Sex Is Cheap

Slate ^ | Feb. 25, 2011 | Mark Regnerus

[Mrs. Don-o]

We keep hearing that young men are failing to adapt to contemporary life. Their financial prospects are impaired—earnings for 25- to 34-year-old men have fallen by 20 percent since 1971. Their college enrollment numbers trail women's: Only 43 percent of American undergraduates today are men. Last year, women made up the majority of the work force for the first time. And yet there is one area in which men are very much in charge: premarital heterosexual relationships.

[snip]

What many young men wish for—access to sex without too many complications or commitments—carries the day. If women were more fully in charge of how their relationships transpired, we'd be seeing, on average, more impressive wooing efforts, longer relationships, fewer premarital sexual partners, shorter cohabitations, and more marrying going on.

Instead, according to the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (which collects data well into adulthood), none of these things is occurring. Not one...

To better understand what's going on, it's worth a crash course in "sexual economics"...

[snip]

Yes, sex is clearly cheap for men. Women's "erotic capital," as Catherine Hakim of the London School of Economics has dubbed it, ... can't assure her love and lifelong commitment. Not in this market. ...Michelle, a 20-year-old from Colorado, said ..."I had an ex-boyfriend of mine who said that, um, he didn't know if he was ever going to get married because, he said, there's always going to be someone better." [snip]

And yet while young men's failures in life are not penalizing them in the bedroom, their sexual success may, ironically, be hindering their drive to achieve in life. Don't forget your Freud: Civilization is built on blocked, redirected, and channeled sexual impulse, because men will work for sex. Today's young men, however, seldom have to.

[snip]

[PapaBear3625]

The irony is that women’s liberation ended up liberating men instead. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
only the ones that don’t want kids.

In the inner cities, there are lots of men being "baby daddy" to lots of kids, without feeling much need to support or raise them.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I know what you mean!

[Mrs. Don-o]

I’M STEALING THAT.

[PapaBear3625]

I find some inconsistency: there’s lots of railing about “feminism” from men, and yet the laws and customs they dislike were enacted or accommodated by men. The laws particularly: men vastly outnumber women as legislators and judges.

Women make up more than 50% of voters. Legislators who want to get elected, and judges who want to be confirmed, tend to be aware of that fact, and that women tend to pay a lot of attention to "women issues" when they vote.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Not news to me.

[PapaBear3625]

LOL! Actually one of the most interesting things Malcolm X wrote, was that if a woman provides a home for a man, and (NOT politically correct) treats him like a king in his castle, that he'll never stray. Men DO like to come home to a good looking, sexually appealing wife who can cook and maintain a household. Sorry, but true. Why go out for hamburger when you have steak at home?

I read Malcolm X's autobiography. He had a lot of good observations, which might be why he was such an effective opinion leader.

His observation about wives is correct. A man is much more likely to stray is he doesn't feel appreciated at home. A wife who satisfies his needs is more valuable than a wife who just brings in a second income.

[coop71]

Right...because before feminism, attractive women were running the world. /s

[Sopater]

Your views?

I tend to agree with the article, and the more I think about it, the more complicated I believe that it is.

As for men, I believe that they have always tried to have as many exploits as possible, however they were only interested in marrying the right "kind" of woman. Loose women had a hard time finding a good man to marry them. Once a man found a woman he was interested in marrying, he would also have to win over her parents. This usually required an established position with good prospects for growth.

As for women, it was usually very difficult to live a comfortable life without either marrying a man with a good income or staying home with daddy. In order to ensure this, they had to carefully guard their reputation. Now women have been "liberated" and can respectably earn a comfortable income just as easily as men. The strong insentive for chastity has been effectively removed.

[Joe 6-pack]

A number of recent studies have shown that women on birth control tend to be attracted to more effeminate men. When they go off the pill, they tend to seek more masculine partners.

Study: Women on birth control pill attracted to quiche eaters

Birth control pill could put women off macho men?

