4 ms·

A heterosexual community can be analyzed as a marketplace in which men seek to acquire sex from women ... There's this peculiar American form of feminism that

A heterosexual community can be analyzed as a marketplace in which men seek to acquire sex from women ... There's this peculiar American form of feminism that teaches that men want to "acquire sex" (to use the terminology in the paper) and that women are pure. It's counterfactual, as if women didn't enjoy sex as much as men. On top of that, everything has to be viewed through the lens of commerce. What's wrong with the nation?

AnkhMorporkian 11y ago
There have been lots of studies demonstrating that men on average have a significantly higher sex drive than women. Of course there are exceptions, but in aggregate it's true. With that in mind, an economic treatment of the subject isn't really that strange, and I don't really see how it reflects on the nation.
stcredzero 11y ago
The way you've formulated it, that's false. However, it makes sense in evolutionary biology that females are going to be more selective about partners than males. (Perhaps we'll rewire ourselves or develop pharmaceuticals that adjust our sex drives for hedonistic or practical purposes convenient to us?)
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- kjhsadklj1 11y ago
  The fad of repurposing evolutionary biology to explain some current situation needs to go away. It's appealing because it's a convenient way for people to wrap their opinions in science, using such phrases as, "it makes sense..." In this particular claim (females have a biological motivation to conserve sex), you should research findings regarding female bonobos. EG, from [1]: "bonobo females mate throughout their ovulatory cycles with most or all group males." In other words, females may actually be incentivized towards promiscuity because it confuses paternity, bonding the offspring with multiple group males, increasing its chances for survival. [1] https://books.google.com/books?id=_scD6LxIuMUC&pg=PA1938&lpg=PA1938&dq=female+bonobo+confuse+paternity&source=bl&ots=B6VVKWhhYG&sig=GzoE_9bzUq0Kixy3KPVX6Xp_fdw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QB1zVcbLN8GiNov4g9AH&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=female%20bonobo%20confuse%20paternity&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=_scD6LxIuMUC&pg=PA1938&lpg...
  - whearyou 11y ago
    Bonobos are an edge case in sexuality. Far more mammalian and primate species behave similarly to stcredzero's conception. Still, the author's basic assumption as HarryHirsch says 'that men want to "acquire sex" (to use the terminology in the paper) and that women are pure... as if women didn't enjoy sex as much as men.' fundamentally undermines an otherwise interesting paper (and probably relevant to the authors, is kind of anti-feminist)
    - kjhsadklj1 11y ago
      I'm not educated in the field, so I am happy to learn if I am wrong. But aren't bonobos one of the closest relatives to humans? That would indicate that the comparison is most relevant to human sexual behavior, regardless of what the rest of more distant ape relatives do. Anyhow, my point is more about using evolutionary biology to explain current situations. EG, it would be incorrect (yet tempting) for me to reply with: "bonobos exhibit paternity-confusing behavior. This is because their more highly developed brains allow for more complex behavior that bonds a group of primates together more closely, e.g., males will care for the groups offspring, rather than just his own." What I did there was to couch my personal opinion/narrative into the scientific language for increased authority. This is how I most frequently see evo bio used.
      - stcredzero 11y ago
        Bonobos do not have social penalties for promiscuity, however. This would change the cost/benefit equation for humans. So, interesting, we've come back to social constructs from evolutionary biology. What I did there was to couch my personal opinion/narrative into the scientific language for increased authority. This is how I most frequently see evo bio used. So you engage in such speech/commenting, not as a genuine form of exchanging ideas and formulating new ones, but as a means of aggression on behalf of chosen causes/positions? Scientific facts aren't data to be considered in thought, but as ammunition in a partisan debate? If so, thanks for this bit of information about your world view.
        11y ago
calibraxis 11y ago
I wouldn't pin it on feminism, as this isn't written within the feminist movement. It's written by a psych prof and a marketing prof. (Few mentions of "feminist" in the paper, and it's even dismissed: "Indeed, many feminist analyses of sexual behavior (e.g., Brownmiller, 1975) suffer from reliance on the highly questionable assumption that men’s treatment of women is motivated by a primary concern with power, with sex being secondary.") Furthermore, I've heard from anthropologists that inhabitants of more feminist societies tend to be more satisfied with their (more frequent) sex lives. After all, successful patriarchy movements turn sex sick. However, I'm not going to hunt a cite about sex for an HN post, so believe what you will. :) Definitely agree with viewing everything though the lens of commerce though. Free market fundamentalism is the US's greatest religion. Its ivory-tower priests are forever trying to recast everything into capitalist theology. Its holy wars are primarily to secure economic obedience. (http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/5/is-it-time-for-atheists-to-hunt-bigger-game.html http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/5/is-it-time-for-...)

