Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Ten Evidences in favor of my thesis

13 views
Skip to first unread message

Andrew Usher

unread,
Nov 5, 2009, 9:40:43 PM11/5/09
to
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.

Andrew Usher

Virgil

unread,
Nov 5, 2009, 10:48:30 PM11/5/09
to
In article
<86b4e45f-08a2-41c8...@l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Andrew Usher <k_over...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> My thesis on female sexual behavior is this

Why are you posting a theory on female sexual behavior to sci.math?

Benj

unread,
Nov 6, 2009, 2:05:55 AM11/6/09
to
On Nov 5, 10:48 pm, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
> In article
> <86b4e45f-08a2-41c8-926f-9ff00ad26...@l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,

>  Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > My thesis on female sexual behavior is this
>
> Why are you posting a theory on female sexual behavior to sci.math?

That would be because he's a leftist idiot, who spends his nights and
days thinking only about sex.

Svenne

unread,
Nov 6, 2009, 2:53:20 AM11/6/09
to

He's trying to figure out the statistitical chances of him ever
getting a shag.

Svenne

Ste

unread,
Nov 6, 2009, 3:35:51 AM11/6/09
to
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.

Interesting, nonetheless.

William Black

unread,
Nov 6, 2009, 7:28:30 AM11/6/09
to
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.

ZerkonXXXX

unread,
Nov 6, 2009, 10:09:04 AM11/6/09
to
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.


Dirk Bruere at NeoPax

unread,
Nov 6, 2009, 10:51:18 AM11/6/09
to
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.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show

Uncle Al

unread,
Nov 6, 2009, 2:45:01 PM11/6/09
to
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.'
[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.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm

Uncle Al

unread,
Nov 6, 2009, 2:45:27 PM11/6/09
to
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.'

Andrew Usher

unread,
Nov 6, 2009, 10:16:58 PM11/6/09
to
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.

Andrew Usher

Andrew Usher

unread,
Nov 6, 2009, 10:19:18 PM11/6/09
to
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.

Andrew Usher

Andrew Usher

unread,
Nov 6, 2009, 10:25:16 PM11/6/09
to
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

Andrew Usher

unread,
Nov 6, 2009, 10:26:49 PM11/6/09
to
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.

Andrew Usher

ZerkonXXXX

unread,
Nov 7, 2009, 10:28:25 AM11/7/09
to
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).

Andrew Usher

unread,
Nov 7, 2009, 10:03:50 PM11/7/09
to
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.

Andrew Usher

Andrew Usher

unread,
Nov 7, 2009, 10:27:36 PM11/7/09
to
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.

Thank you for taking the time to review my post.

Andrew Usher

Jason

unread,
Nov 8, 2009, 12:54:55 AM11/8/09
to

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.

Just a thought...


Andrew Usher

unread,
Nov 8, 2009, 1:22:46 AM11/8/09
to
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.

More ad hominem.

Andrew Usher

Ste

unread,
Nov 8, 2009, 8:32:49 PM11/8/09
to
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.

Moderator

unread,
Nov 8, 2009, 9:45:33 PM11/8/09
to

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.

Andrew Usher

unread,
Nov 10, 2009, 7:06:58 AM11/10/09
to
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.

Stick it up your ass.

Andrew Usher

Andrew Usher

unread,
Nov 10, 2009, 7:07:26 AM11/10/09
to

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

Moderator

unread,
Nov 10, 2009, 8:03:25 AM11/10/09
to

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.

Andrew Usher

unread,
Nov 10, 2009, 8:20:10 AM11/10/09
to
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.

Because you are being a dick.

Andrew Usher

Ste

unread,
Nov 10, 2009, 1:52:17 PM11/10/09
to
On 10 Nov, 12:07, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> 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.

Not even that I suspect, but simply that most people have a lifetime's
worth of conditioning and direct experience of the world, and
transforming the resulting intuitions and implicit knowledge into any
sort of explicit form would be a painstaking process for generally
little tangible gain to the individual. Indeed, if you're trying to
understand what or why someone is doing something, it is generally
pointless to ask them, any more than one would ask a dog why it's
barking and expect to receive a coherent answer.

> > 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.

I disagree. It took me many times longer to respond to your post as a
result of your failure to quote. Of course, once quotations become 6
or 7 levels deep, you can trim them down to include only the necessary
context (usually just two or three previous posts worth of material),
and time spent trimming and formatting a post (which can be done
separately to reading it and writing the substantive reply, allows the
next reader to absorb the content more quickly and smoothly).

> > > 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.

