Ten Evidences in favor of my thesis
Andrew Usher
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
<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
> 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
He's trying to figure out the statistitical chances of him ever
getting a shag.
Svenne
Ste
> 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.
>
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
> 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
> 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
> 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
>
> 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.'
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
>
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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.
> >
>
> 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
>> 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
> >> 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
> 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
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
> 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
> 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
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
> 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
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
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
> 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
> 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
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
> > > 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
> 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
> Moderator wrote:
>
>>
>> Ste has taken exceptional time and patience in a careful examination
>> and critique of your essay. If a well reasoned rebuttal is simply
>> 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.
>
>> 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.
>
/BAH
Richard Tobin
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
> 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
> > 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
> > > 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" about relationships
> is a process fraught with uncertainty, and it becomes especially
> difficult when you're expecting a court to make that judgment,
True, which is why the courts should stay out of it as much as
possible.
> 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.
And it fits with a liberal society to automatically jail these people?
> Incidentally why do you make a point of saying heterosexual
> relationships as distinct from any sexual relationship?
I think that it is arguable that the age ought to be higher for
homosexuals, because of (for example) the additional chance that a
straight boy will be psychologically damaged by a homosexual
relationship.
> 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).
I think your explanation is nearly equivalent. The difference is that
I argue that the women are protecting not only their own bargaining
position, but that of all women. I wonder, though, to what extent
women really do lose future bargaining power - perhaps it was more
true in the past than today.
> > > 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.
Precisely! Women's behavior may seem irrational, but it has patterns
nonetheless. That's what I'm getting across.
> > 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.
While women do want both commitment and sex, they don't necessarily
want or need them _together_! When one is ruled out, they may still
desire the other.
> > > > 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).
Alright, I think I see. Are we agreed now?
> What I was doing here though was putting to you the inconsistencies in
> your own existing explanation.
Only apparent.
> > > > > > 5. This is the feminist line. Women's 'needs' are never met if she
> > > > > > doesn't want them to be!
<snip>
> > 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.
I think you know that money is good for more than that!
> 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".
What I meant is that if a woman has a personality that wants to
complain, she'll always find about the same number of things to
complain about, no matter her situation (men are, I think, more
concrete when it comes to this) and she can always rationalise that
'her needs aren't being met'. That should not be taken at face value.
I accept that men may be somewhat insecure about marrying a woman
earning more than he does. However, I don't think that this need
imperil their relationship unless the woman wants to make it an issue.
> 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.
Yes! But part of this is due to insecurity as insecure people always
need to find others to look down upon. And those views probably are
caused by working, as people (irrationally) value more what they have
worked hard for.
> > 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.
No, not sufficient strictly, but people in a social environment where
they're expected to get into those jobs are likely to exhibit the
other traits that would make them successful and getting them. That
doesn't mean they're fundamentally different from us.
> 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.
Secretaries are not normally members of the class I'm discussing.
> > > > > > 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.
In other words, both supply and demand have gone down equally, so that
it's just as 'available' to those that want it. If fewer men use
prostitutes, there must be fewer prostitutes.
> > 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.
And what time was Charles and Camilla? I am talking about the 19th
century and before. Anyway, of course there were always a few
exceptions. The point is that mistresses are less common today - as
would be expected on my argument.
> > > > 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!).
You made the analogy; I don't think it's that good.
> 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!".
If purchasing decisions were perfectly rational, this analysis would
be right. But luxury goods are irrational by definition. And sex is
certainly not a rational market, even when love if not involved.
> 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?
Because it makes it look better by comparison. In any case, my
argument does not require this effect, it only requires that (most)
men not admit prostitution as a replacement for conventional
relationships.
> > > 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?
All women would find it easy to acquire a sexual partner if they were
willing to take any man. This is not unique to teachers.
> > 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.
Well, yeah, women are not likely to have sexual relationships with men
that aren't in proximity. And I admitted that teachers are more likely
to look at their students than other women would at adolescents, for
that reason. But the question is why any woman would, given
conventional judgement of what men are acceptable. I said above that
perhaps these women do not share conventional judgement (and that that
might save your argument here) in that they would be willing to try a
man that was 'just a friend', which most women would not.
Andrew Usher
Ste
> 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,
That's a common refrain, especially from people who are formally
educated. But it's clear that people do things all the time without
being able to explain why, and make apparently sound decisions without
being able to explain exactly how. It's not tenable to say that,
because they cannot easily express their knowledge in language, that
they do not know anything.
> 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.
I disagree. Again it is a common refrain to hear how the world is
irrational. As I've said, everything appears irrational when you don't
understand it, and yet once you do understand it appears perfectly
rational.
> > > 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?
Yes.
> 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!
But what do you actually mean by "mentally inferior"? Or "rational"?
> > > 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?
No, people have considerably more complex behaviours than dogs, I'm
saying that often many people have no more ability than dogs to
explain why they do something. At best, people will be able to
identify a stimulus, and they'll be able to describe their behaviour
in response, but they often won't be able to explicitly explain *why*
a particular stimulus triggers a particular behaviour.
> Introspection is a uniquely human ability,
I doubt it. You need only ask yourself what an introspective animal
would look like, before you realise that either you wouldn't know an
introspective animal if you saw one, or that "uniquely human" is
included in the definition of "introspective" (and thus no animal
could hope to meet the criteria of "introspective", because one of the
necessary criteria for being introspective is that you're human).
> one for which the average man is considerably
> superior to the average women
Again, I doubt it. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say women on
average are far more atuned than men to their own psychology and other
people's.
> and I am considerably superior to the
> average man (though not perfect! - I know from experience).
Yes, because you have a fundamental interest in the subject and you
put the effort in.
> > 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!
Indeed. I've definitely found over the years that automatic, in-line,
incremented quotes are the only way to go if you're engaged in a
discussion that lasts more than one or two posts. Otherwise it just
becomes too difficult to keep track of all the points raised.
> > > > 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.
One would not expect her to abandon her norms on a two-week holiday,
but I don't think anyone has suggested otherwise. But one point is
that the changed context may mean norms from back home don't apply.
Furthermore, you should be wary of extrapolating from the behaviour of
a small but conspicuous group. The observation that women who go on
holiday tend to be free-and-easy with the locals, may be because
*certain* women go on holiday precisely so that they can indulge more
freely in behaviours that would be frowned upon back home. And
whatever happens on holiday, they can return home with their
reputation largely intact, whereas if back home they had brought home
a new man every night, their local reputation would be forever in
tatters.
> > 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?
I'm not necessarily saying that, because it depends on the frame of
reference for a "good choice".
> > 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.
Indeed, but there is a danger in over-generalising, and you should be
careful to recognise when you're putting theoretical elegance above
accuracy. Even aggregate measures of air flow will start to fall down
if you contaminate the 'ideal air' on which the theory rests. And the
point being that talking of (human) "individuals" is a bit like
talking about "chemical compounds"; virtually nothing about its
behaviour can be predicted unless you know what *type* of individual/
chemical compound you're dealing with.
> [about statutory rape laws]
>
> > > 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,
>
> True, which is why the courts should stay out of it as much as
> possible.
They do, by simply deciding the case based on age.
> > 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.
>
> And it fits with a liberal society to automatically jail these people?
Evidently it does. What wouldn't fit with well with liberal society is
to start saying that a community is entitled to decide with whom a
person does, and does not, have a relationship, and use the machinery
of the state to enforce that decision.
> > Incidentally why do you make a point of saying heterosexual
> > relationships as distinct from any sexual relationship?
