[heavy]

(11-07-2018 02:20 PM)Montrose Wrote:  

I think the question is not well framed. Consider an analogy with dowry. In certain countries (India), women (or her family) must pay the husband to get married. In other countries (Islamic), the husband pays money to the bride family. Marriage brings value to both participants, but depending on the culture either men or women must pay the cost of the deal.

Using that analogy we see that on certain sex markets, men must pay (in money or in time and effort) a certain amount to get pussy. Call that the cost of pussy. That amount depends on the market and varies with time. In a market where men are very horny/desperate and women very prudish, we expect the cost of sex to be very high (or in OP’s terms, the SMV of men to be very low). Conversely, in a market where women are ugly and easy like the West now, we would expect the cost of pussy to be very low or negative, but that is not the case. Cost of pussy seems to have increased. This is a paradox.

To solve this paradox we must see that the market is not a market for just resource (time/money) vs pussy. It is a market where commitment + resource are exchanged for pussy. Commitment from men has decreased to zero, so men must compensate with increased resource payment. If you ignore the commitment variable, you think that cost of pussy has increased, but it has not, because commitment has gone to zero.

Now what would happen if a man was willing to pay in commitment? It wouldn’t work because commitment is non enforceable! (Because of divorce and general promiscuity) So women value commitment rationally at zero. (Similar effect to Akerlof lemon model in microeconomy).

Hence my answer, market cost of pussy has increased (in apparence) because commitment from men is valued at zero due to promiscuity and destruction of marriage.

Note that cost of prostitution has *not* increased (they have gone down slightly according to the Economist magazine), which is consistent with my thesis. Because cost of prostitution has never included any commitment component.

Interesting.

Seems like the simple way of looking at it wold be, resource exchange (incl safety, shelter, etc) has been all but eliminated. Resource exchange is required for creating families, and families encourage resource exchange (building a family). Men offer up more of these tangible resources (think building a house) and less intangible (think commitment and love), women offer up more intangible resources and less tangible resources.

The culture has ruined marriage. There's little consideration for family. Kids belong to the culture and all its intersections. I suspect we've terribly underestimated how difficult a safe, stable society is to maintain, especially in the face of disruptive technology.

Also, I'd disagree with corsega's response that this has been pondered since the inception of the forum. Not that it hasn't, but that smart phones and the ubiquity of social media has changed everything.

This is a technological revolution x 1000, especially with the current level of wealth in the world. Printing press, industrial revolution...they pale compared to what we're seeing right now.