The Economics of Sex

A reader recently posted a link to a video that captures, in extremely clear terms, a phenomenon that has been implicit (and at times, explicit) in everything I write on this blog. It is a video that discusses sexual economics, and more importantly, their implications for dating and relationships. Here it is:

I cannot recommend this video highly enough. Especially for anyone encountering this blog or its ideas for the first time, it gives an important insight into one of the biggest differences between men and women in dating and relationships (I believe bigger ones exist, but this is a great starting point for discovering them). Even regular readers can benefit by watching this video, because it articulates clearly and concisely ideas that are well-worth solidifying in your mind; and hearing them in such clear and concise terms will do exactly that.

With that said, I do want to point out two minor disagreements I have with the video, though I only feel the need to do so because I agree so completely with the rest:

(a) I think the video focuses too much on the pill as the source of the disparity between supply and demand, rather than on certain philosophical undercurrents in Western society, or mans' access to pornography - both of which are at least as responsible (if not more so) for the phenomena the video describes.

(b) It suggests that "affirming desirability" is a sexual motivation for women, but not for men (1:28). This is simply untrue. Yes, men bang women because an orgasm feels better in a vagina than in their hand; but a big part of that "better feeling" is actually pride: it is either the satisfaction of the woman's affirmation, or the affirmation from their guy friends upon sharing the story with them. I do, however, agree with their point that women tend to be motivated by the intimacy of sex more than men; and as I've suggested before, I also think that feeling desired is a greater sexual motivation for women than it is for men.* So I don't think this criticism detracts from the video's larger point that men and women have different motivations for sex.

To give credit where credit is due, the video was made by the Austin Institute for The Study of Family and Culture. I don't know anything more about their organization than what they have written on their "About Us" page, but I also don't care. I am just glad someone made the video.

________________________
* I don't think this is because women are more emotionally needy than men (as one might infer). I am convinced that it is because men are more desirous of carnal sexual pleasure. So as a woman, there is simply more sexual desire to be received.


Related Posts
1. The Analogy Between Sex and Commitment
2. Women Get to Play Out of Their League
3. Men and Sexual Variety
4. 5 Ways Men Misunderstand Women

There Is Nothing Modest About Loose Jeans

Every now and then I meet or see a girl wearing loose jeans. By "loose" I don't mean that the crotch is sagging around her knees, I just mean that there are places on her hips, ass and upper legs where the fabric is not touching her skin. I suspect that girls do this for one of three reasons:

(a) They think their figure isn't attractive enough to wear tight jeans.
(b) The think that tight jeans are immodest.
(c) They don't care about their appearance and loose jeans are more comfortable.

I realize I won't convince group (c) of anything, so I am only going to address (a) and (b). Let's start with group (a)...

No matter how fat you are, or how badly your ass is shaped, loose jeans make it look worse. Tight jeans might not make your ass or legs look good, but loose jeans will make you look like a man.

As for the group concerned with modesty: you need a reality check. Tight jeans are not provocative; they are normal. Despite what your parents probably raised you to believe, modesty is not something objective. What looks "appropriate" or "slutty" or "conservative" changes significantly depending on two things: context and social norms.

If you were to walk down the street of your city in a bikini in the middle of winter it would shock people and look slutty. Any man who saw it would be turned on. But on the beach, bikinis are normal. Men are much less turned on by them because they are expected. They don't look slutty at all. This is what I mean by context.

In Victorian times, swimsuits were less-revealing than most women's dresses are today. Today, swimsuits are more revealing than most women's underwear in Victorian times. Dress-like swimsuits didn't seen slutty or over-conservative in Victorian times, and neither do bikinis today. This is what I mean by social norms.

Here is the thing: modesty isn't a function of the quantity of skin you show, or the tightness of the clothes you wear; it is defined by how much your outfit makes men (or people in general) think that sex with you is imminent. The more you incite in men the thought that they can bang you easily, the less modest your outfit is. This is why short dresses are so much more sexual than pants. Men see you in a short dress and part of their subconscious recognizes that your vagina is essentially exposed (i.e. from the bottom). Sex seems much more accessible and immediate because there is only one thin layer of clothing covering the most sexually intimate part of your body.

But the threshold for triggering a man's thoughts of sexual proximity - the criterion for immodesty - is entirely relative to social norms and context. The man on the beach doesn't think sex is imminent when he sees you wearing a bikini, because every woman on the beach is wearing in a bikini, and he knows it is for swimming or sunbathing. But in 1910, if a man saw a woman on the beach in a bikini, he'd be sure that she was a woman of loose morals - and he'd probably be right.

Anyway, the point here is that wearing tight jeans in everyday American life is about as shocking as wearing a bikini on the beach in 2014. And wearing loose jeans in everyday American life is far more similar than you think to wearing a Victorian bathing costume to a Las Vegas pool party. Perhaps more importantly, when you use your clothes rather than your behavior to be modest, you are far more similar than you think to the girls who use their clothes rather than their behavior to get sexual attention. Don't be so sure that you are more intelligent just because you made the mistake about modesty rather than sexuality.

Is there an opposite extreme, where tight jeans start to look like a bikini on a Victorian-era beach (i.e. slutty)? Yeah, probably, but that's not the point - there are always excesses on both extremes. Today I happen to be calling out the conservatives.

So remember: wearing loose jeans doesn't avoid the wrong kind of attention; it just makes you look terrible.


