In a previous thread, I presented my new (as far as I know) discovery. It seems no-one was convinced, so I present the facts in a more persuasive form below.
My thesis on female sexual behavior is this: 'Women's unwillingness to have sex, where men would be willing, is a function of their perception of the benefits to be obtained by withholding it.'. It must be understood that: this process by which women decide is largely unconscious, that the benefits stated are not necessarily financial, and that they are not just obtainable from _that man_ they are considering but from all men perceived to be in the same group.
Examples of this principle's success are the following:
1. Young girls (middle school to high school age, but past puberty) that are sexually active at all often have boyfriends the same age that are not employed and supported by their parents (like all children). Adult women generally would not consider a man that is unemployed and supported by his parents, even if she is.
Explanation: The 14-year-old girl has no realistic prospect of getting a lover the same age that can support her, therefore does not get that benefit by withholding sex. The adult woman does.
2. In confined environments women are more willing to have sex with peers regardless of whether they would be suitable outside.
The high likelihood of sex is, after all, why prisons (and similar) are segregated. The military is not segregated now, and sex happens as much as you could imagine. The high rate of pregnancies in the military, especially the Navy, is not solely due to the benefits offered to women that become pregnant as women rarely are willing to have sex to achieve pregnancy when they would not otherwise desire sex (if they were, child support would ruin men much more than it actually does!).
Explanation: The woman at that point has little to no possibility of getting a more suitable man, and therefore her sexual desires are satisfied with what is available.
3. Women are sexually looser with travelers and foreigners than they would be with men from home. For white women in the Western world, this interacts with dogma against 'racism' to cause it to also include men of other races.
Explanation: Those men belong to a class that are not likely to commit the same way as domestic men anyway, and therefore deny women the benefits of withholding sex. Men of other races can be perceived to belong to that class, because for almost all of human evolution, men looking that different were foreigners.
4. Conversely, women traveling to another city, or more, to another country, are more likely to have an affair there than to have one at home.
Explanation: The same, essentially. This is further augmented if the women is already married or in a committed relationship at home (see next).
5. Women that are married or in committed relationships, especially after long enough to get over the stage of initial infatuation (a few years), may have affairs with men that would never be considered as partners were they single, such as, most evidently, men that are poor or of a lower social class.
Explanation: Being in a relationship that satisfies, at the moment, a woman's financial demands, as well as being legally or emotionally difficult to escape from, causes a woman not to perceive any benefit by refraining from sex outside it.
6. The previous is especially true for women that are wealthy, and may be true for independently wealthy women that are single.
Explanation: Wealth reduces the incremental benefit obtainable from any sexual relationship.
7. The previous does not usually apply to women working for a living: no matter how much money they are making, they usually concentrate exclusively on men making as much or more.
Explanation: Working for a living causes one to _feel_ financially insecure, no matter how much money one actually has.
8. The availability of prostitution in a society is negatively correlated with men's ability to find normal sexual relationships that are not prostitution.
Explanation: Prostitution increases women's ability to withhold sex and not have the man lose interest, because he can be satisfied that way. Thus, the balance is tipped against men.
9. Women sometimes enter into sexual relationship with teenage boys, despite having access to adult companionship. That the most notorious cases involve school-teachers is a combination of such being more newsworthy, more likely to be discovered, and those women simply having the most access to men in that age range.
Explanation: A combination of 5 and 1 (the male is seen as a member of the group of teenage boys).
10. Women are more attracted, all else equal, to men that are already getting more female attention, and in a relationship with them will put up with poorer treatment than from an equivalent ordinary man.
(Partial) Explanation: Such a man is going to have adequate sexual satisfaction no matter what, so withholding sex from him will typically avail less.
I hope this list has been more convincing than my original post. You may have the reaction that many of these points are 'obvious'. But I am not discussing how well known they are, I am discussing WHY they are.
On 6 Nov, 02:40, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In a previous thread, I presented my new (as far as I know) discovery. > It seems no-one was convinced, so I present the facts in a more > persuasive form below.
> My thesis on female sexual behavior is this: ...
Written by a man? Oh dear.
> ... 'Women's unwillingness to > have sex, where men would be willing, is a function of their > perception of the benefits to be obtained by withholding it.'.
You have a wife who uses sex as a bargaining chip, yes?
> It must > be understood that: this process by which women decide is largely > unconscious, that the benefits stated are not necessarily financial, > and that they are not just obtainable from _that man_ they are > considering but from all men perceived to be in the same group.
> Examples of this principle's success are the following:
> 1. Young girls (middle school to high school age, but past puberty) > that are sexually active at all often have boyfriends the same age > that are not employed and supported by their parents (like all > children). Adult women generally would not consider a man that is > unemployed and supported by his parents, even if she is.
> Explanation: The 14-year-old girl has no realistic prospect of getting > a lover the same age that can support her, therefore does not get that > benefit by withholding sex. The adult woman does.
There's a much simpler and clearer explanation. Women tend to prefer men with the highest status within the group-of-comparison (i.e. the peer group). While at school, it is not socially expected that boys will work or be economically independent from their parents, and being so supported is not a sign of low status. As such, it is possible for a schoolboy to have high status within the group-of-comparison, and yet be dependent on his parents. Adults however are expected to live independently from their parents and normally do so, and when they don't it is normally a sign of low status.
> 2. In confined environments women are more willing to have sex with > peers regardless of whether they would be suitable outside.
> The high likelihood of sex is, after all, why prisons (and similar) > are segregated. The military is not segregated now, and sex happens as > much as you could imagine. The high rate of pregnancies in the > military, especially the Navy, is not solely due to the benefits > offered to women that become pregnant as women rarely are willing to > have sex to achieve pregnancy when they would not otherwise desire sex > (if they were, child support would ruin men much more than it actually > does!).
