39 replies to this topic

[Spikey]

Hm. Thanks for sharing that, I know she is on an intermediate scientific field here, but it is really unfortunate that she holds a MA in non-emprical psychology (instead of MSc) and a PhD in clinical psychology, which has precious little to do with the mix of evolutionary psychology and sexual sociological tendencies she puts forward. The assumptions about paleosociety she stresses are flat out ridiculous, must be a joke.

 

By the way, oxytocin (the bonding hormone she mentions) is also secreted by men after orgasms;

1. Carmichael MS, Humbert R, Dixen J, Palmisano G, Greenleaf W, Davidson JM (January 1987). "Plasma oxytocin increases in the human sexual response". The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism 64 (1): 27–31.

2. Carmichael MS, Warburton VL, Dixen J, Davidson JM (February 1994). "Relationships among cardiovascular, muscular, and oxytocin responses during human sexual activity". Archives of Sexual Behavior 23 (1): 59–79. 

 

Males also produce another hormone, vasopressin after sex, probably with the some kind of bonding effect, too.

[Mark]

The assumptions about paleosociety she stresses are flat out ridiculous, must be a joke.

 

.....

 

Males also produce another hormone, vasopressin after sex, probably with the some kind of bonding effect, too.

 

The primary reason I share the vid is because I found it rather interesting, and in a very women-friendly way (presenting as a women, and finishing with a challenge to 'true love') introduces some no so comfortable (or p.c.) ideas about sex in society.

 

Her particular ideas about paloesociety might very well be bung (being no expert myself I cant say) however I think that the prospect of explaining human behaviors through historical-evolutionary means is quite encouraging. (also I also believe that the published figure she quotes for non-paternity is in contention)

 

 

but in anycase:

 

Elliot Rodger can loosely be described as a young man who was sexually rejected through high school and early 20's. How many people on this forum does that describe? It definitely describes me for one, and I know a dozen people IRL who fit that description, too.

 

you know what - I totally get that.

[Jasi]

Mark can you post a summary of the video or what exactly it is you want us to get out of it? Most people don't want to or can't watch them. I think that's actually one of Contro's rules if I remember right.

[Mark]

Mark can you post a summary of the video or what exactly it is you want us to get out of it? Most people don't want to or can't watch them. I think that's actually one of Contro's rules if I remember right.

 

Oh, fair enough. thankyou Jasi.

 

The video is a lecture of given by Dr Wendy Walsh, generally about her view of the current society attitude towards sex in society.

She argues that the rise in status of women in western societies has generally led to 'low priced sex' - that women no longer need to withhold sex for marriage, love, money etc - that this creates a perceived 'high supply sexual economy' and this has wide ranging consequences for cultural and family life: -

Some men loose ambition, some men loose the ability to commit to relationship and good guy's feel pressured to be players.

Some women learn to disassociate sex and love, some women hold out for more successful partners ( aka. 'George cloony effect') and women are loosing freedom to be mothers (due to total factors)

She presents that the perception of high supply (the 'hookup' culture) keeps people single and discourages strong bonded relationships, which... her book is addressed to remedy.

 

I like this video because:

A) I found her ideas and analysis of the dynamics of sex in changing society very interesting (when I first viewed it)

B) several ideas she presented coincide with a more base view about gender and sexuality. (notions of a 'sexual market', that women choose based upon success, sex as significant motivator in men etc.)

C) She talked about evolutionary explanation for behavior, and presented one or two examples of different male and female behaviors she believed were "wired in" to the sexes.

D) she had fun statistics.

E) I thought that her view about 'hook up' culture -and particularly of false beliefs- was relevant to the topic.

[Doctor Pogo]

Her points seem kind of rational in a pop-psychology way at first blush, but after thinking about it, it really just doesn't work that way at all.

 

Making sex a market metaphor makes you take on a lot of assumptions right up front just to make the metaphor work.  Not everything is an economy.  Trying to treat every aspect of life as an economical construct and explain the world using market forces is how you wind up with things like everything the US Government has done the last 30 years.  It's a flawed premise and produces flawed conclusions.

