Welche Themen interessieren euch, welche Studien fandet ihr besonders interessant in der Woche, welche Neuigkeiten gibt es, die interessant für eine Diskussion wären und was beschäftigt euch gerade?
Welche interessanten Artikel gibt es auf euren Blogs oder auf den Blogs anderer? Welches Thema sollte noch im Blog diskutiert werden?
Sonderfrage: wie steht ihr zur Moderation der Kommentare? Was sollte sich euer Meinung nach ändern, wo passt es nicht, was muss besser werden, was kann so bleiben?
Baumeister hat einen interessanten Artikel zum sexuellen Markt geschrieben:
A heterosexual community can be analyzed as a marketplace in which men seek to acquire sex from women by offering other resources in exchange. Societies will therefore define gender roles as if women are sellers and men buyers of sex. Societies will endow female sexuality, but not male sexuality, with value (as in virginity, fidelity, chastity). The sexual activities of different couples are loosely interrelated by a marketplace, instead of being fully separate or private, and each couple’s decisions may be influenced by market conditions. Economic principles suggest that the price of sex will depend on supply and demand, competition among sellers, variations in product, collusion among sellers, and other factors. Research findings show gender asymmetries (reflecting the complementary economic roles) in prostitution, courtship, infidelity and divorce, female competition, the sexual revolution and changing norms, unequal status between partners, cultural suppression of female sexuality, abusive relationships, rape, and sexual attitudes.
Quelle: Sexual Economics: Sex as Female Resource for Social Exchange in Heterosexual Interactions
Zunächst stellt Baumeister die Grundlagen dar, nach denen sich ein solcher Markt richten würde:
An economic approach to human behavior was defined by (subsequent) Nobel laureate Gary Becker (1976) as having four main assumptions.
- First, the behavior of individuals is interconnected in market systems in which individual choices are shaped by costs and benefits in the context of stable preferences.
- Second, scarce but desirable resources are allocated by price shifts and other market influences.
- Third, sellers of goods or services compete with each other (as buyers also sometimes do, but not as much).
- Fourth, people seek to maximize their outcomes.
Das dies gängige Marktmechanismen sind wird den meisten einleuchten. Mehr Widerstand hingegen wird wohl die Übertragung dieser Marktgesetze auf so etwas wie Sex erzeugen.
Die dahinter stehenden Mechanismen stellt Baumeister wie folgt dar:
Treating sex as a female resource means that each culture (we define culture as an information-based social system) will endow female sexuality with value, unlike male sexuality. Women will receive other valued goods in return for their sexual favors. Male sexuality, in contrast, cannot be exchanged for other goods. Put another way, women become the suppliers of sex, whereas men constitute the demand for it and play the role of purchasers and consumers. Even though in one sense a man and a woman who are having sexual intercourse are both doing similar things, socially they are doing quite different things. Thus, the first prediction based on the social exchange theory of sex is that interpersonal processes associated with sexual behavior will reveal a fundamental difference in gender roles. Men will offer women other resources in exchange for sex, but women will not give men resources for sex (except perhaps in highly unusual circumstances). In any event, the bottom line is that sexual activity by women has exchange value, whereas male sexuality does not. Female virginity, chastity, fidelity, virtuous reputation, and similar indicators will have positive values that will be mostly absent in the male (see Table 1). Put another way, it will matter more to the formation and continuation of a relationship whether the woman is a virgin than whether the man is; whether the woman engages in sex with another partner than whether the man does, and so fort
Interessant ist dann die Auflistung von Punkten, die sich auf den Preis für Sex auswirken:
Wenn man die Grundannahme eines sexuellen Marktes akzeptiert, dann scheinen mir diese Faktoren relativ unstrittig. Sie folgen den üblichen Gesetzen von Angebot und Annahme.
Hier sieht man auch, dass Pornographie als Sexersatz den Preis für Sex senkt und damit letztendlich die Verhandlungsposition der Frau schwächen kann. Dies gilt ebenso, wenn unverbindlicher Sex akzeptierter ist, da auch dann ein leichterer Zugang dazu besteht und dieser schwerer mit Bedingungen verknüpft werden kann.
Baumeister dazu:
Assuming that most men would prefer to have sex with affectionate female partners (as opposed to prostitutes or by masturbating while watching pornography), the women in a community would potentially have a monopoly if they could band together to reduce competition among themselves. A rational economic strategy that many monopolies or cartels have pursued is to try to increase the price of their assets by artificially restricting the supply. With sex, this would entail having the women put pressure on each other to exercise sexual restraint and hold out for a high price (such as a commitment to marriage) before engaging in sex. Economic history suggests that such efforts, as in the case of Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) are only intermittently successful and may often be undermined as individuals seek to underbid each other. Still, monopolies are sometimes sufficiently successful that most developed nations have found it necessary to enact laws against them. It would therefore not be surprising that economic self-interest would occasionally drive women to work together to restrain the availability of sex.
