|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
Sexual Economics, Culture, Men, and Modern Sexual Trends
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
 Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 8:51 am Post subject: Sexual Economics, Culture, Men, and Modern Sexual Trends |
 |
|
http://www.springerlink.com/content/vg7322727mgl1875/fulltext.html?MUD=MP
| Quote: |
...
But not in sex. In fact, Regnerus shows over and over that when it comes to sex, the minority rules. This is what happens in economics, especially in the dynamics of supply and demand. When supply outnumbers demand, the suppliers (the majority) are in a weak position and must yield ground, such as by reducing their price. In contrast, when demand outnumbers supply, the suppliers (now the minority) have the advantage and can dictate the terms to their liking, such as by raising the price.
In simple terms, we proposed that in sex, women are the suppliers and men constitute the demand (Baumeister and Vohs 2004). Hence the anti-democratic, seemingly paradoxical sex ratio findings that Regnerus describes. When women are in the minority, the sexual marketplace conforms to their preferences: committed relationships, widespread virginity, faithful partners, and early marriage. For example, American colleges in the 1950s conformed to that pattern. In our analysis, women benefit in such circumstances because the demand for their sexuality exceeds the supply. In contrast, when women are the majority, such as on today�s campuses as well as in some ethnic minority communities, things shift toward what men prefer: Plenty of sex without commitment, delayed marriage, extradyadic copulations, and the like.
It is fashionable to describe all gender relations as reflecting the oppression and victimization of women. When women were a minority of students, this was interpreted as indicating that women were victims of oppressive discrimination. Now that women are a majority, they are victims because of not being able to dictate the terms of romantic and sexual behavior. Much of Regnerus�s discussion respects this dominant tradition. We also respect that fashion, but as social scientists interested in both genders, we shall use this brief comment to redress the standard imbalance by discussing some implications for men (cf. Baumeister and Vohs 2004).
Sexual marketplaces take the shape they do because nature has biologically built a disadvantage into men: a huge desire for sex that makes men dependent on women. ... Women certainly desire sex too � but as long as most women desire it less than most men, women have a collective advantage, and social roles and interactions will follow scripts that give women greater power than men (Baumeister et al. 2001). We have even concluded that the cultural suppression of female sexuality throughout much of history and across many different cultures has largely had its roots in the quest for marketplace advantage (see Baumeister and Twenge 2002). Women have often sustained their advantage over men by putting pressure on each other to restrict the supply of sex available to men. As with any monopoly or cartel, restricting the supply leads to a higher price.
...Evolutionary theory said that the cultural suppression of female sexuality arose because men wanted to restrain women�s sexuality so as to be sure that their partners would be faithful (so the men could be confident of paternity). Feminist theory almost always harks back to male oppression, and so the cultural suppression of female sexuality reflected men�s desires to dominate women, possess them, and/or prevent them from finding sexual fulfillment. In both cases, the cultural suppression of female sexuality should come from men. Yet the evidence overwhelmingly indicated that the cultural suppression of female sexuality is propagated and sustained by women (Baumeister and Twenge 2002). ... Similar to how OPEC seeks to maintain a high price for oil on the world market by restricting the supply, women have often sought to maintain a high price for sex by restricting each other�s willingness to supply men with what men want.
Sometimes men have sought to improve their chances for sex by keeping women at a disadvantage in terms of economic, educational, political, and other opportunities (Baumeister and Vohs 2004). For example, researchers have found that in New York in the 1800s, surprisingly high numbers of employed women resorted to occasional prostitution to supplement their meager wages (Elias et al. 1998). But in general this male strategy backfired. Women appear to have realized collectively that sex was the main thing they had to offer men in order to get a piece of society�s wealth, and so they restricted sexual access as much as they could, to maintain a high price. Recent work has found that across a large sample of countries today, the economic and political liberation of women is positively correlated with greater availability of sex (Baumeister and Mendoza 2011). Thus, men�s access to sex has turned out to be maximized not by keeping women in an economically disadvantaged and dependent condition, but instead by letting them have abundant access and opportunity. In an important sense, the sexual revolution of the 1970s was itself a market correction. Once women had been granted wide opportunities for education and wealth, they no longer had to hold sex hostage (Baumeister and Twenge 2002).
What does all this mean for men? The social trends suggest the continuing influence of a stable fact, namely the strong desire of young men for sexual activity. As the environment has shifted, men have simply adjusted their behavior to find the best means to achieve this same goal. Back in 1960, it was difficult to get sex without getting married or at least engaged, and so men married early. To be sure, this required more than being willing to bend the knee, declare love, and offer a ring. To qualify as marriage material, a man had to have a job or at least a strong prospect of one (such as based on an imminent college degree). The man�s overarching goal of getting sex thus motivated him to become a respectable stakeholder contributing to society.
