I have been doing some reading on sex economics under the social exchange theory.  My understanding is, female population overall has a collusive effort of restraining sex offers to men in an effort to escalate sex price.  The ultimate goal for women is, sex can only be offered through marriage and other monogamous relationship.  Sex is a resource to women; men always pay for sex one way or the other.  Promiscuous women offer sex to men at a price too low.  Therefore, female population punish these women with social stigma by calling them "whore", "slut" ...

If this makes sense, under sex context, all men love hookers; all women hate hookers.

but yes i agree with your basic premise that women, or more accurately "women in general" are in collusion to keep the price of sex high, even if they aren't doing it consciously. Throw religious bullshit into the mix and you have America's current hangups with sex in general and prostitution in particular.

Your statement that "all men love hookers, all women hate hookers" is of course bullshit however. Even some of the men here who pay prostitutes deep down hate the women that they see, and hate themselves for seeing them. It's rather sad to see this self loathing, but it's a common theme here.

Your premise is retarded. Marriage is most certainly a male created and mostly controlled construct.

Originally I would assume or attribute certain behavior with being plain ole' self absorbed with the inability to put others needs in the forefront without self benefit at the same time.

Hating women is so strong, though I admit I've seen a recurring theme where some men will speak very highly of their Fathers, pedal stole like, and barely mention the existence of having a Mother.  I always found that odd

You could try citing your sources of "inspiration" you know.

I disagree with the theory you put forth. It is single minded and ignores other social issues. It was the fathers as well as the mothers who taught their daughters to wait for marriage before sex. As a parent, the daughter's worth in marriage was predicated on her being a virgin. The male population is the one that set that standard. Another consideration is birth control. A child out of wedlock caused a number of problems for the mother, not the least her inability to support the child. It wasn't until modern times with the advent of equal pay and birth control that we began to see a shift in sexual norms.  
To say sex is a resource to women is uninformed and ignorant. I have never heard a women friend say they use sex to "get what they want". If there truly was a "price" then they would be the biggest whore of them all.

A young girl screwing random guys for free gets a bad rep and it can lead to so much more than name calling, so I would never encourage my daughter to be that way. At the same time, I also don't care if she loses her virginity when SHE feels she is ready and it is with someone she at least cares for. I am not raising a child's child, so she will find BC pills in her gummie bears as soon as she reaches puberty. It is not just the sex, but the consequences that come with it, and to ignore those as if they don't exist, is naive and ignorant. It's not like sex in the 60s today, so we have to take extra precautions.  

Having unprotected sex with numerous partners is simply asinine. I would never want a child of mine to be looked upon in that way, but as a responsible person. Yes, I do feel people who just act out on every impulse they have, are irresponsible and lack self control.

-- Modified on 5/28/2013 1:16:27 PM

END OF MESSAGE

When you say the “female population overall has a collusive effort of restraining sex offers to men in an effort to escalate sex price”, what you really mean is that:

Historically, men have viewed women as collateral---as property---and, the loss of virginity has been viewed as destruction of men’s ‘property’. That’s why many cultures, even today, still endorse crazy things like “honor killings”, and “self-immolation” of women on their husbands funeral pyre’s. A woman who has been ‘had’ by another man, is damaged goods.  

That kind of underlying perspective endures, to a large extent, everywhere. There are “good girls” [those you take home to mom and marry] and there are “whores or sluts”. And, many women withhold sex before marriage, or a committed monogamous relationship, to avoid being placed in the category of “whore or slut” (which, again, has historically been defined by men).  

But, in modern Western cultures, the playing field is more level in contemporary society. When men and women agree to marriage, quite often (and not always, of course) they both sign on for a certain kind of unspoken contractual agreement in which both ‘pay’ for sex; albeit, in different ways.

Whores and sluts do it for free. Escorts, prostitutes, and hookers charge you. The latter category are not trying to restrain sex offers.

If you want to assimilate new knowledge, turn to Peer Review Journals.

A note of caution though, there is a wide array of Peer Review Journals, similar to a wide array of magazines.

Think of a contium of expertise, similar to pure fluff magazines like magazines with gossip about celebs, featuring pre-teen idols and at the other extreme The Economist.

If you want new knowledge look for "Top Tier" Journals where authorship is EVERYTHING==ie the Reviewers are considered tops in their field, the theories are supported by data and accepted methodology (everything is defined).

That is where you find new knowledge.

If an author asserts "female populations...have a collusive effort...restraining sex offers to men....." carefully inspect the author's research methodology, how theories were tested, criteria for accepting and rejecting "theories" and if the author's assertions have been supported in the article.

Female populations??  Are all females alike? This is innate?  Un-effected by culture? Personality has no effect on this?

How does a population collude? They population has the same values and same desires? All participate? and to the same extent? The sole objective is to drive up the price of the service? And this is done by restricting suooly?  

All women share the same imperative to drive up price? Collusion in East Podunk increases the price of service in NYC?  If price increases, why don't more providers enter the market? Are there any barriers preventing new providers?  If price increases and demand decreases, why don't service people lower price to in increase cash flow?

Does any of the author's story contravene other established, respected theories?

Ever see a public official prove they have never heard that alcohol was illegal at one time? That the illegality created $$$$$$$ for crime, the more vicious the more $$$$$$ criminals earned?

Let's assume a public official has never heard about what happened when alcohol was banned.  Can it also be they have NEVER heard about either Micro or Macro Economics?!!! They cannot comprehend that when supply is restricted and demand satays about the same price increases.  When price increases profits increase. As profits increase more people figure than can make $$$ when profits are high.  That supply then increases?  Supply can increase higher than demand?  Prices drop then and nad demand increases as it becomes more affordable to more people.

Anything you read inconsistent with basic supply and demand?

ever wonder who created a thriving growers market for marajuana with the USA?  the War On Drugs Did!!  

Columbian drug cartels??  Way to Go Congress!!  Ever hear of Congress demanding Mexico take care of drug gangs?  Yea.  Right!! Mexico created that problem!!