February 17, 2014

An absurdly big "if": "If girls did actually come to realize that they’re 'in the driver’s seat' when it comes to sex (and if sisterhood really were powerful)..."

"... they could change the market entirely, having sex only when they were ready and only when they saw a serious commitment on the part of their partner. As the voiceover in the video explains, 'Collusion — women working together — would be the most rational way to elevate the "market value" of sex.'"

So, first, get all the women in a big union... and, then, everyone must stick to the union, so, denounce the sluts scabs....

By the way, I found the video unwatchable. The animation technique of having a hand in fast-motion writing the text heard in the audio is especially irritating here. Just let me read the darned text, which I could do in a hell of a lot less time than the 10 minutes that video takes, no matter how fast Mr. Hand is herky-jerking along. Unlike text alone, that kind of animation is a merger of the actual script's message with an implicit message: Here, we'll make it all very simple and obvious for you and it will be amazing and conclusive. When those 2 simultaneous messages don't harmonize, it's headache-inducing.

53 comments:

Ron said...

Good thing the Greek playwrights had no ideas along this line! [cough cough, Lysistrata]

Renee said...

I don't think of sex in terms of economics, but emotional health.

When I began asking"Why should I have sex with this guy?" That's I took the drivers seat.

No one the sisterhood can do this in terms of economics, but a kind friend with charity can ask , "Why do you hang out with losers?" Something only a peer can say, not your mother.

YoungHegelian said...

NEWSFLASH: Study finds young women not very bright. Young men seemingly no better...Film at 11:00.

SGT Ted said...

See? Video is annoying and can distract from the ideas presented.

And, yes, women are in the drivers seat when it comes to sex with a male partner. Why else are men reduced to seduction, bribery or begging to get some?

What do you think "marriage" is? That's the institution built by the village to put women in the drivers seat of their sexuality.

No ring, no house, no job: no nookie.

Now they give it away for next to nothing and then complain that no one values a "good woman".

Uh, heLLOOOOoooo....

David said...

So women should stop being sexually competitive?

Or is this just to help the cohort that doesn't compete very well in that category?

Roughcoat said...

Good thing the Greek playwrights had no ideas along this line! [cough cough, Lysistrata]

Or the Roman story of the Sabine women ...

David said...

"When I began asking"Why should I have sex with this guy?" That's [when] I took the drivers seat.

The problem with the drivers seat is that the steering wheel gets in the way. And it's really startling when one of you accidentally humps the horn.

Howard said...

This is news? Women control men by regulating the blood flow to our little brains. Why else would men take all the shit jobs that risk life, limb, health, sanity, etc. and die young.

Carl Pham said...

If girls did actually come to realize that they’re 'in the driver’s seat' when it comes to sex

Er...and the evidence that this is not already true is...what, exactly? We already live in a world dominated by the sexual decision-making of women.

The fact that women don't like (or at least complain) about it proves nothing different. Women are as capable as men of failing to foresee the consequences of their own decisions.

Germans voted in the Nazis. The Russians rioted in the streets to have Lenin and Stalin take over. Americans voted in all those Democrats, and the bullshit-artiste President, who gave them the NSA collecting their sexting and Obamacare. The world is stuffed with examples of human beings making catastrophically self-destructive choices via wildly delusional projections of the outcomes.

Here's a thought: instead of women looking at the world of sexual dynamics, concluding they don't like it, and working backward to the conclusion that they must not have any choice about it -- how about they grasp the nettle, accept that this is the world they have chosen, and start to think long and hard about the long-term consequences of their choices?

Wait...what am I thinking? Ungood crimethink. Sorry. It must be the patriarchy. The media. Little acts of unconscious sexism. The fashion industry.

mccullough said...

Sounds like an antitrust violation to me.

Roughcoat said...

Or the Roman story of the Sabine women ...

Or the updated version, "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers" ... a non-gay musical that's actually pretty good.

Bob Ellison said...

That's the way I feel about every TED video. It's the way I imagine being in the audience at Davos while John Kerry is at the podium.

chickenlittle said...

An absurdly big "if": "If girls did actually come to realize that they’re 'in the driver’s seat' when it comes to sex (and if sisterhood really were powerful)...""

I misread that headline and thought it had something to do with Lena Dunham's show and my first thought was "gross, get real."

Skeptical Voter said...

I'll go with "A lot of folks aren't too bright"--on both sides of this equation.

But 50 years ago the fear of pregnancy, and the then relative unavailability of safe abortions made young women--and young men, more circumspect about jumping into the rack.

Then along came the pill and the precursors of such as Sandra Fluke, and young women started to be "screwed" in more ways than one by the sexual revolution.