>
> I think that it is arguable that the age ought to be higher for
> homosexuals, because of (for example) the additional chance that a
> straight boy will be psychologically damaged by a homosexual
> relationship.
Lol. You mean more psychologically damaging than being dragged through
Crown court for it? And if a "straight boy" was really inclined to
have a homosexual relationship against his own better judgment, then
would the remote possibility of a judicial punishment really tip the
balance the other way and save him from himself?
> > 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).
>
> I think your explanation is nearly equivalent.
It is nearly equivalent.
> The difference is that
> I argue that the women are protecting not only their own bargaining
> position, but that of all women. I wonder, though, to what extent
> women really do lose future bargaining power - perhaps it was more
> true in the past than today.
But this is where reputation walks in the door. Women protect their
own bargaining positions by condemning those who break ranks as
whores, and shunning them. Without that reaction from *other* women,
women would not forgo sex, but as a group they would all lose their
bargaining positions. Reputation is therefore a form of social
control, where women are punished (and therefore have their bargaining
positions reduced) for breaking ranks.
As I say, once they are free from the tentacles of reputation, (i.e.
once they are out of a situation where a bargaining position is
necessary) they are obviously more free and easy.
> > > > 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.
>
> Precisely! Women's behavior may seem irrational, but it has patterns
> nonetheless. That's what I'm getting across.
But I never said women are irrational; quite the opposite. It was you
who seemed to suggest that women are "not entirely rational", whereas
of course I think the world is totally rational - like a clockwork.
> > > 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.
>
> While women do want both commitment and sex, they don't necessarily
> want or need them _together_! When one is ruled out, they may still
> desire the other.
Indeed. But what I'm saying is that the reason women are easy with
foreign men is that *all* they want the foreign men for is sex, not
relationships. They want relationships with men back home. Whether the
foreign men want relationships or not is irrelevant.
> > > > > 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).
>
> Alright, I think I see. Are we agreed now?
I think we're getting there.
> > What I was doing here though was putting to you the inconsistencies in
> > your own existing explanation.
>
> Only apparent.
Perhaps.
It's called wanting to have your cake and eat it. I think it's mostly
a product of our society, rather than a defect with individual women's
psychology.
You misunderstand. It is the *man* who is not happy with this
arrangement, because it undermines his self-image as the breadwinner.
The woman may not give a toss, but he's likely to find it very
distressing if looking after the family economically is what gives him
pride (and makes him feel like a useful and necessary part of the
family).
> > 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.
>
> Yes! But part of this is due to insecurity as insecure people always
> need to find others to look down upon. And those views probably are
> caused by working, as people (irrationally) value more what they have
> worked hard for.
It's not that they value more what they have worked hard for, but that
they work hard for the things they value.
> > > > > > > 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.
>
> In other words, both supply and demand have gone down equally, so that
> it's just as 'available' to those that want it. If fewer men use
> prostitutes, there must be fewer prostitutes.
I'd be inclined to think that there are a similar number of
prostitutes with substantially fewer clients and substantially reduced
earnings. But I really don't know, and I wouldn't want to commit
myself either way.
> > > 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.
>
> And what time was Charles and Camilla? I am talking about the 19th
> century and before.
It still illustrates the point, that Charles was not allowed to marry
the women he actually loved, so he kept her as a mistress instead.
> Anyway, of course there were always a few
> exceptions. The point is that mistresses are less common today - as
> would be expected on my argument.
I know a number of people who have, or have had, mistresses - because
for whatever reason they stay married to keep up appearances. In fact
now I think of even my own family history, my stepdad kept a mistress,
my granddad on one side kept a mistress, and my granddad on the other
side I think would have liked a mistress. It seems to me that
mistresses rear their heads anytime that a marriage is binding for
whatever reason.
> > > > > 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!).
>
> You made the analogy; I don't think it's that good.
Fair one.
> > 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!".
>
> If purchasing decisions were perfectly rational, this analysis would
> be right. But luxury goods are irrational by definition. And sex is
> certainly not a rational market, even when love if not involved.
Nonsense. If it seems irrational, then you don't understand it
properly.
> > > > 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?
>
> Because it makes it look better by comparison.
Yes, but presumably no-sex would make romantic sex seem even better.
Therefore, the presence of a halfway substitute does not make romantic
sex more valuable, but less valuable, because the man has only the
loss of romance to fear during an embargo, rather than the loss of
romance and sex altogether.
> In any case, my
> argument does not require this effect, it only requires that (most)
> men not admit prostitution as a replacement for conventional
> relationships.
Agreed, but what I'm trying to hammer home is that prostitutes do not
seem to overall reinforce the bargaining positions of romantic women.
On the contrary, it robs them of the ability to leverage sex. That is,
with prostitutes in the background, romantic women can't leverage sex,
they can only leverage romance.
> > > > 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?
>
> All women would find it easy to acquire a sexual partner if they were
> willing to take any man. This is not unique to teachers.
But why go searching for a mediocre 25 year old, when right in front
of you you've got a hot 15 year old clearly lusting after you?
> > > 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.
>
> Well, yeah, women are not likely to have sexual relationships with men
> that aren't in proximity. And I admitted that teachers are more likely
> to look at their students than other women would at adolescents, for
> that reason. But the question is why any woman would, given
> conventional judgement of what men are acceptable. I said above that
> perhaps these women do not share conventional judgement (and that that
> might save your argument here) in that they would be willing to try a
> man that was 'just a friend', which most women would not.
Indeed. I expect "conventional judgment" varies, and there is no one
benchmark.
spudnik
to show a slight reticence to actually refer
to what was being dyscussed (typed) in brief; if
it really was akin to a "conversation," then
that should be enough to keep it going. as well,
not endlessly quoting iterations makes the flow
of reading it, anew, more tolerable.
thus:
discussion that lasts more than one or two posts. Otherwise it just
--l'Ouvre: www.wlym.com
chazwin
> 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.
>
> have sex, where men would be willing, is a function of their
> perception of the benefits to be obtained by withholding it.'.
Spoken like a true virgin!
You need to go out and get laid.
If you want to know why they are holding out on your - just ask!
- You sado!
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
Andrew Usher
<snip>
I am sorry that it is taking so long to reply; you do raise many
interesting points and it takes me some time to consider my replies. I
am still thinking and should finish my next message soon.
Meanwhile, I should note (as I have not yet made this clear to you as
far as I know) that my point in contemplating this subject is not only
scientific curiosity, but that I desire to re-arrange society so that
men could get, not necessarily more sex, but sex on better terms - and
it should be clear that an investigation of this nature is required
for that. It is now a serious problem that women have excessive power
over men as a result of sex - while this power has always existed,
recent advances of feminism have made it more critical than ever - and
I do not think this problem beyond solution.
I have already suggested that my guaranteed income (
http://menswiki.wikidot.com/essay:basic-income ) would effect this to
some degree, as my point applies that women given wealth by
unalienable means are less motivated to withhold sex.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
Ste
> Ste wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> I am sorry that it is taking so long to reply; you do raise many
> interesting points and it takes me some time to consider my replies. I
> am still thinking and should finish my next message soon.
That's no problem at all.
> Meanwhile, I should note (as I have not yet made this clear to you as
> far as I know) that my point in contemplating this subject is not only
> scientific curiosity, but that I desire to re-arrange society so that
> men could get, not necessarily more sex, but sex on better terms - and
> it should be clear that an investigation of this nature is required
> for that. It is now a serious problem that women have excessive power
> over men as a result of sex - while this power has always existed,
> recent advances of feminism have made it more critical than ever - and
> I do not think this problem beyond solution.
