossborders.com/2011/08/08/call-for-writers-tsk-tsk-stigma-shame-and-sexuality/
    .
    The series will explore how individuals face institutional, community, or professional stigma because of their sexual and reproductive decisions.
    .
    Of course, joy riding lots of dudes is now a “sexual decision.” These feminasses will do anything to legitimize slut behavior.

    • @Abbot
      That gender across borders “festival” of sex without stigma should be fun, thanks for the link.

  • Abbot

    girls indulging in casual sex can get pretty defensive about it.
    .
    Yeah, waling and crying to a mocking public on slut walks is pretty defensive. Are they defending the men who pump and dump them? Or are they defending some fantasy privilege to engage in it with absolutely no consequences, such as being rejected by a man they want to have a relationship with? Is that like an obese person getting all defensive about being called out for indulging in all the cheap easy to get food? Is the stuffed on food or stuffed on sex girl viewed any differently? Who causes the more negative economic impact? They are both worthy of pity and should seek professional help.

    • @Abbot

      I think it’s important to distinguish garden-variety sluts from sex pos feminists. Only 10% of young women identify as feminists, and if you add the sex pos piece, I imagine it’s even lower than that.

      Most promiscuous women are doing it socially at the micro level – they have a crew of girls that circulate among manwhores, which “normalizes” the behavior. When a woman comes along who won’t play, they get threatened – she’s identified as an outsider.

  • Abbot

    Whether it is tougher for most men to get laid, is immaterial

    .
    Its not immaterial to the sexual double standard. Its the root cause of it. However, if women are happy with and accepting of the double standard, then they are happy with the undeniable situation they have created wherby its tougher for men to get casual sex than it is for women.

  • Höllenhund

    Only 10% of young women identify as feminists,

    Well, duh. Of course the other 90% don’t do that. They don’t classify themselves as “air-breathers” either. They probably don’t even recognize feminism because that’s the only thing they have ever known. Feminism is now the air we breathe and the water we drink. It has already become accepted dogma.

  • imnobody

    It was not feminism, it was the pill. The pill decreased the price of sex. The increase in the price of commitment was a byproduct. Since traditionally sex was paid with commitment, a decrease of sex’s price was necessarily linked to an increase of commitment’s price.

    Feminism was only a way to justify the new status quo, but technological and economic forces were the cause.

  • chris

    @Susan Walsh
    “Honestly, the evo psych and evo bio researchers are embracing sexual economics.”

    A blog post from Robert Kurzban which more eloquently explains my statement before of why “I still prefer evo-psych and evo-bio to economics to analyse mating behaviours.”

    http://www.epjournal.net/blog/2011/08/new-theory-sex-is-a-resource-men-compete-and-pay-for/

  • chris

    @Susan Walsh

    “I think it’s important to distinguish garden-variety sluts from sex pos feminists. Only 10% of young women identify as feminists, and if you add the sex pos piece, I imagine it’s even lower than that. ”

    http://www.livescience.com/15231-belief-opinion-shift-majority-minority-10-percent.html

    • @Chris
      Thanks for the links, very interesting.

      Re the claim that 10% is the threshold, or tipping point, for an opinion spreading, I’m hopeful that’s true, because I know that more than that share my views of feminism and the SMP 🙂
      As far as 10% of women identifying as feminist, rather than a critical mass of people embracing a new idea, that’s a downward trend indicating loss of support for a rather tired idea, IMO.

  • tito

    @Susan

    “I think all promiscuous women benefit from strength in numbers. In this case, I’m sure the motive was not political – more a case of the friends feeling “judged” in some way by the girl who doesn’t hook up. Even if the non-promiscuous woman never says a word, there is by definition an implied value judgment there, and I think girls indulging in casual sex can get pretty defensive about it.”

    true. if these sluts were really as rebellious as the pretend to be then it wouldn’ t really matter if they were being judged.

  • Doug

    In other words, feminists have all but destroyed our society. No wonder we have an epidemic of broken homes and false rape accusations on our hands!

  • brightstormyday

    @Susan:

    There’s also relationship shaming.

    You know who your real friends are based on how they react to the news that you have a bf. Some girls will trash him, or even REVERSE COCKBLOCK creeps to try to get you to cheat. Seriously. It’s insane.

