why young men have the upper hand in bed even when they're failing in life

[bcbm]

We keep hearing that young men are failing to adapt to contemporary life (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-of-men/8135/). Their financial prospects are impaired—earnings for 25- to 34-year-old men have fallen by 20 percent since 1971. Their college enrollment numbers trail women's: Only 43 percent of American undergraduates today are men. Last year, women made up the majority of the work force for the first time. And yet there is one area in which men are very much in charge: premarital heterosexual relationships.

When attractive women will still bed you, life for young men, even those who are floundering, just isn't so bad. This isn't to say that all men direct the course of their relationships. Plenty don't. But what many young men wish for—access to sex without too many complications or commitments—carries the day. If women were more fully in charge of how their relationships transpired, we'd be seeing, on average, more impressive wooing efforts, longer relationships, fewer premarital sexual partners, shorter cohabitations, and more marrying going on. Instead, according to the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (which collects data well into adulthood), none of these things is occurring. Not one. The terms of contemporary sexual relationships favor men and what they want in relationships, not just despite the fact that what they have to offer has diminished, but in part because of it. And it's all thanks to supply and demand.

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

the "end of men" article linked there is also interesting

[Meridian]

When attractive women will still bed you, life for young men, even those who are floundering, just isn't so bad.

Excuse me while I go and puke.

[Amphictyonis]

Successful men are boring because so much of their lives have been dedicated to material success. 'Hollow men, head pieces filled with straw'. Women who also seek out 'successful' men are also (in my opinion) not exactly seeing life for what it can be. A little unpredictability goes a long way but so does being able to survive on your own. In the end it's all pointless outside of whatever point we choose to give it. Many women are no longer baby making machines so the whole patriarchal 'nest egg' thing isn't as prevalent etc and so on. I'm not even sure why I posted this because I could care less about the article. I should be warned for trolling.

[Manic Impressive]

shit article for instance the way it compares sexual relationships to capitalist economics and the way it enforces gender stereotypes.

In the course of researching our book Premarital Sex in America (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0199743282?ie=UTF8&tag=slatmaga-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0199743282), my co-author and I assessed the effects of campus sex ratios on women's sexual attitudes and behavior. We found that virginity is more common on those campuses where women comprise a smaller share of the student body, suggesting that they have the upper hand. By contrast, on campuses where women outnumber men, they are more negative about campus men, hold more negative views of their relationships, go on fewer dates, are less likely to have a boyfriend, and receive less commitment in exchange for sex.
There is kind of some truth to this part but I draw a different conclusion from my personal experiences. When I was 18 I started working in an industry where almost the only people you meet are your co-workers due to the shift work and funny hours we did. The first place I worked was totally male dominated there were only about 5 women that we were all trying to get with which gave them a certain power in some ways, but then as it was a total boys club it must have been very uncomfortable for some of them and must have felt quite sleazy, so really they had less power and were treated as trophies. I then moved to a different employer in a totally female dominated work place and in my first week I overheard a few women talking about "who was going to be the first to bag the new guy". But the men at that place had a lot less power socially than in the first, so I reckon the more social power women have the more able they are to act freely and assertively.

[kahimikarie]

"If women were more fully in charge of how their relationships transpired, we'd be seeing, on average, more impressive wooing efforts, longer relationships, fewer premarital sexual partners, shorter cohabitations, and more marrying going on."

oh, really?

[Invader Zim]

If women were more fully in charge of how their relationships transpired, we'd be seeing, on average, more impressive wooing efforts, longer relationships, fewer premarital sexual partners, shorter cohabitations, and more marrying going on. Instead, according to the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (which collects data well into adulthood), none of these things is occurring.

Yes, because of course men do not want long term relationships and women don't want short relationships characterised primarily by sex. :rolleyes:

[gorillafuck]

But what many young men wish for—access to sex without too many complications or commitments—carries the day.I don't see why people are getting so mad about statements like this. It's obviously not a set thing but it is very often true, and I don't see why leftists seem to have trouble admitting it.