The fact that men became useful members of society as a result of their efforts to obtain sex is not trivial, and it may contain important clues as to the basic relationship between men and culture (see Baumeister 2010). Although this may be considered an unflattering characterization, and it cannot at present be considered a proven fact, we have found no evidence to contradict the basic general principle that men will do whatever is required in order to obtain sex, and perhaps not a great deal more. (One of us characterized this in a previous work as, �If women would stop sleeping with jerks, men would stop being jerks.�) If in order to obtain sex men must become pillars of the community, or lie, or amass riches by fair means or foul, or be romantic or funny, then many men will do precisely that. This puts the current sexual free-for-all on today�s college campuses in a somewhat less appealing light than it may at first seem. Giving young men easy access to abundant sexual satisfaction deprives society of one of its ways to motivate them to contribute valuable achievements to the culture.
...
All of this is a bit ironic, in historical context. The large institutions have almost all been created by men. The notion that women were deliberately oppressed by being excluded from these institutions requires an artful, selective, and motivated way of looking at them. Even today, the women�s movement has been a story of women demanding places and preferential treatment in the organizational and institutional structures that men create, rather than women creating organizations and institutions themselves. Almost certainly, this reflects one of the basic motivational differences between men and women, which is that female sociality is focused heavily on one-to-one relationships, whereas male sociality extends to larger groups networks of shallower relationships (e.g., Baumeister and Sommer 1997; Baumeister 2010). Crudely put, women hardly ever create large organizations or social systems. That fact can explain most of the history of gender relations, in which the gender near equality of prehistorical societies was gradually replaced by progressive inequality�not because men banded together to oppress women, but because cultural progress arose from the men�s sphere with its large networks of shallow relationships, while the women�s sphere remained stagnant because its social structure emphasized intense one-to-one relationships to the near exclusion of all else (see Baumeister 2010). All over the world and throughout history (and prehistory), the contribution of large groups of women to cultural progress has been vanishingly small.
...
Indeed, the world of work is a daunting place for a young man today. Feminists quickly point to the continued dominance of men at the top of most organizations, but this is misleading if not outright disingenuous. Men create most organizations and work hard to succeed in them. Indeed, an open-minded scholar can search through history mostly in vain to find large organizations created and run by women that have contributed anything beyond complaining about men and demanding a bigger share of the male pie.
Why have men acquiesced so much in giving women the upper hand in society�s institutions? It falls to men to create society (because women almost never create large organizations or cultural systems). It seems foolish and self-defeating for men then to meekly surrender advantageous treatment in all these institutions to women. Moreover, despite many individual exceptions, in general and on average men work harder at their jobs in these institutions than women, thereby enabling men to rise to the top ranks. As a result, women continue to earn less money and have lower status than men, which paradoxically is interpreted to mean that women�s preferential treatment should be continued and possibly increased (see review of much evidence in Baumeister 2010). Modern society is not far from embracing explicit policies of �equal pay for less work,� as one of us recently proposed.
...
...
So maybe the young men don�t care that much about how the major social institutions in the world of work have become increasingly rigged to favor women. Sex has become free and easy. This is today�s version of the opiate of the (male) masses. The male who beds multiple women is enjoying life quite a bit, and so he may not notice or mind the fact that his educational and occupational advancement is vaguely hampered by all the laws and policies that push women ahead of him. After all, one key reason he wanted that advancement was to get sex, and he already has that. Climbing the corporate ladder for its own sake may still hold some appeal, but undoubtedly it was more compelling when it was vital for obtaining sex. Success isn�t as important as it once was, when it was a prerequisite for sex.
...
With regard to work, the societal changes are producing less contribution by men and more by women. These might offset, with few or no costs to society. Still, replacing male with female workers may bring some changes, insofar as the two genders approach work differently. Compared to men, women have higher rates of absenteeism, seek social rewards more than financial ones, are less ambitious, work fewer hours overall, are more prone to take extended career interruptions, and identify less with the organizations they work for. They are more risk averse, resulting in fewer entrepreneurs and inventions. (Baumeister 2010, noted an appalling gender imbalance in new patents; nobody is seriously suggesting that the U.S. Patent office systematically discriminates against women, but women simply do not apply for patents in anything close to the rate that men do.) Women are less interested in science and technology fields. They create less wealth (for themselves and others).