I admire your idealism, but I suspect you fall down in the same way as
feminists, in assuming that the problem is that the opposite sex have
too much power.
> I have already suggested that my guaranteed income (http://menswiki.wikidot.com/essay:basic-income) would effect this to
> some degree, as my point applies that women given wealth by
> unalienable means are less motivated to withhold sex.
I think many women, if they had an unalienable income, wouldn't put up
with men at all! Lol.
Maria
> 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.'.
Here's a contribution from a female. I get horny about 14 days into my
cycle for a few days, for some reason*. The rest of the month I have
to be put in the mood, and even then that doesn't work sometimes.
I have never had sex with any man in order to gain anything. As a
result, I have lived many years alone, and was chaste for about 10 of
those years. I didn't miss it in the slightest. My friends have given
sex to get a man, to get the bins put out, or because the man bought
round a curry and they felt they owed him. They also had sex to
conceive. Most of them talk of sex as if it is a chore, apart from
those who have learned to orgasm (a minority).
I never fancied anyone really, not even my first or second long-term
partners. I didn't know I didn't really fancy them until I met someone
I did really fancy, and now I like recreational sex for the first time
ever. Before that I used to withhold it, not to get anything, but
because unless I'm in the mood, having sex is like having a cervical
smear test.
Hope that helps.
* :)
David Bernier
> On Nov 6, 2:40 am, 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: '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.'.
>
> Here's a contribution from a female. I get horny about 14 days into my
> cycle for a few days, for some reason*.
I got the References list below from:
< http://www.cemcor.ubc.ca/ask/low_libido_pill >
[Jerilynn C. Prior]:
"That is also the time when the luteinizing hormone (LH) peak stimulates
increased testosterone as well as estrogen production by the dominant
follicle." (just before mid-cycle/ovulation).
So estrogen and androgen levels in women seem to
vary a lot throughout the female cycle.
Wikipedia also has an article on anti-androgens:
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiandrogen >
1. HART RD. Monthly rhythm of libido in married women. Br Med J 1960;
5178:1023-1024.
2. Morris NM, Udry JR, Khan-Dawood F, Dawood MY. Marital sex frequency
and midcycle female testosterone. Arch Sex Behav 1987; 16(1):27-37.
3. Miller G, Tybur JM, Jordan BD. Ovulatory cycle effects on tip
earnings by lap dancers: economic evidence for human estrus? Evolution
and Human Behavior 2007; 28:375-381.
4. Cutler WB, Friedmann E, McCoy NL. Pheromonal influences on
sociosexual behavior in men. Arch Sex Behav 1998; 27(1):1-13.
David Bernier
Ophelia
"Maria" <in...@tajarts.co.uk> wrote in message
news:13f8781a-7033-494d...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
lol sounds good to me:)
Maria
Thanks but I already knew that (hence the smily at the bottom of my post).
Generally, the men I know have no idea why women are not always in the
mood, while the women I know have no idea why men always seem to be up
for it.
Apart from people I met in India - those guys even knew when their wife
was ovulating.
David Bernier
I didn't learn much about the female cycle in school.
Maybe you know about the East German female athletes
who took steroids, or whatever. I think they were
bulked-up in terms of muscles, and perhaps had
menstrual problems. I don't know if
they became hairier, more aggressive, more in
the mood, or otherwise.
Women with hirsutism are sometimes given Spironolactone.
Wikipedia says that Spironolactone binds to
androgen receptors in cells, preventing the
androgen receptors from binding with
dihydrotestosterone, a by-product of testosterone.
I had a brief look at the Wikipedia article
on the androgen receptors:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen_receptor
It explains how testosterone and/or dihydrotestosterone
binding there affects hair follicle growth
(secondary male characteristics) and also the
primary ones (spermatogenesis).
It doesn't say what effect, if any,
testosterone/dihydrotestosterone binding
has on the male brain .
thejohnlreed
> 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.
jr writes> You don't have a clew. But take this to a psychology forum.
It's not even sophomoric. Retarded juvenile.
johnreed
Ste
> On Nov 5, 6:40 pm, 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.
>
> jr writes> You don't have a clew. But take this to a psychology forum.
Perhaps when someone told him "they have lots of psychological
problems on uk.pol.misc", he heard "they have lots of psychology
problems on uk.pol.misc".
Andrew Usher
> > Meanwhile, I should note (as I have not yet made this clear to you as
> > far as I know) that my point in contemplating this subject is not only
> > scientific curiosity, but that I desire to re-arrange society so that
> > men could get, not necessarily more sex, but sex on better terms - and
> > it should be clear that an investigation of this nature is required
> > for that. It is now a serious problem that women have excessive power
> > over men as a result of sex - while this power has always existed,
> > recent advances of feminism have made it more critical than ever - and
> > I do not think this problem beyond solution.
>
> I admire your idealism, but I suspect you fall down in the same way as
> feminists, in assuming that the problem is that the opposite sex have
> too much power.
Well isn't it a problem? You should be able to see for yourself. As
for my 'idealism', that's what I'm good at - seeing social problems
and solutions in a true light. See http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/55326b47a5f112ac
(the second link in that article should be
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.men/browse_thread/thread/f548708c14bc323c
) for my view of myself and social change.
> > I have already suggested that my guaranteed income (http://menswiki.wikidot.com/essay:basic-income) would effect this to
> > some degree, as my point applies that women given wealth by
> > unalienable means are less motivated to withhold sex.
>
> I think many women, if they had an unalienable income, wouldn't put up
> with men at all! Lol.
I am confident that is not so; it is contrary to everything we have
been talking about and women with such an income today are not likely
to avoid men.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> Here's a contribution from a female. I get horny about 14 days into my
> cycle for a few days, for some reason*. The rest of the month I have
> to be put in the mood, and even then that doesn't work sometimes.
> I have never had sex with any man in order to gain anything. As a
> result, I have lived many years alone, and was chaste for about 10 of
> those years. I didn't miss it in the slightest. My friends have given
> sex to get a man, to get the bins put out, or because the man bought
> round a curry and they felt they owed him. They also had sex to
> conceive. Most of them talk of sex as if it is a chore, apart from
> those who have learned to orgasm (a minority).
While I acknowledge that women's sexual desire can be affected by
physical factors and the menstrual cycle, I can't take your word that
your own sexual desire is not affected by psychological factors. Of
course you, being a woman, can't explain your own desires - it's
difficult even for men to do so.
> I never fancied anyone really, not even my first or second long-term
> partners. I didn't know I didn't really fancy them until I met someone
> I did really fancy, and now I like recreational sex for the first time
> ever.
This sentence seems to be garbled ...
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> Thanks but I already knew that (hence the smily at the bottom of my post).
> Generally, the men I know have no idea why women are not always in the
> mood, while the women I know have no idea why men always seem to be up
> for it.
It is hardly true that all women respond in the same way, even if you
do.
Andrew Usher
Ste
> On Nov 26, 4:31 pm, Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Meanwhile, I should note (as I have not yet made this clear to you as
> > > far as I know) that my point in contemplating this subject is not only
> > > scientific curiosity, but that I desire to re-arrange society so that
> > > men could get, not necessarily more sex, but sex on better terms - and
> > > it should be clear that an investigation of this nature is required
> > > for that. It is now a serious problem that women have excessive power
> > > over men as a result of sex - while this power has always existed,
> > > recent advances of feminism have made it more critical than ever - and
> > > I do not think this problem beyond solution.
>
> > I admire your idealism, but I suspect you fall down in the same way as
> > feminists, in assuming that the problem is that the opposite sex have
> > too much power.