If women were more fully in charge of how their relationships transpired, we'd be seeing, on average, more impressive wooing efforts, longer relationships, fewer premarital sexual partners, shorter cohabitations, and more marrying going on.This on the other hand is bullshit.

[Summerspeaker]

Wow, what a load of stereotypical drivel. Pop evolutionary psychology plus human commodification equals fail. But it's a solid example of why we need a sexual revolution along with the economic one.

[manic expression]

Easily one of the dumbest articles I've ever read. The sheer stupidity of the proposition is enough to gag a team of oxen.

By the way, women are proportionally increasing in the workforce because they're cheaper (aka they get paid less because of society-wide sexism), not because they're intrinsically smarter. This is why no one with three brain cells to rub together takes bourgeois feminism seriously.

And on edit, "evidence" from the original article:
In one frequently cited study (http://www.elainehatfield.com/79.pdf), attractive young researchers separately approached opposite-sex strangers on Florida State University's campus and proposed casual sex. Three-quarters of the men were game, but not one woman said yes.:lol: What a bunch of drooling idiots. Can these buffoons tie their shoes without extensive help?

[Meridian]

I don't see why people are getting so mad about statements like this. It's obviously not a set thing but it is very often true, and I don't see why leftists seem to have trouble admitting it.

Yes, and you have witnessed this thorough statistical analysis on television, I presume.

[Exakt]

Pop science:

an article from a non-scholarly source (i.e. from some internet site which you've stumbled upon) which presents popularly held beliefs under the heading of science in an attempt to legitimize its otherwise bullshit content. In today's article we have the typical mix of sexual psychology and vulgar modern economics ending in some Freud and a grand narrative of how 'Civilization is built on blocked, redirected, and channeled sexual impulse because men will work for sex.' In other words: women stop putting out so easily, otherwise the WorLd is GonNa faLL aParT!!!

[Queercommie Girl]

I don't see why people should just automatically assume that when it comes to sex, men are naturally more advantaged.

If one is economically oppressed in capitalist society (i.e. "failing in life"), just to be able to have a lot of sex simply does not make one's situation better at all. To me this sounds like a capitalist's way of diverting people's attention from the real economic issues in society.

Marxism is all about economic exploitation and inequality, not about sex primarily.

For instance, for me from an economic perspective a male "duck" prostitute serving a rich woman is just as oppressed as a female "chick" prostitute serving a rich man. I think all forms of prostitution are forms of economic exploitation, including male prostitution serving women. Do we really think that these male prostitutes are somehow "lucky" because they are able to have lots of sex?

[Princess Luna]

I don't see why people should just automatically assume that when it comes to sex, men are naturally more advantaged.

If one is economically oppressed in capitalist society (i.e. "failing in life"), just to be able to have a lot of sex simply does not make one's situation better at all. To me this sounds like a capitalist's way of diverting people's attention from the real economic issues in society.

Marxism is all about economic exploitation and inequality, not about sex primarily.

For instance, for me from an economic perspective a male "duck" prostitute serving a rich woman is just as oppressed as a female "chick" prostitute serving a rich man. I think all forms of prostitution are forms of economic exploitation, including male prostitution serving women. Do we really think that these male prostitutes are somehow "lucky" because they are able to have lots of sex?
Maybe this is a bit off topic , but please explain how prostitution is exploitation? I am not denying it can be explotive , but the problem lies not with the act of prostitution itself but with the fact that since it is already illegal, pimps can basically use prostitutes as slave labor and the shame associtated with it comes directly from the sexist idea that a woman should reserve her body for only her husband. I don't think a male prostitute who sells himself to rich women would suffer either of these infact it sounds a hell of alot less explotive then working for $6.00 a hour at a fast food restaurant , the same logic applies to female prostitutes who work in legal brothels.

