Sex: Supply and Demand

I love Economics, I've taken at least 3 Economics courses in my time (and also plenty of classes that touch on economics, such as finance and international trade). You can't begin to appreciate the dynamics of large societies unless you take a class in microeconomics and a class in macroeconomics- just my opinion.

Women treat sex like a tradable commodity. Like every other commodity, sex is subject to the sacred underpinnings of economic law: Supply and Demand. You ever notice that when a woman has sex a little more freely than other women approve of, she's called 'cheap'? There's a reason for that.

It's a classic cartel situation, like OPEC. Women pretty much control the supply of sex: they ration it out and create an artificial shortage. Yet, demand is hot. That is why they can get us pay to through the nose for it.

Women don't always consciously realize that this is what they're doing. There's no big conspiracy, this is just how women naturally seem to behave. They are embedded within a larger process, so individual woman have internalized the process' imperatives and live their lives entirely unaware of the process' imperatives. Please excuse me if I sound conspiratorial, but I'm trying not to. Frankly, I think it’s more disturbing that there is no cabal of conspirators who are behind it all. This system is on auto-pilot, with its unwitting female cadres just going about their business. Women are billions of different individuals, most of whom hold similar attitudes towards their sexuality and how to use it to their advantage. Most of them withhold sex while appearing to offer it, if the man meets her conditions. As a result, the aggregate efforts of all these individual women acting in their own self-interests to optimize conditions for themselves have dovetailed together into what merely seems like a conscious implementation of a massive cartel.

Frankly, I think it's a bit more disturbing that nobody is in charge of the whole cartel.

Ironically, a woman who has sex with too many men is a 'whore'... yet a woman who only puts-out in return for an extravagant evening of wining, dining and gifties somehow isn't a whore. Blink Wha? Maybe 'romantic courtship' is a less blatant way of expressing 'hooking'? I challenge you to say the following to any woman: 'it's not manly to pay for everything.' She will look at you like you're nuts.

The cartel is how women managed to bargain some measure of control over just about everything. That's just one of the myriad ways in which women counteract male power (or rather, male power might've originally developed to counteract women's sexual leverage over us? It's a chicken-egg paradox, to be sure.) That's just one way we're cowed into submission. Women think that they have to control sex because men control everything else... well, it makes as much sense to say that men have to control everything else because women control sex.

In order to fully appreciate the cartel, go get a thick book on economics. There's usually at least a chapter devoted to the subject.

The Weakness of A Cartel

Women have practically commoditized sex. That's why prostitution is called 'the world's oldest profession'. There's a shortage of sex, therefore, the price is high. So what hope is there for the buyer?

There are only two things that weaken a cartel: 1. an across-the-board boycott of the commodity or 2. dividing the cartel against itself by mucking-up its own internal enforcement mechanisms.

Point 1. I think men's only direct way to strike-back is to deny women the chance to have sex with them. Unfortunately, this will never happen, because, in any cartel situation, the seller has little problem if only one buyer refuses to buy. If more men refused to have sex, then this would weaken the cartel. But, men being men, this won't happen anytime soon. We're hooked on the stuff. On this point, women pretty-much have us by the short-hairs.

Point 2. In a cartel situation there is an internal flaw: every member of the cartel has an incentive to cheat the restrictions that they've placed on themselves. To combat this tendency, one or more members of the cartel has to act as a rule-enforcer.

A successful cartel will have a built-in method to assure the perpetuation of itself.

In OPEC: say Indonesia overproduces its quota by 100,000 barrels a month. The price of oil goes down as more of the stuff floods onto the market. Then Saudi Arabia acts as the enforcer. Saudi Arabia, which has the lowest production costs of all OPEC nations and plenty of spare production capacity, opens-up the taps and floods the world with ultra-cheap oil. The world price goes down to a point which punishes EVERY country in the cartel (except Saudi Arabia) and the offending members get pressured-into stepping-back in line. That way, every member of the cartel uses diplomatic pressure to make sure that the quotas are maintained.

