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.


Anonymous said...

When you say "placing value on female sexuality.." It sounds as if somebody artificially assigns these values. More likely explanation is that female libido on average is much weaker in comparison to that of males leading to increased demand on one side. I am very doubtful that anything can be this imbalance.

John said...

Yes that's part of it. Men usually want sex more than women so as a result women get to set the price. But regardless, it always goes in one direction, in which women are always the ones selling and men buying. The only thing that can change is the price. But the situation is never reversed, meaning that women never buy sex from men, since male sexuality is by definition worthless.

James said...

I forgot to mention that it would have been better if some of the analysis was more Toronto specific. (You might say that if what you said is true, then there is no location-specificity about the matter, it is universally true. But this doesn't strike me as right. There is something special about Toronto women; that, I take it, is a basic premise of the site.) For example, I think it is much harder to meet women here who will have casual sex. What explains that?

John said...

The points I mentioned definitely apply to Toronto women, although the general truth of sexual economic theory applies to pretty much every culture.

Toronto women are especially hell-bent on avoiding a low price for their sexuality. It borders on a kind of insane sexual politics. It's an extreme situation of what is described in that paper I mentioned. Toronto women demand a high price for their sexuality and they feel that anything less than that is a rip off. That's why casual sex is so difficult to get with Toronto women, because they have a tendency to see it as akin to someone breaking into their house and stealing all their stuff.

Where does this mindset come from? Probably from the entitlement princess syndrome that tends to infect women in the city.

Anonymous said...

I wonder how much of this (specifically to Toronto) has to do with the lack of a proper RED LIGHT DISTRICT?! Prostitution in TO caters to the rich and wealthy. Even places in King West, Yorkville are high end escort "pick up" joints. The eventual opening of the RLD in Toronto will eliminate high prices, give some men options and regulate the inflated tendencies of the attitude of average women. In effect, more hotter women will flow in the city to "work". This will also increase city revenue and will better the urban infrastructure. Currently this is only a moral issue, as discussed by the author previously TO was a conservative city with a conservative history. The opening of a proper RLD will do wonders for this city.

Anonymous said...

a red light district would cure the city, as these cunts would no longer be adored and they would start seeking male attention and men would release their sexual desires without losing their dignity to a girl that's not even attractive in the first place

Anonymous said...

Single Toronto women have an artificially inflated sense of the value of their pussies. If you've been on the scene for a while, you'll notice that they are not nearly as smart, sophisticated, or as accomplished as their coupled peers - that's why they're still single.

There is a savage invisible competition for mates in Toronto. It's not happening in the bars and clubs like you'd think, though. Mate selection (on the woman's side) occurs earlier, after high school but often before women become established in the workplace. A guy may erroneously think, by looking around on the street, that he has a chance in a city full of attractive young women, but the truth is that single men outnumber single women by a large margin in Toronto.

So decent women in Toronto get locked up early in life and they stay in long-term relationships for years. Women in bars are often already partnered and go to clubs to show off, not to find a long-term mate. They often stay in shitty relationships because of the awful dating situation in Toronto - they have to keep holding out on sex until the big fish comes along.

Crazy single Toronto women often complain about the lack of "good men." We've all seen it - they'll ignore the hordes of decent guys around them and drop their panties for a slick line of bullshit from the players. This crazy, inconsistent behaviour is reinforced by feminist ideology, peer pressure from their status-climbing friends and a ridiculous media culture.

TV shows and magazines tell them that they can act like a gold-digger and find a "perfect" man, be a ball-crushing bitch at their high-status job, and still be a great mother and friend. Get real. Men don't want scheming, manipulative bitches - we want genuine women who are givers AND takers - partners in life, not parasites. Those women are taken.

Pickup artists and other single men (AVCs - average frustrated chumps) are therefore playing against the odds in Toronto. Finding a decent woman who hasn't been ruined by promiscuity, pregnancies, or princess syndrome is like finding a needle in a haystack.

Single Toronto women are dead set against having their pussies devalued. They know that the moment the competition from New York or Montreal or wherever moves in, the game is lost. The only way they can trap men is by presenting a united bitchy, materialistic front - once a few women crumble, the system breaks down.

Also, as Toronto women age, they realize that younger, more attractive competition can diminish their value. You'll notice single women in their thirties and over acting more desperate and unpredictable as their artificially-inflated pussy power quickly erodes and reality sets in. Karma is a bitch.

Anonymous said...

Here's a discussion on the devaluation of pussy via porn:

No monopoly can last forever and anything that can be done to break up Toronto's icefield is fine by me.

Eugene said...

You do have valid points...but we need to keep mind that from the early days of the human kind, men were always the resource providers. Men hunted, went to wars, dug for gold and silver to get those "resources". Women always seek for the best provider on the subconscious level, they seek a man who can provide her and her offspring with the necessary resources during the child bearing and raising period. Basically it's an exchange of goods - man exchange resources for sex.

John said...

There is some truth in that. But isn't all basic human behaviour rooted in some biological instinct?, What about stealing, murder, greed, lying and manipulation? These are arguably rooted in biological instincts But I think we agree that they are wholly unacceptable.

The problem is when a certain type of behaviour goes too far to an extreme so as to have harmful consequences.