[Queercommie Girl]

Maybe this is a bit off topic , but please explain how prostitution is exploitation? I am not denying it can be explotive , but the problem lies not with the act of prostitution itself but with the fact that since it is already illegal, pimps can basically use prostitutes as slave labor and the shame associtated with it comes directly from the sexist idea that a woman should reserve her body for only her husband. I don't think a male prostitute who sells himself to rich women would suffer either of these infact it sounds a hell of alot less explotive then working for $6.00 a hour at a fast food restaurant , the same logic applies to female prostitutes who work in legal brothels.

I believe in sexual freedom, but human sex is not for sale.

What's so good about economically privatising human sexuality so that only those with money can acquire access to sex? Shouldn't sexual freedom imply that sex should be free?

Don't you see how in a capitalist society, selling sex would lead to greater sexual inequality? Rich capitalists can sleep with whoever they like because they have money, while many poor men cannot get sexual partners.

I'd rather have sex as a public service so that those who can't get a partner can get sex, than to have economically privatised sex.

[Princess Luna]

I believe in sexual freedom, but human sex is not for sale.

What's so good about economically privatising human sexuality so that only those with money can acquire access to sex? Shouldn't sexual freedom imply that sex should be free?

Don't you see how in a capitalist society, selling sex would lead to greater sexual inequality? Rich capitalists can sleep with whoever they like because they have money, while many poor men cannot get sexual partners.

I'd rather have sex as a public service so that those who can't get a partner can get sex, than to have economically privatised sex.
Sex should be up to the person whose body is involved , if they wish to give it away for free or charge someone for it is their choice, of course the rich will have a avandage over the poor in "buying" sex , however some rich people can currently buy a $300,000 luxery car , while some people out there can not afford to buy any kind of car yet no one is going to say buying a car is exploitive, because the problem lies with the distribution of wealth not the act of buying a car itself.

[Queercommie Girl]

Sex should be up to the person whose body is involved , if they wish to give it away for free or charge someone for it is their choice, of course the rich will have a avandage over the poor in "buying" sex , however some rich people can currently buy a $300,000 luxery car , while some people out there can not afford to buy any kind of car yet no one is going to say buying a car is exploitive, because the problem lies with the distribution of wealth not the act of buying a car itself.

I support the formation of sex worker's unions etc to protect the rights of sex workers, but sex work is not something that any genuine Marxist should promote or encourage in any way. I oppose sex work strategically but not tactically.

Also, where do you draw the line? Should people have the "right" to choose to become slaves as well if they become brainwashed enough by the ruling class to do so?

Communism isn't just some reformist-style redistribution of wealth so that more people can afford luxury cars, it's ultimately about the completely elimination of all kinds of exploitation and all kinds of inequality.

You obviously don't have an empathetic knowledge of the situation in China at the moment for example, where rich capitalists have multiple wives and mistresses, while migrant workers from rural areas don't have any kind of access to sex.

Plus, I don't think communists should encourage the purchase of luxury cars either, excessive consumerism, especially in the luxury market, is not socialist. If you become rich enough to buy a luxury car, frankly I won't really trust you so much anymore in your claim to be a genuine Marxist, for instance. I do discriminate against the rich and powerful, and I'm always on the side of the poor and the disadvantaged. Economic base determines ideological orientation. To use a religious saying, as Jesus said, it's more difficult for the rich to go to heaven than it is for the camel to go through the eye of a needle.

[Tim Finnegan]

Shouldn't sexual freedom imply that sex should be free?That's a pun, not an argument.


Sex should be up to the person whose body is involved , if they wish to give it away for free or charge someone for it is their choice, of course the rich will have a avandage over the poor in "buying" sex , however some rich people can currently buy a $300,000 luxery car , while some people out there can not afford to buy any kind of car yet no one is going to say buying a car is exploitive, because the problem lies with the distribution of wealth not the act of buying a car itself.
That's my view, yeah. The current problems with sex work arise from capitalism and patriarchy, not any innate characteristic of sex-as-labour.