Fen said...

Good thing the Greek playwrights had no ideas along this line! [cough cough, Lysistrata]

Or the Roman story of the Sabine women ...

Stupid conservatives! As if humans already figured this one out... Sheeesh. You people and your Dead White Males.


/s

Fen said...

Why else would men take all the shit jobs that risk life, limb, health, sanity, etc. and die young.

Too true. Many times, the looming question is "will the pleasure of fucking her trump dealing with her bs on a daily basis?"

EDH said...

Some of the Whiteboard videos are pretty good.

Bill Whittle, for one, has a calm, relaxed voice, there isn't all that Magic Marker scratching sound and the time-lapse is less frenetic.

That video was annoying.

Paul said...

The one thing the fail to see is, as the Angel Micheal said (John Travolta that is), "You can't change human nature."

See women have certain organs just as men do, and by nature's design they want to, uh, mate.

Yep the get horney just as men do.

And any 'union' to raise the value of sex, well they do that already, it's called prostitution and the rates can be quite high for a real good looking one.

If the woman what to return to a time of good marriages and stability, then going back to Jesus is really the answer.

Yea I know it's corny but as Christian religion has wanned in the U.S. so has our moral values.

Bruce Hayden said...

The answer to the distracting video is to not watch it, just listen. I inadvertently did so yesterday, playing a game on my computer as I listened. It seemed to have worked, at least for me.

The problem, as I see it, is that in the traditional monogamous marriage system, women would pick the best guy that they could, give him sex, and marry him (often doing the marrying before the sexing). But, females have two conflicting goals in our species. One is to breed with alpha males to get the best genes for their children, and the other is to obtain a mate to help raise their children together. The first goal or strategy is the more basic one - we see it in many animal species, and esp. most mammal species. The latter overlays the first, and was adopted in response to the time it takes to raise our children to the point of independence, which increased greatly due to our brain size (combined with the size of the female birth canal, which conflicts with adult females being able to walk effectively). And, in regards to marriage, males tend to prefer females whom they believe will be loyal sexually, in order to guarantee paternity of the children they raise, over alpha females who sleep around.

But, if the goal is not marriage, but rather, merely sex, then the second constraint or strategy is out the window. The alpha males (or fake alphas, with the Pick-Up Culture) get most of the action, and the rest go snowboarding or play video games. And, the alpha males get to be selective, resulting in females being pit against each other for their attention. Which is where the pressure for easy sex, etc. comes from - if this female won't have sex with him, the next one will. A race to the bottom.

But, of course, the females ultimately do want to get married. But, promiscuous sex with other guys is not going to attract the betas they need to marry them.

Illuninati said...

The end result of the war on men is that there aren't enough eligible men left to go around. Perhaps women will have to settle for those dreaded B males.


Shouting Thomas said...

By astonishing coincidence, a religion called "Christianity" promotes this very strategy.

Xmas said...

According to the pickup artist websites, young women are already making these sort of calculations. However, they keep trying to use sex to land alpha males whom would normally be above their “market value" for long term commitments. What they fail to realize is that riding the alpha carousel lowers their value to the guys that would want to marry them. So, to paraphrase the article, young ladies stay away from those attractive fucking around guys, save sex with you for guys that will want to form a life with you.

betamax3000 said...

Single Men: When at the Bar Dress Nicely, Smile Pleasantly and Wear a Wedding Ring. If Any Woman Asks of Your Status You Reply "Happily Married". There Are Always Women who Would Love to Be the One So Hot He Will Break His Vows.

Edward Lunny said...

You have what you asked for ladies, just, not what you expected. You are sexually free and have debased the value of you to just that, free.
There is time to change, have some self respect. It isn't difficult to say , thank you no. If you choose poorly, repeatedly, accept the consequences instead of whining about the "unfairness" or "discrimination".
It will take some time for the results of your changed behaviors to trickle down, so be patient. What you've done didn't result in change overnight, neither will the change in another direction.
You know, you folks complain about men thinking with the incorrect appendage, perhaps you ladies should stop that as well.

gregq said...

Too bad feminists went and destroyed the culture that gave women that power, huh?

Pro tip: If you tell women it's ok to have sex whenever they chose, that there's nothing wrong with having sex whenever they chose, and tell society that we can not judge women harshly for having sex outside of certain bounds, then the exact situation you are bemoaning is guaranteed to come about.

Enjoy your choices. Or change them.

Anthony said...

The first flaw in that idea is thinking that all women want "a serious commitment from their partner" before having sex. The problem is that many of the women who don't care about commitment are young, and thus generally more attractive to men anyway.

madAsHell said...