Eugene said...

You are right, some of the women's behavior goes too far, i.e. even if you meet her within one big social group at a party, but you don't drive a BMW, own a condo and make 100K/year, she will dismiss you within minutes. But I never take those women seriously. You can fake that (rent a condo, lease a BMW and pretend you make 100K), sleep with them and quickly get rid of them before you get attached to them. Extreme types of behavior were always present. I doubt this will ever change.

As someone mentioned here, Karma is a bitch. Eventually they will learn that there's no prince, who'll drive up to them in a white Porsche. Eventually she'll realize, even though she did reject tons of men to feel good in the moment, she still goes home alone and wakes up alone. And if she doesn't realize that...oh well, too bad for her.

pinetree said...

There is another component to why TO women place a high value on female sexuality as opposed to other places. I lived through the 70s as a young teen. I hate to say this but I remember many incidences of men being jerks. Women were dominated by men and women feared men and their violence. Ethnic minorities were increasing and racism was rampant. There just seemed to me a lot of low quality thug type of men around. Then a strong leadership on intellectual feminism arrived from the US -- and TO women embraced it -- and a real sour type of hatred for men began to come out. Then when we had the Marc Lepine incident in 1989 - that was the catalyst that united Canadian women -- but especially TO women -- as Toronto is the intellectual centre of Canada. Intellectual feminism changed TO women into a unique special breed in about two decades. Part of the stratedgy was to control men by decreasing the sex supply and shaming male sexuality. In fact the real struggle came from intellectual Lesbians and Gays who were bent on over throwing masculinity. TO women jumped on the band wagon and united with Lesbians and Gays. So placing a high value on female sexuality and shaming male sexuality was a care planned stratedgy. This thinking has predominated in TO women --but now it is more about using it as a stratedgy to access easy money and wealth -- although the intellectual aspect to feminist ideology is well adhered to. Hence female sexuality value started off to help women dominate the TO social environment -- but now it is being used more so for a narcissitic purpose -- using men for easy wealth. Present TO women are truly mentally messed up as have litle connection with women's values two decades ago -- and media keeps reinforcing their minds with female victimhhood -- hence they are not pssible to deal with fairly as they do not know what fair or give and take mean anymore. Men are simply inferior and disposable to them.

jay said...

I agree with the first anonymous post. Unfortunately, it all comes down to biology.

Men as a whole simply place a higher value on sex (in terms of frequency and variety) than women do. The minority of casual sex seeking females are likely to hookup with the most physically attractive and sexually virile male that she can snag.

Even if all women were somehow "free" to engage in no-strings-attached sex....the likely beneficiaries would be the most physically attractive alpha studs, not the average joe. Nothing would change much.

Shawn said...

Since women have to deal with pregnancy and can only have so many kids in a lifetime (and historically women often died while giving birth) women have evolved to be more choosey. I do not think it's wrong that men have to put in more upfront work if it means that men have to go through less later on. It is a wash.

SG said...

holy fuck , this article sounds like the same boring shit they post on sedfast dot com...this article reminds me of that teacher who would teach you how about US history etc the most boring dry way possible, one should work on presenting these articles better, I dont beleive the author is getting laid alot (like the guys on sedfast) typing or speaking like this.

Anonymous said...


You remind me of those people that would say the same boring shit insults that can't bother to get good points out of reading anything. You sound like you got a shitty mark in History class, that's probably why you think this article is dry and boring to you. One must polish his reading/critical thinking skills before bashing on an article like this.

Halon said...

Well written and well reasoned out. I completely agree with you. I couldn't have written it better. Keep it up.

Anonymous said...

This seems to be his last video in TO - getting rejected by TO women-- and it looks like he is gone for good-- doing workshops in Germany now.

Anonymous said...

Maybe it is different here in the UK, but I find the whole idea of a 'price' for sex very strange. Admittedly I don't go to bars/clubs all that much but when I do, they wouldn't be the venues I would choose to pick up a guy for sex simply because that's not what I am there for and it is difficult to tell if it would be a mutually beneficial experience. I think the real reason women can feel 'used' after sex is nothing to do with it being 'paid for' but that often it can feel like it wasn't worthwhile in terms of sexual satisfaction. If you are going to have casual sex with a guy, you want to ascertain as far as possible that he is as interested in your pleasure as you are in his. Unfortunately, not all men are and seem to expect you to enjoy whatever it is they enjoy doing and are unable to communicate about sex. Additionally, I would expect a human connection regardless of whether I am going to see them again - otherwise it reduces sex to masturbation using a fellow human being's body. For that, I would expect a guy to be able to have a conversation with me and be mutually interested in me as a person (or at least recognise that I am a fellow person that doesn't deserve to be treated poorly for simply wanting to have sex with him). In terms of relationships, I don't see how this is 'paying' for sex, either - relationships are equally give and take and unless one person isn't getting what they want from it, is a mutually beneficial arrangement. Indeed, I have often found that men ask me to commit to relationship as they would prefer this to both of us having sex with multiple people on a casual basis. I have found that men that can relate to women as fellow human beings do fine in finding sex whether on a casual or committed basis - it is those that seem to be all about wanting sex and being unable to make any connection beyond it that struggle regardless of looks, status or income.