Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Sexual Economics

I recently read a very interesting paper written by Roy F. Baumeister (Department of Psychology, Florida State University ) and Kathleen D. Vohs (Faculty of Commerce, Marketing Division, University of British Columbia). The name of the paper is Sexual Economics: Sex as Female Resource for Social Exchange in Heterosexual Interactions. In this paper the authors give some pretty solid arguments on how societies in general treat male and female sexuality. In a nutshell, a man's sexuality is treated as having no value, but female sexuality is treated as having value, and a lot (or most in some cases) of what romantically happens between men and women ties into men buying sex and women selling sex. I can really relate to this premise and it does follow closely with one of my past posts: Most Women Are Prostitutes.

If you think about it, placing value only on female sexuality but not on male sexuality is really a rigged system, given that both exist in roughly equal numbers. It adds that certain dimension of artificiality and fakeness to the male and female dynamic in which women expect something for their artificially assigned sexual value and men have to pay for access to it. As much as people like to deny this, there is a very real exchange taking place, especially among westernized spoiled women which I feel epitomize the sexual exchange theory in quite a ruthless way. You can feel it every time an attractive woman walks by and avoids eye contact with you. You can just feel that she fetches a high price. It's almost an oppressive feeling. A guy once told me, while looking at this hot blonde, that he can't afford her. It's sad how common this point of view is.

Anyway, here are some points related to sexual economic theory, as presented in the paper, but also combined with my own input from my own experiences which I'm sure a lot of you guys can relate to.

• It's impossible to use men for sex because society views male sexuality as inherently worthless. Female sexuality, however, is inherently valuable. This is why women often complain about men just wanting them for sex. What they are really saying is that they detest men who want to have sex with them for free. It's not enough for a man to just have sex with a woman. He must also give her something for it, otherwise he's "using" her or taking advantage of her. This is because women have been programmed by society to view sex as something women sell and men buy, so when men just want sex, the unspoken interpretation is that they want sex without paying for it, which means that he is taking something of value from the woman (for free), something that should be paid for somehow, either by relationship quid pro quo, or with actual money (prostitution). And since male sexuality is worthless the reverse accusation never comes up, in which a man can be used by a woman for sex. In fact, female sex toys have more value than male sexuality, since those (at least) women have to buy, so even though male sexuality can serve the same purpose as a female sex toy, it has much less value than a female sex toy.

• When women call other women "sluts" what they are really saying is that these women give sex away for little or no cost, which has the effect of lowering the overall market value of female sexuality, hence the reason why these women are so hated by other women. Female uptightness with regards to sex is actually the fault of women (and not men). Women oppress women in order to maintain a collective high price on their sexuality. The oppression process usually begins at home with mothers indoctrinating and shaming their daughters into putting a high price on their sexuality. This oppression then extends into the peer network.

• Most women hate the idea of their man having sex with other women. The reason is because it tends to lower the value of their own personal sexual stock. Their sexuality cannot be very valuable if their man is also "doing it" with other women. Women like to see their sexuality as unique and special, not something that is very common (which it is). So they want their man to only be with them to affirm this belief. But this is nothing more than jealousy and pride centered around their own sexuality.

• For the reasons just mentioned, a woman who wants to make a man "wait" and go through hoops before sex is also a woman who doesn't want a man to be with other women besides her. These two things are consistent with putting a high price on your sexuality. So if a woman accepts upfront that you will sleep with other women, she will also not make you wait and go through hoops for sex, since both of these things are consistent with not putting a high price on your sexuality. Therefore, a good way to screen is to just say you won't be monogamous rather than ask a woman if she will make you work for sex. If a woman accepts that you won't be monogamous she automatically won't make you work or wait for sex either.