>
> Well isn't it a problem? You should be able to see for yourself. As
> for my 'idealism', that's what I'm good at - seeing social problems
> (the second link in that article should behttp://groups.google.com/group/soc.men/browse_thread/thread/f548708c1...
> ) for my view of myself and social change.
Your views are extreme, to say the least! And extremely inaccurate in
many places. For example this nugget: "the notorious fact that women
do not produce nearly in proportion to that excess consumption".
Outside of the upper class who had housekeepers, most women have
worked just as hard, if not harder, than men - and today, most women
continue to perform the same amount of domestic labour, while also
working full-time in the same way as men!
And the Jews and the feminists to blame for all ills? Ye gods Andrew,
what propaganda have you been reading?
Incidentally, I think Marxism is king when it comes to criticial
analysis, although I wouldn't place too much strain on its
prescriptions (and for that reason probably no one would describe me
as "Marxist").
> > > I have already suggested that my guaranteed income (http://menswiki.wikidot.com/essay:basic-income) would effect this to
> > > some degree, as my point applies that women given wealth by
> > > unalienable means are less motivated to withhold sex.
>
> > I think many women, if they had an unalienable income, wouldn't put up
> > with men at all! Lol.
>
> I am confident that is not so; it is contrary to everything we have
> been talking about and women with such an income today are not likely
> to avoid men.
No, I was just being a wag.
Andrew Usher
> > Well isn't it a problem? You should be able to see for yourself. As
> > for my 'idealism', that's what I'm good at - seeing social problems
> > and solutions in a true light. See http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/55326b47a5f112ac
> > (the second link in that article should be http://groups.google.com/group/soc.men/browse_thread/thread/f548708c1...
> > ) for my view of myself and social change.
>
> Your views are extreme, to say the least!
So you actually read both articles? Thanks. I of course consider them
quite rational, they only appear extreme in comparison to the
conventional wisdom because I only find more and more things wrong
with the world.
> And extremely inaccurate in
> many places. For example this nugget: "the notorious fact that women
> do not produce nearly in proportion to that excess consumption".
Certainly true; in all modern societies, the majority of consumption
is at the direction of women, while men continue to be (as they always
have been) the main producers.
> Outside of the upper class who had housekeepers, most women have
> worked just as hard, if not harder, than men - and today, most women
> continue to perform the same amount of domestic labour, while also
> working full-time in the same way as men!
This is ludicrous. First, modern technology has made domestic labor
significantly easier, and for that reason alone we can't say that
women still work as hard. Women do not perform all the domestic labor
nowadays; do you know a single example where both partners work full-
time _and_ the woman does all the housework? If you can, it is not
unlikely to be a case where the man works particularly hard or long
compared to his wife. In addition, it has not been the case for a long
time (if ever in Europe) that women work as hard as men; in the 18th
and 19th centuries both men and women recognised that men worked
harder: do you comprehend how physically demanding most traditional
men's jobs were? Finally it is still the case that many fewer women
than men work full-time.
> And the Jews and the feminists to blame for all ills? Ye gods Andrew,
> what propaganda have you been reading?
Propaganda only works on those that can't or won't think for
themselves.
> Incidentally, I think Marxism is king when it comes to criticial
> analysis, although I wouldn't place too much strain on its
> prescriptions (and for that reason probably no one would describe me
> as "Marxist").
I think all Marxist ideas are dubious, not least because they
generally come from Jews. What exactly do you mean by 'critical
analysis'?
> > > > I have already suggested that my guaranteed income (http://menswiki.wikidot.com/essay:basic-income) would effect this to
> > > > some degree, as my point applies that women given wealth by
> > > > unalienable means are less motivated to withhold sex.
> >
> > > I think many women, if they had an unalienable income, wouldn't put up
> > > with men at all! Lol.
> >
> > I am confident that is not so; it is contrary to everything we have
> > been talking about and women with such an income today are not likely
> > to avoid men.
>
> No, I was just being a wag.
Sorry, I could not tell you were joking, especially since I'm trying
to be serious about something too often only joked about.
Andrew Usher
Ste
> Ste wrote:
> > > Well isn't it a problem? You should be able to see for yourself. As
> > > for my 'idealism', that's what I'm good at - seeing social problems
> > > (the second link in that article should behttp://groups.google.com/group/soc.men/browse_thread/thread/f548708c1...
> > > ) for my view of myself and social change.
>
> > Your views are extreme, to say the least!
>
> So you actually read both articles? Thanks. I of course consider them
> quite rational, they only appear extreme in comparison to the
> conventional wisdom because I only find more and more things wrong
> with the world.
It's not so much that I think your views are irrational, but they
appear to be somewhat uninformed. A lot of what you say strikes me as
resting on stereotype and anecdotal evidence, or extrapolation from
our own society and culture and assuming that 'twas ever thus.
> > And extremely inaccurate in
> > many places. For example this nugget: "the notorious fact that women
> > do not produce nearly in proportion to that excess consumption".
>
> Certainly true; in all modern societies, the majority of consumption
> is at the direction of women, while men continue to be (as they always
> have been) the main producers.
What do you mean by production and consumption?
> > Outside of the upper class who had housekeepers, most women have
> > worked just as hard, if not harder, than men - and today, most women
> > continue to perform the same amount of domestic labour, while also
> > working full-time in the same way as men!
>
> This is ludicrous. First, modern technology has made domestic labor
> significantly easier,
I agree that many of the same domestic chores are less labour
intensive now than in the past.
> and for that reason alone we can't say that
> women still work as hard.
I think we can agree that women do not work as hard at the housework
anymore. That's not to say they don't work as hard overall.
> Women do not perform all the domestic labor
> nowadays; do you know a single example where both partners work full-
> time _and_ the woman does all the housework?
I would say it is still the norm that, where any housework is done, it
is the woman who does the majority of it. Where both partners work
full time, often this does not lead to a fairer apportionment of the
housework, but a compensation where less housework is done overall,
and also more labour-saving devices (dishwashers, dryers, etc.) and
materials (laminate floorings, vertical blinds, etc.) are employed,
often with the result that the woman still does the majority of (a
much lesser overall amount of) housework.
> If you can, it is not
> unlikely to be a case where the man works particularly hard or long
> compared to his wife. In addition, it has not been the case for a long
> time (if ever in Europe) that women work as hard as men; in the 18th
> and 19th centuries both men and women recognised that men worked
> harder: do you comprehend how physically demanding most traditional
> men's jobs were?
Men's jobs in the past have generally been more physically demanding
(as objectively measured) than women's, but I'm not sure whether I'd
have agreed that men ever necessarily worked "harder". I think we'd
have to discuss some specific authorities on the question.
> Finally it is still the case that many fewer women
> than men work full-time.
Agreed.
> > And the Jews and the feminists to blame for all ills? Ye gods Andrew,
> > what propaganda have you been reading?
>
> Propaganda only works on those that can't or won't think for
> themselves.
And it works even better on those who *believe* they are thinking for
themselves, but aren't.
> > Incidentally, I think Marxism is king when it comes to criticial
> > analysis, although I wouldn't place too much strain on its
> > prescriptions (and for that reason probably no one would describe me
> > as "Marxist").
>
> I think all Marxist ideas are dubious, not least because they
> generally come from Jews.
Do they? I'm not aware of any substantial connection between Marxism
and the (unspecified) Jews.
> What exactly do you mean by 'critical
> analysis'?
I mean a critical analysis of capitalism.
jmfbahciv
<snip>
>
> Men's jobs in the past have generally been more physically demanding
> (as objectively measured) than women's, but I'm not sure whether I'd
> have agreed that men ever necessarily worked "harder". I think we'd
> have to discuss some specific authorities on the question.