It's too bad the article included a picture of the author.....cuz I'm pretty sure she saved it for marriage.

chickenlittle said...

The author seems to have a knack for hitting good topics: link.

elkh1 said...

A feminist woman is more helpless than a Victorian wall flower. Pathetic.

Besides, whose turn will it be when a gorgeous hunk comes along? He has no say in this?

The "market value" of sex is the value ascribed by the woman. If the only thing she wants is free condoms so she can do it with any men, then the values is negative. She wh*ores herself for free.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

Never in a million years would the catty bitches ever cooperate.

Especially now that they are competing for the ever scarcer resources of men with higher educational levels than them.

Not everyone is willing to fuck the lawn maintenance help.

Plus, most women are whores at heart, and will sell out their "sisterhood" in a heartbeat after a couple of martini's.

Darrell said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Darrell said...

Women as "gatekeepers"--what an original notion! Who told women to keep the gates open when womens' power was at its peak in post-WWII America? Why feminists, that's who, with their notions of free love to help recruit Lefty men for the Leftist cause AND topple the institution of marriage--the root of the patriarchy's power. Pretty soon they had grammar school girls doing rainbow parties giving blowjobs to the boys and collecting a different color ribbon or piece of yarn for every boy serviced.

You ceded the power, Toots. Own it.

The Crack Emcee said...

"If girls did actually come to realize that they’re 'in the driver’s seat' when it comes to sex... they could change the market entirely, having sex only when they were ready and only when they saw a serious commitment on the part of their partner."


"a serious commitment" - is that what women want?

Couldn't tell from the divorce stats:

Don't women initiate 70% of 'em?

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
n.n said...

Progressive morality has devalued intimacy, fidelity, and family. Friendship with benefits has corrupted the purpose of dating. Feminism has lead woman out of the "kitchen" and into taxable activities.

Liberals are happy that libertinism is normalized. Progressives are happy that the problem set has been reduced. The bachelors are happy that the burden is aborted. The government is happy with new revenue streams. Women are happy, right?

Renee said...

From my past.... Very few women are 'sluts', but we do have sex in these quasi-relationships early on in them.

Then afterwards can't figure out if they were a hookup, a friends with benefit, or now a ex-girlfriend.

If women were intentionally wanting to be promiscuous, they aren't the competition. Women who want a commitment do not want man who is also hooking up intentionally. The sluts can be with sluts.

It's a woman who wants a relationship, but not seeking one but instead hopes whoever she ends up in bed with will stick.

If you want a relationship, then have one. But yeah, that means holding off sex until that is confirmed.

TMink said...

What a silly article! There are no sexual problems since the advent of the pill and the free love movement of the 1960s. The problem was that people were so hung up on marriage and sin and it was just a drag man. We were told that once we left behind the old concept of sin that the world we be wonderful! Weren't we?

Trey

Bruce Hayden said...

Couldn't tell from the divorce stats:

Don't women initiate 70% of 'em?


That has long bothered me. The women want the marriage, but then want out of it, when they don't work. And, yes, I think that there are plenty of women who bail on their marriages when the going gets rough, when in a previous generation they would have stuck it out, and it would have worked out fine (yes, I know that this isn't always the case).

There is a saying about a seven year itch, and I wonder if that is tied to the time that it used to take before children were somewhat independent. A lot of relationships/marriages seem to have this sort of cycle.

Still, what goes around, comes around, and I am entering the time, in my early 60s, where a lot of those women who dumped their husbands earlier are now discovering that they will likely get old alone, and that the competition for marriageable males is getting fiercer every year. I do know some women of my generation who are regretting their decisions to divorce perfectly good men.

Eric said...

Collusion — women working together — would be the most rational way to elevate the "market value" of sex.

As with every other cartel this kind of market collusion only works if there are ways to detect and punish cheaters.

That's why adultery used to be illegal instead of just frowned upon (it's still frowned upon, isn't it?), and why premarital sex was considered shameful. Culture matters - you can't expect individuals to make sacrifices for the common good without some sort of reward/punishment scheme.

Joseph Dooley said...

Such a union existed in the past. It was called, "the contraceptive pill isn't a 'right' so maybe we should practice chastity to keep from getting knocked up."

Kirk Parker said...

Crack,

" 'a serious commitment' - is that what women want?

Couldn't tell from the divorce stats:

Don't women initiate 70% of 'em?
"

Hey, It's Complicated™!


n.n.,

"Women are happy, right? "

Ha ha! Ho ho! LOLOLOLOL!!!! Standup comedy at its best...

Kirk Parker said...

Bruce,

"I am entering the time, in my early 60s, where a lot of those women who dumped their husbands earlier are now discovering that they will likely get old alone, and that the competition for marriageable males is getting fiercer every year. I do know some women of my generation who are regretting their decisions to divorce perfectly good men."