[Queercommie Girl]

That's a pun, not an argument.


Actually ultimately all things should be free in a communist society, since even money on the whole should one day be abolished.

[ZeroNowhere]

Actually ultimately all things should be free in a communist society, since even money on the whole should one day be abolished.Money's abolition is a necessary condition for communism. 'All things being free' is neither necessary, nor necessarily desirable. Ultimately, consumption is limited by labour, and this labour must be distributed in a certain way according to social need; consumption, as such, is regulated from the beginning.

[Summerspeaker]

Conceiving of sex as a commodity turns people (especially women) into a commodity. Whether you make it public or private, you're still dehumanizing folks. As brothel-liberating anarchist militia member Concha says in the film Libertarias (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5811106694509604489#), "El amor debe ser libre, no comprado. (Love must be free, not bought.)"

[Queercommie Girl]

Money's abolition is a necessary condition for communism. 'All things being free' is neither necessary, nor necessarily desirable. Ultimately, consumption is limited by labour, and this labour must be distributed in a certain way according to social need; consumption, as such, is regulated from the beginning.

What exactly do you mean by "free"?

In this particular context, the abolition of money is exactly what I'm talking about, since I'm referring to rich people's unequal access to sexual labour based on their ownership of money and the capitalist market.

[brigadista]

"If women were more fully in charge of how their relationships transpired, we'd be seeing, on average, more impressive wooing efforts, longer relationships, fewer premarital sexual partners, shorter cohabitations, and more marrying going on."

oh, really?

crying with laughter at that quote:):)

[Princess Luna]

Conceiving of sex as a commodity turns people (especially women) into a commodity. Whether you make it public or private, you're still dehumanizing folks. As brothel-liberating anarchist militia member Concha says in the film Libertarias (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5811106694509604489#), "El amor debe ser libre, no comprado. (Love must be free, not bought.)"

Why can't sex be a commodity? it is labor just like flipping burgers , giving massages, and tap dancing can be considered labor. somebody wants to have sex for pleasure without the hassle of a romantic relationship and someone else is willing to provide that service to them how is wrong in anyway,if no one is being forced?


I support the formation of sex worker's unions etc to protect the rights of sex workers, but sex work is not something that any genuine Marxist should promote or encourage in any way. I oppose sex work strategically but not tactically.

Also, where do you draw the line? Should people have the "right" to choose to become slaves as well if they become brainwashed enough by the ruling class to do so?

Communism isn't just some reformist-style redistribution of wealth so that more people can afford luxury cars, it's ultimately about the completely elimination of all kinds of exploitation and all kinds of inequality.

You obviously don't have an empathetic knowledge of the situation in China at the moment for example, where rich capitalists have multiple wives and mistresses, while migrant workers from rural areas don't have any kind of access to sex.

Plus, I don't think communists should encourage the purchase of luxury cars either, excessive consumerism, especially in the luxury market, is not socialist. If you become rich enough to buy a luxury car, frankly I won't really trust you so much anymore in your claim to be a genuine Marxist, for instance. I do discriminate against the rich and powerful, and I'm always on the side of the poor and the disadvantaged. Economic base determines ideological orientation. To use a religious saying, as Jesus said, it's more difficult for the rich to go to heaven than it is for the camel to go through the eye of a needle.
This starts with the assumption all sex workers are miserable and hate their jobs, however this is simply not true i am sure there are alot of porn stars and prostitutes who work in legal brothels who like what they do , are you going to tell them that they can't do it anymore because they are explotited? as for the part about China that is not the problem of prostitution it is the problem of capitalism , just like my post about cars (which you kind of missed the point on) the rich can afford luxery cars , while many poor can not afford any car yet no one is going to say that we should ban all cars and walk everywere because the problem isn't cars , and the same thing for prostitution the problem isn't the act of prostitution itself.