Status is wholly relative, but that is not to say that the context for
comparison is renewed on a day-to-day basis. People's perception of
what are high-status traits will be formed over a significant period
of time.

> > > 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?

Well, what I would say is that a man's status, as reported by his own
peer group at any particular time, is not necessarily the only factor
a woman takes into account when choosing a partner. A young girl with
personality issues, for example, might choose an older man because
he's perceived to be benevolent and father-like. Or a girl may choose
an older man because it acts as a signal of her own attractiveness or
that she is finally an "adult". Also, the girl and her peers may yet
be unaware of the older man's low status, or the traits that he has
that give him low status.

> > > 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.

I certainly wouldn't say your on the wrong track.

> > > 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.

I know, but I'm trying to cover my own arse here and make sure we
understand each other.

> > > 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.

As I've said, I accept that women will in certain circumstances be
more willing to have sex with foreigners, but what I don't accept is
that it is related to some unconscious decision by the woman that,
because foreigners are unlikely to commit, that she should just get on
with having sex. To me this just sounds like a child with a hammer who
starts to see everything as nails. After all, if a woman values
commitment (and your argument rests on the assumption that she does,
because according to your argument, commitment gives her more
bargaining power), then it hardly seems reasonable that she would seek
out men who are unlikely to commit, let alone, once she got there, say
"oh well, may as well enjoy myself" and have sex with them.

> > > 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.

Evidence suggests that women, on average, don't in fact want as much
sex as men. But on the other hand, they do tend to value intimacy and
closeness to a greater degree. Insofar as they tend to avoid sex with
men unwilling to commit, I'm willing to accept that. But as I say, I
don't see how this explains what you claim is their greater
inclination to have sex with foreign men. If foreign men are unwilling
to commit in any circumstances, while at least some men at home are
willing to commit, then one would expect women to avoid foreign men
altogether.

> > > 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?

That's really the question you need to answer, not me.

> > > 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.

No, I said *economic* needs. As a result I'm afraid you've completely
lost me here.

> > > 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.

As I said, it will be partly to do with values, and partly to do with
the personalities of such high-powered women (with the remainder due
to bias in your anecdotal evidence of this effect, which I suspect is
not nearly as pronounced as you claim). Many such women are unlikely
to be seeking a meek, stay-at-home husband, and by the same token high-
powered men are likely to be made uncomfortable by the role-reversal
when they are out-earned by their women partners. The only acceptable
relationship, then, is one between high-powered women and ever more
high-powered 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!

Has it really?

> > 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.

Sex outside of marriage certainly becomes more common. But what I'm
saying is that, when morals loosen, it becomes possible to have sort
of semi-prostitutional relationships, which are not entirely
contractual, but which are still based on short-term quid pro quo (as
opposed to strong, long-term commitments).

> > > 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.

I heard the argument, but I'm simply not convinced. It's a bit like
saying the bargaining position of a butcher selling premium bacon is
increased when there is a butcher next door selling average bacon. If
we are assuming that men require a certain amount of satisfaction,
then the man's ability to get sex elsewhere ought to reduce her
bargaining power, and it also reduces the resources available to the
wife and increases the risk that he'll permanently leave if he prefers
what's on offer elsewhere.

> > > 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.

Not when you consider that dating and nights out involve effort,
whereas she has a captive audience in the classroom.

Moderator

unread,
Nov 10, 2009, 3:38:47 PM11/10/09
to

That may be your perception of me but I assure you it is not my intent
and your claim is anything but objective.

Andrew Usher

unread,
Nov 11, 2009, 6:09:41 AM11/11/09
to
On Nov 10, 2:38 pm, Moderator <meldo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > 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.
>
> > Because you are being a dick.
>

> That may be your perception of me but I assure you it is not my intent
> and your claim is anything but objective.

If you've been told you're doing it and you keep doing it, then it's
intentional. My claim is as objective as can be as I have no personal
grudge against you and actually want to support you in your legal
matter.

Andrew Usher

Andrew Usher

unread,
Nov 11, 2009, 6:10:05 AM11/11/09
to
On Nov 10, 12:52 pm, Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 10 Nov, 12:07, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> 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.
>
> Not even that I suspect, but simply that most people have a lifetime's
> worth of conditioning and direct experience of the world, and
> transforming the resulting intuitions and implicit knowledge into any
> sort of explicit form would be a painstaking process for generally
> little tangible gain to the individual.

It's easy for me, and I assume for you also. Do you really think
there's no sex difference here? Remember too that I'm referring to
certain specific subjects on which women are especially unable to be
objective.

> I disagree. It took me many times longer to respond to your post as a
> result of your failure to quote. Of course, once quotations become 6
> or 7 levels deep, you can trim them down to include only the necessary
> context (usually just two or three previous posts worth of material),
> and time spent trimming and formatting a post (which can be done
> separately to reading it and writing the substantive reply, allows the
> next reader to absorb the content more quickly and smoothly).

OK. I usually have (at least) two windows open anyway when reading
Usenet, and so for me reading the reply in one and referencing the
original in the other would hardly take additional time. Do you have a
different setup?

> > > > 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.
>
> Status is wholly relative, but that is not to say that the context for
> comparison is renewed on a day-to-day basis. People's perception of
> what are high-status traits will be formed over a significant period
> of time.

Precisely, so it would not change suddendly in response to one's
circumstances. But that seems to be what you're implying when saying
that status alone can explain my points.

> > > > 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?
>
> Well, what I would say is that a man's status, as reported by his own
> peer group at any particular time, is not necessarily the only factor
> a woman takes into account when choosing a partner.

Right ...

> A young girl with
> personality issues, for example, might choose an older man because
> he's perceived to be benevolent and father-like. Or a girl may choose
> an older man because it acts as a signal of her own attractiveness or
> that she is finally an "adult". Also, the girl and her peers may yet
> be unaware of the older man's low status, or the traits that he has
> that give him low status.

While these are all possible, they seem uncomfortably ad hoc to me. Do
(any) women really choose sexual partners for those reasons?

> > > > 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.
>
> I certainly wouldn't say your on the wrong track.

Earlier I have expressed my dislike for current laws and their
enforcement. In
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.men/browse_thread/thread/6d7b90c5a793fc8f/c12ae3e193d0e993?show_docid=c12ae3e193d0e993#
, for example, when asked directly to propose an age of consent I said
a minimum of 12 and a maximum of 15 (consistent with
http://menswiki.wikidot.com/essay:age-of-majority), which means that
cases with 'victims' 12-14 would have to be judged individually. I
believe there's no reason that the laws should not be enforced equally
upon men and women when it comes to heterosexual relationships.

Most men's rights people want the laws to be enforced upon women as
harshly as they currently are on men, which I find both silly and
repugnant. I do not like to see injustice done to anyone, man or
woman.

> As I've said, I accept that women will in certain circumstances be
> more willing to have sex with foreigners, but what I don't accept is
> that it is related to some unconscious decision by the woman that,
> because foreigners are unlikely to commit, that she should just get on
> with having sex. To me this just sounds like a child with a hammer who
> starts to see everything as nails.

This is how scientific thinking _works_. The more a theory can
explain, the stronger (not weaker) it is. On the other hand, ad hoc
statements that explain nothing but what they were invented to explain
are very weak. My thesis is definitely not so: it was inspired by
reasing an article (which I now know to have been exaggerated) about
sexual activity in Antarctic bases. I conceived the idea shortly after
reading that, and originally applied it to explain sex in 'confined'
environments such as the aforementioned bases, the military, prisons,
etc. Only later did I extend it to cover all these other examples,
showing that it had predictive power.

> After all, if a woman values
> commitment (and your argument rests on the assumption that she does,
> because according to your argument, commitment gives her more
> bargaining power), then it hardly seems reasonable that she would seek
> out men who are unlikely to commit, let alone, once she got there, say
> "oh well, may as well enjoy myself" and have sex with them.

This argument contains the premiss that women's sexual desires are
entirely rational, which isn't even true of men. Of course they don't
consciously reason this way, but it is essentially how their minds
work.

> > 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 any more than all men would.


>
> Evidence suggests that women, on average, don't in fact want as much
> sex as men. But on the other hand, they do tend to value intimacy and
> closeness to a greater degree. Insofar as they tend to avoid sex with
> men unwilling to commit, I'm willing to accept that. But as I say, I
> don't see how this explains what you claim is their greater
> inclination to have sex with foreign men. If foreign men are unwilling
> to commit in any circumstances, while at least some men at home are
> willing to commit, then one would expect women to avoid foreign men
> altogether.

But that clearly isn't so, which is a problem for your reasoning.

My explanation is that women do avoid sex with men unwilling to commit
to the extent such commitment is reasonably possible. The fundamental
reason to believe this is that women value both sex and commitment.

> > > > 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?
>
> That's really the question you need to answer, not me.

I gave my explanation above. On the other hand you haven't given one,
even though you just acknowledged the phenomenon exists.

> > > > 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.
>
> No, I said *economic* needs. As a result I'm afraid you've completely
> lost me here.

You said

"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 ..."

Note the phrase 'other needs'.

> > > > 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.
>
> As I said, it will be partly to do with values, and partly to do with
> the personalities of such high-powered women (with the remainder due
> to bias in your anecdotal evidence of this effect, which I suspect is
> not nearly as pronounced as you claim). Many such women are unlikely
> to be seeking a meek, stay-at-home husband, and by the same token high-
> powered men are likely to be made uncomfortable by the role-reversal
> when they are out-earned by their women partners. The only acceptable
> relationship, then, is one between high-powered women and ever more
> high-powered men.

Are you denying that there is any psychological effect of work here?

In any case, you surely are right that there is a mental difference at
work in some men and women with high-paying jobs. However, many of
those jobs go to people that simple have the right connections and are
not necessarily particularly hard-working or status-seeking.

> > > > 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!
>
> Has it really?

It really has. Prostitutes were everywhere in 1900 (and earlier), and
it was generally thought that prostitution was just a necessary evil.
Now, only a minority of American men has ever used a prostitute.

> > > 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.
>
> Sex outside of marriage certainly becomes more common. But what I'm
> saying is that, when morals loosen, it becomes possible to have sort
> of semi-prostitutional relationships, which are not entirely
> contractual, but which are still based on short-term quid pro quo (as
> opposed to strong, long-term commitments).

And such relationships are a modern invention? Have you ever heard of
men keeping mistresses? What do you think those relationships were
based on? Why do you think they said 'keep a mistress'? Again, it was
generally acknowledged that mistresses were generally at least semi-
prostitutional.

> > 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.
>
> I heard the argument, but I'm simply not convinced. It's a bit like
> saying the bargaining position of a butcher selling premium bacon is
> increased when there is a butcher next door selling average bacon.

It is though! The value of luxury goods is increased by their
comparison to inferior goods, because of real or perceived differences
in quality. If there's only one butcher in town selling bacon, people
would pay a price based on the preference for bacon, and it wouldn't
much matter how good the bacon was. But when there are many butchers
(assuming each sold just a single sort of bacon), one can distinguish
himself on quality, and get people to pay more based on that
perception.

> If
> we are assuming that men require a certain amount of satisfaction,
> then the man's ability to get sex elsewhere ought to reduce her
> bargaining power, and it also reduces the resources available to the
> wife and increases the risk that he'll permanently leave if he prefers
> what's on offer elsewhere.

But prostitutes are not seen (by men or women) as serious competitors
to a romantic relationship.

> > > > 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.
>
> Not when you consider that dating and nights out involve effort,
> whereas she has a captive audience in the classroom.

I was about to object that that doesn't stop most women from doing it,
but let's follow your argument further. Are you saying that only a
minority of women teachers likely to consider a relationship with a
male student (even if they wouldn't be punished for it), and that this
is the same minority that would otherwise consider trying to hook up
with a male friend/acquaintance rather than dating or remaining
celibate? If so, maybe my argument here is not very strong.

Andrew Usher

jmfbahciv

unread,
Nov 11, 2009, 6:51:29 AM11/11/09
to
Andrew Usher wrote:
> 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.
>
> Because you are being a dick.
>
At least that poster has one. You're still trying to find yours.

/BAH

Richard Tobin

unread,
Nov 12, 2009, 5:04:38 AM11/12/09
to
In article <4AF47CBD...@hate.spam.net>,
Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:

>American women as a class are insane, manipulative, vindictive,
>stupid, and monstrous.

It's hardly surprising that your experience of them is like that.

-- Richard
--
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.

Ste

unread,
Nov 12, 2009, 7:42:29 AM11/12/09
to
On 11 Nov, 11:10, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 10, 12:52 pm, Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 10 Nov, 12:07, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> 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.
>
> > Not even that I suspect, but simply that most people have a lifetime's
> > worth of conditioning and direct experience of the world, and
> > transforming the resulting intuitions and implicit knowledge into any
> > sort of explicit form would be a painstaking process for generally
> > little tangible gain to the individual.
>
> It's easy for me, and I assume for you also.

I wouldn't say it is easy at all, and what insights I do have are
based on years of experience and learning.

> Do you really think
> there's no sex difference here?

Most of any "sex difference" can be accounted for simply by
circumstance and culture. What innate differences there are, are
barely worth talking about.

> Remember too that I'm referring to
> certain specific subjects on which women are especially unable to be
> objective.

As I've said, asking people why they do certain things will generally
yield about as much sense as asking a dog why it barks.

> > I disagree. It took me many times longer to respond to your post as a
> > result of your failure to quote. Of course, once quotations become 6
> > or 7 levels deep, you can trim them down to include only the necessary
> > context (usually just two or three previous posts worth of material),
> > and time spent trimming and formatting a post (which can be done
> > separately to reading it and writing the substantive reply, allows the
> > next reader to absorb the content more quickly and smoothly).
>
> OK. I usually have (at least) two windows open anyway when reading
> Usenet, and so for me reading the reply in one and referencing the
> original in the other would hardly take additional time. Do you have a
> different setup?

I use Google. I often have more than one IE window open, but as I say
I perceive it as a far greater hassle having to scroll, scan, and
cross-reference between two separate posts in two separate windows,
rather than having the context to a reply available inline with the
reply - the difficulty with your method becomes especially pronounced
when you're having to trace back through a number of previous replies.

> > > > > 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.
>
> > Status is wholly relative, but that is not to say that the context for
> > comparison is renewed on a day-to-day basis. People's perception of
> > what are high-status traits will be formed over a significant period
> > of time.
>
> Precisely, so it would not change suddendly in response to one's
> circumstances. But that seems to be what you're implying when saying
> that status alone can explain my points.

I don't really understand why not. Status is relative, but the context
for a comparison extends through time as well as space.

> > A young girl with
> > personality issues, for example, might choose an older man because
> > he's perceived to be benevolent and father-like. Or a girl may choose
> > an older man because it acts as a signal of her own attractiveness or
> > that she is finally an "adult". Also, the girl and her peers may yet
> > be unaware of the older man's low status, or the traits that he has
> > that give him low status.
>
> While these are all possible, they seem uncomfortably ad hoc to me. Do
> (any) women really choose sexual partners for those reasons?

Yes, I would say so. People prefer familiar personalities, especially
if it reminds them of past pleasant relationships, and that can be a
reason for a woman preferring someone similiar in personality to her
father. Of course, some women may utterly hate their fathers, and so
the effect will be the opposite.

And then, when you start adding in other factors, like insecurity,
well then an older, low-status man may provide perceived emotional
stability and security.

As I say, there is no simple rule for understanding human behaviour
and relationships. Drives and preferences vary between people, and are
highly contingent on an interplay between past experiences (which in
turn often includes chance events) and personality styles.

> > > > > 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.
>
> > I certainly wouldn't say your on the wrong track.
>
> Earlier I have expressed my dislike for current laws and their

> enforcement. Inhttp://groups.google.com/group/soc.men/browse_thread/thread/6d7b90c5a...


> , for example, when asked directly to propose an age of consent I said

> a minimum of 12 and a maximum of 15 (consistent withhttp://menswiki.wikidot.com/essay:age-of-majority), which means that


> cases with 'victims' 12-14 would have to be judged individually. I
> believe there's no reason that the laws should not be enforced equally
> upon men and women when it comes to heterosexual relationships.

The problem is that making "individual judgments" about relationships
is a process fraught with uncertainty, and it becomes especially
difficult when you're expecting a court to make that judgment, courts
which comprise utter strangers to both the parties and their
community. The point about the AOC si that it removes the necessity to
constantly monitor and judge such relationships, and it also removes
the necessity of making judgments which would not fit well with the
principles of a liberal society.

Incidentally why do you make a point of saying heterosexual
relationships as distinct from any sexual relationship?

> Most men's rights people want the laws to be enforced upon women as
> harshly as they currently are on men, which I find both silly and
> repugnant. I do not like to see injustice done to anyone, man or
> woman.

Indeed.


> > As I've said, I accept that women will in certain circumstances be
> > more willing to have sex with foreigners, but what I don't accept is
> > that it is related to some unconscious decision by the woman that,
> > because foreigners are unlikely to commit, that she should just get on
> > with having sex. To me this just sounds like a child with a hammer who
> > starts to see everything as nails.
>
> This is how scientific thinking _works_. The more a theory can
> explain, the stronger (not weaker) it is. On the other hand, ad hoc
> statements that explain nothing but what they were invented to explain
> are very weak.

Indeed, the most trite and simplistic explanations will regularly fit
a limited set of data.

> My thesis is definitely not so: it was inspired by
> reasing an article (which I now know to have been exaggerated) about
> sexual activity in Antarctic bases. I conceived the idea shortly after
> reading that, and originally applied it to explain sex in 'confined'
> environments such as the aforementioned bases, the military, prisons,
> etc. Only later did I extend it to cover all these other examples,
> showing that it had predictive power.

And what did go on in those Antarctic bases?

Incidentally, I was thinking earlier about this issue of bargaining
with foreign men, and I've just now remembered the epiphany I had. I
think most of what you've said is salvageable if, rather than saying
they're looser with foreign men because the foreign men won't commit,
it is more compelling to say that they're looser with foreign men
because it will not affect their bargaining position back home (i.e.
in the community to which they eventually intend to return, where
maintaining a bargaining position is important for the long-term). Or
to put it another way, it's not because foreign men are unwilling to
commit (they may or may not), but because men back home (i.e. the sort
of men the women want to be with long-term) will still be willing to
commit on the same terms. The former account is your account, which
says that there is nothing to be gained by forgoing the sex, whereas
the latter account implies there is nothing to be lost by indulging in
the sex. It's a subtle difference, but I think it makes all the
difference (and the devil is always in the detail with these things).

> > After all, if a woman values
> > commitment (and your argument rests on the assumption that she does,
> > because according to your argument, commitment gives her more
> > bargaining power), then it hardly seems reasonable that she would seek
> > out men who are unlikely to commit, let alone, once she got there, say
> > "oh well, may as well enjoy myself" and have sex with them.
>
> This argument contains the premiss that women's sexual desires are
> entirely rational, which isn't even true of men. Of course they don't
> consciously reason this way, but it is essentially how their minds
> work.

All complex mechanisms appear irrational at first glance.

> > > 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 any more than all men would.
>
> > Evidence suggests that women, on average, don't in fact want as much
> > sex as men. But on the other hand, they do tend to value intimacy and
> > closeness to a greater degree. Insofar as they tend to avoid sex with
> > men unwilling to commit, I'm willing to accept that. But as I say, I
> > don't see how this explains what you claim is their greater
> > inclination to have sex with foreign men. If foreign men are unwilling
> > to commit in any circumstances, while at least some men at home are
> > willing to commit, then one would expect women to avoid foreign men
> > altogether.
>
> But that clearly isn't so, which is a problem for your reasoning.

No, because I can explain it in other ways. As I said, I think I've
got to grips with this one now anyway. The key is that visiting a
foreign land allows short-term indulgence without affecting the long-
term bargaining position back home. It's not that foreign men are
unwilling to commit (they may or may not be), but that the women
doesn't actually want commitment from those foreign men - she wants
commitment *over the long term* from men back home.

> My explanation is that women do avoid sex with men unwilling to commit
> to the extent such commitment is reasonably possible. The fundamental
> reason to believe this is that women value both sex and commitment.

But therein lies the glaring inconsistency. If women want commitment
and sex, then going abroad (where, you say, the foreigners are
unwilling to commit) would be a ridiculous way to go about getting
what they wanted.

> > > > > 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?
>
> > That's really the question you need to answer, not me.
>
> I gave my explanation above. On the other hand you haven't given one,
> even though you just acknowledged the phenomenon exists.

Right from the start, I would have explained the phenomenon in terms
of the foreign culture allowing morals to be put to one side. I think
now I've been able to elaborate on that argument in my own mind, and
provide what may be a mutually acceptable explanation which draws from
both insights (i.e. my explanation above).

What I was doing here though was putting to you the inconsistencies in
your own existing explanation.

> > > > > 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.
>
> > No, I said *economic* needs. As a result I'm afraid you've completely
> > lost me here.
>
> You said
>
> "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 ..."
>
> Note the phrase 'other needs'.

Yes, ok. But I still think you've left too much of your reply
implicit. I accept that women want more than just financial security.
After all, it doesn't make for a fulfilling existence sitting at home
all day counting money. Following from that, I don't really understand
what you mean when you say a "woman's [non-economic] needs are never
fulfilled if she doesn't want them to be".

> > > > > 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.
>
> > As I said, it will be partly to do with values, and partly to do with
> > the personalities of such high-powered women (with the remainder due
> > to bias in your anecdotal evidence of this effect, which I suspect is
> > not nearly as pronounced as you claim). Many such women are unlikely
> > to be seeking a meek, stay-at-home husband, and by the same token high-
> > powered men are likely to be made uncomfortable by the role-reversal
> > when they are out-earned by their women partners. The only acceptable
> > relationship, then, is one between high-powered women and ever more
> > high-powered men.
>
> Are you denying that there is any psychological effect of work here?

No, surely this whole discussion is about psychology! The point about
what I'm saying though, about high-powered men, is that it has as much
to do with compatibility, as it does to do with the woman's
insecurity. Indeed, if anything, it is the *man* who is likely to be
insecure if he is out-earned by his wife, and of course that leads to
strain in the relationship.

More than that, hard working career-women probably have strong views
about hard work and success, and may well look down (consciously or
unconsciously) on any man who isn't as successful as they are. And
again, this is a status-related concept.

> In any case, you surely are right that there is a mental difference at
> work in some men and women with high-paying jobs. However, many of
> those jobs go to people that simple have the right connections and are
> not necessarily particularly hard-working or status-seeking.

Most people don't put in 12 hour days at the office because they had
the "right connections". The right connections may be a necessary
condition for getting high-powered jobs, but it would rarely be a
sufficient condition. On the other hand, the relatively well-paid
secretary may well have a thing for the high-paid boss, not because
she is insecure, but because seduction is the very means by which she
acquires and retains such a position.

> > > > > 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!
>
> > Has it really?
>
> It really has. Prostitutes were everywhere in 1900 (and earlier), and
> it was generally thought that prostitution was just a necessary evil.
> Now, only a minority of American men has ever used a prostitute.

It may well be the case that fewer men have ever used a prostitute,
but like I say I'm still not convinced that there is substantially
less prostitution. Or to put it another way, what I'm saying is that
prostitution is as available as it ever was, but there are fewer
individuals who need to use them.

> > > > 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.
>
> > Sex outside of marriage certainly becomes more common. But what I'm
> > saying is that, when morals loosen, it becomes possible to have sort
> > of semi-prostitutional relationships, which are not entirely
> > contractual, but which are still based on short-term quid pro quo (as
> > opposed to strong, long-term commitments).
>
> And such relationships are a modern invention? Have you ever heard of
> men keeping mistresses? What do you think those relationships were
> based on? Why do you think they said 'keep a mistress'? Again, it was
> generally acknowledged that mistresses were generally at least semi-
> prostitutional.

I suppose to a certain extent. But in times before people married for
love, the mistress was often far from a prostitute. Look at Charles
and Camilla, for example.

> > > 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.
>
> > I heard the argument, but I'm simply not convinced. It's a bit like
> > saying the bargaining position of a butcher selling premium bacon is
> > increased when there is a butcher next door selling average bacon.
>
> It is though! The value of luxury goods is increased by their
> comparison to inferior goods, because of real or perceived differences
> in quality. If there's only one butcher in town selling bacon, people
> would pay a price based on the preference for bacon, and it wouldn't
> much matter how good the bacon was. But when there are many butchers
> (assuming each sold just a single sort of bacon), one can distinguish
> himself on quality, and get people to pay more based on that
> perception.

I'm afraid I still can't get my head around this. The "butcher" here
is the woman, and the "bacon" is the sex (I can hear the feminists
scream!). We'll presume that men prefer to eat bacon than go without,
and by definition they prefer better quality bacon over worse quality
bacon.

So we start with one butcher in town, A. The price that A can charge
is as much as the man ("M") will bear before he says "I'm doing
without bacon completely". Another butcher, B, comes on the scene. The
price A can now charge M depends on whether the bacon offered by B is
of better or worse quality.

If B offers worse quality bacon (but still of palatable quality), then
presumably B will price lower than A, and the price that A can then
charge is as much as M will bear before he says "I'm using B
instead".

If B offers better quality bacon at the same price as A was charging
when A was a monopoly (which by definition was the maximum price that
M would bear before forgoing sex altogether), then A will have to drop
her prices substantially to avoid M saying "I can get better for the
same price. I'm using B instead!".

So that said Andrew, I really can't see how a woman's bargaining
position is increased by having other women available to the man.

> > If
> > we are assuming that men require a certain amount of satisfaction,
> > then the man's ability to get sex elsewhere ought to reduce her
> > bargaining power, and it also reduces the resources available to the
> > wife and increases the risk that he'll permanently leave if he prefers
> > what's on offer elsewhere.
>
> But prostitutes are not seen (by men or women) as serious competitors
> to a romantic relationship.

Perhaps not. But how would cold-sex in any way increase the value of
romantic-sex?

> > > > > 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.
>
> > Not when you consider that dating and nights out involve effort,
> > whereas she has a captive audience in the classroom.
>
> I was about to object that that doesn't stop most women from doing it,
> but let's follow your argument further.

Yes but "most" women have to do it in order to find an acceptable
partner (though indeed many enjoy going on nights out). The point here
is that why would a teacher go dating when she already has a room full
of hot, lusty lads to choose from?

> Are you saying that only a
> minority of women teachers likely to consider a relationship with a
> male student (even if they wouldn't be punished for it), and that this
> is the same minority that would otherwise consider trying to hook up
> with a male friend/acquaintance rather than dating or remaining
> celibate? If so, maybe my argument here is not very strong.