AnkhMorporkian 11y ago

There have been lots of studies demonstrating that men on average have a significantly higher sex drive than women. Of course there are exceptions, but in aggregate it's true. With that in mind, an economic treatment of the subject isn't really that strange, and I don't really see how it reflects on the nation.

stcredzero 11y ago

The way you've formulated it, that's false. However, it makes sense in evolutionary biology that females are going to be more selective about partners than males. (Perhaps we'll rewire ourselves or develop pharmaceuticals that adjust our sex drives for hedonistic or practical purposes convenient to us?)

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
kjhsadklj1 11y ago
The fad of repurposing evolutionary biology to explain some current situation needs to go away. It's appealing because it's a convenient way for people to wrap their opinions in science, using such phrases as, "it makes sense..." In this particular claim (females have a biological motivation to conserve sex), you should research findings regarding female bonobos. EG, from [1]: "bonobo females mate throughout their ovulatory cycles with most or all group males." In other words, females may actually be incentivized towards promiscuity because it confuses paternity, bonding the offspring with multiple group males, increasing its chances for survival. [1] https://books.google.com/books?id=_scD6LxIuMUC&pg=PA1938&lpg=PA1938&dq=female+bonobo+confuse+paternity&source=bl&ots=B6VVKWhhYG&sig=GzoE_9bzUq0Kixy3KPVX6Xp_fdw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QB1zVcbLN8GiNov4g9AH&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=female%20bonobo%20confuse%20paternity&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=_scD6LxIuMUC&pg=PA1938&lpg...
- whearyou 11y ago
  Bonobos are an edge case in sexuality. Far more mammalian and primate species behave similarly to stcredzero's conception. Still, the author's basic assumption as HarryHirsch says 'that men want to "acquire sex" (to use the terminology in the paper) and that women are pure... as if women didn't enjoy sex as much as men.' fundamentally undermines an otherwise interesting paper (and probably relevant to the authors, is kind of anti-feminist)
  - kjhsadklj1 11y ago
    I'm not educated in the field, so I am happy to learn if I am wrong. But aren't bonobos one of the closest relatives to humans? That would indicate that the comparison is most relevant to human sexual behavior, regardless of what the rest of more distant ape relatives do. Anyhow, my point is more about using evolutionary biology to explain current situations. EG, it would be incorrect (yet tempting) for me to reply with: "bonobos exhibit paternity-confusing behavior. This is because their more highly developed brains allow for more complex behavior that bonds a group of primates together more closely, e.g., males will care for the groups offspring, rather than just his own." What I did there was to couch my personal opinion/narrative into the scientific language for increased authority. This is how I most frequently see evo bio used.
    - stcredzero 11y ago
      Bonobos do not have social penalties for promiscuity, however. This would change the cost/benefit equation for humans. So, interesting, we've come back to social constructs from evolutionary biology. What I did there was to couch my personal opinion/narrative into the scientific language for increased authority. This is how I most frequently see evo bio used. So you engage in such speech/commenting, not as a genuine form of exchanging ideas and formulating new ones, but as a means of aggression on behalf of chosen causes/positions? Scientific facts aren't data to be considered in thought, but as ammunition in a partisan debate? If so, thanks for this bit of information about your world view.
      - 11y ago

calibraxis 11y ago

I wouldn't pin it on feminism, as this isn't written within the feminist movement. It's written by a psych prof and a marketing prof. (Few mentions of "feminist" in the paper, and it's even dismissed: "Indeed, many feminist analyses of sexual behavior (e.g., Brownmiller, 1975) suffer from reliance on the highly questionable assumption that men’s treatment of women is motivated by a primary concern with power, with sex being secondary.") Furthermore, I've heard from anthropologists that inhabitants of more feminist societies tend to be more satisfied with their (more frequent) sex lives. After all, successful patriarchy movements turn sex sick. However, I'm not going to hunt a cite about sex for an HN post, so believe what you will. :) Definitely agree with viewing everything though the lens of commerce though. Free market fundamentalism is the US's greatest religion. Its ivory-tower priests are forever trying to recast everything into capitalist theology. Its holy wars are primarily to secure economic obedience. (http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/5/is-it-time-for-atheists-to-hunt-bigger-game.html http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/5/is-it-time-for-...)