Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Economy Of Sex


BCSpace

Recommended Posts

I prefer to think of this as a Law of Chastity themed thread rather than a sexually themed thread, so please keep it above board and if it's still a problem, feel free to close it down.

What are women to do if they don’t like the current sexual economics?

A fundamental principle of sexual economics is that “sexual activity by females has exchange value, whereas male sexuality does not,” Mr. Baumeister and Ms. Vohs wrote in their 2004 paper.

Thus, women have the power to influence sexual norms were they to use it, Mr. Regnerus said.

“When women collude to restrict men’s sexual access to women, all women tend to benefit,” he said, noting that “if women were more in charge of how their romantic relationships transpired … we would be seeing greater male investment in relationships, more impressive wooing efforts, fewer hookups, fewer premarital sexual partners … shorter cohabitations, more marrying … and more marrying at a slightly earlier age. In other words, the price of sex would be higher. It would cost men more to access it.”

However, he said, “none of these things are occurring today. Not one. The price of sex is pretty low.”

Economy of sex: It’s cheap these days. Men tend to rule marriage market

Thoughts? A good way to reason about "free milk and a cow"?

It is a fascinating topic to consider chastity in the context of sexual economics. In general, with some exceptions, we can reasonably assume that a healthy young man will almost always be up for sex if it is offered to him by a reasonably attractive woman (this does not mean that his level of enjoyment is always the same, or that he would pursue it if he perceives that the female is not interested). Women, by contrast, seem to have far less of a biological need for sex, on average. Because non-consensual sexual encounters are forbidden (and rightly so), this naturally puts women in a position of power over men- if they choose to exploit it, but only to the extent that there are obstacles to a man's comparable alternative outlets (such as masturbation, affairs, etc.). Some people assume that it is a good thing for men in a marriage to be at the complete mercy of their wives for the satisfaction of men's biological needs, because such an arrangement would theoretically force men to be so courting and fantastic to their wives in order to induce/seduce the wives into giving the husbands sex. As a committed gender egalitarian, I believe that such a notion is degrading to human dignity and to men. Just as I believe that wives are not to be treated as objects only good for sex and housework, I likewise believe that men should not be dehumanized to beg for sex. As for my own part, sex which is not freely given, or which arises from duty, compulsion, or guilt, is somewhat sad and pathetic. I would like to live in a world where both husbands and wives treat one another with respect and dignity, and where they let their mutual love and attraction for one another be their natural motivation for sex. Perhaps it is inevitable that there will be times where one spouse is not especially in the mood, and gives in to satisfy the other in the spirit of loving accommodation, and I suppose it is better to have some compromises than to demand the absolutely spontaneous "fireworks" sex every time. But to the extent that there are naturally occurring circumstances which justify one or both spouses in not engaging in sex with each other (examples could include illness, travel, children, particularly busy schedules, professional stress, biologically-based lack of desire, etc.), there must be an available solution to avoid the misery of longing and unsatisfied physiological and psychological urges for sex (people who have experienced this, particularly males, ought to understand the magnitude of frustration I am talking about). This is one reason why I believe masturbation and some forms of sexually-oriented media are perfectly morally justified. In general, so long as they do not result in the rejection of a spouse's sexual advances, or a refusal to make reasonable efforts to satisfy one's spouse sexually, they are an acceptable outlet which can accomplish several worthy goals, among which are: (1) reducing sexual frustration; (2) reducing resentment and anger towards a sexually unavailable/uninterested spouse; (3) leveling the playing field in the dynamic of sexual economics, so that sex is much less likely to be used as a tool of manipulation towards the more physiologically desperate spouse; (4) reducing the likelihood that physiological compulsion will influence a premature or irrational decision to get married in the first place to someone who is a poor marriage choice; (5) reduce the guilt felt by a spouse who is justifiedly not in the mood to satisfy the other spouse's sexual needs; (6) reduce the likelihood that one spouse will succumb to the temptation to have an affair; (7) reduce the likelihood that a husband will, out of frustration, force sex upon his wife either via physical constraint or psychological manipulation (i.e., guilt trips, etc.). Oddly, there exists a prevailing puritannical view in the LDS Church today that masturbation and all sexually-oriented media must be condemned, as they inherently destroy marital intimacy; the aformentioned marital benefits of these practices are completely ignored, overshadowed instead by the underlying unspoken and even subconscious assumption that sexual pleasure is automatically "suspect" because it is deemed to be "of the flesh" rather than spiritual, and that the only way to get over the guilt is by reminding ourselves that God commands sex within a marriage. This phenomenon has also been termed, "erotophobia," or fear of sex. As for the claim that masturbation and all sexually-oriented media inherently destroy marital intimacy, this does not seem to necessarily be true. The fact, that millions of men (and probably hundreds of thousands of LDS men) seem to have relatively happy marriages though they continue to conceal their masturbation and use of sexually-oriented media from their wives, suggests that the bigger culprit is NOT the masturbation and sexually-oriented media, but rather puritannically-backed anger felt by wives upon discovery, because they have been conditioned to imagine that their husbands are sinful or of low moral character or do not love them if they engage in these practices.

