Sex is Cheap

funny and highly questionable article :-) ..
thoughts anyone?

http://www.slate.com/id/2286240/

Sex Is Cheap

Why young men have the upper hand in bed, even when they're failing in life.
By Mark Regnerus


We keep hearing that young men are failing to adapt to contemporary life. Their financial prospects are impaired—earnings for 25- to 34-year-old men have fallen by 20 percent since 1971. Their college enrollment numbers trail women's: Only 43 percent of American undergraduates today are men. Last year, women made up the majority of the work force for the first time. And yet there is one area in which men are very much in charge: premarital heterosexual relationships.

When attractive women will still bed you, life for young men, even those who are floundering, just isn't so bad. This isn't to say that all men direct the course of their relationships. Plenty don't. But what many young men wish for—access to sex without too many complications or commitments—carries the day. If women were more fully in charge of how their relationships transpired, we'd be seeing, on average, more impressive wooing efforts, longer relationships, fewer premarital sexual partners, shorter cohabitations, and more marrying going on. Instead, according to the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (which collects data well into adulthood), none of these things is occurring. Not one. The terms of contemporary sexual relationships favor men and what they want in relationships, not just despite the fact that what they have to offer has diminished, but in part because of it. And it's all thanks to supply and demand.
To better understand what's going on, it's worth a crash course in "sexual economics," an approach best articulated by social psychologists Roy Baumeister and Kathleen Vohs. As Baumeister, Vohs, and others have repeatedly shown, on average, men want sex more than women do. Call it sexist, call it whatever you want—the evidence shows it's true. In one frequently cited study, attractive young researchers separately approached opposite-sex strangers on Florida State University's campus and proposed casual sex. Three-quarters of the men were game, but not one woman said yes. I know: Women love sex too. But research like this consistently demonstrates that men have a greater and far less discriminating appetite for it. As Baumeister and Vohs note, sex in consensual relationships therefore commences only when women decide it does.
And yet despite the fact that women are holding the sexual purse strings, they aren't asking for much in return these days—the market "price" of sex is currently very low. There are several likely reasons for this. One is the spread of pornography: Since high-speed digital porn gives men additional sexual options—more supply for his elevated demand—it takes some measure of price control away from women. The Pill lowered the cost as well. There are also, quite simply, fewer social constraints on sexual relationships than there once were. As a result, the sexual decisions of young women look more like those of men than they once did, at least when women are in their twenties. The price of sex is low, in other words, in part because its costs to women are lower than they used to be.

But just as critical is the fact that a significant number of young men are faring rather badly in life, and are thus skewing the dating pool. It's not that the overall gender ratio in this country is out of whack; it's that there's a growing imbalance between the number of successful young women and successful young men. As a result, in many of the places where young people typically meet—on college campuses, in religious congregations, in cities that draw large numbers of twentysomethings—women outnumber men by significant margins. (In one Manhattan ZIP code, for example, women account for 63 percent of 22-year-olds.)
The idea that sex ratios alter sexual behavior is well-established. Analysis of demographic data from 117 countries has shown that when men outnumber women, women have the upper hand: Marriage rates rise and fewer children are born outside marriage. An oversupply of women, however, tends to lead to a more sexually permissive culture. The same holds true on college campuses. In the course of researching our book Premarital Sex in America, my co-author and I assessed the effects of campus sex ratios on women's sexual attitudes and behavior. We found that virginity is more common on those campuses where women comprise a smaller share of the student body, suggesting that they have the upper hand. By contrast, on campuses where women outnumber men, they are more negative about campus men, hold more negative views of their relationships, go on fewer dates, are less likely to have a boyfriend, and receive less commitment in exchange for sex.

You would be surprised just how much true love, or desperation make this ring true. Bums get hot girls with high power careers every day. Some take advantage of them and cheat while reaping the benefits of a faux sugar mamma, while others truly fall in love to stay. It's a coin toss.

It may be cheap for women, but it isn't for men...at least by the hour. LOL

This is just common sense: more young women are financially independent/self-sufficient so the financial ability of their mate becomes less important. As a a result more "bums" (to use London's term) get hot girls.

What is surprising is this is worthy of publication and/or anyone would really treat this as breaking news.