[Queercommie Girl]

This starts with the assumption all sex workers are miserable and hate their jobs, however this is simply not true i am sure there are alot of porn stars and prostitutes who work in legal brothels who like what they do , are you going to tell them that they can't do it anymore because they are explotited?


And why is it that you seem to solely focus on the interests of a particular group of workers, rather than how their work might affect the working class and the socialist project in general?

As I said, I'm certainly not going to go around promoting the ban of sex work right now, because at this stage of the socialist movement, that's a complete strategic dead-end. In fact, in a capitalist society I would promote sex worker's unions etc to protect their basic welfare.

That doesn't mean I agree with sex work intrinsically, or that I'm not going to actively campaign for it to be phased out after the socialist revolution is successful.



as for the part about China that is not the problem of prostitution it is the problem of capitalism , just like my post about cars (which you kind of missed the point on) the rich can afford luxery cars , while many poor can not afford any car yet no one is going to say that we should ban all cars and walk everywere because the problem isn't cars , and the same thing for prostitution the problem isn't the act of prostitution itself.


It's not the problem of sex itself, it's the problem of capitalism, including ultimately the entire structure of the monetary economy, that's the point you have missed. Communism seeks to completely abolish the monetary economy. So both sex and cars would be free in a communist society.

[Summerspeaker]

Why can't sex be a commodity? it is labor just like flipping burgers , giving massages, and tap dancing can be considered labor.

Labor and commodities are two different things, but I think I understand what you're trying to argue here. In my ideal post-revolutionary society, the concept of labor itself would disappear and folks would just engage in whatever activities they felt worthwhile. Differentiating work from recreation implies a level of coercion or at least unpleasantness. To the extent that concept remains under communism, sexual activity should exist outside of it to prevent economics from compelling people (primarily women) into unwanted encounters.


somebody wants to have sex for pleasure without the hassle of a romantic relationship and someone else is willing to provide that service to them how is wrong in anyway,if no one is being forced?

Why is it a service? Is playing music or having a conversation with somebody a service? Conceiving of sex in this fashion causes immediate problems.


This starts with the assumption all sex workers are miserable and hate their jobs, however this is simply not true i am sure there are alot of porn stars and prostitutes who work in legal brothels who like what they do , are you going to tell them that they can't do it anymore because they are explotited?

In absence of revolution, organizing sex workers makes sense. However, ignoring the brothel's place on the continuum of coerced sex that stretches across society tacitly support the current gender regime of dude supremacy. The patriarchy is a global human rights crisis and unambiguous sex slavery continues to be one of its horrors.

[Tim Finnegan]

@Iseul: Ah, I see your point. Fair enough.


Actually ultimately all things should be free in a communist society, since even money on the whole should one day be abolished.
That doesn't suggest that prostitution would be abolished, though, any more than it suggests that cobbling or welding would be abolished.


Conceiving of sex as a commodity turns people (especially women) into a commodity. Whether you make it public or private, you're still dehumanizing folks.
That's a comment on capitalism, not prostitution. Any worker is dehumanised by the commodification of labour, regardless of whether that labour involves keeping your clothes on or not.


As brothel-liberating anarchist militia member Concha says in the film Libertarias (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5811106694509604489#), "El amor debe ser libre, no comprado. (Love must be free, not bought.)"I'm not sure why you'd conflate love and sex like that. The two are generally considered distinct.


In my ideal post-revolutionary society, the concept of labor itself would disappear and folks would just engage in whatever activities they felt worthwhile. Differentiating work from recreation implies a level of coercion or at least unpleasantness.
No, it implies necessity, as in, "people need to work or they will starve to death". If you consider that "coercive", then you really need to re-think your philosophy.


To the extent that concept remains under communism, sexual activity should exist outside of it to prevent economics from compelling people (primarily women) into unwanted encounters.Of course it should, but why do you assume that sex work consists solely of "unwanted encounters"? Are a doctors patients all "unwanted", just because he offers his services within capitalism?