> Explanation: The woman at that point has little to no possibility of > getting a more > suitable man, and therefore her sexual desires are satisfied with what > is available.
Indeed. Insofar as she wants to have sex at all, her standards will depend on what is available within the group-of-comparison (i.e. she will judge partners by a socially relative standard, rather than any absolute standard).
> 3. Women are sexually looser with travelers and foreigners than they > would be with men from home. For white women in the Western world, > this interacts with dogma against 'racism' to cause it to also include > men of other races.
> Explanation: Those men belong to a class that are not likely to commit > the same way as domestic men anyway, and therefore deny women the > benefits of withholding sex. Men of other races can be perceived to > belong to that class, because for almost all of human evolution, men > looking that different were foreigners.
I see no reason, or evidence, that women are more sexually loose with travellers by virtue of that fact alone. More likely is that women will tend to partner with foreign men who appear to have traits which would attract high-status within the woman's home group-of-comparison.
> 4. Conversely, women traveling to another city, or more, to another > country, are more likely to have an affair there than to have one at > home.
> Explanation: The same, essentially. This is further augmented if the > women is already married or in a committed relationship at home (see > next).
Again, it would seem to me they are only likely to have sex with men who appear to have high-status traits.
> 5. Women that are married or in committed relationships, especially > after long enough to get over the stage of initial infatuation (a few > years), may have affairs with men that would never be considered as > partners were they single, such as, most evidently, men that are poor > or of a lower social class.
> Explanation: Being in a relationship that satisfies, at the moment, a > woman's financial demands, as well as being legally or emotionally > difficult to escape from, causes a woman not to perceive any benefit > by refraining from sex outside it.
There appears to be a kernel of truth there, but again a rephrase I think is in order. A woman has various needs, and in our society women often need men to meet their economic needs. Where that is the case, women may well tend to choose men whose only attractive attribute is the ability to offer financial security. If that is the man's only useful attribute, and if the woman has other needs that are not met (such as intimacy, or if she is just bored at home all day), then the woman is likely to seek out other men (and this time she can weed them on the basis of things like looks and personality, rather than simply on ability to provide economic security).
> 6. The previous is especially true for women that are wealthy, and may > be true for independently wealthy women that are single.
> Explanation: Wealth reduces the incremental benefit obtainable from > any sexual relationship.
All it means is that it is not necessary to weed out men based on their wealth, or remain with them in order to retain financial security. Then the name of the game is simply enjoyment, and once the enjoyment stops there is no reason for the relationship to continue.
> 7. The previous does not usually apply to women working for a living: > no matter how much money they are making, they usually concentrate > exclusively on men making as much or more.
> Explanation: Working for a living causes one to _feel_ financially > insecure, no matter how much money one actually has.
Perhaps in some cases, but generally I think it's just attraction again to high-status men within the group-of-comparison.
> 8. The availability of prostitution in a society is negatively > correlated with men's ability to find normal sexual relationships that > are not prostitution.
> Explanation: Prostitution increases women's ability to withhold sex > and not have the man lose interest, because he can be satisfied that > way. Thus, the balance is tipped against men.
I don't understand this at all. The availability of sex elsewhere reduces a woman's bargaining power, rather than increasing it (because she forgoes something pleasurable while a man does not), and also erodes the closeness of the relationship which would otherwise be cemented together by pleasurable sex. Also it dramatically increases the chances of catching infectious diseases and such.
> 9. Women sometimes enter into sexual relationship with teenage boys, > despite having access to adult companionship. That the most notorious > cases involve school-teachers is a combination of such being more > newsworthy, more likely to be discovered, and those women simply > having the most access to men in that age range.
> Explanation: A combination of 5 and 1 (the male is seen as a member of > the group of teenage boys).
Quite possibly it is simply availability.
> 10. Women are more attracted, all else equal, to men that are already > getting more female attention, and in a relationship with them will > put up with poorer treatment than from an equivalent ordinary man.
Probably because the fact that he is getting so much attention proves that he is high status and "worth putting up with".
> (Partial) Explanation: Such a man is going to have adequate sexual > satisfaction no matter what, so withholding sex from him will > typically avail less.
I agree a woman is less likely to bargain by withholding sex from a man if he can easily get it elsewhere, but earlier with the prostitutes you said the availability of sex elsewhere increased a woman's bargaining power? How do these two points tie in?
> I hope this list has been more convincing than my original post.
I didn't see the original, but I'm not quite convinced yet.
> You > may have the reaction that many of these points are 'obvious'. But I > am not discussing how well known they are, I am discussing WHY they > are.
Andrew Usher wrote: > My thesis on female sexual behavior is this: 'Women's unwillingness to > have sex, where men would be willing, is a function of their > perception of the benefits to be obtained by withholding it.'.
So...
Can't get a shag then...
-- William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat single handed with a quarterstaff.
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:40:43 -0800, Andrew Usher wrote: > My thesis on female sexual behavior is this:
Of course your thesis was checked for bias?
>'Women's unwillingness to have sex, where men would be willing, is a > function of....
This given of "women's unwillingness" as a basis for the more neutral "thesis on female sexual behavior" seems shockingly subjective. If a study of "female sexual behavior" how does "unwillingness" then immediately follow?
Unless this is more" "My thesis on why I (or we) can not get laid" but then this does not serve your purpose either since it is women, not you, who are at the center of this treatment.