 

For clarity, I want to stress that I'm not addressing sex as a service - the sex industry is a whole other thing that's ouside the scope of this conversation. I'm talking about regular, plain ol' homemade sex, a non-compensated activity that people do on their own time for fun and sometimes babies.

 

Sex is not a market commodity any more than running, or building a sand castle, or beating a video game.  It's an activity, not an object you can trade on a market.  You can't buy a can of sex.  There's no finite quantity of it either, so the idea of market value is patently absurd - there's never more or less of it, it's value never changes.  And thinking of it in supply and demand terms requires making some other pretty drastic assumptions about it anyway - dividing people up into 'producers' and 'consumers,' for one.  Dr. Walsh seems to have presumed women to be producers of sex, and men to be consumers of it.  On what grounds?

 

Listen: no one controls the supply of sex.  There's no supply to control.  Women don't have some limit they hit where that's it, they're done making sex, can't make any more.  Men don't either.  It's not about whether it's more available or less - fact is, it's not any more or less available than it was 100 years ago, or 500, or 5000.

 

And buried in the lecture there's that idea again, that really bad idea that so many people can't seem to get rid of, that sex is something you can go out and earn, something that makes men motivated, without it they'll lose ambition and it will be very sad for them.

 

This is a bad, wrong, stupid idea.  Why this is a bad idea has been covered pretty thoroughly by several people on the first page of this thread.  I'll just say this part again: it doesn't matter whether it's sex or taking a walk or having a water balloon fight, getting to do an activity with another person is not about supply and demand, it's not about availability, it's not about how badly it's needed or how hard they've worked for it or what they've been told about how it should be.  It's about if both parties want to.  Thinking of it like a commodity you can invest in and get a return from is going to lead to a bad time for everyone.

[Hana-Nezumi]

Pogo's right.

[Mark]

Sex is not a market commodity any more than running, or building a sand castle, or beating a video game.  It's an activity, not an object you can trade on a market.  You can't buy a can of sex.  There's no finite quantity of it either, so the idea of market value is patently absurd - there's never more or less of it, it's value never changes.  And thinking of it in supply and demand terms requires making some other pretty drastic assumptions about it anyway - dividing people up into 'producers' and 'consumers,' for one.  Dr. Walsh seems to have presumed women to be producers of sex, and men to be consumers of it.  On what grounds?

 

Listen: no one controls the supply of sex.  There's no supply to control.  Women don't have some limit they hit where that's it, they're done making sex, can't make any more.  Men don't either.  It's not about whether it's more available or less - fact is, it's not any more or less available than it was 100 years ago, or 500, or 5000.

 

I find thinking about sex as economy does make some degree of sense.

consider just for a moment, that yes.... sex is something you can trade for goods and services - prostitution being the most obvious thing (you can buy a 'can of sex') - but if a pretty girl can get a guy to buy her a drink at a bar... well... yes.

 

in principle there is a practically infinite amount of sex that can be had, but that certainly does not mean that it isnt worth anything to anyone - as if having sex was like giving a handshake. (also I am not just talking about casual sex)

 

FYI: it is my understanding of economics is that the ordering of labels - of 'producer' and 'consumer' (or 'supply' and 'demand') is generally arbitrary. If I exchange a watermelon for a mango it makes no actual difference whether or not I am labeled as the 'supplier' (of the watermelon) or labeled as the 'consumer' (of the mango). If I exchanged money for the mango then it would equally make no actual difference - the logic of economics should work just the same if the labels were flipped.

 

 

 

and... in anticipation of the objection.... yes, different people find and go for completely different things in a sex partner... no this dosnt make a difference.

 

 

 

 

 

 

And buried in the lecture there's that idea again, that really bad idea that so many people can't seem to get rid of, that sex is something you can go out and earn, something that makes men motivated, without it they'll lose ambition and it will be very sad for them.

 

This is a bad, wrong, stupid idea.  Why this is a bad idea has been covered pretty thoroughly by several people on the first page of this thread.  I'll just say this part again: it doesn't matter whether it's sex or taking a walk or having a water balloon fight, getting to do an activity with another person is not about supply and demand, it's not about availability, it's not about how badly it's needed or how hard they've worked for it or what they've been told about how it should be.  It's about if both parties want to.  Thinking of it like a commodity you can invest in and get a return from is going to lead to a bad time for everyone.