Related Posts
1. "The Wrong Kind of Attention"
2. How to Get "The Right Kind of Attention"
3. Don't Wear Sneakers
4. The Most Important Time to Dress Well

How to Turn a Guy Down for Sex

Imagine that you go out to dinner on a first date with a guy you met recently. You go to a nice but fairly laid-back restaurant and you really hit it off, almost instantly. The conversation is fluid, he is witty and interesting and he seems genuinely interested in what you have to say. Afterwards you decide to get a drink at a bar down the street from the restaurant. One drink turns into three or four, and as you leave the bar he pulls you to the side of the sidewalk and kisses you. Unlike other guys you've gone on first dates with he is decisive, confident and not awkward.

You walk back to his place together and he invites you in. It is still fairly early, so you accept, but you both agree that it is "just for a little while." You are impressed because his place is really nice - well decorated, but decidedly manly; he has good taste. He kisses you again and you start making out on his couch. You are comfortable with him, and he seems comfortable holding you - you fit well together. Soon his hands move from touching your face to holding your waist and caressing your breasts through your shirt. Before long his hand is down your pants. You are a little drunk so you don't stop him - after all, it feels good, and you are really comfortable with him. But then he starts to unbutton your shirt.

You don't want to have sex with him on the first date, so you know you should stop him; but it is hard to say no - not because you want to have sex with him so badly (though you are actually starting to), but because it seems inappropriate or even unfair to stop him. You don't want to disappoint him and ruin the night, especially when it is just to follow some "rule" your mom taught you. So what do you do? How do you stop him without ruining the end of the date? By the time you've considered what the most tactful way of stopping him would be, he's finished taking off your shirt and bra. Your nipples are in his mouth when you realize that he's actually already unbuttoned your jeans...

----------------------------------------------

I agree that stopping the guy at this point is going to piss him off. There is no question that your suspicion is right in that regard - in fact it will probably piss him off more than you realize.  So what should you do now, and when should you have stopped him? There was never a time when it seemed appropriate.

In this situation, you should stop him right away. Better late than never. The annoyance you'll cause him and even the bad feelings you'll stamp on the first date - while important - are less important than not being slutty. True, he will lose some respect for you due to your lack of tact and because you led him on, but he would lose more respect for you if you slept with him on the first date.

The answer to the larger question is a little more complicated. For starters, you shouldn't have had four drinks at the bar (you could have nursed two instead). And then you shouldn't have gone inside with him when you got back to his place. And then you shouldn't have let him put his hand down your pants. And then you shouldn't have let him unbutton your shirt. And then you shouldn't have let him take off your bra. And then you shouldn't... etc. I am not saying you should be a prude, but I am saying that you should be a prude on the first date. With each thing you allow him to do, he feels closer to sex and you cause him more chagrin by then stopping him.

On a first date, I recommend not going in his place. You can have the four drinks at the bar if you can walk home or take public transportation, but otherwise the drinks offer too easy an excuse for needing to go inside to "sober up." If you do go in with him, it isn't the end of the world if you make out. You aren't giving the average American guy mixed signals by making out with him and then saying no to sex. The best stopping point is when he goes to put his hand down your pants or when he goes to take off your clothes - whichever one comes first. All you need to do to stop him is this: without interrupting the kissing, gently grab his hand and guide it away from your pants or shirt, to some other place on your body. Then continue making out as if nothing happened. It is a strong but subtle message. If he tries again, you just repeat the motion. If he tries a third time, you pull back and say "I don't want to do that yet." or something similar. Saying "yet" or "tonight" is key, because it hints that it will happen sometime in the future, and this will entice him (though be careful not to tell him when you'll do it).

How to Get "The Right Kind of Attention"

My model for understanding the way a woman acts and dresses has always been something like this: the more a woman dresses like a slut, the more attractive she is; but the more a woman acts like a slut, the less attractive she is. In other words, the most attractive women are those who dress like whores but act like good girls. Impossible, right? Probably. But it is the ideal nonetheless, just like a woman's ideal is a man who is extremely powerful and physically attractive, yet in touch with his emotions and sweet - which also does not exist.

In any case, I was out the other night and I ran into a girl I'd met a few weeks before at the same bar. We started talking, and somehow got onto the topic of how women dress...

"It's simple for a girl" she said. "If you want to pick up a guy to get laid, or to make out, you wear a short, tight skirt and low-cut cleavage. But if you want to meet a guy to date, you..."

"...wear something modest." I interrupted, somewhat smugly. "That's what every girl thinks and it's complete bullshit." I was about to explain to her that good guys and bad guys alike are both equally attracted to a woman's body, and that behaving modestly is far more important than dressing modestly, when she cut me off:

"Wait, I wasn't finished! That wasn't what I was going to say at all. I was going to say that you have to choose one or the other."

"One or the other?" I asked. "What do you mean?"

"I mean you either wear the short, tight skirt, or the plunging neckline - but not both."

I was silent. I literally paused for several seconds, thinking about what she said. I was still somewhat shocked by the fact that she didn't buy into the absurdly false cliche that a woman attracts good men by pretending that good men don't have sexual impulses; but I was also intrigued by the nuance of her idea. It was honest, and it bore the hallmark complexity of truth.

"Huh... That's really interesting." I said, pensively. "I actually spend entirely too much time thinking about these kinds of things, and haven't thought of that before. You might be on to something." I paused again for a few seconds. "I need to think about it more, but I like the idea regardless. I've always thought that women are more attractive the sluttier they dress and the more modestly they act, but I might have to re-consider that now."

The jury is still out. The girl won't return my calls either...


Related Posts
1. Sexy Versus Cute
2. "The Wrong Kind of Attention"
3. The Most Important Time to Dress Well
4. There Is Nothing Modest About Loose Jeans