Your principles seem, at first glance, to be based on personal musings, 14 year old girls, Navy, prisons, foreigners.. actually even women themselves all seem more wondered over than experience which then form principles.
Andrew Usher wrote: > In a previous thread, I presented my new (as far as I know) discovery. > It seems no-one was convinced, so I present the facts in a more > persuasive form below.
> My thesis on female sexual behavior is this: 'Women's unwillingness to > have sex, where men would be willing, is a function of their > perception of the benefits to be obtained by withholding it.'. It must > be understood that: this process by which women decide is largely > unconscious, that the benefits stated are not necessarily financial, > and that they are not just obtainable from _that man_ they are > considering but from all men perceived to be in the same group.
Pretty much all human relationships and behavior can be explained by a combination of sociobiology and game theory.
> In a previous thread, I presented my new (as far as I know) discovery. > It seems no-one was convinced, so I present the facts in a more > persuasive form below.
> My thesis on female sexual behavior is this: 'Women's unwillingness to > have sex, where men would be willing, is a function of their > perception of the benefits to be obtained by withholding it.'
[snip 100 lines of sciolistic crap]
American women as a class are insane, manipulative, vindictive, stupid, and monstrous. If you find a feminine one or one with a working brain, marry her. If you can get overlap, better.
Men need a place, women need a reason. If she is really hot and nasty, any place will do. The only reason is to get her hooks deep into your wallet.
> In a previous thread, I presented my new (as far as I know) discovery. > It seems no-one was convinced, so I present the facts in a more > persuasive form below.
> My thesis on female sexual behavior is this: 'Women's unwillingness to > have sex, where men would be willing, is a function of their > perception of the benefits to be obtained by withholding it.'
[snip 100 lines of sciolistic crap]
American women as a class are insane, manipulative, vindictive, stupid, and monstrous. If you find a feminine one or one with a working brain, marry her. If you can get overlap, better.
Men need a place, women need a reason. If she is really hot and nasty, any place will do. The only reason is to get her hooks deep into your wallet.
ZerkonXXXX wrote: > On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:40:43 -0800, Andrew Usher wrote:
> > My thesis on female sexual behavior is this:
> Of course your thesis was checked for bias?
How is that possible? And it's certainly not scientific.
> >'Women's unwillingness to have sex, where men would be willing, is a > > function of....
> This given of "women's unwillingness" as a basis for the more neutral > "thesis on female sexual behavior" seems shockingly subjective. If a > study of "female sexual behavior" how does "unwillingness" then > immediately follow?
Yes. That's the only mystery of women's sexual behavior, isn't it?
> Your principles seem, at first glance, to be based on personal musings, > 14 year old girls, Navy, prisons, foreigners.. actually even women > themselves all seem more wondered over than experience which then form > principles.
Now this sentence is incoherent. What are my principles supposed to be based on? I figure observation to be superior to the dogmatic feminism that opposes any such inquiry.
Uncle Al wrote: > American women as a class are insane, manipulative, vindictive, > stupid, and monstrous. If you find a feminine one or one with a > working brain, marry her. If you can get overlap, better.
> Men need a place, women need a reason. If she is really hot and > nasty, any place will do. The only reason is to get her hooks deep > into your wallet.
No, women are not rational in this matter; that's what my argument is devoted to showing.
Uncle Al wrote: > American women as a class are insane, manipulative, vindictive, > stupid, and monstrous. If you find a feminine one or one with a > working brain, marry her. If you can get overlap, better.
> Men need a place, women need a reason. If she is really hot and > nasty, any place will do. The only reason is to get her hooks deep > into your wallet.
No, women are not rational in this matter; that's what my argument is devoted to showing.
> > In a previous thread, I presented my new (as far as I know) discovery. > > It seems no-one was convinced, so I present the facts in a more > > persuasive form below.
> > My thesis on female sexual behavior [snip rest, unread]
> Thanks for crossposting your sexist spew to sci.physics.
I'm sure it really bothers you. That's a good sign for its truth, I think - after all, obvious lunacy doesn't bother people.
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:16:58 -0800, Andrew Usher wrote: >> This given of "women's unwillingness" as a basis for the more neutral >> "thesis on female sexual behavior" seems shockingly subjective. If a >> study of "female sexual behavior" how does "unwillingness" then >> immediately follow?
> Yes. That's the only mystery of women's sexual behavior, isn't it?
Hardly. However, on this matter, to each their own (thesis).
ZerkonXXXX wrote: > >> This given of "women's unwillingness" as a basis for the more neutral > >> "thesis on female sexual behavior" seems shockingly subjective. If a > >> study of "female sexual behavior" how does "unwillingness" then > >> immediately follow?
> > Yes. That's the only mystery of women's sexual behavior, isn't it?
> Hardly. However, on this matter, to each their own (thesis).
Well, we know that men's needs little explanation, right? So it seems we should focus on where women differ from men.
Ste wrote: > On 6 Nov, 02:40, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > In a previous thread, I presented my new (as far as I know) discovery. > > It seems no-one was convinced, so I present the facts in a more > > persuasive form below.
> > My thesis on female sexual behavior is this: ...
> Written by a man? Oh dear.
Well (I assume you are a man), this is quite logical, as women can hardly be trusted to be honest on this matter (from repeated observation).
Rather than quote the whole thing, I will respond to your points by index number:
1. This is true that women are wired to prefer higher-status men. However, it's not a sufficient explanation by itself (I think) because that doesn't explain why women's perception of status would be so relative. Note that the young girls sometimes go with adult men that would be considered of low status in the adult world, in agreement with me - this is part of the motivation for statutory rape laws, but I'm not comfortable with it because it seems like protecting women from the competition of teenage girls, which they don't deserve.
