Male female dynamics under supply and demand model?

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

I have been thinking about this quite a bit recently and have been wondering how it would be explained on this paradigm.

As evolution will tell us men are the ones who most eager to want sex whereas women are the choosy ones.

So with this in mind how would it be explained in terms of supply and demand?

I certainly know that demand for sex in men far outweighs the demand women have for sex at least at the outset. The only way sex happens at all is if the man is gradually able to wear the woman out and into acquiescing to have sex over a long campaign; that is discounting brothels- which nonetheless are also pertinent to the discussion as they offer a ‘rogue supply’ into the market; at a fee of course.

At the same time though women are still in abundance so does that mean supply is high or does it mean it is still in short supply because it exists but is not readily accessible/available? I guess this is the same as absolute monopoly (except for whorehouses and the like) so is supply to be seen as scarce or to be explained in some other manner?

The monopoly paradigm certainly seems to fit since with other monopolies those who hold the monopoly get to be picky and whimsical/controlling about who they supply with their goods where as those desperately demanding something are like pathetic beggars as the monopolizers have them by the throat.

What other factors are to be taken into account in this exegesis?

2

I don’t think females want sex any less than guys do. There are plenty of one night stands occurring all of the time, there is no fee. There are different standards however in choosing someone to have sex with. Guys do choose too. Looking at it from a perspective of a guy, it is likely that you will see women as more choosy.

3

How would what be explained?

The traits involved came from an entirely different set of concerns, but when society has gotten to the point wherein sex is merely a commodity like oranges to be traded on the open market, then certainly supply and demand comes into play. As the supply is constricted, the price goes up and vsvrsa. What is there that needs explaining?

4

I think you’ll find prostitution is one of the oldest trades around.

5

These aren’t really opposites and I think opposites fit better here: woman are more choosy, men are less choosy.
Choosy about whom they have sex with, where they have sex with them, how fast they have sex, how everyone smells, how safe it is and so on.
I do not experience women’s sex drives as less than men’s.

Less eager seems off to me.

6

Yeah, my experience has been that they seek it more, but are just more picky (sometimes).

7

Well I think both are choosy but in diff ways and evo. bio supports my claims.

Women more choosy for initial commitment to sex (due to the 9month pregnancy emotional circuitry) and men more choosy about settling down (cos it’s in their evolutionary interest to shag around and no 9 month hangup).

Sure ppl say ‘1 nights stands happen’ but even then women will be more conservative as they are worried about being viewed as sluts etc. and for above reason.

For men they are seen as ‘cads’ but women have a rep to uphold. There are bar sluts sure but they are certainly the minority and usually have lower reproduction value; aka not the most attractive and thus in original terms their wares are shabby so they wanna make a quick sale :smiley:.

The hottest women being PRIME REAL ESTATE it is almost unheard of that they would do this just like it would be almost unheard of for someone to just hand out gold willy nilly. Maybe it’s happened before but I’m talking about generalities and consistents.

Thinking about this more this might be conflating two (or more) issues.

In one sense there is the evolutionary factors which cause women to be more choosy and in another sense the women’s perceived market value of herself causing her to be more choosy.

8

True, but the traits came about due to a more primal concern depicted by a male-female family in the jungle or cave environment.

The female required more immediate threat attention for sake of the offspring and the male required less for sake of brutish hunting and conquering. Although both require self-preservation as the first incentive, the female ended up having to divide priorities so that she could be “invaded” despite possible threat. The male didn’t have that concern, but rather the opposite. Thus the natural male is averse to submission whereas the female is not.

So we ended up with a homosapian family made of a somewhat brutish male with aggressive, pursuit, rugged, distance and logic stratagems with the more reserved, attraction, sensitive, local and persuadable female. The female can’t stick to rational logic else there would be no offspring. The male can’t focus on the superficial irrationalities, else there would be no offspring.

The sex drive, being the evolutionary arbor behind the design, left us with what was common 50 years ago. But now Man is “designing women” and men to be what he chooses so the distinction is being eroded and designed out (along with certain races). But sex is still the driving arbor and thus sex is promoted even more.

So at this point we have a artificially enhanced sex drive that is now unassociated with primal, “natural”, concerns and is tailored more toward socialistic concerns of feminisation and racial preferences. In this process, the female is being rewarded by demonstrating “proper choosiness” and the male is rewarded for mindless spawning.

So the supply and demand issue has been recently altered through influence not only of the original primal concerns, but now of the social engineering concerns. Power to select is being enhanced and enforced for the female and disabled for the male, yielding market control to her persuadable and programmable emotions. He is just a seed bearer component in the idealized socialist model, useless after conception.

So ideally, if the male wants to compete in such a market merely for more sex, he can play the game by the rules of the new design. If he primarily displays the primal instinct signs involving strength and order but adds to more socialist “big-dick-wanna-fuck-power-to-women-love-socialism” mentality, he becomes “PRIME REAL ESTATE” stock.

Of course, such a male then has the upper hand and can choose from higher priced models… and more of them. While the female then must still compete against financially/socially advantaged opponents using preformulated stratagems much as in a chess game.

So the dynamics of supply and demand have very strongly changed due to nothing actually being natural any longer and feminisation of the male and masculinisation of the female for sake of socialistic design. As males get more feminized and females get more masculinized, the distinction becomes less and the entire market becomes mundane, leaving a vast arena of relatively free sex in any direction and offspring choices to the engineers.

In such a programmed, grayed market, free market supply and demand has very little influence.

9

Hmm, you touch on some other issues that I had been thinking recently.

I was thinking how women still respond to dominant men however just brute force will not get you far and indeed is seen as abhorrent mostly today (even if secretly still liked by women).

Even if the woman secretly liked it, due to the feminist/egalitarian bent these days they would scream out that it was ‘unjust’ and have an army rally to their aid to beat the offender to a pulp either physically or mentally.

I got to thinking why this is and I have been thinking that society is pretty much a matriarchal society these days. Why I thought this is because anything ‘manly’ at least in its original essential form is seen as brutish and ugly nowadays like crude jokes and just being a ‘man’s man’ who doesn’t think and just does what he wants.

I think this has obvious advantages for a smooth running society like less petty conflicts between tribes less deaths and all that- good for economic growth so all that good stuff. At the same time though I think the social milieu is such that women can act characteristically womanly- i.e. dress sexually provocatively in the workplace and utterly put a red rag to a bull and the man must stay quiet and watch with hands tied (at least in society’s eyes) as the archaic manly characteristics are frowned upon in general nowadays I’d say.

That is why I used the term matriarchal because womanly behaviours even ditzy and idiotic behaviours like ‘acting blond’ are seen as ‘cute’ whereas male behaviours would be seen as either brutish or downright deviant.

Then again as a wild card powerful men still trump (unintended but fitting pun) all this and the powerful socially accepted man could do all this same stuff and be seen as a ‘lovable rogue’. As I said before the old brutish ways won’t fly but men can still be powerful and it is celebrated. I think the real challenge is to become an alpha male and be accepted by society as well. I.e. brute force grabbing women and raping them won’t fly these days but buying out companies and crushing them in the business world is still going to be seen as a very powerful attribute while also being accepted by society.

On that note I think the original rules are the same- that of tribal hierarchies. Back then each individual tribe would have had its own rules although now it is a mega-tribe as Robert Anton Wilson put it (course with it’s own smaller ones but all must answer to the mega-tribe of society at large and its laws). So if men want to be seen as prime real estate nowadays they must find ways to express their power following today’s social mores.