
Sexual Economics: Sex as Female Resource for Social Exchange in Interactions [pdf] - morpheous
http://assets.csom.umn.edu/assets/71503.pdf
======
HarryHirsch
_A heterosexual community can be analyzed as a marketplace in which men seek
to acquire sex from women ..._

There's this peculiar American form of feminism that teaches that men want to
"acquire sex" (to use the terminology in the paper) and that women are pure.
It's counterfactual, as if women didn't enjoy sex as much as men. On top of
that, everything has to be viewed through the lens of commerce. What's wrong
with the nation?

~~~
stcredzero
The way you've formulated it, that's false. However, it makes sense in
evolutionary biology that females are going to be more selective about
partners than males. (Perhaps we'll rewire ourselves or develop
pharmaceuticals that adjust our sex drives for hedonistic or practical
purposes convenient to us?)

~~~
kjhsadklj1
The fad of repurposing evolutionary biology to explain some current situation
needs to go away. It's appealing because it's a convenient way for people to
wrap their opinions in science, using such phrases as, "it makes sense..."

In this particular claim (females have a biological motivation to conserve
sex), you should research findings regarding female bonobos. EG, from [1]:
"bonobo females mate throughout their ovulatory cycles with most or all group
males." In other words, females may actually be incentivized towards
promiscuity because it confuses paternity, bonding the offspring with multiple
group males, increasing its chances for survival.

[1]
[https://books.google.com/books?id=_scD6LxIuMUC&pg=PA1938&lpg...](https://books.google.com/books?id=_scD6LxIuMUC&pg=PA1938&lpg=PA1938&dq=female+bonobo+confuse+paternity&source=bl&ots=B6VVKWhhYG&sig=GzoE_9bzUq0Kixy3KPVX6Xp_fdw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QB1zVcbLN8GiNov4g9AH&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=female%20bonobo%20confuse%20paternity&f=false)

~~~
whearyou
Bonobos are an edge case in sexuality. Far more mammalian and primate species
behave similarly to stcredzero's conception.

Still, the author's basic assumption as HarryHirsch says 'that men want to
"acquire sex" (to use the terminology in the paper) and that women are pure...
as if women didn't enjoy sex as much as men.' fundamentally undermines an
otherwise interesting paper (and probably relevant to the authors, is kind of
anti-feminist)

~~~
kjhsadklj1
I'm not educated in the field, so I am happy to learn if I am wrong. But
aren't bonobos one of the closest relatives to humans? That would indicate
that the comparison is most relevant to human sexual behavior, regardless of
what the rest of more distant ape relatives do.

Anyhow, my point is more about using evolutionary biology to explain current
situations. EG, it would be incorrect (yet tempting) for me to reply with:
"bonobos exhibit paternity-confusing behavior. This is because their more
highly developed brains allow for more complex behavior that bonds a group of
primates together more closely, e.g., males will care for the groups
offspring, rather than just his own."

What I did there was to couch my personal opinion/narrative into the
scientific language for increased authority. This is how I most frequently see
evo bio used.

~~~
stcredzero
Bonobos do not have social penalties for promiscuity, however. This would
change the cost/benefit equation for humans. So, interesting, we've come back
to social constructs from evolutionary biology.

 _What I did there was to couch my personal opinion /narrative into the
scientific language for increased authority. This is how I most frequently see
evo bio used._

So you engage in such speech/commenting, not as a genuine form of exchanging
ideas and formulating new ones, but as a means of aggression on behalf of
chosen causes/positions? Scientific facts aren't data to be considered in
thought, but as ammunition in a partisan debate?

If so, thanks for this bit of information about your world view.

~~~
cyphunk
_Bonobos do not have social penalties for promiscuity, however. So,
interesting, we 've come back to social constructs from evolutionary biology._

Outside of religious communities humans don't have intense social penalties
either. So this then is rather limited application of evo bio.

The reason bonobo was presented was to illustrate the limitations of
application of evolutionary biology. At some point it's use feels like
darwinphilia.

~~~
stcredzero
_Outside of religious communities humans don 't have intense social penalties
either. So this then is rather limited application of evo bio._

From a historical/global perspective, this is a bit of a "HUH!?" Religion of
some form has played a major role in the majority of human lives for most of
recorded history. Also, even when religion is absent, there are almost always
some form of societal norms around sexual behavior. (Though, arguably less
restrictive ones.)

 _The reason bonobo was presented was to illustrate the limitations of
application of evolutionary biology. At some point it 's use feels like
darwinphilia._

I don't see any _limitations_ highlighted. Please cite an example. I only see
more data increasing the complexity of the discussion, but the products of
natural selection are complex by nature. How is your above statement
distinguishable from name calling and silencing-tactic FUD?

~~~
cyphunk
a) I wasn't speaking from a historical perspective but rather about the
present. b) the limitation and example cited is the bonobo one we keep chasing
our tails over.

~~~
stcredzero
_a) I wasn 't speaking from a historical perspective but rather about the
present._

This is another huge "huh!?" as the data for evolutionary biology is
fundamentally historical. (Another piece of data which you seem to lack, is
that we've documented evolutionary changes in large mammals in only a couple
hundred years.)

 _b) the limitation and example cited is the bonobo one we keep chasing our
tails over._

You keep calling it a "limitation" but keep failing to explain how that is a
valid label. What is this, the 3rd time I've asked now? This pattern is
starting to look like FUD and dishonest labelling to me.

------
jack9
> Man has much higher status than the woman - lowers

> Woman has high sex drive - lowers

Wait, what? It's an interesting list, but romantic/comedies (traditionally
female oriented, see upcoming Amy Schumer movie) are the most common "women
and men are of similar social status" which leads me to believe that these are
equally false assertions.

------
astrocyte
As human beings, we long to be understood, accepted, and loved. Casual
sex/relationships and the culture centered around it manifests this in short
order and duration. The culture of casual sex and relationships benefits
corporations the most and is thus heavily promoted by them via numerous media
outlets. Divide and conquer... Isolate and manipulate via norms of
manipulative games and economic exchanges dictated by corporations who set the
dominant ideology.

The gold still remains in long term relationships in which there is mutual
understanding, acceptance, love, and in which individuals build something
lasting with someone and grow. The observation of Sexual Economics, at least
in America, is that corporations have come to understand how to manipulate the
'market' such that it renders them max revenue by ensuring people are
perpetually unsatisfied and against each other. In this model, the concept of
a stable family is attacked and the supplier (woman) is convinced that it is
in their best interest to be as manipulative and self-serving as they can
(after-all, they are manipulated to falsely believe that's a man's mindset).
In this model and on the demand side, the man is trained on the idea that they
can do nothing to get the supply side to 'see the bigger picture'. As such,
the demand side resorts to counter manipulation practices and removes feeling
from the physical exchanges... Everyone against everyone for hollow
experiences that need constant reinforcement.. all to the benefit of the
corporations. It really results in a delusional, lost, and alone society..
Albeit, economically active.

3rd wave feminism centers on this very agenda. Meanwhile, men have been pushed
into a lessened state of being in which they game their lives and identity to
acquire sex/women they have emotional checked out on (Taxing pursuits of empty
experiences).

That's the bigger economic model... Focusing on what the participants have
been trained on ignores the driving force and the real 'engine' which is pure
capitalism and profit. So, try not wasting time on what system participants
are doing in this forced and set environment and focus more on what's the goal
of the environment that the participants are subjected to.

~~~
cyphunk
that was a fun read. I also think that all public beaches aren't nude beaches
is another capitalist conspiracy.