Now, this sort of thing doesn't happen among women in the same way, but there IS enforcement of a kind. Specifically, social ridicule is the enforcement mechanism. If a woman gives-away sex to too many times, women spread rumors about her and she gets a bad rep. If she goes outside the limits of the cartel, the cartel will hammer her. That deterrence is the female method of making sure the supply stays tight. If every woman gave-away sex more easily, the price would fall. That's why any woman who gives-away sex at too big a discount is 'cheap'. 'Sluts' are shunned and hated because they drag the price-down. Now, women don't consciously realize they're enforcing cartel rules, they think they're just being social by trashing their 'slutty' acquaintances. They're just following the crowd.

What can you do? If you ever hear a woman unfairly being called a 'cheap slut' behind her back, defend her! Prevent her reputation from being smeared. Name-smearing is just their way of enforcing the rules of the cartel.

In Defense of Sluts.

Okay, so I'm defending sluts. How can I possibly defend sluts? Well... I defend them so long as they have sex safely, responsibly and don't use sex as a weapon. I recall reading an article in Scientific American about the mating habits of certain female insects...

The article suggested that 'sluts' serve a purpose in the natural world. They are a species' defense against extinction.

What do you mean, ass-face?

I mean that women who have sex more readily are a way for a species to trim the chances of dying-out. An insurance policy. A method of hedging the risks, if you will.

There was an observation of a certain type of insect on a little island off the coast of Hawaii. Due to the accidental importation of new predators, the species started to get hunted more easily and began to die-out.

The researchers found that a minority of female insects were more likely to have sex with more male partners than were the majority of females. In short, a few insects were 'slutty'. The majority of female insects, however, would only mate with the most studly males. However, males were getting eaten-up by predators at an accelerated rate... so, fewer male studs. The women who held-out for studs had fewer mating possibilities, and fewer kids. The sluts, on the other hands, had more mating opportunities and had many kids. The species survived- thanks to the heroic copulation efforts of the sluts.

Perverse, aint it?

The Perspective from Corporate Governance and Organizational Psychology

I think it might be relevant to stick-in a few business-related topics at this point. I took a few classes in grad school on the inner-workings of large corporations. Among my professors were Dr. Froman (Corporate Governance) and Dr. Sullivan (Organizational Psychology). Well, maybe it's not entirely relevant, but it's interesting nonetheless...

Dr. Froman

Dr. Froman reminded me of a lawn gnome in a tweed jacket. He was one of those professors who'd been everywhere and done everything. If you ever asked him a tough question, he'd typically give you an incredibly well-formed answer and three references for further reading.

One class, we were reading articles about discrimination lawsuits and we were talking about the so-called 'glass ceiling'. He began to start on a story.

"I was once a member of the board of directors for First Regional Bank." (Not the bank's real name.) "One of the board members was going to retire and we were looking for a replacement. Now, this was a stodgy, conservative old bank. The board of directors was all male. We were looking over the qualifications of potential new board members and, unanimously, we agreed on who the next member should be. The individual was an executive director of one of the loan departments. The person had been with the company for twenty years, they were well-educated, hard-working and professional. She also happened to be a woman. We all decided that she would be a great board member. Honestly, we were looking at experience and gender had nothing to do with our decision-making." In short, this woman was about to be welcomed into the bank's highest level of decision-making.

He slipped-off his look-over glasses and laid them onto his podium.

"So, we invited her into the boardroom to offer her the position. We informed her that there was a space open on the board, we'd reviewed her qualifications, and we felt she was the best person for the job. Naturally, we had to ask the shareholders to vote on whether or not she'd be on the board, but would she like to accept the nomination to be our new board member?"

Dr. Froman leaned-forward on the podium, as if to get closer to the students. "I'll never forget her response. She said: 'So, I'm going to be your token woman on the board?'" He paused to let the words sink-in. "We were stunned. Stunned! We all just sat there, dumbfounded. We all had a great impression of this woman, until she opened her mouth." Froman shook his head and stood-up straight.