[Tax-chick]

Women make up more than 50% of voters. Legislators who want to get elected, and judges who want to be confirmed, tend to be aware of that fact ...

Legislators and judges could still do the right thing. If they choose not to, they are betraying men, and humanity in general, for selfish gain.

[wardaddy]

sorry I lived through the women's lib no bra movements...it was led largely by urban not so pretty women with lesbian leaders

what made sex so much easier for me to obtain was the PILL not women's lib

women's lib did make women think they could act like men and be more openly randy...that is true but that is not why it happened

it happened because frustrated...mostly Jewish urban and bored suburban women (Lilith types)spearheaded a movement for more job parity and just sorta lived out this anti man sentiment they had harboured and if you look at most of them you can see why...most were never asked to the prom etc

and it went hand in hand with their red ideas about society anyhow

then other American women and media and Hollywood jumped in and it became all sorts of stuff and sold girls so much BS and eventually led to how screwed up we are today..in this area and empowered the rise of homosexuality more than any other single factor this side of all those Civil Rights acts since women so often have a fag hag tendency

but what really pushed promiscuity was the pill and all that free love casual sex stuff which I myself took part in before the Freidans, Steinheims, Faludis, Wolfes and Dworkins of the world became media darlings....women's lib though marching in the streets in say 71-74 did not become entrenched till say the movie Nine to Five...81 or so

[wardaddy]

it was as it should be that men are usually the leaders

but attractive women have always been very empowered and still are

look at all those Housewives shows

attractive women ..some fading...some not but once most were at the top of their game

none had jack before they married rich men..now look at them

it was always like that

now...women have something to prove and many..especially northern gals feel compelled to compete with the man..and be so chinny and strident

I love women...i take care of many in my family

and there are exceptions.....a few who lead well and whom I would put faith in

but as a rule women were not somewhat subordinate to men because men oppressed them but because it was the natural order and made sense..especially in times witjh less leisure and material discretion and convenience and wars were everyone male under 50 fought

not because men hated women ...now with Islam...well that is purposeful subjugation to keep women down for fidelity it seems

I have dealt with women for many many years...5 decades...they are simply different but as a rule..all things being equal men make better leaders and decision makers...especially under stress and can deal with group tension better

drama and inability to reason as readily is what brings women down...and their bodies have so much more effect on them

it's not because they are not smart

it's sorta like the Bible said...Head-Heart, respect and protect, nurture and maternal...we both have our roles

and there are exceptions

that's my take

[Huck]

But as women, gaining economic autonomy, meet men in progressively bitterer competition, the rising masculine distrust and fear of them will be reflected even in the enchanted domain of marriage, and the husband, having yielded up most of his old rights, will begin to reveal anew jealousy of those that remain, and particularly of the right to a fair quid pro quo for his own docile industry. In brief, as women shake off their ancient disabilities they will also shake off some of their ancient immunities, and their doings will come to be regarded with a soberer and more exigent scrutiny than now prevails.

The extension of the suffrage, I believe, will encourage this awakening; in wresting it from the reluctant male the women of the western world have planted dragons' teeth, the which will presently leap up and gnaw them. Now that women have the political power to obtain their just rights, they will begin to lose their old power to obtain special privileges by sentimental appeals. Men, facing them squarely, will consider them anew, not as romantic political and social invalids, to be coddled and caressed, but as free competitors in a harsh world.

When that reconsideration gets under way there will be a general overhauling of the relations between the sexes, and some of the fair ones, I suspect, will begin to wonder why they didn't let well enough alone.

H.L. Mencken, 1922

[Mrs. Don-o]

What you're saying here makes sense to me.

I also think women have (more prominently than men) a fairly strong inbuilt desire to bond emotionally and build a secure relationship with a man with whom they have shared their sexual embrace. This is not, of course, to say that there are not promiscuous, emotionally shut-down women; but these women have done violence to their inward "connective" nature.

This inward damage to women really troubles me. At some point I think most women will realize that transitory sexual alliances will maim them spiritually.