>
<snip>
You would find the book, _More Work for Mother: the Ironies of
Household Technology from the Open Hearth to the Microwave_,
Ruth Schwartz Cowan, 1983, Basic Books, to be an interesting
read.
/BAH
Ste
I can gather it's conclusions from the title! A century before I think
John Stuart Mill made a similar argument: never did a labour-saving
device save even a minute of labour.
jmfbahciv
> On 2 Dec, 14:04, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote:
>> Ste wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Men's jobs in the past have generally been more physically demanding
>>> (as objectively measured) than women's, but I'm not sure whether I'd
>>> have agreed that men ever necessarily worked "harder". I think we'd
>>> have to discuss some specific authorities on the question.
>> <snip>
>>
>> You would find the book, _More Work for Mother: the Ironies of
>> Household Technology from the Open Hearth to the Microwave_,
>> Ruth Schwartz Cowan, 1983, Basic Books, to be an interesting
>> read.
>
> I can gather it's conclusions from the title!
However, you will be surprised by quite a bit of it if you leave
your bias at the door :-).
>A century before I think
> John Stuart Mill made a similar argument: never did a labour-saving
> device save even a minute of labour.
Wrong. For example, cleaning a living room rug in the old days
(when my father was a boy) would take a week of real time plus
the labor of a man and two boys. Get the rug out of house.
Set up a line to hang it on (not a trivial endeavor); hit it
until all bugs, dirt, dust, etc. have been banged onto the ground;
take the rug back in and lay it back down. This all assumes that
the rug doesn't have to washed and no rain has made it wet.
A vacuum reduced that work to minutes without requiring the
strength of many males.
Like I said, it's a very interesting read if you want to learn
the work people did.
/BAH
Mensanator
And even if it took the same amount or more labour, the fact
that it was now a woman's job certainly was labour-saving from
the male point of view.
>
> Like I said, it's a very interesting read if you want to learn
> the work people did.
>
> /BAH- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Andrew Usher
> >> You would find the book, _More Work for Mother: the Ironies of
> >> Household Technology from the Open Hearth to the Microwave_,
> >> Ruth Schwartz Cowan, 1983, Basic Books, to be an interesting
> >> read.
> >
> > I can gather it's conclusions from the title!
>
> However, you will be surprised by quite a bit of it if you leave
> your bias at the door :-).
Because women are never biased, of course.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> > So you actually read both articles? Thanks. I of course consider them
> > quite rational, they only appear extreme in comparison to the
> > conventional wisdom because I only find more and more things wrong
> > with the world.
>
> It's not so much that I think your views are irrational, but they
> appear to be somewhat uninformed. A lot of what you say strikes me as
> resting on stereotype and anecdotal evidence, or extrapolation from
> our own society and culture and assuming that 'twas ever thus.
I don't know how to respond to that criticism because it's totally non-
specific. I do note that I have pointed out that same flaw in some of
your arguments. If being 'informed' means accepting the things that
you're not supposed to question, then I must remain uninformed.
> > > And extremely inaccurate in
> > > many places. For example this nugget: "the notorious fact that women
> > > do not produce nearly in proportion to that excess consumption".
> >
> > Certainly true; in all modern societies, the majority of consumption
> > is at the direction of women, while men continue to be (as they always
> > have been) the main producers.
>
> What do you mean by production and consumption?
Production is the performance of useful work that results in goods or
services that others want to consume. In our economy, production and
consumption are mostly measured in money but one must be careful and
not assume that the value of someone's work is determined by how much
he is paid for it.
> > > Outside of the upper class who had housekeepers, most women have
> > > worked just as hard, if not harder, than men - and today, most women
> > > continue to perform the same amount of domestic labour, while also
> > > working full-time in the same way as men!
> >
> > This is ludicrous. First, modern technology has made domestic labor
> > significantly easier,
>
> I agree that many of the same domestic chores are less labour
> intensive now than in the past.
This falsifies your statement, then.
> > and for that reason alone we can't say that
> > women still work as hard.
>
> I think we can agree that women do not work as hard at the housework
> anymore. That's not to say they don't work as hard overall.
Do not most women still have the choice not to work by attaching
themselves to a man that can provide?
> > Women do not perform all the domestic labor
> > nowadays; do you know a single example where both partners work full-
> > time _and_ the woman does all the housework?
>
> I would say it is still the norm that, where any housework is done, it
> is the woman who does the majority of it.
This certainly is not the case with my parents.
> Where both partners work
> full time, often this does not lead to a fairer apportionment of the
> housework, but a compensation where less housework is done overall,
> and also more labour-saving devices (dishwashers, dryers, etc.) and
> materials (laminate floorings, vertical blinds, etc.) are employed,
> often with the result that the woman still does the majority of (a
> much lesser overall amount of) housework.
I suppose so. But this still does mean women are better off, even
relatively to men, by having more leisure time.
> Men's jobs in the past have generally been more physically demanding
> (as objectively measured) than women's, but I'm not sure whether I'd
> have agreed that men ever necessarily worked "harder". I think we'd
> have to discuss some specific authorities on the question.
Well, we can say at least that women would not trade places with those
men, and there has to be some reason.
> > Finally it is still the case that many fewer women
> > than men work full-time.
>
> Agreed.
And illustrative of women's economic power.
> > > And the Jews and the feminists to blame for all ills? Ye gods Andrew,
> > > what propaganda have you been reading?
> >
> > Propaganda only works on those that can't or won't think for
> > themselves.
>
> And it works even better on those who *believe* they are thinking for
> themselves, but aren't.
I arrived at all these ideas, at least in fragmentary form, before
ever reading anything on the subject.
> > > Incidentally, I think Marxism is king when it comes to criticial
> > > analysis, although I wouldn't place too much strain on its
> > > prescriptions (and for that reason probably no one would describe me
> > > as "Marxist").
> >
> > I think all Marxist ideas are dubious, not least because they
> > generally come from Jews.
>
> Do they? I'm not aware of any substantial connection between Marxism
> and the (unspecified) Jews.
Marx was a Jew, I think that counts as some connection! Don't you
accept there Jews were (and are) disproportionately likely to be
Marxists? The CPUSA, for example, was essentially a Jewish front
organisation for all of its meaningful existence; they deliberately
put up non-Jews are their public representatives to hide their
Jewishness. Again, you really have to read MacDonald's book:
http://www.prometheism.net/library/CultureOfCritique.pdf to understand
the magnitude of this.
> > What exactly do you mean by 'critical
> > analysis'?
>
> I mean a critical analysis of capitalism.
Well, of course, I'm not exactly a fan of capitalism either, I just
think that the Marxist criticisms are either unoriginal or dishonest.
Andrew Usher
Ste
> Ste wrote:
> > On 2 Dec, 14:04, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote:
> >> Ste wrote:
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >>> Men's jobs in the past have generally been more physically demanding
> >>> (as objectively measured) than women's, but I'm not sure whether I'd
> >>> have agreed that men ever necessarily worked "harder". I think we'd
> >>> have to discuss some specific authorities on the question.
> >> <snip>
>
> >> You would find the book, _More Work for Mother: the Ironies of
> >> Household Technology from the Open Hearth to the Microwave_,
> >> Ruth Schwartz Cowan, 1983, Basic Books, to be an interesting
> >> read.
>
> > I can gather it's conclusions from the title!
>
> However, you will be surprised by quite a bit of it if you leave
> your bias at the door :-).
I think I'm clear about where my preconceptions lie, but I'm quite
open minded to hear evidence to the contrary.