I'm not quite sure what you're asking. But what I'm saying is that at
least *part* of the explanation for teachers having relationships with
teenage students will be proximity.

Andrew Usher

unread,
Nov 19, 2009, 8:40:19 PM11/19/09
to
On Nov 11, 5:51 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote:

> > Because you are being a dick.
>
> At least that poster has one. You're still trying to find yours.
>
> /BAH

I suppose I should take it as a compliment that I can reduce women to
such nonsense.

Andrew Usher

Andrew Usher

unread,
Nov 19, 2009, 8:41:01 PM11/19/09
to
On Nov 12, 6:42 am, Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > > Not even that I suspect, but simply that most people have a lifetime's
> > > worth of conditioning and direct experience of the world, and
> > > transforming the resulting intuitions and implicit knowledge into any
> > > sort of explicit form would be a painstaking process for generally
> > > little tangible gain to the individual.
>
> > It's easy for me, and I assume for you also.
>
> I wouldn't say it is easy at all, and what insights I do have are
> based on years of experience and learning.

Well, I don't know, I've never thought that I really know anything
unless I can express it in explicit form, I think I am naturally
philosophical about everything. You're rgiht, though, that it has
'little tangible gain' and that's why most people don't do it even
when they could - and why, then, there is so much irrationality in the
world.

> > Do you really think
> > there's no sex difference here?
>
> Most of any "sex difference" can be accounted for simply by
> circumstance and culture. What innate differences there are, are
> barely worth talking about.

I think that's just wrong. We're discussing differences between men
and women, right? If there's one thing that philosophers through the
ages have agreed on, it's the mental inferiority of women. It's true
of course that some of the differences are multiplied by culture, but
what creates the cultur? It does not come from nothing; if (as is the
case) our social norms expect women to be less rational, one may ask
how that came about!

> > Remember too that I'm referring to
> > certain specific subjects on which women are especially unable to be
> > objective.
>
> As I've said, asking people why they do certain things will generally
> yield about as much sense as asking a dog why it barks.

Are you saying people are no smarter than dogs? Introspection is a
uniquely human ability, one for which the average man is considerably
superior to the average women and I am considerably superior to the
average man (though not perfect! - I know from experience).

> I use Google. I often have more than one IE window open, but as I say
> I perceive it as a far greater hassle having to scroll, scan, and
> cross-reference between two separate posts in two separate windows,
> rather than having the context to a reply available inline with the
> reply - the difficulty with your method becomes especially pronounced
> when you're having to trace back through a number of previous replies.

What I can't understand is why conventions for this are so different
on Usenet and on Web forums - I've complained on forums, too, about
not being able to quote like on Usenet!

> > > Status is wholly relative, but that is not to say that the context for
> > > comparison is renewed on a day-to-day basis. People's perception of
> > > what are high-status traits will be formed over a significant period
> > > of time.
>

> > Precisely, so it would not change suddenly in response to one's


> > circumstances. But that seems to be what you're implying when saying
> > that status alone can explain my points.
>
> I don't really understand why not. Status is relative, but the context
> for a comparison extends through time as well as space.

Your point about status may be sound in reply to #1, but not for all
of them. Once a woman has absorbed the norms of status in adult
society, she should not be expected to abandon them suddenly while in
a foreign country, in the military, etc.

> And then, when you start adding in other factors, like insecurity,
> well then an older, low-status man may provide perceived emotional
> stability and security.

Are you not saying, then, that that man is actually a better choice
for her than a man of similar age?

> As I say, there is no simple rule for understanding human behaviour
> and relationships. Drives and preferences vary between people, and are
> highly contingent on an interplay between past experiences (which in
> turn often includes chance events) and personality styles.

Obviously. But this does not affect our ability to make useful
generalisations, any more than the random motion of individual air
molecules prevents us from talking about the wind.

[about statutory rape laws]

> > Earlier I have expressed my dislike for current laws and their

> > enforcement. In http://groups.google.com/group/soc.men/browse_thread/thread/6d7b90c5a...


> > , for example, when asked directly to propose an age of consent I said

> > a minimum of 12 and a maximum of 15 (consistent with http://menswiki.wikidot.com/essay:age-of-majority), which means that


> > cases with 'victims' 12-14 would have to be judged individually. I
> > believe there's no reason that the laws should not be enforced equally
> > upon men and women when it comes to heterosexual relationships.
>
> The problem is that making "individual judgments" abou