True gender egalitarianism demands that we cannot have it both ways. We cannot, on the one hand, tell men that egalitarianism demands that they refrain from any compulsion towards their wives to get sex, and on the other hand, forbid men from taking care of their own needs when those needs are not met by their wives. Of course, some people will resolve the problem by throwing out egalitarianism and rolling time back to the good old 1950s, where men could force sex on their wives whether they wanted it or not, and society did not frown upon the practice. Puritans, if that is your position, I think you are horribly wrong, but at least you are taking a view which is on its face internally consistent. At least this corrupt view takes natural male sex drive into account. But TBMs, if you want to claim that men have to lick their wives feet and make themselves subservient to their wives just to get sex in the "correlation-committee-approved" fashion, and that husbands have no right to otherwise take care of their own sexual needs, then at least don't pretend to hold that men and women have equal dignity before God, or that the Church has an egalitarian view of the sexes!

I believe that true principles of gender egalitarianism, if preached with more vigor, would do more to improve and increase the number of stable committed relationships in our society, and would improve the mutual happiness and satisfaction of both husbands and wives.

Sorry for the rant, everyone. My greatest desire is not to complain, but rather for the Church to wake up and realize how inconsistent its doctrines on so-called chastity are with the human nature God gave us. Viewing church history through the objective lens of empirical human nature ought to make it plain to see how powerful the male sex drive is. Instead of coming to grips with this fact, all kinds of excuses and apologetic arguments have been invented to reconcile empirical facts with puritannical doctrines on sexuality. Spiritually coerced polygyny, for example, instead of being taken as proof that even the most spiritual of men like Joseph Smith could be influenced by their sex drives, instead gets used as evidence for Joseph's devotion to God by having plural wives even though he loved Emma so much, because "God commanded it." If Joseph were alive today, there is little doubt in my mind that he would be excommunicated from the LDS Church and branded an apostate. Point of clarification: I still have faith that he was a prophet, but believe that he erred in many respects and was just as human as the rest of us. Many apologists (and even TBMs) even have a similar view. But what bothers me is that many of these same people continue to insist that Thomas S. Monson's official teachings are automatically immune from criticism or legitimate disagreement because he is a prophet. If we take the reasonable step of admitting that Joseph erred in his teachings and revelations, then I do not see any reason why we must assume that Thomas S. Monson's teachings are error-free.

William James

Link to comment

Whether It's a Peacock Or a Porsche, Men Like to Show Off, Study Finds

They looked into the age-old question of whether a man with a Porsche is more attractive to women than a man with – say – a Honda Civic (in much the same way that a peacock with an extraordinary tail might be more likely to hook up with a peahen).

The clear and unequivocal answer was -- yes.

But as with all things, the devil is in the details. The researchers discovered that the Porsche owner was more inclined to pursue short-term, non-committal sexual relationships. The Honda Civic owner was the “marrying kind.”

The study’s co-author, Jill Sundie of UT San Antonio said, “While women who did find a man who drove a Porsche more attractive as a date, she did not find him more desirable as a marriage partner for a long-term committed relationship.”

....

One last issue here – what about the women who drive Porsches? Are they -- like men -- displaying their peacock feathers in search of a mate? Sorry guys – apparently not. “We don’t find that women spend money that way to attract men,”says Sundie. “So clearly when we do find that when women spend money on expensive items as they tend to do, it must be for some reason other than attracting the opposite sex.” You see, gentlemen….we’re just not that important to women. They won’t buy a flashy car just to sleep with us.