"Ladies: let me give you some advice for your future career development. If you are ever, ever in a position like that. You can think it, but..." He threw his arms-up in the air and shook them in exasperation. "How does it possibly help you to say it?! What good does it do to say it? What advantage does it give you? None! It's unprofessional!"

One of the female students, (like me) was obviously dumbfounded by the story, raised her hand. "What happened after that?"

"Oh, she still accepted the job." Dr. Froman replied. "And she left the firm two years later. Odd, isn't it? One hopes for a little more loyalty from a board member."

Dr. Sullivan

Dr. Sullivan taught Organizational Psychology. I didn't care for her, particularly. Don't get me wrong, if she was a man, I wouldn't care for him, either. (I didn't care for her because she gave Mi-Jun better grades than me... even though I wrote Mi-Jun's papers for her!) She was a psychologist, and we covered the dynamics of how groups work together within businesses. One day, we had to read articles on 'In-Group, Out-Group' thinking.

There were also some articles about the glass-ceiling for women. The idea behind the In-Group, Out-Group mentality is such: when people identify themselves as belonging to a group (whether it be racial, ethnic, gender or whatever), often they'll feel the need to exclude those from outside their group. Mainly, the articles were about how women made-up a small percentage of CEO's and executives.

At one point in the class, Dr. Sullivan felt the need to defend herself.

"By now, some people will think that I'm against males. This is because some of the examples we've read about deal with men excluding women. The fact of the matter is, the upper-ranks of most companies are mostly men. However, it is notable to say that there are a few companies that are dominated by women. Avon, for instance. Men who work at Avon have reported that they've felt passed-over for promotions by their female bosses. Women executives in Avon sometimes gather for girls-nights out or weekend trips to day-spas. At these meetings, they might discuss business and naturally, men probably wouldn't be present at these extra-curricular activities and would probably feel excluded. My point is, it's not just men who do this. Women do it, too."

She acted like this point was some sort of revelation. I thought this knowledge was bleeding obvious as far back as first grade.

The Invisible Hand

Lying Whorebag was constantly riding my ass for me to fork-over more money... and her justification for this was because I had more, therefore, I deserved to give more. Naturally, she obscured and denied the obvious fact that she was totally lackadaisical and ambivalent about finding a job of her own. Here's a fact: Lying Whorebag lived with me for 9 months. In those 9 months, she did not pay for one living expense or hold a job for more than one week. Not one bill, in whole or in part was ever contributed-to by her. One on occasion, I confronted her over this, claming our financial arrangement was 'unfair'... her reaction was to grab the biggest carving knife I have, run crying into the living room and threaten to slash her wrists if I came any closer.

"ALL YOU CARE ABOUT IS MONEY! YOU'RE SO CHEAP!! YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT MEEEE!!!" She shrieked.

Shit.

Naturally, I dropped the topic of money for a long time and was reluctant to ever bring it up again... This experience of having her never contribute a cent to our relationship was one of the major reasons she poisoned my love for her: she made me feel constantly shafted, and it's hard to love a person whom you think is shafting you. Naturally, she always accused me of being cheap. In her mind, if I felt shafted, then I somehow didn't love her very much. In her mind, having me pay for everything shouldn't matter if I really loved her. (Here, I become the bad guy. I don't love her enough because I actually say something about the fact that I'm financially supporting her! I should just keep my mouth happily shut and my wallet happily open, I suppose.)

And I didn't feel shafted because I'm 'cheap'. In fact, I was the most generous man she'd ever been with in her life (something her friends and family were always telling me). How is it possible that I'm cheap when I'm the one who pays for everything?

I felt shafted by her because it was my job to come-up with the treasure under penalty of emotional pressure, shame, affection-deprivation and suicide threats, and it was her job to decide how the treasure would be spent (usually on her). I think that sort of arrangement is called 'exploitation' in simpler terms.