2. Agreed save that 'whether she wants to have sex at all' can not be considered an independent variable.
3 and 4. What reason do you have for believing this? I have read enough experiences by women to know that these are true, I'm sorry no specific examples come to mind but 'female sex tourism' is a known phenomenon and probably the most extreme example of this.
5. This is the feminist line. Women's 'needs' are never met if she doesn't want them to be!
6. Correct.
7. This is a real effect that can also be seen among men. What explanation would you propose instead for the fact that women with inherited wealth often, perhaps usually, marry men less wealthy, but women with conventional high-income jobs rarely do?
8. This seems counterintuitive but is it not true when you survey history that the institution of prostitution is negatively correlated with looser sexual morals in general society? I imagine that women's bargaining power with sex may be reduced, but her power with love (and social expectation) is increased.
9. Women do not normally have sex just on 'availability'.
10. Saying that he is 'worth putting up with' seems circular to me.
> I agree a woman is less likely to bargain by withholding sex from a > man if he can easily get it elsewhere, but earlier with the > prostitutes you said the availability of sex elsewhere increased a > woman's bargaining power? How do these two points tie in?
As with #8 above. When a man is interested in a women primarily for sex, as high-status men generally are with lower-status women, her bargaining power is decreased. When it is primarily for love or social expectation, it is increased.
On Nov 7, 3:26 am, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> eric gisse wrote: > > Andrew Usher wrote:
> > > In a previous thread, I presented my new (as far as I know) discovery. > > > It seems no-one was convinced, so I present the facts in a more > > > persuasive form below.
> > > My thesis on female sexual behavior [snip rest, unread]
> > Thanks for crossposting your sexist spew to sci.physics.
> I'm sure it really bothers you. That's a good sign for its truth, I > think - after all, obvious lunacy doesn't bother people.
Erm, no.
But whatever, as to your 'thesis' there are hundreds of blatantly obvious reasons why one person would not want want to have sex with another person without need for some sort of pseudo Freudian grand theory.
1. They just don't find you physically attractive.
2. Find you physically attractive but find your personality unattractive.
3. You have hygiene problems.
4. Tried it once or twice and didn't enjoy it.
5. Is very tired and needs to sleep.
6. Is totally pissed off by something you said/did earlier (see 2)
7. Has a low sex drive / is bored / just can't be bothered.
8. Lots of other reasons...
All of which apply equally to men as well as women. Your assumption that "that [all] men's needs little explanation" (i.e. "identical to your own") is as seriously misguided as thinking you can't get a shag because women are all obviously "not rational in this matter".
Perhaps you should ask yourself why any woman would want to be your friend? Then ask yourself why they would have any reason to fall in love with you?
And why you might fall in love with them? Which, you know, might be something a bit more than a hole with legs.
Jason wrote: > But whatever, as to your 'thesis' there are hundreds of blatantly > obvious reasons why one person would not want want to have sex with > another person without need for some sort of pseudo Freudian grand > theory.
This is true - and completely irrelevant. My post is not about any one specific man and woman but about general patterns. This should be obvious.
> All of which apply equally to men as well as women. Your assumption > that "that [all] men's needs little explanation" (i.e. "identical to > your own") is as seriously misguided as thinking you can't get a shag > because women are all obviously "not rational in this matter".
Do you have any logical objection to those statements or do you just not want to believe it or think about it?
> Perhaps you should ask yourself why any woman would want to be your > friend? Then ask yourself why they would have any reason to fall in > love with you?
> And why you might fall in love with them? Which, you know, might be > something a bit more than a hole with legs.
On 8 Nov, 03:27, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ste wrote: > > On 6 Nov, 02:40, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > In a previous thread, I presented my new (as far as I know) discovery. > > > It seems no-one was convinced, so I present the facts in a more > > > persuasive form below.
> > > My thesis on female sexual behavior is this: ...
> > Written by a man? Oh dear.
> Well (I assume you are a man),
Yes. I'm not sure you'll find many women in the groups to which you've posted.
> this is quite logical, as women can > hardly be trusted to be honest on this matter (from repeated > observation).
I'm not quite sure that it's dishonesty, but simply a lack of explicit understanding.
> Rather than quote the whole thing, I will respond to your points by > index number:
It is often easier to quote, because otherwise I have to scroll up and down to see what point you were responding to. It also becomes hard to track the development of an argument over a series of posts.
> 1. This is true that women are wired to prefer higher-status men. > However, it's not a sufficient explanation by itself (I think) because > that doesn't explain why women's perception of status would be so > relative.
It does once you realise that status itself is a relative measure, based on a comparison with the peer group.
> Note that the young girls sometimes go with adult men that > would be considered of low status in the adult world
This may happen for any number of reasons, and may only be partly related to perceptions of the adult man's status as a sexual partner.
> in agreement > with me - this is part of the motivation for statutory rape laws, but > I'm not comfortable with it because it seems like protecting women > from the competition of teenage girls, which they don't deserve.
Again, I suspect the reasons will be diverse. Jealousy may well be a factor. Power imbalances will be another. I suspect also (if we're looking at this in terms of evolutionary principles) there may well be a concern that adults who are of low status amongst their own peers, are getting access to high-quality partners by taking a step down the age ladder.
> 2. Agreed save that 'whether she wants to have sex at all' can not be > considered an independent variable.
I included that to control for factors which may influence a woman's willingness to have sex, independent of the quality or availability of potential partners - it would be false to say that either men or women are at all times wanting to have sex, and are wholly preoccupied with judging the quality of potential suitors and deciding whom to have sex with.