But men -- according to the researchers – like the peacock, certainly will. Here’s how the researchers wrap it up.

“Just as peacocks have evolved to flaunt their wasteful tails before potential mates, men might similarly woo with wasteful expenditures to charm potential mates.”

Link to comment
“When women collude to restrict men’s sexual access to women, all women tend to benefit”
Interesting. So where would our YSA women arrive at such a restriction? Given that many of them entered such a restriction at their baptism, and subsequently agreed to it over the course of their adolescence, what organization would then uphold such a decision and encourage continued sanctification of the gate in question?

Would it be Relief Society? And if so, shouldn't that auxiliary also teem with the experienced every week? I.e., those that have already passed the threshold of marriage and who successfully display the blessings of such an economy regarding sex?

The article doesn't address or seems oblivious to the fact that there does indeed exist a much smaller sub market where women do collude as you have stated (the Church). Yet this market does not meet everyone's needs and proposals/suggestions to do so tend to remove agency or assumes that people can or should find value where there is none. On top of that, the people buying and selling in the Church market are also exposed to the overall market where prices are cheaper but so is the value.

Link to comment

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/articles/2010/12/29/delaying-sex-might-strengthen-marriage

WEDNESDAY, Dec. 29 (HealthDay News) -- Having sex early in a relationship may lead to less satisfying marriages because couples can fail to develop important skills to communicate well and resolve conflicts, new research suggests.

The study, done at Brigham Young University in Utah, found that married couples who had delayed sex while they were dating were more likely to communicate, enjoy sex and see their marriage as stable than those who had sex early on. They also were generally more satisfied with their marriages.

Why would rushing into intimacy impede marital happiness? According to study co-author Dean M. Busby, people who quickly become intimate may end up marrying even if they're incompatible because they become "entangled" in a relationship that becomes difficult to end.

Link to comment

It is a fascinating topic to consider chastity in the context of sexual economics. In general, with some exceptions, we can reasonably assume that a healthy young man will almost always be up for sex if it is offered to him by a reasonably attractive woman (this does not mean that his level of enjoyment is always the same, or that he would pursue it if he perceives that the female is not interested). Women, by contrast, seem to have far less of a biological need for sex, on average. Because non-consensual sexual encounters are forbidden (and rightly so), this naturally puts women in a position of power over men- if they choose to exploit it, but only to the extent that there are obstacles to a man's comparable alternative outlets (such as masturbation, affairs, etc.). Some people assume that it is a good thing for men in a marriage to be at the complete mercy of their wives for the satisfaction of men's biological needs, because such an arrangement would theoretically force men to be so courting and fantastic to their wives in order to induce/seduce the wives into giving the husbands sex. As a committed gender egalitarian, I believe that such a notion is degrading to human dignity and to men. Just as I believe that wives are not to be treated as objects only good for sex and housework, I likewise believe that men should not be dehumanized to beg for sex. As for my own part, sex which is not freely given, or which arises from duty, compulsion, or guilt, is somewhat sad and pathetic. I would like to live in a world where both husbands and wives treat one another with respect and dignity, and where they let their mutual love and attraction for one another be their natural motivation for sex. Perhaps it is inevitable that there will be times where one spouse is not especially in the mood, and gives in to satisfy the other in the spirit of loving accommodation, and I suppose it is better to have some compromises than to demand the absolutely spontaneous "fireworks" sex every time. But to the extent that there are naturally occurring circumstances which justify one or both spouses in not engaging in sex with each other (examples could include illness, travel, children, particularly busy schedules, professional stress, biologically-based lack of desire, etc.), there must be an available solution to avoid the misery of longing and unsatisfied physiological and psychological urges for sex (people who have experienced this, particularly males, ought to understand the magnitude of frustration I am talking about). This is one reason why I believe masturbation and some forms of sexually-oriented media are perfectly morally justified. In general, so long as they do not result in the rejection of a spouse's sexual advances, or a refusal to make reasonable efforts to satisfy one's spouse sexually, they are an acceptable outlet which can accomplish several worthy goals, among which are: (1) reducing sexual frustration; (2) reducing resentment and anger towards a sexually unavailable/uninterested spouse; (3) leveling the playing field in the dynamic of sexual economics, so that sex is much less likely to be used as a tool of manipulation towards the more physiologically desperate spouse; (4) reducing the likelihood that physiological compulsion will influence a premature or irrational decision to get married in the first place to someone who is a poor marriage choice; (5) reduce the guilt felt by a spouse who is justifiedly not in the mood to satisfy the other spouse's sexual needs; (6) reduce the likelihood that one spouse will succumb to the temptation to have an affair; (7) reduce the likelihood that a husband will, out of frustration, force sex upon his wife either via physical constraint or psychological manipulation (i.e., guilt trips, etc.). Oddly, there exists a prevailing puritannical view in the LDS Church today that masturbation and all sexually-oriented media must be condemned, as they inherently destroy marital intimacy; the aformentioned marital benefits of these practices are completely ignored, overshadowed instead by the underlying unspoken and even subconscious assumption that sexual pleasure is automatically "suspect" because it is deemed to be "of the flesh" rather than spiritual, and that the only way to get over the guilt is by reminding ourselves that God commands sex within a marriage. This phenomenon has also been termed, "erotophobia," or fear of sex. As for the claim that masturbation and all sexually-oriented media inherently destroy marital intimacy, this does not seem to necessarily be true. The fact, that millions of men (and probably hundreds of thousands of LDS men) seem to have relatively happy marriages though they continue to conceal their masturbation and use of sexually-oriented media from their wives, suggests that the bigger culprit is NOT the masturbation and sexually-oriented media, but rather puritannically-backed anger felt by wives upon discovery, because they have been conditioned to imagine that their husbands are sinful or of low moral character or do not love them if they engage in these practices.