> >A century before I think
> > John Stuart Mill made a similar argument: never did a labour-saving
> > device save even a minute of labour.
>
> Wrong.
If you think that's wrong, then you missed the point being made.
Namely, that although labour-saving devices reduce the amount of
labour needed to perform a particular task, this does not necessarily
equate to fewer hours of labour overall. To give you an example, the
40 hour working week has changed little in decades, despite huge
technological leaps.
Ste
> Ste wrote:
> > > So you actually read both articles? Thanks. I of course consider them
> > > quite rational, they only appear extreme in comparison to the
> > > conventional wisdom because I only find more and more things wrong
> > > with the world.
>
> > It's not so much that I think your views are irrational, but they
> > appear to be somewhat uninformed. A lot of what you say strikes me as
> > resting on stereotype and anecdotal evidence, or extrapolation from
> > our own society and culture and assuming that 'twas ever thus.
>
> I don't know how to respond to that criticism because it's totally non-
> specific. I do note that I have pointed out that same flaw in some of
> your arguments. If being 'informed' means accepting the things that
> you're not supposed to question, then I must remain uninformed.
Obviously we'll get to specifics in the course of the argument, but
what I'm saying is that I don't think you're "irrational", but simply
that the evidence on which your conclusions are based is selective.
And I wasn't necessarily saying this as a critique requiring an
immediate answer, but just setting out my apprehensions so far.
> > > > And extremely inaccurate in
> > > > many places. For example this nugget: "the notorious fact that women
> > > > do not produce nearly in proportion to that excess consumption".
>
> > > Certainly true; in all modern societies, the majority of consumption
> > > is at the direction of women, while men continue to be (as they always
> > > have been) the main producers.
>
> > What do you mean by production and consumption?
>
> Production is the performance of useful work that results in goods or
> services that others want to consume. In our economy, production and
> consumption are mostly measured in money but one must be careful and
> not assume that the value of someone's work is determined by how much
> he is paid for it.
You defined production, but not consumption. You also introduced
another concept requiring definition, "work".
But even taking your definition of production as it is (basically,
'useful work rendering valuable services'), it does not strike me
immediately that men perform a great deal more work than women, or
that they ever have. Taking care of children, for example, often
consumes many hours of the day, and the task usually falls exclusively
on women.
> > > > Outside of the upper class who had housekeepers, most women have
> > > > worked just as hard, if not harder, than men - and today, most women
> > > > continue to perform the same amount of domestic labour, while also
> > > > working full-time in the same way as men!
>
> > > This is ludicrous. First, modern technology has made domestic labor
> > > significantly easier,
>
> > I agree that many of the same domestic chores are less labour
> > intensive now than in the past.
>
> This falsifies your statement, then.
Not really. What I'm trying to concede is that, for example, laundry
does not require washboards, mangles, or irons heated over coal fires,
and so of course a direct comparison between now and the past means
women spend less time and physical strength doing a single episode of
laundry (i.e. that episode is "less labour intensive"). But by the
same token, modern standards of cleanliness actually require more
episodes of laundry. The same goes for cleaning the home - one need
not beat rugs with large paddles, but vacuuming carpets etc. is now
done relatively more often than a rug was cleaned in 1900 for example.
> > > and for that reason alone we can't say that
> > > women still work as hard.
>
> > I think we can agree that women do not work as hard at the housework
> > anymore. That's not to say they don't work as hard overall.
>
> Do not most women still have the choice not to work by attaching
> themselves to a man that can provide?
Not really. I mean, both my mother and my nans on both sides, all
"attached" themselves to men who went out to work, while they stayed
at home - and of course, certainly in my nans' day, there was little
other option.
But there is no question that this was the easy option. In fact, both
nans, who are in their 80s now (and both grandads are long dead),
still spend a few hours every day on household chores - and both of
them complain that their various ailments don't allow them to keep the
house as clean as they used to. Obviously, these high standards
applied just as much when they had working husbands and 3/4 children
to look after, and there is no question that either grandad ever
lifted a finger to help with the housework.
My mother has probably had it slightly easier overall than her mother
(partly because her standards of cleanlines, though high, are not as
high as her mothers; partly because she had only 2 children; and
partly because the man to whom she is "attached" has an income
approaching twice the average), but not a great deal so. And for women
today who have larger families and lower incomes, I don't imagine that
life is any easier now than it would ever have been.
> > > Women do not perform all the domestic labor
> > > nowadays; do you know a single example where both partners work full-
> > > time _and_ the woman does all the housework?
>
> > I would say it is still the norm that, where any housework is done, it
> > is the woman who does the majority of it.
>
> This certainly is not the case with my parents.
It's certainly not an invariant these days (particularly if the woman
takes on the role of breadwinner), but I still think it is a very
common arrangement.
> > Where both partners work
> > full time, often this does not lead to a fairer apportionment of the
> > housework, but a compensation where less housework is done overall,
> > and also more labour-saving devices (dishwashers, dryers, etc.) and
> > materials (laminate floorings, vertical blinds, etc.) are employed,
> > often with the result that the woman still does the majority of (a
> > much lesser overall amount of) housework.
>
> I suppose so. But this still does mean women are better off, even
> relatively to men, by having more leisure time.
I don't understand how you've reached that conclusion. As I say, where
both partners work full time, it often means the woman simply does
more paid work, and less housework (either by leaving the house to
become more dirty, or by implementing labour-saving solutions). It
does not necessarily lead to the same amount of housework being
apportioned more equally between the man and woman.
> > Men's jobs in the past have generally been more physically demanding
> > (as objectively measured) than women's, but I'm not sure whether I'd
> > have agreed that men ever necessarily worked "harder". I think we'd
> > have to discuss some specific authorities on the question.
>
> Well, we can say at least that women would not trade places with those
> men, and there has to be some reason.
But by the same token, I don't know many men who would trade places
with women. Obviously, in yesteryears there would have been no
question of women trading places with navvies, for example, or coal
miners - and obviously the main reason would be that they simply
didn't have the physical strength for it.
> > > Finally it is still the case that many fewer women
> > > than men work full-time.
>
> > Agreed.
>
> And illustrative of women's economic power.
I'm afraid I don't understand how you've reached that conclusion.
> > > > And the Jews and the feminists to blame for all ills? Ye gods Andrew,
> > > > what propaganda have you been reading?
>
> > > Propaganda only works on those that can't or won't think for
> > > themselves.
>
> > And it works even better on those who *believe* they are thinking for
> > themselves, but aren't.
>
> I arrived at all these ideas, at least in fragmentary form, before
> ever reading anything on the subject.
Which believe it or not proves my point, because your apparent
perception that your ideas came from within, lead you to believe that
you are "thinking for yourself".
I would take a different approach, which is that good ideas are mostly
based on extensive experience, and that ideas based on a limited
experience are of limited value.
Perhaps if I give you analogy, you might understand better. Consider
the supercomputers we use to predict weather patterns. Which computer
would you expect to be more accurate at prediction: the one that takes
few if any measurements of current weather patterns; or the one that
constantly takes many measurements from all around the globe, and has
a large database of historical data?
> > > > Incidentally, I think Marxism is king when it comes to criticial
> > > > analysis, although I wouldn't place too much strain on its
> > > > prescriptions (and for that reason probably no one would describe me
> > > > as "Marxist").
>
> > > I think all Marxist ideas are dubious, not least because they
> > > generally come from Jews.
>
> > Do they? I'm not aware of any substantial connection between Marxism
> > and the (unspecified) Jews.
>
> Marx was a Jew
He may have come from Jewish stock, but I don't think Marx was a Jew
in any meaningful sense.