• Part of the reason why women wholly reject men in places like bars and clubs is because they collectively view men as wanting only sex, and hence wanting to exploit the sexual resources of the women there. Therefore, by rejecting men women are preventing themselves from being devalued by men (in their eyes). But if you think about it that's just ridiculous. When a man and woman have sex it's give-and-take. It's impossible to give without taking, and impossible to take without giving. That's just the way it is. However, if a woman doesn't enjoy sex, then to her it will feel more like the man is taking something from her, and she's just giving something to him, but that's her problem since sex is by its very nature a mutual experience. You are both having sex, and are both taking and receiving at the same time. Now compare this to how things work with a gold digging female, something which society finds more acceptable than a sex-hungry male. A man pays for her company through dating and dinner and gifts, but she doesn't pay for his company. He receives no material benefit from being with her, only sexual benefit, which she also receives, unless of course she doesn't enjoy sex, then in that case he shouldn't be with her anyway since a cold fish in bed is no fun to be with. But in an odd twist society accepts the female gold digger even though it exploits men, but discourages women from having no-strings sex because it (supposedly) exploits women. But one is actual exploitation and the other is imaginary exploitation.

• If you directly proposition a woman sexually chances are good that she will end up hating you for it. On the one hand she is flattered that you like her sexually, but on the other hand she feels that you don't respect her because you want to "take" something of value from her (without some kind of payment for it). In other words, you want to rob her of her valuable sexual resource. Again, this is just plain ridiculous, which I have already explained why.

• It's not that surprising that women often feel "worthless" or "cheap" after sex that happened "too soon". This is basically sex that was not adequately paid for according to the artificially assigned going market price. Other common shaming expressions used on women such as, "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?" are very telling.

• When women say they can't have casual sex because their feelings and emotions get involved they are really referring to the feelings of guilt that society has taught them to have for having sex without "investment" by the man. In other words, they can't get past their negative programming with regards to casual sex. But there is nothing that naturally limits women from having casual sex. Just look at prostitutes, who are able to have lots of casual sex (because they are getting PAID for it). The bottom line is that society has artificially endowed female sexuality with value, and because of this women generally feel uncomfortable with casual sex because it threatens the authenticity of this value.

• Those few times that women do want casual no-strings sex only occurs in very specific and (somewhat) uncommon circumstances, such as when they just ended a long term relationship and aren't in a hurry to get back into another one. This is pretty much the only time a woman (if ever) will be willing to give out "free samples" of sex since she is essentially taking a mental break from the quid pro quo payment tracking and processing she normally does in a relationship. In other words, she now wants to "have fun". But this will only be temporary and usually only lasts a few months before she starts to reel her sexuality back in and begins to demand that any of her casual lovers start "paying up" or get lost; which translates into them having to commit to a relationship or fuck off.

Keep in mind that the selling of sex for access to resources is more suitable in those instances where women are economically disadvantaged, since it is just a way to help even the playing field. But in cases where women have the same economic opportunities as men, the selling of sex by women to men is mostly just a form of male-exploitation conveniently disguised as time honored tradition, such as courtship. The women demand the benefits of equality while also demanding that certain traditions (i.e. the kind that benefit them) be upheld.

Given all the fucked up and game-playing bullshit that takes place in the "hidden" sexual market place it's no wonder that some guys just go directly to actual prostitutes. If you must pay for sex (and there are times where it makes sense to do so), then just do it and free up all that mental energy that would otherwise go into trying to win at the hidden (and rigged) sexual market place.

The majority of women are probably not in favor of prostitution because it threatens to undercut the sexual monopoly of women by giving men relatively cheaper alternatives for sex (as compared to courtship and dating). It might also expose some ugly truths. For example, if many women suddenly find themselves dateless because more men are going to prostitutes then this exposes the true value of these women in men's eyes. This may force painful introspection, such as these women realizing that their only real value to men is sexual. Consequently, these women will have to improve their personalities if they want men to be with them for reasons that extend beyond sex. Realistically, if all a woman has to offer is sex then she is essentially a commodity and her value is easily replaced by any other woman who is at least as attractive as her and who costs less to obtain sexually (where cost is a combination of money+time+effort). Modern courtship and dating, with all its inherent fakeness, tends to hide the lack of non-sexual value many women have, but men having easy (and not too expensive) access to prostitutes will tend to expose the lack of non-sexual value many women have.

If you haven't already now would be a good time to read Justification For Prostitution.