True gender egalitarianism demands that we cannot have it both ways. We cannot, on the one hand, tell men that egalitarianism demands that they refrain from any compulsion towards their wives to get sex, and on the other hand, forbid men from taking care of their own needs when those needs are not met by their wives. Of course, some people will resolve the problem by throwing out egalitarianism and rolling time back to the good old 1950s, where men could force sex on their wives whether they wanted it or not, and society did not frown upon the practice. Puritans, if that is your position, I think you are horribly wrong, but at least you are taking a view which is on its face internally consistent. At least this corrupt view takes natural male sex drive into account. But TBMs, if you want to claim that men have to lick their wives feet and make themselves subservient to their wives just to get sex in the "correlation-committee-approved" fashion, and that husbands have no right to otherwise take care of their own sexual needs, then at least don't pretend to hold that men and women have equal dignity before God, or that the Church has an egalitarian view of the sexes!

I believe that true principles of gender egalitarianism, if preached with more vigor, would do more to improve and increase the number of stable committed relationships in our society, and would improve the mutual happiness and satisfaction of both husbands and wives.

Sorry for the rant, everyone. My greatest desire is not to complain, but rather for the Church to wake up and realize how inconsistent its doctrines on so-called chastity are with the human nature God gave us. Viewing church history through the objective lens of empirical human nature ought to make it plain to see how powerful the male sex drive is. Instead of coming to grips with this fact, all kinds of excuses and apologetic arguments have been invented to reconcile empirical facts with puritannical doctrines on sexuality. Spiritually coerced polygyny, for example, instead of being taken as proof that even the most spiritual of men like Joseph Smith could be influenced by their sex drives, instead gets used as evidence for Joseph's devotion to God by having plural wives even though he loved Emma so much, because "God commanded it." If Joseph were alive today, there is little doubt in my mind that he would be excommunicated from the LDS Church and branded an apostate. Point of clarification: I still have faith that he was a prophet, but believe that he erred in many respects and was just as human as the rest of us. Many apologists (and even TBMs) even have a similar view. But what bothers me is that many of these same people continue to insist that Thomas S. Monson's official teachings are automatically immune from criticism or legitimate disagreement because he is a prophet. If we take the reasonable step of admitting that Joseph erred in his teachings and revelations, then I do not see any reason why we must assume that Thomas S. Monson's teachings are error-free.

William James

this post reminds me about this blog post about this young LDS lady feeling guilty for feeling sexually attracted to her fiancee

http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/?p=5237

Link to comment

After listening to Dr Laura for a few years, she made similar points that women hold all the cards. Most of the time when men were cheating (not that this is justification for men) that women were holding out on their men for one reason or another. And if they could not get it from their wife most men will go some were else. "Proper care and feeding of husbands", I believe talks more about this stuff.

I have heard one persons interpretation of that book to be "Have more sex with your husband to get what you want"

Link to comment

One of my best friends said it was a huge mistake living with her husband before they got married. It took him many years to commit because he had the best of both worlds - a woman to sleep with and zero responsibility. He didn't have to act like a husband. He basically lived like a bachelor for quite some time.

Link to comment

This entire thread disappoints me. The "Market analogy" comes close to assuming that men are just mindless organs that wander through the store looking for "freebies". And the LDS people here are kind of "buying" into it. Women will never be completely happy until men value them on a level that is equal to their potential. Men will never value women that way until their fathers teach their sons that they aren't dating an unattached, isolated individual.

In reality they are dating someone's highly cherished: daughter, sister, future wife (if not your own), future mother, future grandmother.........

Every time a guy goes out on a date he should first think, "If this isn't my wife, then that means that mine is somewhere still out there. How would I like the guy who's dating her to treat her??????"

Then he should look at the girl he's dating that evening, and treat her the same way....

Women do not control the value alone.

Link to comment
This entire thread disappoints me. The "Market analogy" comes close to assuming that men are just mindless organs that wander through the store looking for "freebies".

The study of economics is a subset of Praxeology.

Economics is the study of monetary values. Praxeology is the study of all "values and trade offs". I'd say you're at least partially right: the "Economy of Sex" is a bad title that BCSpace was more-or-less stuck with (since that was the title of the article cited). (On the other hand, no one knows what Praxeology is, so using it would have raised a different problem.) Further, Praxeology is not a well-developed since it's only subset to have been analyzed to any depth is Economics.

But "value" is a fundamental concept in both sciences. Not all value is monetary.

All that said, sex has value. It is the primary means (nowadays) by which the species promulgates itself. God made it enjoyable, so it has other value, as well. Men have few on-going costs of bearing and raising children if a woman foolishly decides to engage in sex without committing her partner to help her do so. He can run off, she cannot. That's why there is marriage, Gloria Steinem's bicycle-hating fish notwithstanding (even though she was not the one to coin the phrase). Were it not for us Saints understanding that God ordained marriage, we could make a very strong case that wise women invented it, and incredibly stupid women abandoned it.

I have lived a fairly long time. In my life, I've seen earrings go from the adornment of sluts, whores, and hookers to necessities of Apostles' wives. I've seen skirts rise from below the knee to barely qualifying as belts. I've seen women lose their wise, natural reluctance to bear children without a husband and move to glorying in it (and expecting the rest of us to pity them for their insanity and stupidity: "I'm a single mom ... . So what are you going to do for me?"). I think there is a connection.

We might blame The Pill and the concomitant lack of any fear of pregnancy (but they's a whole lotta ba$tards out there, nonetheless), but it is, in my view, the unrelenting, diabolical (literally) assault on the family that is to blame. But Satan cannot do the work himself: he has to enlist human beings. I believe he has: in laboratories, on movie sets and television stations, in newspaper offices, and in the halls of power, to identify but a few.

John Adams told his cohort that the Constitution was designed for a religious and moral people—that it was adequate for the governance of no other. We may well have come to the point where the Constitution is inadequate.

Are my granddaughters going to live in a world where everyone has three serial “marriages”? One for recreation (which may not even be formalized), one for procreation (but with only one or two children), and one for consolation? I fear ‘twill be so. I pray they will not succumb to the “culture” (think Petri dish here) that would find this good and establish it as the norm.

Lehi

Link to comment
Oddly, there exists a prevailing puritannical view in the LDS Church today that masturbation and all sexually-oriented media must be condemned, as they inherently destroy marital intimacy;...

As for the claim that masturbation and all sexually-oriented media inherently destroy marital intimacy, this does not seem to necessarily be true.

Instead of coming to grips with this fact, all kinds of excuses and apologetic arguments have been invented to reconcile empirical facts.

Masturbation and pornography (let's call it what it is) are condemned by the Lord because, in my view, they are inherently damaging to us spiritually. Consequences then follow. There are not only temporal consequences, but also spiritual consequences to those who engage in them.

You constructed the strawman of the "claim" that the Church condemns those practices because they destroy marital intimacy, and then you proceed to try to tear it down. No challenge there.

