General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSexual Economics: Sex as Female Resource for Social Exchange in Heterosexual Interactions
http://www.csom.umn.edu/Assets/71503.pdfI had posted this on DU2, and I want to see if the DU3 discussion will be different.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Saving Hawaii
(441 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)It's high time we stop denying these things and started working to make this a problem that we talk about in the past tense, right alongside women not being able to vote and black slavery.
A heterosexual community can be analyzed as a marketplace in which men seek to acquire sex from women by offering other resources in exchange. Societies will therefore define gender roles as if women are sellers and men buyers of sex. Societies will endow female sexuality, but not male sexuality, with value (as in virginity, fidelity, chastity). The sexual activities of different couples are loosely interrelated by a marketplace, instead of being fully separate or private, and each couple’s decisions may be influenced by market conditions. Economic principles suggest that the price of sex will depend on supply and demand, competition among sellers, variations in product, collusion among sellers, and other factors. Research findings show gender asymmetries (reflecting the complementary economic roles) in prostitution, courtship, infidelity and divorce, female competition, the sexual revolution and changing norms, unequal status between partners, cultural suppression of female sexuality, abusive relationships, rape, and sexual attitudes.
None of this is in error. Why are we so scared to address this?
I would suggest most people close your eyes and minds before you read this, lest you be driven into a fanatical frenzy:
This system, that which is described in italics above, oppresses both men and women. It needs to be abolished. Women should not have to sell their sex and men should not have to be buyers of sex. It is degrading to both genders. Sex and relationships should never be a marketplace thing.
But first, let's get this issue out and discuss it. We're LIBERALS, right, and we discuss progress, we're not conservatives who stuff reality under the rug and live in denial... or are we?
chrisa
(4,524 posts)It's talks about women as if they are all prostitutes, and men, as if they are all looking to get prostitutes.
It looks at relationships only with capitalistic thinking, and ignores any other explanations. For example, "I think that woman is cute. I wonder how much I have to pay to get to talk to her?" versus actually getting to know someone.
It's a complete tripe.
Saving Hawaii
(441 posts)They treat everything this way.
Try the economics of drug addiction where they explain heroin junkies as rational individuals with realistic expectations.
chrisa
(4,524 posts)It's talks about women as if they are all prostitutes, and men, as if they are all looking to get prostitutes.
It looks at relationships only with capitalistic thinking, and ignores any other explanations. For example, "I think that woman is cute. I wonder how much I have to pay to get to talk to her?" versus actually getting to know someone.
It's a complete tripe.
x2!
ProgressiveEconomist
(5,818 posts)from "stylized facts" and policy options for improving the lives of women.
What data on marriage, divorce, childbearing, sexual behavior, prostitution, women's earnings, and other real-world measures does this proposed theory explain that other approaches don't explain? What state or federal laws and policies to improve the lives of women does this theory help support?
IMO, you're letting the tail (theory) wag the dog (real-world issues) here.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/date-food-women-seek-fancy-dinners/story?id=15107409#.TwhQS9RSRSg
chrisa
(4,524 posts)Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)according to Gallup poll
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)
dimbear
(6,271 posts)of women. Women and enlightened men. The fact that the Democratic Party reflects the feminine side of human nature is one of its greatest assets.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)" the Democratic Party is the party of women."
Really? You mean including Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann? They're women, too.
I would file that under "we should not use that, but rather use this instead":
The Democratic Party is the party of enlightened men and women.
"That the Democratic Party reflects the feminine side of human nature is one of its greatest assets."
Feminine is not a good or bad trait, any more than masculinity is. This is just reverse Chauvenism. Again, I would suggest we not use that, but rather, we should use this:
"That the Democratic Party reflects the enlightened side of human nature is one of its greatest assets."
dimbear
(6,271 posts)got there through thinking and hard work I think Democrats. Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, our California Senators, Oprah Winfrey, and so on.
I don't recognise those you mentioned. Who are they again?
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Did I get lost?
dimbear
(6,271 posts)workers in a thread that needles them.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)You stir it up on purpose.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)Nice to hear someone say this in academic, scientific terms, in any event.
-Laelth
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Lame.
originalpckelly
(24,382 posts)
JHB
(37,160 posts)Last edited Sun Jan 8, 2012, 08:42 AM - Edit history (2)
It's a 2004 article. Are you going to post the academic discussion since then about the article to place it in context, where we can read the pros and cons of the article by people who are up to date on the sort of material that journal regularly deals with? Or do you consider posting a single paper far outside its original (and subsequent) context "discussion"?
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)He will either post a blind link with no write up or do the opposite and post something senseless with no link.
He most likely won't even return to this discussion.
JHB
(37,160 posts)...It's the rest of the readers I'm making this point to.
Most readers on DU are not familiar with the works the paper cites as references, nor are they in a position to research them within the timeframe of this thread's activity. So how can they evaluate whether the authors are drawing reasonably from their sources, or if they are stretching their conclusions beyond what is actually supported?
And as I mentioned before, there has been enough time for the regular readership of that journal to evaluate the article themselves, but that perspective was not included by the op.
Dumping a research article in a general forum with absolutely no context is at best a logical fallacy (argument from authority) and at worst lying. And in either case, it is shit-stirring.
I'm well aware of LoZo's posting habits, so hold no expectation of changing his mind or even engaging him in further discussion. But he's not the only one here, so some things need to be said.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)
dawg
(10,624 posts)
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)I dig seeing this sort of a post as it makes the President's whole religious routine on the superior and Sacramental nature of heterosexuality look like the ignorant tripe that it is. Good work!
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)and despite your VAST interest in this topic, you haven't been seen anywhere near this thread since you posted it.
treestar
(82,383 posts)
I've heard that no man wants a virgin. No experience. Article goes with the old fashioned idea men prefer women with fewer partners. I've heard a lot of people prefer experience.
If the theory is true, the amount of sex should be going down, down, down as women get jobs and careers themselves.
They just leave out the idea that women might want to have sex for sex. And that they have birth control and ever since then, there's been that option.
Hard to believe there are still people trying to sell this kind of thinking. It's very 1950s.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)That's what I think of this crap.
slutticus
(3,428 posts)Probably makes sense on an animalistic/basal level, however I think as human beings we can strive to do better than what this analysis is trying to show. Let's be better than hormonal cascades and economic principles!
chrisa
(4,524 posts)everything humans do to evolution. It's a load of shite. It's usually used by disgusting arseholes (usually male) to justify bad behavior.
It's one step away from saying, "He couldn't help himself!"
LoZoccolo
(29,393 posts)Someone on DU once suggested that the evolutionary psychology departments in universities should be "retrenched" out of themselves.
chrisa
(4,524 posts)Economics papers dealing with subjects that they shouldn't (like love, dating, etc.) are pretty much bullshit too.
I'm glad you posted it, though. Everyone should see the tripe the authors spewed out for a supposed "academic paper" as a shining example of misguided thought and poor reasoning. 
dionysus
(26,467 posts)
ananda
(28,858 posts)Also, women today must be increasingly pornworthy in order
to succeed in the arts and entertainment. I've never seen
so many women look so plasticized. It's really disturbing to
watch.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)the cynicism to all women.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Relationships are all transactional.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)LoZoccolo
(29,393 posts)Now, you could always come back and say I'm a pig because I don't know this already, or I'm not paying attention, or it's no use because I'm sexist, or that the ideas of society are so deeply entrenched that I couldn't figure it out, or something like that, but haven't you in the past been dismayed by freely available female sexuality in the media and thought of it as degrading and/or objectifying? And haven't you also said that when women choose to make their sexuality more freely available than normal (normal being used in the statistical sense here), that they risk social consequences later in life, and should be accepting of that risk rather than deliberately transgressing it? I may have this wrong, so feel free to correct me.
And I've said it several times but I don't know if you really see the distinction: this article does not put forth the idea that all women are "whores". It actually says that the women who actually work as prostitutes are stigmatized by other women (they could be stigmatized by men too, as you mentioned before, but they don't really go very far into male sexual attitudes and instead focus on female sexual attitudes), making a distinction between the small population of actual prostitutes and the rest of the female population.