    I had a former friend who did the same with me. They might not stage an intervention, but they’ll find ways to do things subtley. Leave you alone with a “male friend (Which is fucking dangerous).” OR some aren’t as subtle. I had a friend who was publicly making out with a guy she just met. Ok, that’s a bit skeevy, but it’s not the worst thing you can do. But then she tried to shove me on a guy (literally shove me) who was talking to me, so I’d do the same. WTF?

    Later that night to get attention she kept groping me and touching me inappropriately, which is okay, you know, because she was drunk. NOT.

    This girl is lucky her friends had an intervention, at least they are obvious about their intents. Most girls aren’t.

    I had a friend who was planning trying to get me into a threesome with her friends with benefits for two months. She didn’t tell me until one night, she came home extremely inebriated and was just being drunkenly honest. She had been trying to set this up for months and I had been avoiding him, because I knew he was slutty and creepy. Turns out she was probably just as bad.

    Gross.

    • @stormy

      There’s also relationship shaming.

      You know who your real friends are based on how they react to the news that you have a bf. Some girls will trash him, or even REVERSE COCKBLOCK creeps to try to get you to cheat. Seriously. It’s insane.

      Whoa, that’s a new one. I don’t often get to say that! It makes total sense, though. Relationships take guys off the market. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if some of your own friends tried to get your bf to cheat with them.

  • Abbot

    [img]http://files-cdn.formspring.me/profile/20110228/4d6bb10eb1700_thumb.jpg[/img]
    .
    Marcotte agrees with the concept of lowered economic value of sex due to greater equality for women, but is put off by claims made that women enjoy sex less than men or primarily find enjoyment in sex for its economic value.
    .
    So, why is Marcotte sooo concerned about this? Why would it matter if men thought women enjoy sex less then men? It must have something to do with her claws-out war on patriarchy, but what exactly?
    .
    SEX POZZY SLUT CULT RECRUIT
    [img]http://mycdn.theexcitantgroup.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/hot-body-500×341.jpg[/img]
    .
    When done, go find a wife
    .

  • Abbot

    SEX POZZY SLUT CULT RECRUIT
    .
    When done, go find a wife
    .
    [img]http://mycdn.theexcitantgroup.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/hot-body-500×341.jpg[/img]

  • Liz

    “In countries where women are at a big disadvantage, they restrain sex, so the price is high and men make a lifetime commitment to support them to get sex,” Baumeister says. “Men will do whatever is required for sex.””

    This may be a factor, but there’s also the fact that women can be scared of being “spoilt goods” to a man who wants to marry a virgin. This is far more potent in a society where a woman’s economic survival depends on marrying a man and being a “good” wife for him.

  • i agree with tito—if the “sluts” really were as rebellious as they pretend to be, they wouldnt care about being judged

    the real problems, in my humble opinion, is that girls continue to be slaves to public opinion, and many still let others decide for them what they want—our self esteem would rise rapidly and our boundaries would strengthen automatically if we would throw away all the trappings of the cheesy “girl-culture”(magazines, romance novels and the like) along with our fear of rejection—-rejection is just part of life—get used to it

  • Jim

    Very interesting analysis — thanks! To me, feminism was always destined to fail, not because of men’s resistance to equality (there barely has been any), but because human nature cannot change despite best intentions.

    Our sexuality is hard wired and cannot be undone by pretentious feminist meddlers, any more than it could be suppressed by Puritans or Victorians. It is much more ancient than a mere religion or political movement and, in the end, is nothing to do with the feminist version of “equality” and everything to do with reproduction and evolution.

    As a natural part of the evolutionary process, women instinctively seek men who can provide and protect. In the modern context, this means women are not attracted to men they don’t respect and they don’t respect men they do not consider their equals. In other words, women will not and cannot marry down economically for the most part. This will kill feminism before anything else, because it creates an artificial “man shortage” as women take up more and more prestigious jobs previously held by men.

    Thus, an ever-increasing number of women will need to accept the reality that they will be childless or single mothers. As soon as the penny drops among the majority of women that feminism is the primary reason for the lack of “marriageable” men, they will turn on feminists like they previously turned on men.