4 ms·
The entire premise of that analysis is broken by a simple truth - that while rarely discussed in "polite society", it turns out that women enjoy sex too.
by claytongulick 3y ago
The entire premise of that analysis is broken by a simple truth - that while rarely discussed in "polite society", it turns out that women enjoy sex too.
- InSteady 3y agoI've only read the abstract, but I think your pithy analysis doesn't seem to undermine the hypothesis that sexuality in society can be analyzed through an economic lens. After all, sellers of goods and services tend to enjoy the activity of selling, but many other incentives and interactions can also be in play at the same time.
- claytongulick 3y agoMarketplace economics like those done in the paper don't apply well when both parties are buyers. They also rest on concepts of resource scarcity, which is an artificial construct in the context of post birth control sex. Artificial scarcity rarely lasts long in markets, it can only be propped up by industry collusion. The 50's model of "precious chastity" sexual relations just doesn't apply to current interpersonal dynamics. The risk factors that drove that model are very different today and have freed both women and men in different ways.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago>while rarely discussed in "polite society", it turns out that women enjoy sex too. Men don't discuss their sexual prowess in "polite society" either. It's not the 90's anymore.
- claytongulick 3y agoI think you may have misinterpreted my point. Or I'm misunderstanding yours - where did I say anything about men discussing sexual prowess? If you read the linked research paper, I think you'll understand the point I was making better.