Nikia
(11,411 posts)I think that most women do not really do this. Women prefer to marry attractive men who they get along with and usually have a strong emotional bond. Also, what do you make of the fact that some women make as much or more money than their wives?
There may be some "gold diggers", but I also think that sometimes rich men who choose to marry a women with much less economic means do so because they know that it gives them more power over her.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i think that point is a little to obvious.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)redqueen
(115,103 posts)They are both cynical and those types deserve each other. It is only when someone claims that ALL women are prostitutes, or ALL men are only interested in sex, that there is a problem. We all know these wastes are out there, most of us have enough sense to know that not all people are like that. The paper above seems to be assuming that everyone is indeed like that.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Money is simply the medium of exchange. He's bartering the hours of his life/marketable skills/net worth in exchange for a relationship with her.
I think it's a matter of degree. A super desirable woman is more likely to dump an unemployed husband than one who is less so. A newly graduated doctor is more likely to dump the wife who put him through med school if his new-found alternatives are better looking.
Climbing up and down the economic ladder effects relationships. I think few people really mean "till death do we part". People engage in all sorts of rationalizations to explain why their relationship failed. "After he lost his job, he started drinking, getting up late and hanging with his friends, and I guess I just lost interest" or "The new job required long hours, and I met this nurse, and one thing led to another. I guess my wife and I just didn't make enough time for each other."
It's amazing how many of those "wastes" are out there given the right circumstances.
What advice does Dear Abby give? "Are you better off with him or without?" How does one measure "better off"?
Quantess
(27,630 posts)Looks like the list didn't carry over to DU3.
Okay, this should hopefully be the last thread of yours I see for a good long time. Hope it works. Bye!
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)Guess what... It is still crap.
My daughters will never be pay for play toys for you.
Eliminator
(190 posts)Glad to see you think you can control your daughters' choices when they're grown adults.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)chrisa
(4,524 posts)The author reduces women to unthinking whores. Get them stuff, and they'll have sex with you!
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)last week or more.
Eliminator
(190 posts)The way you continually use the word "whore" as a pejorative.
I'm not surprised, mind you. It's just really telling. You may have more anger towards women than you do towards men.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)because I won't let my girls grow up to be whores.
Eliminator
(190 posts)Just saying that you can't "let" them be or not be anything. They'll be able to decide for themselves when they're old enough to make their own decisions.
And another thing: You too are using "whore" in a pejorative sense. Not cool.
Pacafishmate
(249 posts)It's funny to see those who think that biology doesn't apply to humans.
Remember Me
(1,532 posts)The paper could be a GOOD one or a BAD one, I don't know. What I find interesting, in an appalling sort of way, is how anyone thinks this is news. Did the bright young whippersnapper(s) who wrote this think they'd DISCOVERED something?
The OP subject line alone describes how life has been for women as a class for millennia.
I've read the thread so far and I see some of my feminist friends outraged about the paper, and I've seen DU men drooling and -- as one DUer put it -- needling and provoking.
The fact remains that the subject line is an apt description of life as we knew it prior to the Women's Movement and life as we know it STILL for far, far too many women -- certainly women in many other cultures, and too many women here in the U.S.
What bothers me, and perhaps this is because of the way the paper is written, is the underlying premise that these are CHOICES that women willingly make -- to trade sex for economic advantage. They may be choices women make, but they're hardly FREE women making those choices.
Rather, the women have grown up in a culture and been "trained" in all those subtle ways acculturation happens to behave in exactly that way. The shackles around our feet are a little looser these days, but they're still there. Women STILL make only $0.77 of what men in the same jobs make. Women are STILL discriminated against in upper echelons of business (that ole glass ceiling). Women STILL aren't present in their natural numbers in politics, government, judicial system. Women are STILL hunted (stalked) and killed, beaten and maimed, raped and sodomized, purely because they are women. And we are still taught -- from virtually the day we are born -- that our LOOKS and APPEARANCE damn near trumps all.