> I think that counts as some connection!
I don't think it counts as a substantial connection - it's certainly
not a connection that speaks for itself. Marx necessarily rejected
established religion (without saying anything for what Marxism itself
became).
> Don't you
> accept there Jews were (and are) disproportionately likely to be
> Marxists?
No, not as far as I'm aware. I think you'd also have to be more
specific about who you're describing by "the Jews". Israel, for
example, is far from Marxist (although, of course, like in any modern
society, I would expect there to be a socialist element present).
> The CPUSA, for example, was essentially a Jewish front
> organisation for all of its meaningful existence; they deliberately
> put up non-Jews are their public representatives to hide their
> Jewishness. Again, you really have to read MacDonald's book:http://www.prometheism.net/library/CultureOfCritique.pdfto understand
> the magnitude of this.
I don't have the time at the moment to read all its 541 pages, but I
can assure you that I will. I can tell just from reading the preface
that it's obviously a very right-wing perspective, but I'm not sure
that it is very surprising to hear that Jews throughout the 20th
century had an interest in overthrowing certain institutions, or that
they were very active and organised in attempting to do so. Obviously,
their religion binds them together, and historically they have also
tended to be well-educated and have tended to populate the
professional classes in many countries - part of the Nazis economic
problems were directly attributable to the wholesale extermination of
Jews, who comprised a large section of the professional classes in
Germany.
> > > What exactly do you mean by 'critical
> > > analysis'?
>
> > I mean a critical analysis of capitalism.
>
> Well, of course, I'm not exactly a fan of capitalism either, I just
> think that the Marxist criticisms are either unoriginal or dishonest.
My personal view on Marxism is that it doesn't do well to place too
much strain on the details, but that it provides valuable insights.
There are plenty of Marxists though for whom the title "Reverend"
before their names wouldn't be out of place, and who quote the works
of Marx as though they are scripture.
jmfbahciv
And that male could then go out and be employed instead of
plowing, sowing, reaping and milking. The book, if you read
it with some objectivity, is also a study of the growth of the
middle class white shirt workers.
/BAH
jmfbahciv
yourself inside the box.
/BAH
jmfbahciv
I gave you one example which showed how technology reduced the amount
of body energy and wallclock time to do one task.
>To give you an example, the
> 40 hour working week has changed little in decades, despite huge
> technological leaps.
That is not an example. An example would be to measure production.
In 1968, when I started working with computers, it took me hours
to accomplish one task. Two years later, with a new kind of system,
that same task took me 1 hour to do. 2 months later, the people
who submitted the job request, were doing the work I used to do;
this freed up my time to do other tasks. Most of those tasks eventually
followed the same work path as the former.
There was a reduction in wallclock time to get the work done by a
couple of hours. With the new system, my expertise was no longer
needed to get the work done but could be done by the people
who used to hire me. Now they controlled all of the data and
processing for their particular application (which was secret,
by the way). They also could play with the data 7x24 instead
of have one pass computation on Sunday's at 14:00.
/BAH
Ste
So you work zero hours per week now, do you?
Ste
>
> > The CPUSA, for example, was essentially a Jewish front
> > organisation for all of its meaningful existence; they deliberately
> > put up non-Jews are their public representatives to hide their
> > Jewishness. Again, you really have to read MacDonald's book:http://www.prometheism.net/library/CultureOfCritique.pdftounderstand
> > the magnitude of this.
>
> I don't have the time at the moment to read all its 541 pages, but I
> can assure you that I will. I can tell just from reading the preface
> that it's obviously a very right-wing perspective, but I'm not sure
> that it is very surprising to hear that Jews throughout the 20th
> century had an interest in overthrowing certain institutions, or that
> they were very active and organised in attempting to do so. Obviously,
> their religion binds them together, and historically they have also
> tended to be well-educated and have tended to populate the
> professional classes in many countries - part of the Nazis economic
> problems were directly attributable to the wholesale extermination of
> Jews, who comprised a large section of the professional classes in
> Germany.
I have now had a crack at reading MacDonald's book, but frankly I had
already read enough before the preface was finished - which is just 30
pages. MacDonald is clearly a warrior for right-wing, white-european
interests. There is a patina of truth to the whole thing, for example
MacDonald employs a useful evolutionary analysis of group conflict,
and he touches on many issues (i.e. broadly the issues of culture-
clashes) which remain taboo amongst left-liberals but which will need
to be broached eventually.
But on the other hand, a fundamentally racist analysis looms ever-
present, and even just in the preface MacDonald quickly descends into
outright speculation and assertions which have little if any basis in
evidence. Indeed, the modicum of factual content is really just window-
dressing for the clearly racial tone of the whole thing. MacDonald
speculates about the evolutionary history of "Nordic" peoples, and
trumps up Western cultural values (and speaks of non-Western values in
a denigratory tone) in a manner that is blatantly subjective.
Another point I would make is MacDonald's overuse of concepts like
"self-deception". Deception is always a very strong, negative word. No
particular definition or description of "self-deception" is offered,
but he levels that criticism again Einstein first, and then throughout
the book again and again against Jews in general. But not only does
this play down factors like ignorance and uncertainty (which, in most
people's vocabulary, are not synonymous with "self-deception"), but
the book also provides no balance in terms of talking about the "self-
deception" present amongst other peoples (after all, regardless of
what "self-deception" means, it is undoubtedly present across all
races and cultures). Indeed, the book provides no balance in respect
of any of the points made.
To summarise then, this book must be viewed as right-wing ideological,
rather than scientific.
jmfbahciv
go get a case of Kleenix, kid. Well, I tried.
/BAH
Ste
I can't fathom this non-sequitur. You tried what? You seem to think
that Mill was wrong because, apparently, he was so foolish to have
overlooked the points you've made. And even I, living in the modern
computer age unlike Mill, and indeed having worked in IT, am
apparently too foolish to have noticed how computers continue to
increase in speed and reduce the time needed to perform certain tasks.
How could I have been so stupid to have overlooked that fact.
But no, perhaps you should actually reconsider the issue, and if you
still don't understand what I'm getting at then perhaps you should ask
for a further explanation, instead of taking me (and Mill) for utter
idiots.
Andrew Usher
> I have now had a crack at reading MacDonald's book, but frankly I had
> already read enough before the preface was finished - which is just 30
> pages. MacDonald is clearly a warrior for right-wing, white-european
> interests.
He may have certain views that you (or I) disagree with, but that
doesn't make his conclusions invalid. I would not expect to agree
completely with anyone's philosophy, but that doesn't mean I should
never listen to anyone else. What matters here is the research he has
done and the way in which he presents the facts.
> There is a patina of truth to the whole thing, for example
> MacDonald employs a useful evolutionary analysis of group conflict,
> and he touches on many issues (i.e. broadly the issues of culture-
> clashes) which remain taboo amongst left-liberals but which will need
> to be broached eventually.
Yes, definitely. But the reason they have become taboo is precisely
because of what would be revealed.
> But on the other hand, a fundamentally racist analysis looms ever-
> present, and even just in the preface MacDonald quickly descends into
> outright speculation and assertions which have little if any basis in
> evidence. Indeed, the modicum of factual content is really just window-
> dressing for the clearly racial tone of the whole thing. MacDonald
> speculates about the evolutionary history of "Nordic" peoples, and
> trumps up Western cultural values (and speaks of non-Western values in
> a denigratory tone) in a manner that is blatantly subjective.
Well, you have a point, but it is relevant? After all, calling his
book 'racist' isn't an argument, it is just a pejorative, and not only
that it indicates prejudice that nothing 'racist' can possibly be
true.
