Saturday, February 15, 2020

Investing Your Erotic Capital, or Not

Any good Darwinian will base his analysis of the difference between the sexes on a salient biological reality: a woman’s reproductive potential is far less than a man’s. This means that a woman can conceive far, far fewer children in her lifetime than can any man. The point is obvious and self-evident.

From this observation we should be able to draw a rational conclusion: a woman will be more likely to be more deliberative about choosing when, where and with whom to spend or invest her reproductive potential. A man, possessed with the capacity to sire legions of children, will be less discriminating about what he does with his own reproductive potential.

Madeleine Kearns relabels a woman’s reproductive potential, her “erotic capital.” It is an excellent contribution to the discussion. She takes us back two centuries ago to the time of Jane Austen, a time when women would carefully husband their erotic capital. Knowing that it had significant value, they did not gamble it away in the erotic casino.

Kearns explains:

In a Jane Austen novel, a woman is bestowed with a fixed sum of (shall we say?) erotic capital which she can either save, invest, spend, or (in desperation) sell. The prudent woman considers carefully whether to accept or decline an offer of marriage and is kind enough to advise her sisters to avoid doing something foolish like running off with a soldier, marrying a pauper, or getting pregnant out of wedlock. Those were strange and frugal times. But human nature — including sexuality — has barely changed at all.

You might say that women deployed their rational faculties when allocating their erotic capital. Fair point. Correct point.

But, Kearns seems puzzled-- who among us isn’t?-- by the fact that young women today refuse to husband their erotic capital. They much prefer gambling it away in what are called hookups. Or better, they invest it without doing the relevant research.

Today, there are those among us argue that a young woman has little [to] lose, and perhaps even something to gain, from selling everything for next to nothing — behaving like a stripper, prostitute, or porn star. 

Heaven knows where young women got the idea that they can only feel truly liberated by pretending to be males, by pretending to have a limitless supply of erotic or sexual capital? 

Kearns continues that today’s young women believe that anything goes if only they consent to it. And yet, she implies, there is consent and there is consent. You can consent to being abused and degraded, but that does not mean that you have been any less abused or degraded.

She examines the case of young women who were enticed into doing porn under false pretenses. They had signed up for photo shoots and later found out that the shoots involved disrobing and performing… I will leave it to your imagination.

How did it happen, Kearns asks correctly, that these women, having discovered that they had been lied to, chose to consent to appearing in porn videos? Why did they gullibly accept that the videos were only for a private individual?

The women from the lawsuit all said that they were initially unaware that they would be expected to participate in porn. Some said that when they tried to back out, they were threatened and told that they’d have to make their own way home. They were assured by the producers that the videos were only for a private collection in Australia and New Zealand and would not appear online. But that was a lie. The videos were posted on Porn Hub, the most visited porn site in the world, where they have since been watched billions of times and appear to be available even now (an investigation has found).

She continues:

Indeed, it is hard not to wonder what, exactly, these young women were thinking when they (ostensibly) agreed to participate in the porn videos after realizing they’d been enticed under false pretenses. After being told that the job was porn, and not modeling, why didn’t they flee immediately? Was it that they were afraid to say no? Or that they found the experience, on some level, exhilarating?

The reason, Kearns suggests, is quite simple. Young women have been told that they are free to do whatever they wish with their bodies. Your body, your choice. Why, given this new principle, should they not squander their erotic capital, even to the point of giving it away for free. And even to the point of letting the world entire know of their gamble.

Kearns concludes:

Imagine, for a moment, that we are talking about money: a young man bestowed with a great inheritance, who goes to an older relative for advice on how best to use it. Imagine that the relative has nothing to offer him but inoffensive platitudes such as “It’s your money, your choice.” Would it really be surprising if this young man then proceeded to blow his entire fortune by overspending and placing his trusting in those who wished only to exploit and extort him?

Q. E. D.


370H55V said...

True enough that female "erotic capital" is far more valuable than male erotic capital, but you missed one very important point: it has a very limited shelf life. While it shouldn't be squandered, it does have to be used--and given biological realities, the sooner the better.

In times long gone, that was done through early marriage and child-bearing. Today that has been replaced by "riding the carousel". Back in the 70s, critics of feminism pointed out that the sexual revolution was a good deal for men, who had great access to lots of female sexuality at very low cost.

Well, that sure as hell wasn't true, and we are coming to realize that only SOME high-status alpha males got to participate. Today the rise of inceldom suggests that fewer and fewer men are having more and more sex.

We also observe the phenomenon of 40%+ of live births are non-marital, but no one seems to be interested in determine how few males sire such children. That would be interesting to know.

UbuMaccabee said...

It is nice to college-educated women discovering that Jane Austen did not see things quite the same way as they supposed she did. Jane is wise. Jane knows things of value. Men and Women would do well to read her carefully as if she knew something important they do not. Jane Austin > 100 years of feminist theory.

What once one plain enough to any woman living in rural Poland in the 18th century is now the latest news among the intelligentsia. Glad to see things are improving.

BTW, I did not watch it billions of times. That is an inaccurate account.

2flathat said...

My middle daughter was married last year. She was 23, a virgin and is beautiful. She had too much pride to let just anybody touch her. Videographer posted teaser videos of multiple weddings he filmed. Most of the couples looked fake as they expressed their happiness. Kisses looked lifeless and immodest poses filled their stories. Daughter's joy and her husband's honest delight was evident in each of the many tender kisses he showcased in the video. My guess why these girls behave like this is because there are no protective fathers in the home that tell them they are worth more than gold.

370H55V said...

By the way, The NY Times Valentine's Day offering was a story about how many women are perfectly happy to be "single by choice".

Maybe, but I challenge them to do a similar story about men feeling the same way. Don't hold your breath.