 

let me begin with a quote:

"Research conducted throughout the world strongly supports the position that women prefer marriage partners who are culturally successful or have the potential to become culturally successful. The most extensive of these studies included 10,000 people in 37 cultures across six continents and five islands (Buss, 1989). On the mate choice survey, women rated “good financial prospect” higher than did men in all cultures."

 

                        - Evolution of Human Mate Choice (David C. Geary, Jacob Vigil, and Jennifer Byrd-Craven) found at:  http:/ web.missouri.edu/~gearyd/MatechoicePDF.pdf

 

well... it is a little bit... about availability and... about the supply of umm... "culturally successful".

 

 

 

I believe that sex is a motivator in both men and women. (is this really in dispute?)

that not being able to find a sex partner is positively not associated with good things.

 

I am not disputing that it is good and proper that sexual relationships happens when both parties want to.

just as it is good and proper that the transference of house ownerships happens when both parties want to.

but there is still a housing market, and homelessness is still a problem.

 

 

( just finished reading the paper I cited from - what a gold mine of awesome citations!)

Edited by Mark, 07 June 2014 - 03:35 AM.

[Goose]

This topic has even brought me back into the fold. I missed this place too much.  Back to my place in the night shift. 

 

 

 

 

consider just for a moment, that yes.... sex is something you can trade for goods and services - prostitution being the most obvious thing (you can buy a 'can of sex') - but if a pretty girl can get a guy to buy her a drink at a bar... well... yes.

 

Wait.. what? Explain yourself. Comparing prostitution to hooking up at a bar? I know you don't really think that so find a better way to explain your point. 

 

 

 

 

---  Quoting Lena Below. 

 

There are a ton of reasons why dating is hard.

 

 

Like the decline in face-to-face interaction, resulting in increased shyness and anxiety when people actually have to go and interact with others. 

 

Or the decline in public social functions, resulting in greater difficulty meeting people outside of your existing social circles. Towns used to have public dances, as one example of "things we don't do any more." And visiting your neighbor was often the biggest form of entertainment available less than 100 years ago. Now we don't even know our neighbors' names and are often too shy to ask.

 

 

Direct social interaction is becoming a lost art, leaving people isolated, shy, lonely, and anxious. Because humans are social creatures, and social interaction is necessary to maintain proper mental health. Most of these troubled kids are shut-ins.

 

 

 

I'm interested in this issue. How we can create a counter culture to create a safe way for people to interact socially without the innate fear that has come as a result of society becoming more inter-connected but socially disconnected.  We could argue that LA for a lot of us has become the "Public Dance" that taught us how to interact with people of other cultures, belief systems and lifestyles. I found this place as a teenager and it opened my eyes to a whole different world from the suburban Australian life that I grew up knowing. 

 

Real relationships were formed in this online community that have gone on to solidify in real life. I wasn't comfortable talking to real people in high school much, but on here I found a group of people who took me under their wing and changed me for the better. My friends and I came here to write stories because we felt out of place - LA gave us a place to belong, to grow and to explore.  It kept a bunch of misfits from doing something stupid. 

 

But even then, it wasn't until university where I was forced to go out and have direct contact with people, and that taught me how to be a person in society. Now people wouldn't think I was introverted unless I told them - I never stop talking. 

 

 

Can you think of a way to treat this issue on a major scale? I think I was lucky to stumble into this community when I did, but it seems not everyone will have that chance. 

Edited by Goose, 12 June 2014 - 06:16 AM.
I edit documents for a living, but I still have bad grammar - :-p

[Mark]

 

consider just for a moment, that yes.... sex is something you can trade for goods and services - prostitution being the most obvious thing (you can buy a 'can of sex') - but if a pretty girl can get a guy to buy her a drink at a bar... well... yes.

 

Wait.. what? Explain yourself. Comparing prostitution to hooking up at a bar? I know you don't really think that so find a better way to explain your point. 