> 3 and 4. What reason do you have for believing this? I have read > enough experiences by women
With respect, popular publications and anecdotes are not generally a source from which one can derive universal principles about human behaviour.
> to know that these are true,
I'm not denying that women have sex with foreigners, but I'm afraid I don't accept that their reason for doing so is that, essentially, since foreign men are unlikely to commit, then the woman gains nothing by forgoing sex with him. Otherwise the foundation of this argument appears to be that women want to have sex with all and sundry (and that the only reason that they don't is for bargaining reasons).
> I'm sorry no > specific examples come to mind but 'female sex tourism' is a known > phenomenon and probably the most extreme example of this.
"Touring for sex" is what many women do every Friday night, without necessarily leaving the country. Hence I fail to see what unequivocal support this observation lends to your argument.
> 5. This is the feminist line. Women's 'needs' are never met if she > doesn't want them to be!
I don't even understand what you mean, and I don't think one needs to be a "feminist" to recognise that women have for a long time required a man to bring in the bacon, and still do to a certain extent.
> 7. This is a real effect that can also be seen among men. What > explanation would you propose instead for the fact that women with > inherited wealth often, perhaps usually, marry men less wealthy, but > women with conventional high-income jobs rarely do?
Women with inherited wealth rarely marry paupers. I daresay they usually marry men who are also rich, although not necessarily *as* rich. If I was asked to explain why such women choose such men, I'd probably refer to social-circles, personal interests, standards, morals, and life goals that they have in common.
> 8. This seems counterintuitive but is it not true when you survey > history that the institution of prostitution is negatively correlated > with looser sexual morals in general society?
No I'm not sure that is true. I certainly see no evidence that as morals become looser, the number of prostitutes goes down. If anything, as morals loosen, the line between cold economic gain on the one hand, and having sex for social reasons on the other hand, simply becomes more blurred.
> I imagine that women's > bargaining power with sex may be reduced, but her power with love (and > social expectation) is increased.
I fail to see how a woman's power in *any* respect is enhanced by the availability of other partners.
> 9. Women do not normally have sex just on 'availability'.
No, what I'm saying is that at least part of the reason behind a schoolteacher's willingness to have sex with teenage pupils may be because she is surrounded by them (and thus she's choosing the most suitable partner from the group that is available to her).
> 10. Saying that he is 'worth putting up with' seems circular to me.
How so? If a man is high-status, then it suggests he has many attributes that are considered positive. A woman may well put up with a certain level of abuse, if on balance the man is perceived as a valuable partner.
> > I agree a woman is less likely to bargain by withholding sex from a > > man if he can easily get it elsewhere, but earlier with the > > prostitutes you said the availability of sex elsewhere increased a > > woman's bargaining power? How do these two points tie in?
> As with #8 above. When a man is interested in a women primarily for > sex, as high-status men generally are with lower-status women, her > bargaining power is decreased. When it is primarily for love or social > expectation, it is increased.
You seem to be saying that where a man is interested *only* in sex, then a woman's degree of bargaining power depends on how much the man values her as a sexual partner - and presumably he will value her less in proportion to the availability of other equally attractive mates. That I agree with.
Where a man is interested in a woman for sex *and* where he is bound to her by some other factor (whether love, or social requirements), then her bargaining power is increased. Again, I agree.
> Thank you for taking the time to review my post.
Lol, no problem. There's plenty more reviews where they came from. It's an interesting issue you raise.
Ste wrote: > On 8 Nov, 03:27, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Ste wrote: > > > On 6 Nov, 02:40, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > In a previous thread, I presented my new (as far as I know) discovery. > > > > It seems no-one was convinced, so I present the facts in a more > > > > persuasive form below.
> > > > My thesis on female sexual behavior is this: ...
> > > Written by a man? Oh dear.
> > Well (I assume you are a man),
> Yes. I'm not sure you'll find many women in the groups to which you've > posted.
> > this is quite logical, as women can > > hardly be trusted to be honest on this matter (from repeated > > observation).
> I'm not quite sure that it's dishonesty, but simply a lack of explicit > understanding.
> > Rather than quote the whole thing, I will respond to your points by > > index number:
> It is often easier to quote, because otherwise I have to scroll up and > down to see what point you were responding to. It also becomes hard to > track the development of an argument over a series of posts.
> > 1. This is true that women are wired to prefer higher-status men. > > However, it's not a sufficient explanation by itself (I think) because > > that doesn't explain why women's perception of status would be so > > relative.
> It does once you realise that status itself is a relative measure, > based on a comparison with the peer group.
> > Note that the young girls sometimes go with adult men that > > would be considered of low status in the adult world
> This may happen for any number of reasons, and may only be partly > related to perceptions of the adult man's status as a sexual partner.
> > in agreement > > with me - this is part of the motivation for statutory rape laws, but > > I'm not comfortable with it because it seems like protecting women > > from the competition of teenage girls, which they don't deserve.
> Again, I suspect the reasons will be diverse. Jealousy may well be a > factor. Power imbalances will be another. I suspect also (if we're > looking at this in terms of evolutionary principles) there may well be > a concern that adults who are of low status amongst their own peers, > are getting access to high-quality partners by taking a step down the > age ladder.
> > 2. Agreed save that 'whether she wants to have sex at all' can not be > > considered an independent variable.
> I included that to control for factors which may influence a woman's > willingness to have sex, independent of the quality or availability of > potential partners - it would be false to say that either men or women > are at all times wanting to have sex, and are wholly preoccupied with > judging the quality of potential suitors and deciding whom to have sex > with.