You would be surprised just how much true love, or desperation make this ring true. Bums get hot girls with high power careers every day. Some take advantage of them and cheat while reaping the benefits of a faux sugar mamma, while others truly fall in love to stay. It's a coin toss. Originally Posted by London Rayne

Like having 2 over cards against pocket pairs in poker lol

Like having 2 over cards against pocket pairs in poker lol Originally Posted by discreetgent

bad tongues and some feminists call love anyway the most easiest way to make women submissive. Here is a statement i really do love:

"Just for future reference, don't use words like "love" anymore. It's a very sensitive word and it wears out quickly. Romeo barely says it, but John Hinckley filled up a whole journal with it. To put it into your terms, it's a currency that's easily devalued. Pretty soon you're saying it whenever you hang up the phone or whenever you leave. It turns into an apology. Then it's an excuse.
Some assholes want it to be a bulletproof vest: don't hate me; I love you. But mostly it just means--more. More, more--give me something more. A couple of years from now, when you're on your own completely, if you really fall in love, if it really comes to that--you have to be willing to drown in it, Kevin. You'd have to want to be crushed, buried alive. Because that's what real love feels like. Love is your first foot in the grave. That's why the second most abused word is "forever" -Peter Craig

This is just common sense: more young women are financially independent/self-sufficient so the financial ability of their mate becomes less important. As a a result more "bums" (to use London's term) get hot girls.

What is surprising is this is worthy of publication and/or anyone would really treat this as breaking news. Originally Posted by atlcomedy

Interesting.

Most ladies I know that are financially independent want a guy
that is also financially secure. I rather date a no-so-attractive,
hard-working guy than a hot bum.

Interesting.

Most ladies I know that are financially independent want a guy
that is also financially secure. I rather date a no-so-attractive,
hard-working guy than a hot bum. Originally Posted by Naomi4u

best are these in combinations. I am currently dating two hot males who are financially successful and independent :-). ;-)
I am spoiled :-)

bad tongues and some feminists call love anyway the most easiest way to make women submissive. Here is a statement i really do love:

"Just for future reference, don't use words like "love" anymore. It's a very sensitive word and it wears out quickly. Romeo barely says it, but John Hinckley filled up a whole journal with it. To put it into your terms, it's a currency that's easily devalued. Pretty soon you're saying it whenever you hang up the phone or whenever you leave. It turns into an apology. Then it's an excuse.
Some assholes want it to be a bulletproof vest: don't hate me; I love you. But mostly it just means--more. More, more--give me something more. A couple of years from now, when you're on your own completely, if you really fall in love, if it really comes to that--you have to be willing to drown in it, Kevin. You'd have to want to be crushed, buried alive. Because that's what real love feels like. Love is your first foot in the grave. That's why the second most abused word is "forever" -Peter Craig Originally Posted by ninasastri

Interesting...but, the quotation says nothing about sex, which was the subject of the OP.

But, Nina, I gotta ask: do you ever tire of hearing your husband say,"I love you?" Or whether or not he affirms that to you every day doesn't affect you? Are you better off not hearing it at all?

best are these in combinations. I am currently dating two hot males who are financially successful and independent :-). ;-)
I am spoiled :-) Originally Posted by ninasastri

Lucky you ! Those are hard to find. The hot ones are sometimes assholes and don't do much for me. The worst, the ones that think their looks should make up for their lack in bedroom skills. I know I know I will start getting out a bit more but there is a lot of truth to this. I have clients like this.

I think love and sex sometimes are at odds, perhaps for evolutionary purposes they often work against each other to throw a little more randomness into the natural selection game of roulette. And it's the randomness that leads to the quantum leaps in evolution (good and bad unfortunately).

Interesting...but, the quotation says nothing about sex, which was the subject of the OP.

But, Nina, I gotta ask: do you ever tire of hearing your husband say,"I love you?" Or whether or not he affirms that to you every day doesn't affect you? Are you better off not hearing it at all? Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

When it comes to love and the use of the word of it, i truly believe that what i quoted in this text above. I got tired of people telling me that they love me while their actions portray something different. Actually the ones that told me they loved me the most of the times were the ones who treated me the most like crap. I had a married man telling me he loves me all the time. His actions spoke against it. I doubt some people are capable of loving anyone.

The people that act like they love me and seldom say it are the ones that i believe truly love me. Me, my husband and lover do not need to tell us all the time that we love each other. We behave that way.
I am better off not hearing wise words but see actions. I know so many people capable of writing impressive texts and using impressive words but when you look at the way they live and love - you see the lack of reality in their words.

To be blunt - i`d prefer someone that acts like he loves me and does not tell me . I don`t care of words that much. Relationships for me consist of ACTIONS. Words are highly irrellevant. That is what eccie is for