Do you know what the term "empirical facts" means?

Link to comment
A good way to reason about "free milk and a cow"?

There's a reason that the most ardent supporters of abortion of men between the ages of 18 and 35.

Not only free sex, but even if The Pill fails (and it does all too frequently—or not frequently enough), there's still almost no cost to that free sex.

Lehi

Link to comment

The study of economics is a subset of Praxeology.

Economics is the study of monetary values. Praxeology is the study of all "values and trade offs". I'd say you're at least partially right: the "Economy of Sex" is a bad title that BCSpace was more-or-less stuck with (since that was the title of the article cited). (On the other hand, no one knows what Praxeology is, so using it would have raised a different problem.) Further, Praxeology is not a well-developed since it's only subset to have been analyzed to any depth is Economics.

But "value" is a fundamental concept in both sciences. Not all value is monetary.

All that said, sex has value. It is the primary means (nowadays) by which the species promulgates itself. God made it enjoyable, so it has other value, as well. Men have few on-going costs of bearing and raising children if a woman foolishly decides to engage in sex without committing her partner to help her do so. He can run off, she cannot. That's why there is marriage, Gloria Steinem's bicycle-hating fish notwithstanding (even though she was not the one to coin the phrase). Were it not for us Saints understanding that God ordained marriage, we could make a very strong case that wise women invented it, and incredibly stupid women abandoned it.

I have lived a fairly long time. In my life, I've seen earrings go from the adornment of sluts, whores, and hookers to necessities of Apostles' wives. I've seen skirts rise from below the knee to barely qualifying as belts. I've seen women lose their wise, natural reluctance to bear children without a husband and move to glorying in it (and expecting the rest of us to pity them for their insanity and stupidity: "I'm a single mom ... . So what are you going to do for me?"). I think there is a connection.

We might blame The Pill and the concomitant lack of any fear of pregnancy (but they's a whole lotta ba$tards out there, nonetheless), but it is, in my view, the unrelenting, diabolical (literally) assault on the family that is to blame. But Satan cannot do the work himself: he has to enlist human beings. I believe he has: in laboratories, on movie sets and television stations, in newspaper offices, and in the halls of power, to identify but a few.

John Adams told his cohort that the Constitution was designed for a religious and moral people—that it was adequate for the governance of no other. We may well have come to the point where the Constitution is inadequate.

Are my granddaughters going to live in a world where everyone has three serial “marriages”? One for recreation (which may not even be formalized), one for procreation (but with only one or two children), and one for consolation? I fear ‘twill be so. I pray they will not succumb to the “culture” (think Petri dish here) that would find this good and establish it as the norm.

Lehi

Of course sex has value if you want to look at it and study it that way and on that level. I don't disagree. But what I'm saying is that you don't solve the problem that way. As Einstein said: "You don't solve the problem on the same level it was created." The true value isn't in the sex, it is in the individual. For want of a better analogy, it's like saying, "Dang that tire that's gone flat on my Lamborghini costs $4000 to repair. I wonder if I should stop off-roading with it.........?"

To attempt to compartmentalize the value of sex away from the value of the individual is where the first mistake is made.

Link to comment
To attempt to compartmentalize the value of sex away from the value of the individual is where the first mistake is made.

Which is exactly the opposite of what a praxeologist (were there any) would do.

Praxeology is the study of human action in the context of humanity. Every human action involves choice, and that requires some level of balancing values. No one is static, and faced with identical alternative, a person may make different choices on one day than on another because he is not the same person on those two days.

Praxeology "ranks" values; it does not "measure" them. Sex, for instance, is not "7", and food, "9". At any given moment, sex may rank higher than food, and at another moment, lower. It depends on many things, not least of which may be when one ate last. However, at any one time, sex will always rank above or below food because there cannot be two values of equal rank for any one person.

Lehi

Link to comment

Which is exactly the opposite of what a praxeologist (were there any) would do.

Praxeology is the study of human action in the context of humanity. Every human action involves choice, and that requires some level of balancing values. No one is static, and faced with identical alternative, a person may make different choices on one day than on another because he is not the same person on those two days.

Praxeology "ranks" values; it does not "measure" them. Sex, for instance, is not "7", and food, "9". At any given moment, sex may rank higher than food, and at another moment, lower. It depends on many things, not least of which may be when one ate last. However, at any one time, sex will always rank above or below food because there cannot be two values of equal rank for any one person.