> Another point I would make is MacDonald's overuse of concepts like
> "self-deception". Deception is always a very strong, negative word. No
> particular definition or description of "self-deception" is offered,
I believe most people recognise what 'self-deception' is.
> but he levels that criticism again Einstein first, and then throughout
> the book again and again against Jews in general.
Einstein is a good example of Jewish self-deception, that's why. His
physics, of course, is quite sound but this does not extend to other
areas where his Jewish traits interfere with objectivity. For another
example, look at Asimov's essay on Orwell at
http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2002w48/msg00251.htm
and note how it just drips irrational hatred for Orwell; even his one
good point is not made convincingly. Asimov retained so much affection
(due to his Jewish upbringing) for Marxism and the Soviet Union that
he went off on even reasonable criticism of it.
Note that my criticism of Jews here is very much like my criticism of
women - there are certain things about which they are basically
irredeemably biased. I have noticed other similarities, and made a
previous post about them:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/4273269bdfba033a/15349a3a4558e97a?#15349a3a4558e97a
.
> But not only does
> this play down factors like ignorance and uncertainty (which, in most
> people's vocabulary, are not synonymous with "self-deception"), but
> the book also provides no balance in terms of talking about the "self-
> deception" present amongst other peoples (after all, regardless of
> what "self-deception" means, it is undoubtedly present across all
> races and cultures). Indeed, the book provides no balance in respect
> of any of the points made.
It's not intended to be balanced. His two previous books on Jews had
been more scholarly, but this was meant to be an argument warning
against Jewish influence.
I acknowledge that 'self-deception' exists everywhere; it seems to be
one of the fundamental features of the human soul. I, personally, am
pretty sure that because of my rationality I do a better job of
avoiding it than anyone else I know - this is because I 'catch' myself
trying to do it all the time.
> To summarise then, this book must be viewed as right-wing ideological,
> rather than scientific.
Well, don't look at his ideology, then. Just look at his facts.
Andrew Usher
Ste
> Ste wrote:
> > I have now had a crack at reading MacDonald's book, but frankly I had
> > already read enough before the preface was finished - which is just 30
> > pages. MacDonald is clearly a warrior for right-wing, white-european
> > interests.
>
> He may have certain views that you (or I) disagree with, but that
> doesn't make his conclusions invalid.
It does when those conclusions are *based* upon the contentious views
with which one disagrees.
> I would not expect to agree
> completely with anyone's philosophy, but that doesn't mean I should
> never listen to anyone else. What matters here is the research he has
> done and the way in which he presents the facts.
I agree. I'm not saying that research should be dismissed out of hand
because you don't like someone's wider views - it would be akin to
saying the Nazis never contributed anything to science. But the point
is that this book isn't research, it's ideology that pays lip service
to factual research.
> > There is a patina of truth to the whole thing, for example
> > MacDonald employs a useful evolutionary analysis of group conflict,
> > and he touches on many issues (i.e. broadly the issues of culture-
> > clashes) which remain taboo amongst left-liberals but which will need
> > to be broached eventually.
>
> Yes, definitely. But the reason they have become taboo is precisely
> because of what would be revealed.
Possibly. You'd have to be more precise about what you think is being
hidden, for me to make any further comment.
> > But on the other hand, a fundamentally racist analysis looms ever-
> > present, and even just in the preface MacDonald quickly descends into
> > outright speculation and assertions which have little if any basis in
> > evidence. Indeed, the modicum of factual content is really just window-
> > dressing for the clearly racial tone of the whole thing. MacDonald
> > speculates about the evolutionary history of "Nordic" peoples, and
> > trumps up Western cultural values (and speaks of non-Western values in
> > a denigratory tone) in a manner that is blatantly subjective.
>
> Well, you have a point, but it is relevant?
I would say so, yes.
> After all, calling his
> book 'racist' isn't an argument, it is just a pejorative, and not only
> that it indicates prejudice that nothing 'racist' can possibly be
> true.
As I've said, it is not my intention to say that nothing of the book
can possibly be true. But I think often one must read between the
lines, and take account not just of what is said, but how it is said,
and also indeed have some reference to what was not said but which
would have been relevant to say if one was attempting to be objective.
Also when I use the word "racist" to describe the book, I don't
necessarily mean it simply as a generalised insult, but simply as a
description of someone who employs an analysis involving race as an
explanation for social phenomena. The fact that the word has a
negative connotation is felicitous from my point of view, but I can
think of no other neutral term to conveniently describe the approach.
> > Another point I would make is MacDonald's overuse of concepts like
> > "self-deception". Deception is always a very strong, negative word. No
> > particular definition or description of "self-deception" is offered,
>
> I believe most people recognise what 'self-deception' is.
And yet like MacDonald you offer no definition.
> > but he levels that criticism again Einstein first, and then throughout
> > the book again and again against Jews in general.
>
> Einstein is a good example of Jewish self-deception, that's why. His
> physics, of course, is quite sound but this does not extend to other
> areas where his Jewish traits interfere with objectivity. For another
> example, look at Asimov's essay on Orwell athttp://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2002w48/msg00251.htm
> and note how it just drips irrational hatred for Orwell; even his one
> good point is not made convincingly. Asimov retained so much affection
> (due to his Jewish upbringing) for Marxism and the Soviet Union that
> he went off on even reasonable criticism of it.
>
> Note that my criticism of Jews here is very much like my criticism of
> women - there are certain things about which they are basically
> irredeemably biased. I have noticed other similarities, and made a
> previous post about them:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/42732...
But by focussing on women and Jews, one can only infer that you think
that bias is something that afflicts them to a greater extent than
average, and affects you to a lesser extent. And of course if that is
what you think, then you are irredeemably baised about your own
superiority.
> > But not only does
> > this play down factors like ignorance and uncertainty (which, in most
> > people's vocabulary, are not synonymous with "self-deception"), but
> > the book also provides no balance in terms of talking about the "self-
> > deception" present amongst other peoples (after all, regardless of
> > what "self-deception" means, it is undoubtedly present across all
> > races and cultures). Indeed, the book provides no balance in respect
> > of any of the points made.
>
> It's not intended to be balanced. His two previous books on Jews had
> been more scholarly, but this was meant to be an argument warning
> against Jewish influence.
But if he is worried about some groups having disproportionate
influence in society, perhaps he has also written a few books about
the lobbying of big corporations, the dominance of politics by the
rich, etc. And presumably he has talked about how capitalists "self-
deceive" in thinking that they are bringing hope, freedom, and
happiness to all. But no, I suspect not, and therein, in what is *not*
said, lies the bias to which MacDonald is subject.
> I acknowledge that 'self-deception' exists everywhere; it seems to be
> one of the fundamental features of the human soul. I, personally, am
> pretty sure that because of my rationality I do a better job of
> avoiding it than anyone else I know - this is because I 'catch' myself
> trying to do it all the time.
To be honest, "rationality" is such a vague term that it's almost
impossible to understand what anyone actually means by it. And without
being able to describe what it actually is, it seems premature to
conclude that you must have more of it than the average person.
> > To summarise then, this book must be viewed as right-wing ideological,
> > rather than scientific.
>
> Well, don't look at his ideology, then. Just look at his facts.
But as I say, his facts are fairly uncontentious. By his own
admission, he refers to only a minority of Jews being actively
involved in any political activity. Given that Jews have a binding
religion, and given the extent of the persecution against Jews as a
common group, especially during the 20th century, is it really that
shocking to hear that some Jews have organised into groups to effect
political change to their own benefit?