JavaScript disabled. Please enable JavaScript to use My News, My Clippings, My Comments and user settings.

If you have trouble accessing our login form below, you can go to our login page.

If you have trouble accessing our login form below, you can go to our login page.

Naughty feminists are giving men more sex and worse jobs ... apparently

“Today’s young men spend their young adulthood having abundant sex with multiple partners, and that seems to us to be an exceptionally poor preparation for a lifetime of sexual starvation.”

That is an extract from a Florida State University paper presented by researchers in the journal Society issued in October last year.

I’m not sure what’s more surprising; the doom forecast or the fact it was issued in October last year and not 1953.

And before we get into whether you agree or disagree with the general thrust of the argument perhaps a little context is necessary, and a brief overview of sexual economics theory is probably advisable.

(Theory first) The basic principle of sexual economics is this: There exists a sexual marketplace where people meet to trade what they have for what they want (sex).

Traditionally, men come to the market offering power, status and wealth in exchange for sex, and women come to market with little more than their bodies and their consent.

In other words, men have everything except the one thing they really want, and women have nothing, except the one thing men want; sex.

And so they trade, and so sex is got, and so the world makes sense again. Now, I love economics, and I appreciate this market scenario is reflected in reality.

But it’s far too simple to be true, and far too offensive to men and women to be right.

We all know sexual exchanges are actually far more complicated, and we know that sex isn’t something that has a standard, universal value.

What (mostly male) sexual economic theorists tend to overlook, for example, is that women don’t definitively hate sex, men don’t definitively crave sex, and men and women don’t necessarily want to have sex with each other.

(Right, now that’s sorted).

What’s interesting about this article is how the authors have used sexual economic theory to try and understand the ‘modern’ marketplace.

They seem to say great social revolution (ie the wacko war waged by them wymynist types) has basically destroyed the sex-trade system which had worked so well (for men) in favour of women (she devils!).

To wit, women now have power, status and money to trade as well as sex, and because women are reticent to ‘give up’ sex, they’re far less likely to even entertain the idea of exchanging with men in the first place. Or for the most part of their lives at least – as the opening quote suggests, the authors do allow for some sexual desire to exist in both men and women while they’re young...

But here’s the funny thing.

According to the paper, young men trading in the sex market today are particularly advantaged – possibly even more so than they were before feminism came along and menstruated all over the party.

This is because blokes used to have to throw marriage and security into the bargain before a lady would agree to be shagged.

Now, because of ‘equality’ women can win their own bread, so they’re less likely to demand a ring before a fling.

To quote: “..even a man with dismal career prospects (e.g., having dropped out of high school) can find a nice assortment of young women to share his bed.

“So maybe the young men don’t care that much about how the major social institutions in the world of work have become increasingly rigged to favor women.

"Sex has become free and easy. This is today’s version of the opiate of the (male) masses.”

And to how the authors arrive at the idea young men are doomed to lifetime of sexual starvation: “The female contribution of sex to the marriage is evanescent: As women age, they lose their sexual appeal much faster than men lose their status and resources, and some alarming evidence even indicates that wives rather quickly lose their desire for sex (Arndt 2009).

"To sustain a marriage across multiple decades, many husbands must accommodate to the reality of having to contribute work and other resources to a wife whose contribution of sex dwindles sharply in both quantity and quality — and who also may disapprove sharply of him seeking satisfaction in alternative outlets such as prostitution, pornography, and extramarital dalliance.”

Ooooookaaaaay... So. I’m not interested in getting on a high horse bedecked in ranty-panties – because I’m sick of shouty angst for a start – but I am interested in reading your reactions the ideas presented above.

Do you accept the premise of sexual economic theory, either it’s older or slightly updated (but seemingly backwards) version?

Or do you disagree? Do you, like me, reject the idea men prioritise sex drastically more than women, who are naturally strongly opposed to sex and especially sex with the man they love so much they’ve decided to wed, that married men and women are doomed to a lifetime of woe, and it’s only going to get worse the more egalitarianism strangles the world...?


  • disagree.
    3 long term relationships of 22, 3 and 1(so far) years and i'll say quantity has never been short.
    quality of passion and desire on the other hand has varied significantly.

    Victorious Painter
    Date and time
    February 15, 2013, 7:30AM
    • Well, it doesn't make sense now really. When they say the average long term couple have sex 2-3 times per week, surely that is more than a single who 1.has to find a sexual partner during leisure time, say on weekends, unless you are very young with a lot of energy, it would be hard going out socially most working wee nights, and 2. has a higher risk of a strike rate. I certainly can get more sex being married than if I was single, and I know damn well I get far more sex than my single friends. Ridiculous!