Lehi

Starting to sound a little like situational ethics here....? What's your point?

Link to comment

Starting to sound a little like situational ethics here....? What's your point?

It is not at all "like situatonal ethics". Sex is not about ethics. Sex is about pleasure and procreation. Illicit sex is about ethics.

My point (about Praxeology) is that we all make choices based on our values (at the time) and the trade offs we make to satisfy our needs and wants. When we interact with another person, each contemplating a trade with the other, each must decide how much he values what he has in comparison with how much he values what the other person is offering.

Since Economics is far more developed a science than Praxeology, per se, we often resort to monetary (Economic) comparisons. They're easier because we can put numbers to the values. If some offers oranges at 88¢/lb, the potential buyer decides whether the oranges are worth less than or more than anything else he could spend 88¢ on right now. Tomorrow, he may value the oranges more highly or less so, but today he places a particular rank on the oranges and will decide to buy or not to depending on that ranking.

It's the same with sex or food (off the economic stage). If the choice is between having sexual relations or eating breakfast, the person making the decision must rank food and sex, compare them and then will choose the one he ranks higher at the time. Tomorrow, he may be less hungry or more and the choice may be different.

So, from the vantage point of Praxeology, when women collude to make sex less available (thus raising the price, in this case by making it contingent on the man's committment to her and the child they may conceive), they have effectively reduced the man's options. If they give it away, then the men, willing to pay no more than they must, will take advantage of the situation and get it at the lowest price available: free.

I disagree with the premise in th OP to the extent that men, were we to value chastity, would raise the price of non-/extra-marital sex for women, and thus we have at least some control. That's not likely to happen, though.

Lehi

Link to comment

This is one reason why I believe masturbation and some forms of sexually-oriented media are perfectly morally justified.

Dear William... I would have to disagree with you on this one.

Has it ever occurred to you, what... this... impulse actually is, in a sense? It is an addiction of sorts... an inclination, a calling of your carnal self for desire.

This is what will precisely lead to the devaluation of the act. And because this drive acts as an addiction, fulfilling the addictive lust will only lead to more lust. That is not good. Rarely is lust a good thing... and I prefer to say never. I will not be absolute though.=/

In general, so long as they do not result in the rejection of a spouse's sexual advances, or a refusal to make reasonable efforts to satisfy one's spouse sexually, they are an acceptable outlet which can accomplish several worthy goals, among which are: (1) reducing sexual frustration; (2) reducing resentment and anger towards a sexually unavailable/uninterested spouse; (3) leveling the playing field in the dynamic of sexual economics, so that sex is much less likely to be used as a tool of manipulation towards the more physiologically desperate spouse; (4) reducing the likelihood that physiological compulsion will influence a premature or irrational decision to get married in the first place to someone who is a poor marriage choice; (5) reduce the guilt felt by a spouse who is justifiedly not in the mood to satisfy the other spouse's sexual needs; (6) reduce the likelihood that one spouse will succumb to the temptation to have an affair; (7) reduce the likelihood that a husband will, out of frustration, force sex upon his wife either via physical constraint or psychological manipulation (i.e., guilt trips, etc.).

First, as I said above, the reducing of the 'frustration' will only lead to more in the future - just as a drug does. The more you take it, the more you will want it later. That is the danger of unrestricted relationships. They are addicting, and 'relieving' them will not help.

Second of all, about getting married... you shouldn't be getting married to 'have sex'. You should be getting married to have children. The difference, my friend, is the attitude, and the purpose of the act. If one thinks of getting married to love one's spouse and have children, one will look upon it with respect, knowing that the desired result is children, not pleasure. If one looks upon it the other way, it will just increase your desire. I'm not saying it's perfect for everyone - but really, I have always found it more... good... to look upon it as the children that matter... God's gifts to you. You won't have manipulation-problems if you are getting married to have children

Thirdly, if you are feeling compelled in that way at all... again... this is just simple advice... but you shouldn't be trying to get married yet. You should wait until you can conquer and control those thoughts and feelings. It's the same thing people who deal with attractions to the same gender... it is not always a good thing to 'get married'... again, this is only my opinion.

Fouthly, you serve your spouse... why would you not be in the mood? We are supposed to be dedicated to our spouses... obcessed with them maybe 0.o XD. But you should also have a spouse who is equally interested in your well being. And spouses who are like that won't ask you for those things very often... because they don't matter ultimately considering how much they care about you. =)

Fifthly, the occasion to force can be stopped if one has good control over one's feelings. Again, that mental control.... which has it's own problems... but yeah, that's just my opinion.

Oddly, there exists a prevailing puritannical view in the LDS Church today that masturbation and all sexually-oriented media must be condemned, as they inherently destroy marital intimacy

That's because they do. The brethren are right... I would suggest you listen to their counsel, as it will be better than most anything I say =).

the aformentioned marital benefits of these practices are completely ignored, overshadowed instead by the underlying unspoken and even subconscious assumption that sexual pleasure is automatically "suspect" because it is deemed to be "of the flesh" rather than spiritual

My friend, I don't think you want to know how right the Brethren are in that aspect.

and that the only way to get over the guilt is by reminding ourselves that God commands sex within a marriage

That helps very much indeed. Also thinking about the temple... and about the relationships God would wish to establish within those peaceful walls of stone. Nah, the Brethren are very right. God looks to us to be studious and pure and perfect in our mairrage duties... he delights in the chastity of women, I think he does, that I do.

This phenomenon has also been termed, "erotophobia," or fear of sex.

I am glad I am erotophobic then.

As for the claim that masturbation and all sexually-oriented media inherently destroy marital intimacy, this does not seem to necessarily be true.

I must CFR, this statement =|

The fact, that millions of men (and probably hundreds of thousands of LDS men) seem to have relatively happy marriages though they continue to conceal their masturbation and use of sexually-oriented media from their wives

No, this does not suggest that, actually. It is really hard to see what the effects are unless you are talking between them personally... I would not believe your conclusion to be correct, sorry =/.

Suggests that the bigger culprit is NOT the masturbation and sexually-oriented media, but rather puritannically-backed anger felt by wives upon discovery, because they have been conditioned to imagine that their husbands are sinful or of low moral character or do not love them if they engage in these practices.

My friend, we are all supposed to forgive each other. Even those who have those habits can be forgiven. But just because it can be forgiven doesn't mean it's not a sin. And just because they sin does not mean they do not love them. No, it simply means they are stuck in one type of several bad habits. Very bad habits. They should fix them, but just because they are making mistakes doesn't mean they don't love their wife.

True gender egalitarianism demands that we cannot have it both ways. We cannot, on the one hand, tell men that egalitarianism demands that they refrain from any compulsion towards their wives to get sex, and on the other hand, forbid men from taking care of their own needs when those needs are not met by their wives.

My friend, yes we can. It is the purpose of life to overcome. It is the purpose... to become like God. For men to 'putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint'. No, it is highly unlikely you will get over your desires in this lifetime. But you know what, we can all deal with it... we can all control it... all.

Of course, some people will resolve the problem by throwing out egalitarianism and rolling time back to the good old 1950s, where men could force sex on their wives whether they wanted it or not, and society did not frown upon the practice. Puritans, if that is your position, I think you are horribly wrong, but at least you are taking a view which is on its face internally consistent. At least this corrupt view takes natural male sex drive into account. But TBMs, if you want to claim that men have to lick their wives feet and make themselves subservient to their wives just to get sex in the "correlation-committee-approved" fashion, and that husbands have no right to otherwise take care of their own sexual needs, then at least don't pretend to hold that men and women have equal dignity before God, or that the Church has an egalitarian view of the sexes!

My friend... I do think men should be down on their knees for everything for their wife... and so should their wife be serviceable. I want to serve my wife with all my heart and mind and strength just as I serve God with all my heart and mind and strength (or at least I try =0). But why are you trying to 'get sex', when that isn't what mairrage is about? =|

I believe that true principles of gender egalitarianism, if preached with more vigor, would do more to improve and increase the number of stable committed relationships in our society, and would improve the mutual happiness and satisfaction of both husbands and wives.

Why are you worried about satisfaction... it reminds me of that one song that goes 'touch me... so I can get my... satisfaction...' in a robot voice... why get married for those reasons? You should get married because you love each other, not because you want to have sex with each other =D.

//continued in next post//

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...