... |
I've had to cut it down significantly and it is well worth a full read.
Some commentary:
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2012/11/02/latest-baumeister-paper-supports-ch-concept-of-the-sexual-market/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zackback
Joined: 05 Nov 2010
Location: Kyungbuk
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aside from her absolutely terrible English how do I explain all this to my girlfriend? We just started seeing each other and I think this would confuse her. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Zackback wrote: |
| Aside from her absolutely terrible English how do I explain all this to my girlfriend? We just started seeing each other and I think this would confuse her. |
Why would you want to? That would result in you getting less sex, either from her getting upset or her taking this article as a serious call to action (heh, rather no action). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| So maybe the young men don�t care that much about how the major social institutions in the world of work have become increasingly rigged to favor women. Sex has become free and easy. This is today�s version of the opiate of the (male) masses. The male who beds multiple women is enjoying life quite a bit, and so he may not notice or mind the fact that his educational and occupational advancement is vaguely hampered by all the laws and policies that push women ahead of him. After all, one key reason he wanted that advancement was to get sex, and he already has that. Climbing the corporate ladder for its own sake may still hold some appeal, but undoubtedly it was more compelling when it was vital for obtaining sex. Success isn�t as important as it once was, when it was a prerequisite for sex. |
Sociopathic ambition runs rampant in the American corridors of power. I don't see how these societal changes are prominent enough to affect the good they might seem to offer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
recessiontime
Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| interesting article, thanks titus |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unposter
Joined: 04 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
While I don't have a problem with talking about sexual relations as if it were an economic market, I find the assumptions in the article to be questionable at best and don't right false at worse.
1. This statement: "When women are in the minority, the sexual marketplace conforms to their preferences: committed relationships, widespread virginity, faithful partners, and early marriage."
Lacks an understanding of personal and cultural choices and preferences. Women don't just have one mind. You can find women who think many different things across a spectrum on these issues.
2. Then there is this statement: "Sexual marketplaces take the shape they do because nature has biologically built a disadvantage into men: a huge desire for sex that makes men dependent on women. ... Women certainly desire sex too � but as long as most women desire it less than most men, women have a collective advantage, and social roles and interactions will follow scripts that give women greater power than men"
I think the concept of evolutionary desires for sex are much more complex and even more satisfying than this. For example, while men do have stronger sex drives in their teens than women, women's sex drives increase dramatically in their 30s, often all the way up to and even (sometimes) past menopause. While, men's sex drives start to decrease as early as their 20's. This is certainly not a black/white on/off phenomenon but one that is gradual and sometimes even up and down. This suggests that sex drive differences between the sexes may have more to do with balance and preventing over-population, including the length of women's ability to be fertile.
3. This: "Evolutionary theory said that the cultural suppression of female sexuality arose because men wanted to restrain women�s sexuality so as to be sure that their partners would be faithful (so the men could be confident of paternity)."
is either very poorly worded or patently false. It may be a cultural or personal strategy but it has nothing to do with evolution.
4. "Women appear to have realized collectively that sex was the main thing they had to offer men in order to get a piece of society�s wealth, and so they restricted sexual access as much as they could, to maintain a high price.
Good luck doing anything "collectively" like this. Furthermore, men (the pimp/owner) profit as much from prostitution or more than women. Men also gain economic advantages from marrying the "right" woman. Women rarely gain economic advantages outside men unless they are a member of the elite.
5. "Even today, the women�s movement has been a story of women demanding places and preferential treatment in the organizational and institutional structures that men create, rather than women creating organizations and institutions themselves."
At first, it was all about equal access/competition. Today, it may not. But, I don't think anyone can argue about equal access/competition. Furthermore, it ignores women owned business and successful women politicians. Lastly, is the writer suggesting that women form separate societies from men with their own institutions like Amazon women or something? The whole thing smells of slight of hand propaganda.
6. What I will agree with: Sexual relations between men and women today, especially in the U.S., have become more politically charged than anytime I am aware of. These are not easy paths for both men and women to walk. And, as long as there is mistrust and anger (on both sides), it is going to be hard for some people to have good relationships with the opposite sex and I agree that is sad. But, I would be thinking a long the lines of finding ways to bring the sexes together rather than more of this "political drivel and warped logic" which will only exacerbate the problem.
Understanding the opposite sex and finding ways to have a good relationship both in your business/work dealings and your personal relationships is always the best way to go forward. And, it is the same with your same-sex relationships in business/work and I guess personal relationships if that is your orientation. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
