Is sexuality conditioned by economics?

[spartafc]

Do you believe sexuality and dating is conditioned by the economic?

One particularly abstract criticism i've heard raised of the need for a "fair trade" economy is that to impose restrictions on the "fairness" of trade is ridiculous when we impose no such restrictions on the other aspects of our lives - for example dating and sex. I'm still largely unable to comprehend the logic of this argument - but perhaps you'll understand it.

do you think it's possible to say that sexuality is in any large way conditioned by the economic? Does this question make sense? My ideas and thoughts on this subject are not very worked out - so all thoughts welcomed. I apologise for the anecdotal nature of the thread - I will find some sources in due time.

[C_Rasmussen]

I dont understand a thing of what you typed there, spartafc. The only thing I can actually come up with is that in the media sex sells (kind of a poor way to get attention for commercials but meh).

[Bannockburn]

Your answer my friend is in Foucault's history of sexuality.

[celticfire]

I think it's obvious it is. Any feminist literature about sex will point it out, from advertising to macho "locker room" mentality. But, I do disagree with some of the feminist literature: not all porno is anti-women - I don't encourage porn because of it's overall aspect which is negative, but there is porn were men are dominated by the women, what is that then?

But yes, economics has a huge (but not total) influence on our sex lives.

[diamond_rabbit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 07:18 PM
Do you believe sexuality and dating is conditioned by the economic?

do you think it's possible to say that sexuality is in any large way conditioned by the economic? Does this question make sense? My ideas and thoughts on this subject are not very worked out - so all thoughts welcomed. I apologise for the anecdotal nature of the thread - I will find some sources in due time.

definitely. there are feminist critiques written about marriage and the nuclear family and how these are institutions meant to support capitalism and patriarchy. And when you think about it... the nuclear family has a man to go out and be a worker, an undervalued woman to stay home and take care of the family and raise the boys to be good workers and the girls to be good wives and mothers. this analysis rings true to me. and when you think of the nuclear family--or modern day versions of it--as a necessary unit necessary for capitalism to function, it makes sense why our society has such a vested interest in reinforcing normative gender and sexuality.

if there were no capitalism or patriarchy, then societal institutions wouldn't have to put so much resources and energy into reinforcing hegemonic notions of love, romance, family values, gender etc.... instead, we'd be free to love or fuck in all sorts of ways, while of course upholding principles of equality and justice... so non-consentual power-over sex would still be out. the polyamorous lovers and monogomous couples would be valued the same, people would be free to be queer in anyway they please, children would be raised in all sorts of cooperative ways within the community, etc. :wub:

[Floyce White]

The answer is "yes."

It's way easier for a man to make a good first impression if he has clean clothes and shoes in good condition, if he is freshly groomed, if he has accessories such as a belt, watch, sunglasses, and the like, if he has good dentistry, and so on. The man who knows he has no car, no money for meals, entertainment, trips to Vegas, lack of private living quarters or no money for motels, etc.--this man will not be as confident and will not feel as friendly and charming as the man with money.

I need not comment on the very unattractive attitude by some women, especially in developed contries, known as "high maintenance."