Why is it a service? Is playing music or having a conversation with somebody a service?Given that you pay to see a band, and that pyschiatric therapy consists primarily of conversation, I'm going to say that yes, it can be.


Conceiving of sex in this fashion causes immediate problems.Commodifying it does, but that's a few steps beyond simply recognising it as a form of value-producing labour, which is what you seem to take issue with.

[Summerspeaker]

No, it implies necessity, as in, "people need to work or they will starve to death".

Yes, I can respect that definition. And, despite what some claim, folks don't die from not engaging in sex acts. Treating sex as a commodity or service implies a level of entitlement. I'm okay with folks being entitled to things like food, shelter, and medical care but not to other people's bodies. Currently tons of dudes feel this entitlement and it causes incalculable harm.

[Tim Finnegan]

Yes, I can respect that definition. And, despite what some claim, folks don't die from not engaging in sex acts. Treating sex as a commodity or service implies a level of entitlement. I'm okay with folks being entitled to things like food, shelter, and medical care but not to other people's bodies. Currently tons of dudes feel this entitlement and it causes incalculable harm.
I'm not really sure why you think that commodifying something suggests a sense of entitlement to it; if anything, I would think that it negates an assumption of entitlement, but demanding a conditional exchange. Yes, some individuals may feel entitled to free access to the bodies of individual, but that is an issue in and of itself. That it happens to intersect heavily with sex work doesn't suggest that it's a necessary aspect of it.

Also, I'm confused as to what it is you actually perceive as actually experiencing commodification. Is it the labour power of sex workers, the physical bodies of sex workers, the abstract concept of "sex"? You seem to jump back and forth between these possibilities.

[Summerspeaker]

I'm not really sure why you think that commodifying something suggests a sense of entitlement to it; if anything, I would think that it negates an assumption of entitlement, but demanding a conditional exchange.

If I have a few dollars, I feel entitled to purchase a staple like beans or rice under the current conditions of capitalism. I need not negotiate any sort of specific human relationship to do so. Under communism, I wouldn't even have to have dollars. Commodification absolutely implies entitlement.


Also, I'm confused as to what it is you actually perceive as actually experiencing commodification. Is it the labour power of sex workers, the physical bodies of sex workers, the abstract concept of "sex"? You seem to jump back and forth between these possibilities.

Especially the later two.

[Tim Finnegan]

If I have a few dollars, I feel entitled to purchase a staple like beans or rice under the current conditions of capitalism. I need not negotiate any sort of specific human relationship to do so. Under communism, I wouldn't even have to have dollars. Commodification absolutely implies entitlement.
You're right, you're right; I made my last point poorly. What I meant to say was that I do not think that the possibility of commodifying something- the existence of that product as a commodity in a given society- suggests the development of a universal sense of entitlement. As you say, rice can be commodified, and I would feel entitled to buy rice that was offered to me for sale, but that does not mean that I feel entitled to buy any rice, anywhere. A packet of rice sitting on a supermarket shelf and the same packet sitting in somebody's cupboard are, in practice, two different things.

Now, I agree that a male sense of entitlement to women's bodies is endemic under patriarchy, but I don't think it can be attributed to the sex industry. More likely, it is the traditional economic dependence of women on men that produced that outcome, and the current state of the sex industry is a reflection of that.


Especially the later two.Well, in regards to the former, in what way is this fundamentally distinct from the commodofication of non-sexual physical properties under capitalism? I'm fairly sure that my employers see me as little more than a fleshy automaton capable of shifting objects around a warehouse, and while they don't want to shag me, that doesn't mean I exist as a truly sentient being in their estimation.
In regards to the latter, how can one commodify an abstract concept? I mean, a pair of trousers can certainly be a commodity, but I don't think that I could say the same of the abstract concept of trouserness.