 

umm. I am not sure how you know that I don't know that...

But in anycase my point was just simply to demonstrate that sex (the promise of / or the having of a sexual relationship) is something that has value to individuals in society and it is actually something that can (depending on circumstances) be exchanged for various goods and services. (which was to counter Dr Pogo's claim that it couldn't)

 

There is even a wikipedia article on the concept:     http://en.wikipedia..../Sexual_capital

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are a ton of reasons why dating is hard.

 

 

Like the decline in face-to-face interaction, resulting in increased shyness and anxiety when people actually have to go and interact with others. 

 

Or the decline in public social functions, resulting in greater difficulty meeting people outside of your existing social circles. Towns used to have public dances, as one example of "things we don't do any more." And visiting your neighbor was often the biggest form of entertainment available less than 100 years ago. Now we don't even know our neighbors' names and are often too shy to ask.

 

 

Direct social interaction is becoming a lost art, leaving people isolated, shy, lonely, and anxious. Because humans are social creatures, and social interaction is necessary to maintain proper mental health. Most of these troubled kids are shut-ins.

 

 

 

I'm interested in this issue. How we can create a counter culture to create a safe way for people to interact socially without the innate fear that has come as a result of society becoming more inter-connected but socially disconnected.  We could argue that LA for a lot of us has become the "Public Dance" that taught us how to interact with people of other cultures, belief systems and lifestyles. I found this place as a teenager and it opened my eyes to a whole different world from the suburban Australian life that I grew up knowing. 

 

Real relationships were formed in this online community that have gone on to solidify in real life. I wasn't comfortable talking to real people in high school much, but on here I found a group of people who took me under their wing and changed me for the better. My friends and I came here to write stories because we felt out of place - LA gave us a place to belong, to grow and to explore.  It kept a bunch of misfits from doing something stupid. 

 

But even then, it wasn't until university where I was forced to go out and have direct contact with people, and that taught me how to be a person in society. Now people wouldn't think I was introverted unless I told them - I never stop talking. 

 

 

Can you think of a way to treat this issue on a major scale? I think I was lucky to stumble into this community when I did, but it seems not everyone will have that chance. 

 

I am interested why it is supposed to have declined - perhaps just because we tend to live in cities now?
 

my experience tells me that people come together usually for a purpose.

[SOAP]

Wowie, the first thread I open in controversial after all these years, makes me remember why I always felt right at home here. I really want to compliment you all for the way you express your opinions. 

 

First off, I want to say something about the sexdrive thing... aside from possible minor variables, I think western culture still teaches women to be ashamed of their sexuality, which is a shame. The words alone! We call it "impotent" when a guy can't have sex, but "frigid" when a girl can't. These deep seated tendencies have an effect on men and their (very) fragile image of masculinity, too, or really, more on the romantic relationships between men and women. On the one hand, both want a protective family home life, on the other hand, both want to fuck each other against a wall. It is hard to cross these things. We've become more aware of the issues though, and some things have definately improved if you compare it with the victorian age or the fabulous, gay and roaring 20s, 

 

No, I do not think young men are getting less and less sex. The victorian age is long gone and sex is everywhere. Yes, aforementioned cultural differences result in a lot of crying girls and a lot of masturbating boys, but them is the breaks. It is a loop that needs to be broken, and that happens everyday, too. I realised this when I saw the lead (female) role of "My mad fat diary" masturbating on screen. Another taboo about to disappear, yay.

 

No, nobody can truly relate to the term feminism anymore these days, because it is hard to understand the baggage and history that comes with it. 

It is like climbing up on a stage and saying "vomen...and men! vomen....and men!" in a silly voice all night long, or actually doing exactly the thing that you condemn; stressing differences between men and women. 

 

Yes, daterape is a very real issue, and yes, it happens a lot more then you would think. Please girls, keep your eye on your glass. If you need to go to the toilet to vomit and whatnot, ask a friend to guard your drink. Myself, I had my drink spiked twice in random bars, and never noticed a thing. Made me really ill both times.  

 

Wait... WHAT! When did Spikey come back!? *hugsyouomg*