Dagegen spricht dann eben, dass ein solches Kartell schwierig zu unterhalten ist, wenn die Kosten eines Ausbrechens gering sind. Seit der Erfindung und weiträumigen Einführung der Pille sowie der Sozialsysteme ist dies der Fall: Die Kosten für Sex sind gesunken und damit auch die Disziplin in den eigenen Reihen.
Die Betrachtung als sexueller Markt, auf dem intrasexuelle Konkurrenz unter Frauen herrscht erklärt auch knappe Kleidung etc:
A woman is analogous to an entrepreneur bringing a new product to market, and so enhancing appeal is a rational strategy. Advertising is also a viable, rational way to increase demand for one’s product. Flirting, wearing sexy clothes, and in general creating the impression that sex with her would be especially pleasant and satisfying, would be economically sensible strategies for a woman to pursue. The importance of stimulating demand helps resolve a seeming paradox that has spawned a long, ideologicallycomplicateddebate.Feminists have long objected, with considerable justification, to the fact that women who wear sexy clothes sometimes become the targets of male harassment (or worse). They assert that women should be permitted to dress however they please without attracting unwelcome male attention. Opponents point out that wearing sexually revealing or enticing clothes may convey an impression that some men might reasonably misperceive as indicating that she is sexually available. After all, they say, why dress in such a sexually revealing fashion if she does not want to attract sexual attention? The social exchange analysis makes it understandable that it is fully rational for a woman to seek to stimulate more male desire than she wishes to satisfy.
Sexy Kleidung ist insofern Werbung für das eigene Produkt und das Ziel, diese Werbung möglichst umfassend vornehmen zu können, insoweit verständlich.
Die Auswirkungen auf die Entscheidung, mit wem man Sex hat, sind dann wie folgt:
Sexual decision making is likely to be more complex for the woman than the man. Faced with a suitor desiring sex, she may feel pulled in conflicting directions. Her own sexual desires, as well as the potential advantage to be gained over other women by underbidding (i.e., offering sex at a slightly lower price to attract the man she wants) would encourage her to consent to having sex without asking for much in return. Meanwhile her desire to get a good price for her sexual favors would counsel restraint, as would her concern over developing a bad reputation and thereby lowering her own individual market value. The man’s role is not subject to such competing, contradictory forces, and so men may be able to decide easily, quickly, and consistently whether they desire sex with a particular woman or not.
Interessant auch die Ausführungen dazu, warum die Betrachtung als Markt ungern vorgenommen wird:
ctical and concrete discussions of sexual exchange. However, incompatibility might arise because antagonistic exchange relationships are divisive whereas sexual relationships are often sought as positive, even communal bonds. Explicit acknowledgment of exchange processes in sexuality would certainly raise a set of difficulties that could well make people reticent. Few couples will exactly match the average going rate for sexual exchange, and so one or the other of them is getting a poor deal. To acknowledge that would reveal the man and woman as having an essentially antagonistic relationship at precisely the moment when they are presumably trying to form a united partnership, and so downplaying the exchange process would be valuable for avoiding the divisive recognition of exchange. A too-precise negotiation of how much the man should contribute might also force the woman to acknowledge that she will charge one man more than another, more attractive man, thereby striking a blow to his ego. Her prestige could also be at stake, especially if to make explicit negotiations she came under pressure (comparable to the disclosures required of house sellers) to reveal what she was offering in terms of willingness to perform various acts, actual physical traits undisguised by clothing and makeup, and extent of prior sexual activity. In any case, however, the reluctance to acknowledge sexual exchange is itself an intriguing challenge for further research.
Meiner Meinung nach ist hier insbesondere zu beachten, dass es ein unterbewußter Markt ist und wir diese Berechnungen zwar als solche unterbewußt vornehmen, es aber Vorteile bringt, dies zu verbergen: Liebe als reinen ökonomische Angelegenheit zu behandeln bedeutet, dass man bei der Verschlechterung des Deals einen anderen Deal suchen wird. Es geht aber gerade darum, sich gegenseitig zu signalisieren, dass man den Deal in dieser Form in jedem Fall halten wird, weil dies dem anderen signalisiert, dass er den Deal auch eingehen kann. In dem Leugnen des Tauschcharakters liegt also so gesehen eine Betonung des Festhaltens an dem Deal um jeden Preis aus Gründen, die außerhalb der Marktgesetze liegen.
Ich hatte diese Bedeutung von Liebe und deren Absicherung über „große Gefühle“ hier bereits einmal in dem Artikel „Versorgereigenschaften als Attraktivitätsmerkmale und Gründe für die Paarbindung“ dargestellt.
Alles Evolution 