There are many Marilyn Monroes out there; but Marilyn Monroe was not a happy woman.

[mamelukesabre]

...still stuck with child support payments or wage garnishments.

[Sopater]

This inward damage to women really troubles me. At some point I think most women will realize that transitory sexual alliances will maim them spiritually.

100% agree. You can't buy anything at the pharmacy to prevent that either.

[coop71]

I respect your opinions. I disagree with some of them, but I respect them.

Using The Real Housewives of...Whatever City as an example of empowerment isn’t a strong example. I could turn it around and make the claim that just by watching “Storage Wars” or “Ice Road Truckers” I know that men are spiteful, petty, shallow, and bicker over silly matters. But I know that’s not true. Aren’t most of those women broke or living on credit anyway?

As for women being “empowered”, I can only go by personal experience. Graduated college, went out on my own, started off as a receptionist and ended up as the head of IT for the southeast region of a big company. My looks, or lackthereof, didn’t play a part in it. Hard work did. I didn’t expect any special favors being female, I just expected to be treated like anyone else, and I was. That’s what should happen in the workplace, and in life, with women. If they’re good at something, that’s good - I say go for it and excel. Looks only go so far.

And now that I’m married with a kid, I’m home with the kid - and I make most of the big and small household decisions because I’m good at it and my husband isn’t (his admission). He makes a great living as an executive for a major corporation, but when it comes to family decisions, he defaults to me because I’m logical and reasonable and he’s...well, geeky and short-sighted (again, his admission). It works very well for us.

I wrestle with guilt for not working every day (my issue - not my husband’s fault). I went to college and earned a good living and now I’m home, not using my talents...other than budgeting and organizing. Whoopdeedoo. But my kid and my husband have a nice, clean, organized life, so I guess that’s good. And this way of life works for us.

So that’s what I have to go on: personal experience. Women (ugly or attractive) who are good at something shouldn’t be shoved back in the kitchen, or wherever, because men want to “feeeeeeeel” powerful. It’s a waste of God-given talent. And when it comes to looks, when was the last time looks mattered when you were on an operating table, or your dog was sick, or you needed a financial manager?

My 2 cents.

[Tax-chick]

Excellent post, coop71. I think the issue of women’s looks is a red herring. Look at pictures of some of the famous women of history - they ain’t all plus a real-meat cheezburger, most of them, and they had rotten teeth to boot. Whatever genetic hand a person is dealt, he or she becomes attractive or unattractive because of who they are inside.

I was 22 when I got married, a college student with no money, and nothing particular to look at, as you can see on my profile (just turn the hair back to brown ...). But I was nice. And I see plenty of ordinary-looking young women getting married today, because they’re nice to the men who decide to marry them.

[Fledermaus]

Our campus was pretty equal with men vs. women! Guess I was lucky! lol

[Popman]

It's obvious you have not raised your children (if you have any) to adulthood.

My wife and I raised six children from birth to adulthood so I think we have a pretty good idea of the pitfalls and triumphs of raising children.

Yes, we raised them in a Christian home, meaning church every week, youth group, small groups and as well home-schooled them until high-school and pretty much did everything possibly under the sun to keep them on the straight and narrow. Taught them the way to run their lives to glorify the Lord by living out ourselves a healthy and strong cultural values like being married for thirty years, not drinking or smoking. My children have never heard me utter a foul word, never hit my wife, been faithful to the Lord in word and deed.

Are you sitting down because I have some really astounding news for you: Get ready for this for it's a real eyeopener

Every single one of them once having reached adulthood made their own decisions about their life. As their father I could only counsel them and ask them to consider my wise counsel. Believe or not, sometimes they screwed up and made the wrong choices in life.

Of the six, three are still active in church. Once they spring from the home and start making their own decisions in life, the "world" around them has a pull and influence no matter how well they have been brought up.

As for failing them, I take no blame. I gave them all the tools to be successful in life and in cultural, spiritual matters .

What they do with it is up to them