> > 3 and 4. What reason do you have for believing this? I have read > > enough experiences by women
> With respect, popular publications and anecdotes are not generally a > source from which one can derive universal principles about human > behaviour.
> > to know that these are true,
> I'm not denying that women have sex with foreigners, but I'm afraid I > don't accept that their reason for doing so is that, essentially, > since foreign men are unlikely to commit, then the woman gains nothing > by forgoing sex with him. Otherwise the foundation of this argument > appears to be that women want to have sex with all and sundry (and > that the only reason that they don't is for bargaining reasons).
> > I'm sorry no > > specific examples come to mind but 'female sex tourism' is a known > > phenomenon and probably the most extreme example of this.
> "Touring for sex" is what many women do every Friday night, without > necessarily leaving the country. Hence I fail to see what unequivocal > support this observation lends to your argument.
> > 5. This is the feminist line. Women's 'needs' are never met if she > > doesn't want them to be!
> I don't even understand what you mean, and I don't think one needs to > be a "feminist" to recognise that women have for a long time required > a man to bring in the bacon, and still do to a certain extent.
> > 7. This is a real effect that can also be seen among men. What > > explanation would you propose instead for the fact that women with > > inherited wealth often, perhaps usually, marry men less wealthy, but > > women with conventional high-income jobs rarely do?
> Women with inherited wealth rarely marry paupers. I daresay they > usually marry men who are also rich, although not necessarily *as* > rich. If I was asked to explain why such women choose such men, I'd > probably refer to social-circles, personal interests, standards, > morals, and life goals that they have in common.
> > 8. This seems counterintuitive but is it not true when you survey > > history that the institution of prostitution is negatively correlated > > with looser sexual morals in general society?
> No I'm not sure that is true. I certainly see no evidence that as > morals become looser, the number of prostitutes goes down. If > anything, as morals loosen, the line between cold economic gain on the > one hand, and having sex for social reasons on the other hand, simply > becomes more blurred.
> > I imagine that women's > > bargaining power with sex may be reduced, but her power with love (and > > social expectation) is increased.
> I fail to see how a woman's power in *any* respect is enhanced by the > availability of other partners.
> > 9. Women do not normally have sex just on 'availability'.
> No, what I'm saying is that at least part of the reason behind a > schoolteacher's willingness to have sex with teenage pupils may be > because she is surrounded by them (and thus she's choosing the most > suitable partner from the group that is available to her).
> > 10. Saying that he is 'worth putting up with' seems circular to me.
> How so? If a man is high-status, then it suggests he has many > attributes that are considered positive. A woman may well put up with > a certain level of abuse, if on balance the man is perceived as a > valuable partner.
> > > I agree a woman is less likely to bargain by withholding sex from a > > > man if he can easily get it elsewhere, but earlier with the > > > prostitutes you said the availability of sex elsewhere increased a > > > woman's bargaining power? How do these two points tie in?
> > As with #8 above. When a man is interested in a women primarily for > > sex, as high-status men generally are with lower-status women, her > > bargaining power is decreased. When it is primarily for love or social > > expectation, it is increased.
> You seem to be saying that where a man is interested *only* in sex, > then a woman's degree of bargaining power depends on how much the man > values her as a sexual partner - and presumably he will value her less > in proportion to the availability of other equally attractive mates. > That I agree with.
> Where a man is interested in a woman for sex *and* where he is bound > to her by some other factor (whether love, or social requirements), > then her bargaining power is increased. Again, I agree.
> > Thank you for taking the time to review my post.
> Lol, no problem. There's plenty more reviews where they came from. > It's an interesting issue you raise.
These are exceptionally well-reasoned rebuttals. I hope Andrew Usher will benefit from the discourse. Despite any misgivings he may have and early in his development, Andrew Usher is on a hero’s quest and Ste appears to be a wise elder.
On Nov 8, 8:45 pm, Moderator <meldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> These are exceptionally well-reasoned rebuttals. I hope Andrew Usher > will benefit from the discourse. Despite any misgivings he may have > and early in his development, Andrew Usher is on a hero’s quest and > Ste appears to be a wise elder.
On Nov 8, 7:32 pm, Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > this is quite logical, as women can > > hardly be trusted to be honest on this matter (from repeated > > observation).
> I'm not quite sure that it's dishonesty, but simply a lack of explicit > understanding.
I didn't mean that it's (intentional) dishonesty, in fact I'm sure it's generally not. It's just the limitations of the female mind.
> It is often easier to quote, because otherwise I have to scroll up and > down to see what point you were responding to. It also becomes hard to > track the development of an argument over a series of posts.
I know, but in this case quoting would be too long.
> > 1. This is true that women are wired to prefer higher-status men. > > However, it's not a sufficient explanation by itself (I think) because > > that doesn't explain why women's perception of status would be so > > relative.
> It does once you realise that status itself is a relative measure, > based on a comparison with the peer group.
But how relative? One's perception of status does not change easily, I think.
> > Note that the young girls sometimes go with adult men that > > would be considered of low status in the adult world
> This may happen for any number of reasons, and may only be partly > related to perceptions of the adult man's status as a sexual partner.
What reasons, then, other than that I advance, explain it?
> > in agreement > > with me - this is part of the motivation for statutory rape laws, but > > I'm not comfortable with it because it seems like protecting women > > from the competition of teenage girls, which they don't deserve.
> Again, I suspect the reasons will be diverse. Jealousy may well be a > factor. Power imbalances will be another. I suspect also (if we're > looking at this in terms of evolutionary principles) there may well be > a concern that adults who are of low status amongst their own peers, > are getting access to high-quality partners by taking a step down the > age ladder.