No kidding. I'm just a few years behind you, and still happily married to my first wife (we did a lot of things right; some by foresight, some by accident, some by just going with the flow of our particular subculture.) But I see so many people (of both genders!) in that older-age not-happily-single mode, and see quite a few of them as just sad victims of the New Age crap they bought into.

It's worse for the women, of course--at least for those who don't want to stay single--as the age differential stuff hasn't gone away (and won't.)

SOJO said...

Err, is this news?

I went through a long libertarian/market phase. Among other manifestations, I would soothe myself that all the girl babies being killed and female fetuses aborted in India and elsewhere would work itself out because the dearth of women would force those societies in the long run to recognize the value of women as they became more scarce.

Well, time moves on and that ship has sailed. There is a shortage of women, but all that happened is a strong black market formed and young girls were stolen and traded four or five times, enriching their male traders, until their value was diminished.

So what can I say? I was wrong and I'm glad I didn't have to test my youthful armchair theories personally.

I have learned the obvious - that it harms the psyche to think of human beings in economic terms - whether sexual or pure labor. The market is actually NOT the ultimate arbiter of real value, nor is it a good idea to pretend it is to make a point in a debate or extend an analogy.

Bob Ellison said...

Women don't care about sex. Men only care about sex.

That was the dogma over the last fifty years or so. The "hook-up" thing recently is hard to understand within that dogma. So is male romanticism.

Bob Ellison said...

Also, women don't lie about sex, and don't cheat, and men are never faithful and don't care about their offspring. This is a Dr. Helen book. People are stupid on this. In fifty years they'll probably say all women are whores and all men are gay.

Doug said...

"Collusion - women working together - "
Shoot, I thought they were talking about FFM threesomes ... until I read further

Jupiter said...

"I have learned the obvious - that it harms the psyche to think of human beings in economic terms - whether sexual or pure labor. The market is actually NOT the ultimate arbiter of real value, nor is it a good idea to pretend it is to make a point in a debate or extend an analogy."

I suppose you could be correct that thinking harms the psyche, but that does not mean that the conclusions arrived at are wrong. People do make decisions as to whom they will have sex with and marry, and it seems likely that they weigh pros and cons to make those decisions. "The market" is a lot like war; you may not be interested in it, but it has an interest in you.

Jupiter said...

The idea that women could form a union, and demand "more", neglects the fact that the "more" women want, by its nature, can not be shared. In fact, not being shared is what makes it "more". So, the better offer that two women hold out for, goes to one and not the other.

The cognitive failure modern women are prone to is aptly summarized by the phrase "have it all". A woman wants to have her cake, and eat it too, and not gain weight, and have someone else pay for it. If that set of options is not on offer, needs to try harder.It appears guys are getting sick, or maybe just tired, of trying harder.

Jupiter said...

Someone needs to try harder. I keep forgetting that angle brackets for emphasis doesn't work on Althouse.

Kirk Parker said...

Jupiter,

You have to write actual HTML. Pobrecito.

RecChief said...

isn't that what people used to do?
You know, with aspirin.

Unknown said...

I can live without sex. Not gonna like it, but how long can you live without someone maintaining your house, your car? I mean, really, you're gonna do it yourself? Gonna build anything? Keep the lights on, food trucking across country?

Permit me to laugh.

The Godfather said...

Haven't these people ever heard of culture? I don't care how "powerful" "sisterhood" is, you're never going to get all the women in America together to make some kind of Lysistrata pact. Where would they meet? Yankee Stadium's too small.

But there was a time (I know, I was there) when there was a strong social influence on women to be relatively chaste, and on men to accept that. Young men knew that if they got a woman pregnant they were likely going to have to marry her. Young women knew if they became pregnant by men they would not want to marry, they had a choice between unpleasant options.

In the late '50's, early '60's, we guys knew about birth control (I lived in Conn., where the Supreme Court thought condoms were unavailable because they were illegal; they were behind the counter, but you could certainly buy them). We all also knew about at least one girl who had gotten pregnant and had either had an abortion (even in Conn. before Roe v. Wade they weren't that hard to get if your family was well-to-do and connected), "had to" get married, or had gone to a home for unwed mothers. So we guys might hope for a girl who would "go all the way", but we weren't turned off if the girl we really liked said, no, not yet.

I give myself no credit that I didn't go out and debauch dozens of young women in those days -- if I could have, I would have. But the culture didn't allow it.

But in six years my oldest granddaughter will be 16, and I fear there will be no culture to protect her. If I'm still alive, I will be armed; so there's that.