2004 paper on "Sexual Economics" - fascinating read.

Hey folks,

I first read this paper (link below) years ago, well after it was first published, but continue to go back to it because its analysis seems so spot on. (I first heard of if after watching a "TED talk" by one of the authors, Vohs).

The paper is called "Sexual Economics: Sex as Female Resource for Social Exchange in Heterosexual Interactions", which is a bit of a mouthful title, but it's a good description of the contents.

It's a scholarly article with careful research and data to back it up etc. I've always been surprised that the ideas haven't caught on since it was first published, at least I would have expected more research to follow from it, but I don't think much came of it.

I'm posting it here because I think it might make for some interesting conversation, hoping y'all will enjoy reading it.

For me it explains a LOT of features of society (of any sort, eg. religious-mores, wage-inequality, morality laws, local conventions etc.) that other groups (eg. feminists or SJW-types, historians) attempt to explain far less effectively than this paper does.

Anyway, it's hard to discuss this topic on other forms of social-media, so here we are!

Hope you enjoy it and hoping for a little fun conversation.

Here's the link: http://assets.csom.umn.edu/assets/71503.pdf

Cheers!

[Edit: ah... here's a link to the video that got me to first seek out the paper: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_od6L2_odQ

She went to college for this? Seriously sex is a commodity that men are willing to trade resources for? This gets filed under D for "duh".

As Sam Kinnison put it... "Why are women always pissed? They have half the money and ALL the pussy!"

She went to college for this? Seriously sex is a commodity that men are willing to trade resources for? This gets filed under D for "duh".

As Sam Kinnison put it... "Why are women always pissed? They have half the money and ALL the pussy!" Originally Posted by texassapper

Great quote Tex - Sam Kinnison was awesome.

I agree that it's a kind of a "Duh" (as in obvious) result, but I think that's a sign that it's good research. However to defend the paper a bit, they are saying much more that your summary suggests. I know it's a long paper, but it's worth a read IMHO and this simple idea (plus the idea that men's sexuality has relatively little value) has some pretty far reaching consequences - which is the interesting part...

Thx for your thoughts!

She went to college for this? Seriously sex is a commodity that men are willing to trade resources for? This gets filed under D for "duh".

As Sam Kinnison put it... "Why are women always pissed? They have half the money and ALL the pussy!" Originally Posted by texassapper

There were some interesting sections on cultural norms changing market prices, which is an interesting concept. One doesn't think of cultural norms as affecting the price of a category of goods in general circumstance. But the more specific the good -- cheese say -- you can see where culture could play a role. Also the observation about market equilibria within, but not across markets is interesting.

The section on substitution is pretty common sense, especially to those here in the hobby.

There were some interesting sections on cultural norms changing market prices, which is an interesting concept. One doesn't think of cultural norms as affecting the price of a category of goods in general circumstance. But the more specific the good -- cheese say -- you can see where culture could play a role. Also the observation about market equilibria within, but not across markets is interesting.

The section on substitution is pretty common sense, especially to those here in the hobby. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

I like (for example) how applying these ideas does a better job of describing the phenomena of wage inequality between the sexes than say Feminism which tries to attribute it to Patriarchy. If right, also tells me that we'll probably never get wage equality.

Great article, I've read it before.

If you're into this kind of stuff I know of a few sociology journals that do a deep dive into the hobby. It's interesting seeing the different tiered aspect of the hobby and how each correlate to different triggers, primers and affects.

Great article, I've read it before.

If you're into this kind of stuff I know of a few sociology journals that do a deep dive into the hobby. It's interesting seeing the different tiered aspect of the hobby and how each correlate to different triggers, primers and affects. Originally Posted by fulbright

Great! Post up some links. Thx.

If right, also tells me that we'll probably never get wage equality. Originally Posted by jjxxx

There is no wage inequality. That myth comes from the idea if you combine ALL jobs that all women work and compare them to ALL jobs that men work, then there is inequality. That's a false comparison. In the exact same jobs, controlling for experience women earn a statistically identical amount. Wage inequality is largely driven by women choosing jobs with greater flexibility in scheduling, part-time work, and deciding to leave the workforce (ie less experience) to raise young children. Also never mentioned with the wage gap is the mortality gap for men. Men choose more hazardous careers that are more likely to get them killed on the job than women...(also resulting in higher pay)
The idea that there is a wage gap is believed only by those that can't perform freshmen year statistical analysis....