In other words, you pretty much agree here.
> > 2. Agreed save that 'whether she wants to have sex at all' can not be > > considered an independent variable.
> I included that to control for factors which may influence a woman's > willingness to have sex, independent of the quality or availability of > potential partners - it would be false to say that either men or women > are at all times wanting to have sex, and are wholly preoccupied with > judging the quality of potential suitors and deciding whom to have sex > with.
My argument hardly assumed that, but OK.
> > 3 and 4. What reason do you have for believing this? I have read > > enough experiences by women
> With respect, popular publications and anecdotes are not generally a > source from which one can derive universal principles about human > behaviour.
They're better than a priori reasoning. I am confident that the difference does exist, and that's enough.
> > to know that these are true,
> I'm not denying that women have sex with foreigners, but I'm afraid I > don't accept that their reason for doing so is that, essentially, > since foreign men are unlikely to commit, then the woman gains nothing > by forgoing sex with him. Otherwise the foundation of this argument > appears to be that women want to have sex with all and sundry (and > that the only reason that they don't is for bargaining reasons).
As stated, I assume that most women would want sex about as much as men do if not for this sort of bargaining, yes. That does not mean they'd jump into bed with anyone and more than all men would.
> > I'm sorry no > > specific examples come to mind but 'female sex tourism' is a known > > phenomenon and probably the most extreme example of this.
> "Touring for sex" is what many women do every Friday night, without > necessarily leaving the country. Hence I fail to see what unequivocal > support this observation lends to your argument.
Then why would women leave the country for it if they can get the same here?
> > 5. This is the feminist line. Women's 'needs' are never met if she > > doesn't want them to be!
> I don't even understand what you mean, and I don't think one needs to > be a "feminist" to recognise that women have for a long time required > a man to bring in the bacon, and still do to a certain extent.
I meant her non-economic 'needs', which is what you were talking about.
> > 7. This is a real effect that can also be seen among men. What > > explanation would you propose instead for the fact that women with > > inherited wealth often, perhaps usually, marry men less wealthy, but > > women with conventional high-income jobs rarely do?
> Women with inherited wealth rarely marry paupers. I daresay they > usually marry men who are also rich, although not necessarily *as* > rich. If I was asked to explain why such women choose such men, I'd > probably refer to social-circles, personal interests, standards, > morals, and life goals that they have in common.
As would I. The question is why working women typically _do not_ do the same in considering less wealthy men.
> > 8. This seems counterintuitive but is it not true when you survey > > history that the institution of prostitution is negatively correlated > > with looser sexual morals in general society?
> No I'm not sure that is true. I certainly see no evidence that as > morals become looser, the number of prostitutes goes down.
Well, it's exactly what has happened in our society in the last century!
> If > anything, as morals loosen, the line between cold economic gain on the > one hand, and having sex for social reasons on the other hand, simply > becomes more blurred.
I don't see this at all. Sex outside of marriage and not related to economic gain seems to become more possible then.
> > I imagine that women's > > bargaining power with sex may be reduced, but her power with love (and > > social expectation) is increased.
> I fail to see how a woman's power in *any* respect is enhanced by the > availability of other partners.
I gave an argument for why: with the availability of other partners, she is less likely to have to put out right away to keep the man's attention. That allows her more flexibility to use it for further bargaining to achieve marriage or other economic gain - as women did in fact commonly do.
> > 9. Women do not normally have sex just on 'availability'.
> No, what I'm saying is that at least part of the reason behind a > schoolteacher's willingness to have sex with teenage pupils may be > because she is surrounded by them (and thus she's choosing the most > suitable partner from the group that is available to her).
Are they the _only_ men available to her? Especially if she's married, this is a weak argument alone.
> > 10. Saying that he is 'worth putting up with' seems circular to me.
> How so? If a man is high-status, then it suggests he has many > attributes that are considered positive. A woman may well put up with > a certain level of abuse, if on balance the man is perceived as a > valuable partner.
I suppose that's true. My #10 was the weakest of my points anyhow.
Andrew Usher wrote: > On Nov 8, 7:32 pm, Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > this is quite logical, as women can > > > hardly be trusted to be honest on this matter (from repeated > > > observation).
> > I'm not quite sure that it's dishonesty, but simply a lack of explicit > > understanding.
> I didn't mean that it's (intentional) dishonesty, in fact I'm sure > it's generally not. It's just the limitations of the female mind.
> > It is often easier to quote, because otherwise I have to scroll up and > > down to see what point you were responding to. It also becomes hard to > > track the development of an argument over a series of posts.
> I know, but in this case quoting would be too long.
> > > 1. This is true that women are wired to prefer higher-status men. > > > However, it's not a sufficient explanation by itself (I think) because > > > that doesn't explain why women's perception of status would be so > > > relative.
> > It does once you realise that status itself is a relative measure, > > based on a comparison with the peer group.
> But how relative? One's perception of status does not change easily, I > think.
> > > Note that the young girls sometimes go with adult men that > > > would be considered of low status in the adult world
> > This may happen for any number of reasons, and may only be partly > > related to perceptions of the adult man's status as a sexual partner.
> What reasons, then, other than that I advance, explain it?
> > > in agreement > > > with me - this is part of the motivation for statutory rape laws, but > > > I'm not comfortable with it because it seems like protecting women > > > from the competition of teenage girls, which they don't deserve.
> > Again, I suspect the reasons will be diverse. Jealousy may well be a > > factor. Power imbalances will be another. I suspect also (if we're > > looking at this in terms of evolutionary principles) there may well be > > a concern that adults who are of low status amongst their own peers, > > are getting access to high-quality partners by taking a step down the > > age ladder.
