The Puritanical view of transactional sex

and why it is backfiring in the modern west.

A lot of blogs suggest that women ration sex because they hate “beta” men. There is no doubt that women prefer to create an artificial and chronic shortage of sex. However the motivation is far more likely to be about maintaining leverage over men. Think about it.. most women can never get the most “desirable” men. They are pretty much stuck with average men, and prior to the 1980s had to make do with them.

Leveraging an artificial scarcity of sex to obtain maximal material gain is a far more straightforward explanation for the behavior of women than evo-pysch vodoo. While this strategy might have worked for a long time, the world that we now live in has certain features that make such behavior counterproductive. Before explaining why such behavior is now counterproductive, let us recap the conditions under which such behavior was not counterproductive.

Rationing sex to increase its apparent value worked in a world where:

1. The majority of men had limited intra-country geographical mobility.

2. Society was not anonymous, and public persona/face was important.

3. Opportunities for international travel/ relocation were very limited.

4. Porn and prostitution were discouraged/punished by effective socio-legal mechanisms.

5. Women were given the benefit of doubt for all their misdeeds.

6. Freedom of speech and expression was tightly regulated and opportunities to communicate with like-minded individuals are limited/ expensive.

For most of history, women exploited the above stated conditions to ration sex and extract maximal resources from men. However there have been a few changes over the last 30 years..

Rationing sex is a viable strategy only as long as men believe they have a good chance at a half decent sex life. Once they lose hope, become cynical, have no emotional attachment or simply do not or cannot care..the gig is up.

A previously workable strategy suddenly becomes counterproductive, and induces negative feedback in the system

A. While geographical mobility increased substantially in post-ww2 western countries, most men quickly “settled” down with one woman or a series of women. Dysfunctional or serial monogamy was therefore the norm for most of the past 60-70 years. Ever wonder how badly dressed/ geeky/ plain-looking guys in previous eras got laid and were having kids by their mid- to late- 20s? If you don’t believe me, look at pictures of couples from the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s. Now ask yourself- why is that no longer the norm and what are it’s downstream effects?.

Men who have poor experiences with women in their 20s are unlikely to settle down or follow the conventional life trajectory expected out of them. You cannot obtain resources from men through rationing sex if they do not believe a fair deal is possible.

B. Anonymous urban/ suburban living did not start with the development of suburbs or “greater metropolitan areas”. Most people prior to the 1980s were well engaged in communities that they lived in, even if they moved around a lot. It was the gradual loss of job security that created anonymous urban/ suburban living. Nobody wants to contribute to an enterprise that rapes them. A dog-eat-dog society creates adversarialism with little attachment or empathy for such a society.

Enforcing the rationing of sex through reputation/ face/ shaming only works if men have something to lose socially..

C. Prior to the late 1980s, people were pretty much stuck in the countries they were born in. People who interacted and worked with people from other countries were the exception, not the rule. Most people got their country stereotypes from the mainstream media.Then cheap foreign travel and job opportunities happened. Nowadays, living in non-western countries and large cities does not necessitate giving up almost any of the trappings, conveniences or advantages of living in the west.

It is hard to enforce rationing sex if men can live/ work or visit other countries, where they could get a better deal.

D. There have been major changes in attitudes towards porn and it’s availability since the 1980s. The quality of available content and performers now often exceeds mainstream entertainment. Every obscure fetish and preference is now catered to, at competitive rates. A lot of high quality content is now free or peer-generated. You can enjoy any type of porn at a location and time of your choice. I have often entertained myself at airports by watching porn on my iPhone or laptop.

Rationing sex is unworkable if the quality, access and “fit” of available porn exceeds the services provided by an average woman.

E. Men born after 1970 have grown up in a world where they saw the assumptions of older generations of men turn to dust. They have seen the death of lifetime jobs, stable marriages, decent career paths and have therefore rightly become cynical about the old ways. This extreme cynicism extends to their views about women. Unlike previous generations, a significant percentage of men no longer treat women well by default. The use of widely understood words such as mangina, doormat, pushover, white-knighting etc is a signal of larger mindset shift.

Most men born after 1970 have no significant mental connection to their kids, or often.. have no kids. They have far less investment in keeping the peace with women and accepting BS, unlike previous generations. Did I mention that women past their late 20s have a fraction of the sexual bargaining power of their younger selves.

F. Widespread availability of the internet and net based services have changed the nature of public discourse, in ways that were never anticipated. Consider the effects of forwarding webpages, video clips, animations, articles to your acquaintances. Bulletin boards, blogs and social media have had a far larger impact on public discourse than most people realize. These effects are only going to accelerate in the future, partly due to the loss of credibility by the main stream median and press.Cheap computers, net access and AV equipment have removed old cost barriers to promoting various alternative viewpoints..