3 ms·

I'll believe the market over these theories espoused with zero supporting data. If women wanted sex enough, they'd buy it at a higher rate than they do (which i

I'll believe the market over these theories espoused with zero supporting data. If women wanted sex enough, they'd buy it at a higher rate than they do (which is essentially not at all) regardless of cultural norms.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
According to the voting market, people love corruption, party politics, authoritarianism, and war. Consider that there are a lot of factors that go into markets, and if they were simple to understand everyone would be making a killing day trading.
- guerrilla 5y ago
  That market is different since people with billions decide who gets to be a politician, not voters. The consumers are the PACs, lobbyists, etc. not the voters. The voters are the product.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
    That's kinda my point really, you can't just point at the market and make simple conclusions because they are not simple systems.
    - guerrilla 5y ago
      We know who the buyers and sellers are and what the supply and demand is though. We can measure that all in that market.
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
        And if understanding a market were that simple no one would ever need anything more than economics 101. That isn't reality.
        guerrilla 5y ago
        Well, if there's more to it in this case, you're free to fill out the picture with additional data.
        AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
        My point isn't to present a definitive explanation, my point is that you cannot assume an explanation based on the market price, which is the only evidence you have to fit your narrative.
        guerrilla 5y ago
        I'm not assuming anything, I'm concluding what I must based on the evidence. You have some countervening evidence, then we change the conclusion. Otherwise, Occam's razor. Just because it could be more complicated doesn't mean we should believe it is without evidence. A metastudy above concludes the same thing using unrelated data anyway [1]. Men masturbate much more than women and the effect size is greater than most all other psychological differences. 1. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20182831 https://www.jstor.org/stable/20182831
        AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
        > I'm not assuming anything, I'm concluding what I must based on the evidence. I believe you have seen in that data a conclusion you are already predisposed to, and a more objective look will tall you that it the amount a market prices something doesn't actually tell you much about why. I am not doubting that it is evidence men are more willing to pay for sex, I am doubting your originally stated conclusion: > The demand for having sex with women is astronomically higher than the demand for having sex with men. Which would only follow from the data in a vacuum. Much the same way I could conclude that voters want corrupt politicians based on the fact that they vote for them. > Men masturbate much more than women If sex and masturbation were equivalent then we wouldn't be having this conversation.
- Chris2048 5y ago
  > According to the voting market There is no such thing as a "voting market". At the least, where is the skin-in-the-game? or itemised quid-pro-quo? > if they were simple to understand The rules of pool are simple to understand, that doesn't mean the game is easy to master. Trading is a matter of predicting the market - that is not what is being described here; is is not being predicted that women pay less for sex, it is known from the market already.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago

According to the voting market, people love corruption, party politics, authoritarianism, and war. Consider that there are a lot of factors that go into markets, and if they were simple to understand everyone would be making a killing day trading.

guerrilla 5y ago
That market is different since people with billions decide who gets to be a politician, not voters. The consumers are the PACs, lobbyists, etc. not the voters. The voters are the product.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  That's kinda my point really, you can't just point at the market and make simple conclusions because they are not simple systems.
  - guerrilla 5y ago
    We know who the buyers and sellers are and what the supply and demand is though. We can measure that all in that market.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
      And if understanding a market were that simple no one would ever need anything more than economics 101. That isn't reality.
      - guerrilla 5y ago
        Well, if there's more to it in this case, you're free to fill out the picture with additional data.
        AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
        My point isn't to present a definitive explanation, my point is that you cannot assume an explanation based on the market price, which is the only evidence you have to fit your narrative.
        guerrilla 5y ago
        I'm not assuming anything, I'm concluding what I must based on the evidence. You have some countervening evidence, then we change the conclusion. Otherwise, Occam's razor. Just because it could be more complicated doesn't mean we should believe it is without evidence. A metastudy above concludes the same thing using unrelated data anyway [1]. Men masturbate much more than women and the effect size is greater than most all other psychological differences. 1. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20182831 https://www.jstor.org/stable/20182831
        AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
        > I'm not assuming anything, I'm concluding what I must based on the evidence. I believe you have seen in that data a conclusion you are already predisposed to, and a more objective look will tall you that it the amount a market prices something doesn't actually tell you much about why. I am not doubting that it is evidence men are more willing to pay for sex, I am doubting your originally stated conclusion: > The demand for having sex with women is astronomically higher than the demand for having sex with men. Which would only follow from the data in a vacuum. Much the same way I could conclude that voters want corrupt politicians based on the fact that they vote for them. > Men masturbate much more than women If sex and masturbation were equivalent then we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Chris2048 5y ago
> According to the voting market There is no such thing as a "voting market". At the least, where is the skin-in-the-game? or itemised quid-pro-quo? > if they were simple to understand The rules of pool are simple to understand, that doesn't mean the game is easy to master. Trading is a matter of predicting the market - that is not what is being described here; is is not being predicted that women pay less for sex, it is known from the market already.