Women were trained to vie for the most eligible bachelors -- or indeed any bachelors -- by being pretty, cute, adorable, with decent enough domestic skills, etc., so they could escape the economic oppression that awaited them as single women in the days before 2nd Wave Feminism. We were also taught -- and it didn't take much given the economic reality -- that other women were our competitors, and so we regarded most of them as enemies, especially if we thought they were a threat to us in regards to the men we were interested in. The Patriarchy found this most amusing, but it served a very good purpose (for the Patriarchy): it kept us isolated in THEIR homes, distrustful of one another and distracted so we never quite put 2 and 2 together (until the 60s) to figure out The Men of Patriarchy were complicit in keeping us near totally detached from any sources of authentic power so we could merely live worthwhile lives WITHOUT a man, if we chose (or, more accurately, if we weren't CHOSEN).
And sure enough, now that women have a smidgeon more economic freedom, or a smidgeon less economic oppression, marriage isn't exactly the first thing all women run toward. Marriages are fewer now than ever. Women aren't forced to marry by economic necessity -- and so they don't. I think it was Bella Abzug who said, c. late 1960s -- "The greatest brain drain in the U.S. is down the kitchen sink." This was at a time when the "brain drain" emigration of scientists from the Soviet Union was in the news.
Fortunately, men in the Patriarchy found it useful enough when The Pill came into existence in the early 1960s that "virginity" stopped being the requirement it once was for nice girls to win economic stability via marriage.
So, I don't know what slant the paper adopted for this startling, stop-the-presses revelation, but as I said, the OP Subject line alone pretty much encapsulates the entire female experience under Patriarchy. It's disgusting, it's degrading, it robs women, men and society of the contributions women could make, and whatever's left of it at this late date in our so-called evolution MUST be changed. And quickly.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)thank you, remember me.
DU men drooling and -- as one DUer put it -- needling and provoking. ... and this is the purpose.
Withywindle
(9,988 posts)We have no idea what "natural" human relationships really look like. We've never experienced it, so we have nothing to measure against. All we know is a system where women are economically disadvantaged, and have been a socially repressed class for hundreds of years, valued only for our looks when we're young, and for our fertility and housekeeping skills later on.
Yes, it's also oppressive to men to be expected to be the breadwinners. But within living memory, in my mother's generation, a man could aspire to literally *anything,* from soldier to farmer to novelist to astronaut to pilot to doctor to lawyer to professor to senator to president to researcher to salesman to engineer to electrician to truck driver to policeman to journalist to surveyor to architect to carpenter to painter to scientist to historian to firefighter to filmmaker to steelworker to tailor to accountant to photographer to sailor to animal trainer to ad infinitum....while a "nice" woman could be ONLY a secretary, housewife, teacher, or nurse. Newspaper ads outright specified this. If you weren't temperamentally suited to that *extremely* limited range? Tough. Guess you had to be a whore, then.
Now, there were always brave and smart women who found their way to express their real selves, and do it without depending on men. But they were very extraordinary. For an ordinary woman? Yes, you did look for a man who could support you and the children you were expected to have (whether you wanted to or not). Chances are, you knew women who'd wound up without that financial lifeline, and you saw how scarily constrained and tenuous their lives were.
Things WERE getting better--though with the economy the way it is, most of the gains that workers of both genders made in the 50s and 60s and 70s are long gone, and we're closer to Depression economics now than ever since WWII.
Still, though, I have a long track record of loving men who barely have a pot to piss in. I prefer equals, and that means someone who does NOT have economic power over me. I dated a guy from a rich family once...I found it extremely uncomfortable in the long term.
Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)Nor do they claim to be the first economists to try and model sex as a commodity that is bought and sold.
They are very specific in stating that the novel thing about their paper is that previous economic models of sex have treated both male and female sexuality as having economic value, whereas their model considers male sexuality to be relatively worthless and female sexuality to have value in the marketplace.
It's not a seminal or groundbreaking piece of work. Most academic research isn't. But it is a solid contribution to the discussion, IMO.