Toronto women generally see one night stands as a type of sexual theft, and they see 'players' as a type of sex thief who takes what they want from women and then leaves them. This is why Toronto women generally have such a negative reaction towards men they perceive as players. The internal dialogue of Toronto women goes something like this with regards to such men: "They want sex without PAYING for it and will say or do anything to get it. The nerve!"

What women collectively fail to realize is that men who try to avoid "paying" for sex are not really being dishonest or unfair to women. They are simply trying to avoid having to give something for something which they themselves would never be given anything for. This is just a form of equality seeking behaviour, if you think about it.

Based on comment feedback I decided to add a link to a post which sheds some more light into how Toronto women think when it comes to sex, and how it serves as a classic example of what I talk about here. Check out Sex For Payment.

In the most practical terms I can muster, the general truth to keep in mind for this part of the world is this:

When a woman says she wants something long-term, something serious, a relationship, etc. you are dealing with a form of prostitute. Such a woman wants a high price for her sexuality, and the "relationship" is merely a type of proxy to receive the value that she wants in return for giving sex to the man. This fact, for example, is enforced whenever you see women online who show sexy pictures of themselves, showing cleavage, legs, etc. These women are on a mission and as a result they lay their sexual bait in an overt way, like a catalog listing. But to avoid the "takers" who just want sex (without paying for it) they are usually very adamant about wanting serious committed relationships, which is payment for the sex. These women are essentially prostitutes who use the proxy of the "relationship" (which includes gifts, dinners, dating, courtship, commitment) to receive value for their sexuality, using the associated romance rationalization to make it seem legitimate and morally good.

It is usually argued that going straight to sex is unromantic and cheapens the interaction (for women). But if you think about it, sex is probably the most romantic activity of them all. It involves passion, kissing, hugging, closeness, and orgasms. It's certainly much more romantic than eating in a restaurant, going on dates, and playing courtship games, most of which lead to failure. Now, you can say that restaurants have a romantic atmosphere, candles, music etc. But the same can be said about a bedroom where sex happens. You can have candles, soft music, nice lighting, etc. In this context, this suggests that the receiving of material goods by the female is considered romantic, but the receiving of sexual goods by the male is considered unromantic. It's a scam system and men have been sold a bill of goods.

Being An Asshole Doesn't Help Much

It's like an urban myth that being an asshole gets you women. I never found a lot of truth in that. To me it seems that being an asshole is kind of like using PUA methods, where they are at best marginally effective, and can only slightly enhance attraction that is already there. The problem with being an asshole is the same as the problem with being a nice guy, it's viewed as a type of extreme in the eyes of Toronto women. If you're nice, women will associate that with loser, needy behavior. If you're an asshole they will feel offended and also brush you off. Acting like a true asshole cannot get or keep women unless those women happen to have very low self-esteem. At best women will be intrigued by you and your "dark side" but once that element of intrigue wears off (and it quickly will) she will move on to the next shiny thing.

Toronto women are notorious for rejecting all forms of men, including the asshole. In fact, when you display asshole traits to a Toronto woman that often just makes her determined to put you in your place. A man being an asshole is a stereotype that Toronto women have in their heads about men, which is one of the factors contributing to the anti-male bias that exists in the city. So it makes sense that you can't get close to women using a persona that helps keep them away from you in the first place.

I have acted like an asshole towards women back in the day when I was experimenting with what works and what doesn't, and I can tell you that it rarely works, if at all. It seems it is best used in small doses, according to the situation. In fact, given the confrontational and rude nature of many Toronto women, being an asshole is simply a way to fight fire with fire, and to prevent them from walking all over you. So if a chick hints at being taken out to dinner you pull out the asshole card and tell her to get lost. That may get her to take you a bit more seriously and respect you a bit more, but that's almost all the benefit you will get from being an asshole, at least with the typical snooty Toronto woman.

If a girl ends up with a guy with asshole traits, it's usually a byproduct of being with someone that she mainly likes for other reasons, such as good looks, or being rich (for example). So it's much easier for a woman to complain about such a guy for being an asshole, then to admit that she is willing to put up with it because he's really good looking and/or rich. This is why it often seems like women go for the asshole types, but there's usually more going on than meets the eye.