Let me know when she goes on sale.
Posted on 06/15/2011 8:15:36 AM PDT by Vigilanteman
Think you haven’t heard of sexual economics? Listen to the pop culture.
“Money can’t buy me love,” crooned the Beatles. “My love don’t cost a thing,” pledged Jennifer Lopez. MTV artists got “money for nothing and the chicks for free,” groused Dire Straits.
Even Adele, in her current No. 1 hit, “Rolling in the Deep,” warns an ex-lover, “Go ahead and sell me out, and I’ll lay your ship bare.”
Evidence of sexual economics — a mashup of Adam Smith and Dr. Ruth that seeks to explain how the “sexual market” works — is everywhere, said University of Texas sociology professor Mark Regnerus.
“One of the biggest unacknowledged facts about sex is the underlying economy to it all,” he said. “When you look into it, it’s really amazing how it works. And it’s fairly elementary as well: We put a price tag on sex. You might not think we ought to do that, but we do. Sex, at one level, is an exchange. … Each person gives the other person something of themselves. But it is typically a different something.”
Mr. Regnerus and co-author Jeremy Uecker use sexual economics theory in their new data-driven book, “Premarital Sex in America: How Young Americans Meet, Mate and Think About Marrying.”
Their conclusion is that, for young single Americans, modern rules of romantic engagement “clearly favor men” and penalize women who want to marry — especially those who want to save sex for marriage.
The price of sex today is “pretty low,” Mr. Regnerus said.
So what was the old “exchange rate” for sex, and how has it changed? Researchers have long recognized that male-female mating systems revolved around exchanges. Even in ancient times, men and women bonded because one could cook . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Marriage culture key to economy, study says
Offers best outcomes for kids, nation
“When women collude to restrict men’s sexual access to women, all women tend to benefit,” he said, noting that “if women were more in charge of how their romantic relationships transpired … we would be seeing greater male investment in relationships, more impressive wooing efforts, fewer hookups, fewer premarital sexual partners … shorter cohabitations, more marrying … and more marrying at a slightly earlier age. In other words, the price of sex would be higher. It would cost men more to access it.”
However, he said, “none of these things are occurring today. Not one. The price of sex is pretty low.”
Two sexes for the price of one?
Women do not achieve genuine equality and respect from men by “hooking up”?
Geehoodathunkit!!!?
While true, this article disregards several key points from the male perspective. For example, this article does not touch on the age-pool. A young girl may have many suitors, and can be picky. But, after 10 years - the number of females to marriage-able males ratio shifts dramatically out of her favor. Aggravating this fact, is that many males are establishing their education and careers during the female's "prime", thus these males are forced to postpone their marriage until such a time as they are influential enough to attract the women they desire. Thus, by the time a male has completed his college education and has established himself in the market - he is in his mid to late 20's. At this point, many of the potential mates are either now divorced with kids, his age and single, or older - females now out-number the elgible males; and the late 20's male has absolutly no need to 'settle'.
Secondly, the article fails to point out the obvious tax and legal reasons why a man would never NEED to marry (not want to, NEED to). Sexually, a man need never marry - he can get sex with minimal effort. The only viable reason a man would want to marry today is to have a family, or he has fallen in love. Consider, if a Man gets married, he not only forfeits his possessions, but his possible future income - based upon the whim of his mate and the state in which he resides. Would any rational being, logically conclude that he would risk 50% of what he makes this year, and for several years into the future - based upon the emotional state of another individual? Furthermore, he will have no 'vote' on the children, number or timing. His wife may chose to use protection (he cannot prevent this) or may opt to abort (he may not prevent, nor force this). This is 100% out of his area of control; yet he is forced to live with whatever decision is made. If his wife decides to have another man's baby - he is legally forced to provide for that child for the next 18 yrs (24 years in states like Washington, where a college tuition for the child is a 'right').
In the past, many marriages were little more than business type arrangements where safety and security were traded for sex; and a family was created for the mutual benefit for both parties. The "love-less" marriage was a fact of life for many individuals who 'settled' for a partner they could tolerate. While not ideal, this arrangement provided both parties with security and a social stigma should either or both parties abandon the union.
While not pleasant; these are factors that are being disregarded.
moral absolutes ping
“Female sexuality has high value to men” - So, rich guys get the babes. How rare.
That seemed to me to be the point of the article. Women shortchange themselves when they give it away for casually and for free. If women did not do that, then men would be forced to pay for sex via hookers or would have to marry.
Promiscuous sex is a lot like Liberal Policy, there is an overwhelming amount of hidden costs and unforeseen negative consequences.
In time and with proper care, these so-called loveless marriages could and many, in fact, did grow into useful, happy families. This is something which almost never happens with today's fatherless marriages where daddy is, at best, an ATM and, at worst, another government dependency check.
“Let me woo you with sweet words”
“Honey, my family has enough money to give us a beachfront house with ten bedrooms and eight bathrooms”
First guy will be a bachelor for awhile.
The recession hit men harder than women and for the first time in American history, women outnumber men in the workforce.
As such, single college educated employed women are chasing a shrinking pool of single college educated and employed men.
At Colleges where men outnumber women you see more dating, more engagements, more marriages, and unwed motherhood is almost unheard of.
At Colleges where women outnumber men you see more ‘hooking up’, engagements and marriages are almost unheard of, and you do see women impregnated and the ‘sperm donor’ not interested in marriage.
Great article about this in “slate” that I saw e-mailed around.
Profound wisdom and so true.
[ Sexually, a man need never marry - he can get sex with minimal effort.
That seemed to me to be the point of the article. Women shortchange themselves when they give it away for casually and for free. If women did not do that, then men would be forced to pay for sex via hookers or would have to marry. ]
Why wake up at 6:00am to feed and milk the cows when he can get the milk for free?
Of course this leads men to treat women like a slob receiving welfare benefits, they both abuse them...
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Agreed. If women think so little of themselves that they treat their bodies as toys for any guy who happens to come along, then why are they surprised when the guy treats them in accordance with that behavior?
At this rate, in ten years, women will be paying for it.
Let me know when she goes on sale.
“Woman’s liberation” only liberated men from their responsibilities to women.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.