> In other words, you pretty much agree here.
> > > 2. Agreed save that 'whether she wants to have sex at all' can not be > > > considered an independent variable.
> > I included that to control for factors which may influence a woman's > > willingness to have sex, independent of the quality or availability of > > potential partners - it would be false to say that either men or women > > are at all times wanting to have sex, and are wholly preoccupied with > > judging the quality of potential suitors and deciding whom to have sex > > with.
> My argument hardly assumed that, but OK.
> > > 3 and 4. What reason do you have for believing this? I have read > > > enough experiences by women
> > With respect, popular publications and anecdotes are not generally a > > source from which one can derive universal principles about human > > behaviour.
> They're better than a priori reasoning. I am confident that the > difference does exist, and that's enough.
> > > to know that these are true,
> > I'm not denying that women have sex with foreigners, but I'm afraid I > > don't accept that their reason for doing so is that, essentially, > > since foreign men are unlikely to commit, then the woman gains nothing > > by forgoing sex with him. Otherwise the foundation of this argument > > appears to be that women want to have sex with all and sundry (and > > that the only reason that they don't is for bargaining reasons).
> As stated, I assume that most women would want sex about as much as > men do if not for this sort of bargaining, yes. That does not mean > they'd jump into bed with anyone and more than all men would.
> > > I'm sorry no > > > specific examples come to mind but 'female sex tourism' is a known > > > phenomenon and probably the most extreme example of this.
> > "Touring for sex" is what many women do every Friday night, without > > necessarily leaving the country. Hence I fail to see what unequivocal > > support this observation lends to your argument.
> Then why would women leave the country for it if they can get the same > here?
> > > 5. This is the feminist line. Women's 'needs' are never met if she > > > doesn't want them to be!
> > I don't even understand what you mean, and I don't think one needs to > > be a "feminist" to recognise that women have for a long time required > > a man to bring in the bacon, and still do to a certain extent.
> I meant her non-economic 'needs', which is what you were talking > about.
> > > 7. This is a real effect that can also be seen among men. What > > > explanation would you propose instead for the fact that women with > > > inherited wealth often, perhaps usually, marry men less wealthy, but > > > women with conventional high-income jobs rarely do?
> > Women with inherited wealth rarely marry paupers. I daresay they > > usually marry men who are also rich, although not necessarily *as* > > rich. If I was asked to explain why such women choose such men, I'd > > probably refer to social-circles, personal interests, standards, > > morals, and life goals that they have in common.
> As would I. The question is why working women typically _do not_ do > the same in considering less wealthy men.
> > > 8. This seems counterintuitive but is it not true when you survey > > > history that the institution of prostitution is negatively correlated > > > with looser sexual morals in general society?
> > No I'm not sure that is true. I certainly see no evidence that as > > morals become looser, the number of prostitutes goes down.
> Well, it's exactly what has happened in our society in the last > century!
> > If > > anything, as morals loosen, the line between cold economic gain on the > > one hand, and having sex for social reasons on the other hand, simply > > becomes more blurred.
> I don't see this at all. Sex outside of marriage and not related to > economic gain seems to become more possible then.
> > > I imagine that women's > > > bargaining power with sex may be reduced, but her power with love (and > > > social expectation) is increased.
> > I fail to see how a woman's power in *any* respect is enhanced by the > > availability of other partners.
> I gave an argument for why: with the availability of other partners, > she is less likely to have to put out right away to keep the man's > attention. That allows her more flexibility to use it for further > bargaining to achieve marriage or other economic gain - as women did > in fact commonly do.
> > > 9. Women do not normally have sex just on 'availability'.
> > No, what I'm saying is that at least part of the reason behind a > > schoolteacher's willingness to have sex with teenage pupils may be > > because she is surrounded by them (and thus she's choosing the most > > suitable partner from the group that is available to her).
> Are they the _only_ men available to her? Especially if she's married, > this is a weak argument alone.
> > > 10. Saying that he is 'worth putting up with' seems circular to me.
> > How so? If a man is high-status, then it suggests he has many > > attributes that are considered positive. A woman may well put up with > > a certain level of abuse, if on balance the man is perceived as a > > valuable partner.
> I suppose that's true. My #10 was the weakest of my points anyhow.
> Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher! I’m disappointed in your response.
Ste has taken exceptional time and patience in a careful examination and critique of your essay. If a well reasoned rebuttal is simply something that you’re going to challenge in order to defend your original position instead of refining it, he is wasting his time. Others here have also offered their opinions which you seem quick to reject. These people are providing their insight to weaknesses in your article. That is something to be thankful for. Is that article so precious that you will not revise or refine it?
In the same fashion, I’m not sure why you’ve objected to my entry in such a defensive and abusive manner. Your voyage of understanding has just begun. If used correctly, your experience here will be invaluable.
Moderator wrote: > Andrew Usher! I’m disappointed in your response.
> Ste has taken exceptional time and patience in a careful examination > and critique of your essay. If a well reasoned rebuttal is simply > something that you’re going to challenge in order to defend your > original position instead of refining it, he is wasting his time. > Others here have also offered their opinions which you seem quick to > reject. These people are providing their insight to weaknesses in your > article. That is something to be thankful for. Is that article so > precious that you will not revise or refine it?
I did give a reasoned reply. Of course I'm not going to just back down. I don't consider logical argument to be wasting one's time, either.
> In the same fashion, I’m not sure why you’ve objected to my entry in > such a defensive and abusive manner. Your voyage of understanding has > just begun. If used correctly, your experience here will be > invaluable.
|