      Date and time
      February 15, 2013, 8:10AM
    • To clarify, I disagree with the sexual economic theory.

      Victorious Painter
      Date and time
      February 15, 2013, 9:20AM
    • AT - 2-3 times a week on average if you are in a long term relationship does not really reflect reality. It is probably true for the first few years of a relationship, but truly long term relationships lasts much longer than this, often 50 years and in the context of a truly long term relationship these first few years are a drop in the ocean and therefore these numbers fail to reflect the true picture. I think if you asked people in relationships for 20 years the average would most likely to be much closer to 2-3 times a month. That number of course is an average and encompasses the rare cases where frequency is much, much higher and the more common case where it is less than this. Note this is an assymmetrical distribution because you can go 2 or 3 below the average but 20 or more above it.

      Date and time
      February 15, 2013, 10:09AM
    • Have to agree Painter but to AT not sure what your problem is but as a single person its is very easy to find sex. In fact ist far easier than when I was growing up. All one has to do is go to the various websites for starters and then there are the so called relationship sites where once again its a trivial exercise to find a bed partner. In fact it could not be any easier. Then of course there are the social swing clubs the over 40's orgies and life is ohh so pleasant. And lets not forget its a veritable smorgasbord of nationalities from cooing blondes to meaty brunettes, want one, got one or two ..
      Sorry to say marriage is such a boor. Why bother. Chained to conformity but for what gain, a lifetime of nagging and brawling , stress and then you die.
      Far better to be single do what yo want to do, achieve whats important without some form of drag and enjoy this but one life we have.Lets face it many of us have sacrificed careers because a spouse does not want to live in a foreign citry or misses her mother , there are a multitude of reasons.
      Be single enjoy and when time comes to split its easier and you are more likely to remain friends and even end up as bonk buddies from time to time.

      Date and time
      February 15, 2013, 1:33PM
    • @Ant

      Well, my husband and I have sex about that much, and we have been together near 13 years and are in our 40's. Apparently from what I have read, that's average. Of course, as you get a lot older, there is a probability that your libido may wane, but that would happen in a couple or single. I would say that as you get a lot older, being single would make it even harder to get sex, while there is more of a chance of older long term couples still having sex, particularly as pressures like work and raising children ebb, some couples report even more sex around this time.

      Date and time
      February 15, 2013, 2:22PM
  • Hate to say it, but the authors of the research paper (not you, CityCat) have practised the fine art of placing all responsibility for happiness in a marriage on the woman in the partnership. All men need to provide - in those author's view - is the caveman stuff: security, a roof etc.

    We men then deserve to be served up endless amounts of happiness - without, presumably, the obligation to create equal amounts of happiness for our partners.

    Simplistic (and, yes, sexist) rubbish.

    Date and time
    February 15, 2013, 7:36AM
    • Yes, indeed.

      Date and time
      February 15, 2013, 8:06AM
    • Yes, indeed. But it is an American research and that is their culture. Good or bad irrelevant, it is what it is.
      And as usual, researchers have to find 'stuff' to support their theories. Otherwise it's a big fail.

      Date and time
      February 15, 2013, 8:38AM
    • @ DrWom

      "Simplistic (and, yes, sexist) rubbish" - I have to agree. But, sadly, by demonstration over time that's the sort of research our good lady Kate prefers.

      - - -


      I am surprised you admit a liking for the dismal science. In the pure form, it is dry and unevaluative. Not normally appealing to younger people (nor too many women going by student gender ratios in Econimcs degrees at Uni).

      Some 40 years ago, a whacko attempted to describe human mating behaviour in terms of economic theory. Clearly, in this world anything is possible. But, that doesn't suggest it is an appropriate model to explain a phenomena.

      The sad fact is that economics - and by inference, 'sexual economics' - fails to account for emotion because it is based on rational choice. For example, economic theory has buyers bidding for the good which is the lowest price (all other things being equal). The classic upturn on this is to try and explain why people opt to pay more for French perfume when they can have a good copy at K-Mart!

      I suggest if you really want to consider human mating and relationships in terms of rational choice, you would be more empowered if you chose to study Social Exchange Theory. At least that theory doesn't assume all humans are inordinate fools acting by deductive impulse.


      Date and time
      February 15, 2013, 9:36AM

More comments

Comments are now closed

HuffPost Australia

Follow Us on Facebook

Featured advertisers


Capricorn horoscope

Trust others to think for themselves. Don't be snobbish about what seems obvious. Everyone learns at their own pace, including you.

...find out more here