On one occasion, she even authorized me to spend my own money on buying a computer game for myself: "Consider it a present from me", she said(!) Even worse: I really felt grateful for it(!)

Furthermore, if I ever refused to buy her something, no matter how small, her response was always the same: "Fine! No sex, then!" (Well now, doesn't this clearly point-out the division-of-labor in our relationship??) She would withhold sex. She would whine, cry, nag, drop hints. In short, nothing would get her to shut-up until I bought her the useless garbage she'd been pestering me to buy her.

Women constantly complain that men make more money than women. This is the #1 issue on the Feminist agenda: equal pay for equal work (regardless of the fact that women already have more options in the workplace than men do, take more sick-days and take less hazardous jobs). By the way... there are plenty of studies which indicate that the wage gap between men and women isn't nearly as large as feminists claim it is.

About the pay disparity, The Independent Women's Forum has an interesting article on this specific point: the male-female pay-gap does not exist. In case you don't want to read the article, I'll boil it down: the male-female pay disparity is almost negligible when economists do calculations which factor-in different educational and experience levels which are key determinants for pay rates. And when you factor-in things like overtime, job hazards and number of hours worked per week. The gap isn't nearly as large as women claim when you do the math correctly. In addition, there are plenty of other market-based explanations for the remaining pay disparity. The Bureau of Labor Statistics, for instance, has a study showing that women have higher absentee rates than men doing the same job (a 50% higher absentee rate in the 20-24 year age group). What does this mean? A woman can't make the same as a man if she's not at work as often! She also can't achieve the same seniority! The idea that women are unfairly paid is a mathematical myth. It is hooey. It is slop. So stop believing it.

Besides, there's a simple reason men make more money than women do: we have to. We are required to spend it on things that they don't. Things like, well- getting and keeping the affection of the opposite sex, for starters! Men have to spend a significant amount of income on the opposite sex, women don't. Women don't line-up to marry poor men, they look for men who are richer than they are. If he makes less money than her, he's a loser and totally invisible to her as a marriage prospect. Women need to discard the outdated idea that a man should be a source of financial support for her lifestyle. Seriously, the whole 'equal pay for equal work' mantra would mean a helluva lot more if women would stop looking for husbands based on how well he can support her!

Insatiable

Heehee, there's another funny example of Whorebag's insatiable greed: on one occasion, I gave a (singular) $15 present to Whorebag's sister. I did this because I'm nice and I wanted to be on good terms with her family. Months pass as the relationship progresses. I take Whorebag out on her dates, pay for her living expenses, get her presents, take her on trips, buy a $7,000 ring for her, etc. Then, one evening, I'm casually chatting with her sister on the phone- Whorebag suddenly overhears and snarls at me indignantly: "What, are you thinking of giving my sister another damn present or something?!"

The way Whorebag saw it, that single present to her sister meant she missed-out on yet another thing that I could've gotten for her. The memory of that teeny little present from six months before stuck in her brain like a festering sore! See what I mean? Insatiable!

Dating Advice Which I've Given before:

If you go-out with a woman on a first-date, pick-up the check and say: "I'll pick-up the check this time. I want you to know: I believe in equality for women... therefore, I think you should get the check next time."

If she's a fair woman, she'll laugh and agree. But if she acts shocked and she doesn't ever date you again, now you'll know why. This will cull the sexist ones who think you should pay for the privilege of their company. It's traditional for the male to pick-up the check on the first date, but you should make it clear that you're not going to let her exploit you on every date thereafter.

This works quite well, I've found. I wouldn't give advice if I didn't have personal experience using it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Marriage is an agreement between two people and women should have the legal right to say what is or is not enough money." -- Barbara Frank, editor of the German feminist magazine Emma, commenting on a proposed law giving a wife the right to 5% of the husband's income as "pocket-money" and the right for the wife to be shown her husband's bank statement upon request.

Return to NiceGuy's American Women Suck

Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict