Regnerus Takes a Cheap Shot at Women

The notoriously controversial (and previously debunked) social conservative culture-warrior, Mark Regnerus, is at it yet again with a brand new book, literally titled Cheap Sex, which is basically Jon Birger's Date-onomics on steroids and laced with a certain misogyny that he barely even tries to disguise with what amounts to patronizing and paternalistic "concern" trolling in book form.   And his specious thesis can be so readily demolished, as it is in this article by William K. Black.  Jennifer Wright also does a good takedown of Regnerus' thesis from a different angle as well.  Interestingly, even some conservatives also disagree with him.  

Even after his infamous 2012 anti-gay parenting study was roundly and thoroughly debunked as BAD (biased, agenda-driven) science, if not outright pseudoscience, here he is five years later attempting to put forth a new, yet old and recycled, thesis about--what else?--sex. Here is the TL;DR version:

1) Three technological advances--the Pill, along with online porn, and online dating, but especially the Pill--has completely transformed the dating/marriage markets by driving down the relative "cost" of sex for men (hence the title). The "cost" has dropped to the point where the "cartel" is basically broken.

2) At the same time, and not coincidentally, women have also become less dependent on men, further decreasing the incentive to get married.

3) This is very, very bad because sex is a commodity, something that men basically "take" or "buy" from women in one way or another, and thus men no longer have any real incentive to get married nowadays. In other words, as the saying goes, why buy the cow when the milk is for free? (Which literally compares women to livestock, by the way, but I digress.)

4) Marriage rates are in free-fall (among young people, that is) and this is a disaster for society, because reasons. Same goes for birthrates as well--after all, we need more serfs to make the oligarchs even richer and more cannon fodder for their imperialistic resource wars, right?

5) Boys will be boys, and thus girls/women need to be the gatekeepers. Because science. Or something. Thus, women are to blame for being too "cheap" and "easy" when it comes to sex, and no woman is an island in that regard. (He barely even tries to disguise his slut-shaming here.)

6) And of course, the biggest losers in this brave new world of cheap and easy sex are women and children. Men too, but mostly women and children. Because they are dependent on men, so its bad when they become less dependent on men, because tradition. (The "concern" part of the trolling is located right here.)

Of course, he says these things with much more euphemisms and verbiage, and cherry-picked data to back up his specious thesis, but that is basically it in a nutshell. Note that he doesn't seem to offer any cogent solutions to this supposed parade of horrors--probably because deep down he knows exactly where that would lead, and it isn't anywhere good.

We saw what happened in the Victorian era, after all. An entire social movement was spearheaded to make sex as "costly" as possible for both men and women in spite of there being a surplus of women. The result? Prostitution and human trafficking, including of children, exploded--to the point where a whopping one in twenty women was involved in prostitution at any given time back then (versus less than one in 300 today). Talk about backfiring! And the notoriously lecherous Ancient Romans had quite a relative scarcity of women, albeit with an artifical abundance due to slavery of various forms--need I say more?

Even a return to the supposedly "kinder, gentler" patriarchy of the 1950s would not be any better, as it really was no golden age once you peel back the saccharine celluloid veneer of Leave It to Beaver and shows like that to reveal what it was really like. All of the widespread alcoholism, adultery, domestic violence, child abuse, rape, unsafe and illegal abortions, racism, and stuff like that kinda puts the lie to that specious claim.  Stephanie Coontz's book The Way We Never Were explodes the myth of the "good old days" quite nicely indeed.  True, the so-called sexual revolution of the 1960s and 1970s may have been a mixed bag as it were, but on balance we are ultimately all better off for it along with the feminist movement.

Honestly, one thing is for certain. The whole "commodity model" of sexuality is indeed dying, and that is a GOOD thing. Such an outmoded, outdated, toxic, and sexist paradigm is downright dehumanizing to both primary genders, and we would all better off without it. Sex is a mutual act, and it is time we started treating it as such. And marriage for economic reasons rather than love is becoming increasingly obsolete, as it should in an increasingly egalitarian society. And while marriage can indeed be re-purposed for a post-patriarchal society, the idea that everybody must get married as the sine qua non of "real adulthood" is outmoded and no longer holds any water in the 21st century. 

Whether Regnerus and his ilk like it or not, society is nonetheless evolving, albeit in fits and starts. What is really dying here is PATRIARCHY. And women are gaining more and more power as men are becoming increasingly redundant in both the workforce and the bedroom, and soon they will reclaim their rightful position as the new leaders of the free world. Sorry, fellas, the truth hurts, but we will all be better off for it in the end. As John Mellencamp and India Arie famously sang, if you're not part of the future, then get out of the way.

Let the planetary healing begin!

UPDATE:  Sociologist Philip N.

Cohen wrote an excellent rebuttal here.

Parsley, Sage, Rosemary...and Weed?

It is well-known that Women have been making increasing inroads in numerous industries over the past few decades, including traditionally male-dominated ones.  But one that is really starting to stand out is the fledgling but rapidly growing legal cannabis industry.   Both in its humble beginnings as the medical market and its latest incarnation as the recreational market in more and more states, more and more Women are taking advantage of this amazing business opportunity as "ganjapreneurs" and challenging outdated stereotypes at the same time as well.  What better time than now?

Contrast this with the black market under the ever-fading relic of cannabis prohibition.  There is a reason why so many people refer to their dealer as their "guy"--it is largely a sausage fest for the most part.  That is mainly because Women are on average more risk-averse than men, and illegal drug dealing of any sort is a very risky business.  But when it is legal, the difference is like day and night in terms of risk, so more Women are getting involved.  And at this rate, it won't be long before they take this industry over as well.

Who would have thought that cannabis would be such an engine of female empowerment?  Actually, it is really not that surprising, given the history (or should I say, HERstory) of herbal medicine in general--and this one is no exception.

"No Nation Is Lecherous, Where Sex Is Abundant"

Thomas Jefferson once famously said, "No nation is drunken where wine is cheap".  That quote is often misinterpreted rather literally, as a call for very low or no taxes on alcoholic beverages in general.  And such contextomy also ignores the very next clause of the same sentence in which it is uttered: "...and none sober where the dearness of wine substitutes ardent spirits [i.e. hard liquor] as the common beverage."  Yes, wine was actually more expensive than whiskey in early 19th century America.  Of course, we know now that alcohol is alcohol is alcohol, period, and that reams upon reams of research evidence have proven time and again that, all else being equal, higher alcohol prices (regardless of beverage type) generally lead to fewer alcohol-related deaths, injuires, diseases, crimes, and problems in general, along with less overall consumption of such beverages.  So much so that the new saying nowadays is, "Alcohol is no ordinary commodity".

But what about the "cost" of sex?  Fraught as that issue clearly is, many armchair pundits have indeed attempted to answer that question.  Indeed, one of my previous articles, "What Is the Ideal Sex Ratio", attempted to answer that very question.  As we know, all else being equal, the relative "cost" of sex (from the perspective of men) is inversely proportional to the relative abundance of Women in a given population, due to the laws of supply and demand.  Such an idea formed the basis of the book "Date-onomics" by Jon Birger.  And many research papers have also been written about the various pros and cons of high and low sex ratios, many of which can be browsed from the links on my previous article from several months ago.

My general thesis is that a low sex ratio (i.e. a high number of Women relative to men) is overall the most mutually beneficial for everyone on balance.  And I also tend to argue against any sort of artificial scarcity of sexuality (with the notable exception of a Lysistrata-style sex strike, which is a short-term tactic, not a long-term strategy).  We all saw what happened in the Victorian era, after all.  An entire social movement was spearheaded to make sex as "costly" as possible for both men and Women in spite of there being a surplus of Women.  The result?  Prostitution and human trafficking, including of children, exploded--to the point where a whopping one in twenty Women was involved in prostitution at any given time back then (versus less than one in 300 today).  And the notoriously lecherous Ancient Romans had quite a relative scarcity of Women, need I say more?

That would seem to be saying, "No nation is lecherous, where sex is cheap" (or rather  "abundant", since "cheap" can have a pejorative connotation especially in reference to sex) idea whose sentiment apparently underlies the recent iconoclastic book "Sex at Dawn" by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha.  And the books detractors will predictably, well, detract.  But there is a major nuance that unfortunately gets glossed over by both sides of the debate.  That is, the fundamental difference between male-defined sexuality versus female-defined sexuality is all too often overlooked.

Under patriarchy, male-defined sexuality is the gold standard of sexuality, to the point where most men and even most Women are unaware that there is any alternative.  Most sex, both commercial and non-commercial, follows this paradigm, often unconsciously, to the point where it is downright banal.  Even when completely consensual, the taint of this paradigm is very difficult to remove.  And in an obliquely similar fashion to Jefferson's quote, regardless of the overall "cost" of sex in general, patriarchy has managed to make female-defined sexuality that much more costly (and rare) relative to male-defined sexuality.  And artificial scarcity has a flip side of artificial abundance, a kind that conveniently benefits men at the expense of Women.  From slut-shaming to the virgin-whore dichotomy to sexual violence to victim-blaming to double standards, this evil system has essentially left us all with the worst of all worlds.  A truly negative-sum game.

When Women are truly liberated, both sexually and otherwise, female-defined sexuality will be the norm (and thus abundant), while male-defined sexuality will in turn become scarce (as few Women would want to participate).  And the best thing about it is that the whole toxic and outmoded "commodity model" of sexuality--in which sex is seen as something that men "take" from Women and for which Women must be "gatekeepers" lest their value as human beings be diminished--will be jettisoned under a feminine paradigm of sexuality.  And that is really the only way to resolve the inherent contradictions of Date-onomics.

Thus, one can paraphrase Jefferson yet again as such, and make the case that female-defined sexuality is, in truth, the only antidote to the bane of male-defined sexuality.   So what does female-defined sexuality actually look like in practice?  As a man, I obviously cannot define it--but I know it when I see it.  Let the planetary healing begin!

UPDATE:  I see that the notoriously controversial (and previously debunked) social conservative culture-warrior, Mark Regnerus, is at it yet again with a brand new book, literally titled "Cheap Sex", which is basically Date-onomics on steroids and laced with a certain misogyny that he barely even tries to disguise with what amounts to patronizing and paternalistic "concern" trolling in book form.   And his specious thesis can be readily demolished, as it is in this article by William K. Black.  Jennifer Wright also does a good takedown of Regnerus' thesis from a different angle as well.  Interestingly, even some conservatives also disagree with him.

Is This The Tipping Point?

We are now in what I like to call a "post-Harvey world" or a "post-Weinstein" world.  Ever since disgraced Hollywood film mogul Harvey Weinstein was finally exposed as a serial sexual harasser and assaulter, if not a full-blown rapist as well, numerous Women (and a few men as well) recently came forward against so many other male celebrities and politicians accusing them of various reprehensible acts on the sexual harassment/assault spectrum.  The hashtag campaign #MeToo has gone viral.  Thus it certainly seems like something has indeed changed within a matter of weeks.

Of course, predatory male behavior (and male-pattern violence in general) towards Women and children is sadly nothing new, and has been going on for thousands of years.  Ever since the advent of patriarchy, it has been going on to one degree or another in nearly all cultures.  But now it seems to finally be getting some long-overdue attention, and perhaps the proverbial dam has finally broken.  For the first time in history it seems, at least a significant chunk of Americans are actually starting to give the victims/survivors the benefit of the doubt rather than reflexively pillory them and automatically side with the accused, as has been the standard heretofore.  Time will tell whether this groundswell is a short-term flash in the pan or the tipping point of far more enduring and fundamental change to our society, but I believe it is at least the start of the latter.  Perhaps this may even accelerate the fall of the patriarchy.  Although, until the biggest elephant in the room--the one in the White House--is removed from power and actually faces justice for his misdeeds, my optimism will nonetheless remain cautious.

Note also that the term "post-Harvey" also has a double meaning as well.  Hurricane Harvey (and Irma and Maria) is (hopefully) a different, though related, sort of wake-up call as well.  There is indeed a connection between men's rape and abuse of Women on the one hand, and our collective rape and abuse of the Earth on the other.  And both are the primary causes of the existential crisis in which humanity (and all life in fact) is currently mired.  In other words, "#MeToo," said Mother Earth. "#MeToo."

2030: The Final Countdown

Let's face it, fellas.  Women are taking over, and it will likely happen sooner than you think.  So few men seem to see it coming, despite the fact that we are increasingly becoming the redundant half of humanity.  But there are several reasons for my prediction that Women will take over around 2030 in the USA at least, and likely by 2050 worldwide:

• Women have already crossed the proverbial Rubicon in terms of education.  Since the 1990s, there have been more Women than men earning college degrees each year.  Women now outnumber men on most college campuses, and since 2010 there are now more total Women than men who possess college degrees in this country.
• Not coincidentally, in a growing number of cities, single women in their twenties and early thirties are out-earning men, in spite of the overall gender wage gap in general. Women are well on their way to becoming the richer gender.
• The number of Women in high-powered careers continues to rise, especially for CEOs.
• Automation, robotics, and artificial intelligence (AI) are predicted to eventually take most if not all jobs from workers by 2060, and a large chunk of which taken by 2030.  This is especially true for traditionally "male" jobs, meaning that men will be hit the hardest and soonest by such trends.
• Men, on the other hand, continue to lag behind, and are getting poorer with each generation these days.  And as the saying goes, whoever has the gold makes the rules.
• And last but not least, we have demographic trends as well.  Thanks to Women today living longer as well as having fewer kids than in the past, the population is aging, and soon the Crones (older Women) will have an unprecedented amount of power due to strength in numbers.  No wonder so many men, especially conservatives, are scared of "demographic winter".
• Millennial Women will be starting to enter the Crone stage of life from 2030 on, in fact.
• And while there will be a surplus of Women in general relative to men in general, and thus more strength in numbers, there will also be a shortage of younger Women relative to slightly older men by 2030 due to the fairly steep drop in birthrates since the Great Recession began in 2008, thus increasing the dyadic bargaining power of younger Women as well.  Such a one-two punch rarely happens, but when it does, it can be quite significant, especially when combined with the above trends as well.

Thus, 2030 seems to be the most likely time for the better half of humanity to reclaim their rightful position as the new leaders of the free world.  And Millennial Women will be the first generation to take over.  Of course, even if Women were to take over the entire world tomorrow, it would still take many more generations after that to finally heal the world from thousands of years of patriarchy, which is no easy task.  But the key step of the initial takeover is already under way, no matter how few see it coming--in fact, that's partly why it will be so effective.  Soon men will be begging Women to take over, even if only in the hopes of men getting a bailout. 

And when Women do finally take over, they will remember how they were treated, so it really behooves us fellas to clean up our act yesterday.  This last point absolutely cannot be overstated, for we all know what they say about karma.

Like the song says, it's the final countdown...

Women Are Indeed Higher Beings

A recent scientific study on gender difference confirms what we in the Matriarchy movement have already known, and thinkers like Ashley Montagu have discussed over half a century ago:  Women are indeed the better half of humanity.

This study, consisting of behavioral experiments conducted by neuroscientists, find that not only are Women more likely to be generous and men more likely to be selfish, but that there is a neurological explanation for such differences.  To wit, Women's brains tend to reward prosocial (unselfish) behavior where as men's brains tend to reward selfish behavior.  The brain's reward center (the striatum, which releases a hit of dopamine as the reward) was found to differentially activated in that regard in these experiments.  Thus, at a neurological level, Women are essentially rewarded for kindness, while men are rewarded for being jerks.  Gee, who woulda thunk it?

Of course, the perennial "nature versus nurture" question inevitably comes into play here, and the researchers predictably conclude that their findings are more likely due to nurture than nature.  But I believe that it is, at the very least, a bit of both, if not more nature than nurture, as any explanation for the findings that relies entirely on nurture really seems to merely coast toward such a conclusion.

Thus, this study should lend support to the idea that Women are likely much better leaders than men, and that their feminine paradigm of leadership would be superior as well.   And any economy run by Women is likely to eventually tend toward a gift economy rather than an exchange economy like we have now under patriarchy.  Remember, the literal meaning of "community" is "free sharing of gifts" in the original Latin.  So what are we waiting for?  Let the planetary healing begin!

And to all the men reading this:  DO NOT take this study as license to be selfish jerks!  Women's kindness and generosity is NOT a weakness, and it is NOT unlimited, so stop treating it like it is unless you really want to see their dark side (yes, it does exist, and I strongly advise against activating it, ever).  Remember, when Women are happy, the world is happy.  And when they are not, watch out, fellas!

What To Do About Porn?

I had recently written an article about sex work--particularly prostitution--that offered something seldom seen in either side of the debate these days:  nuance.  To wit, I had argued that it is both "the oldest profession" AND "the oldest oppression", and the difference ultimately depends on who has the power.  I had also argued that Women need to take over the industry and that decriminalization is, on balance, the least-worst alternative for the time being.

But I realize that I left out something crucial, namely the other main kind of commercial sex work:  PORN.  While it contains many of the same issues that prostitution has, it also has a much wider audience and thus much wider influence.  In fact, it is an even bigger elephant in the room, and is more accessible now than ever before. So what do we do about porn then?

To be brutally honest, we need to come to terms with a rather inconvenient truth.  Porn, or at least 99% of the stuff that's out there today (give or take a percentage point), does indeed have a serious dark side.  It typically contains--when it is not overtly cruel, violent, and degrading to Women, like far too much of it is--a particular kind of warped, twisted, toxic, and patriarchal (i.e. male-dominated) version of "sexuality" that is markedly and often fundamentally different than healthy sexuality.  Also, many of the performers, especially the Women, are often forced, coerced, deceived, and/or brainwashed into it.  And the often very young viewers end up with a distorted view of what sex is really all about, particularly if porn is the only "sex education" they ever really had.   Thus, "making love" gets confused with the "making hate" that is normalized in porn, with predictable results.

So where does this dark side actually come from?  You guessed it--the MEN who control and create it.  And, of course, the MEN who demand it reinforce it even further.  But either way, it begins and ends with MEN.  Yet the genie is out of the bottle at this point, and any attempt to ban it entirely is certain to backfire, to say nothing of free speech issues.  The only real solution, I believe, is for Women to take over the porn industry and jam the culture for the better.  And yes, there is indeed such a thing as feminist porn--not only is that not an oxymoron, but there needs to be more of it.  Yesterday.

There are, of course, those who cynically argue that there is inherently no such thing as feminist porn and can never be, period.  They even give examples to try in vain to prove this unprovable negative.  But the questionable examples they give of so-called "feminist porn" are in fact straw-man examples that are virtually identical (at least in content) to male-dominated mainstream genres.  It is of course not enough for it to be produced by Women and done without coercion, but the content itself also needs to at least largely reflect a more feminist and humanizing paradigm of sexuality as well.  Thus, such critics do not actually "debunk" the real concept at all, which does in fact exist.

In the meantime, there are several other things that we as a society should do.  We need to help young people develop better media literacy to safely navigate a world in which the internet porn genie is long out of the bottle.  We need real, honest, accurate, shame-free sex education that goes beyond the pathetic joke that passes for it currently.  We need to crack down on any form of coercion or trafficking that does occur in the porn industry, of both adults and children, and have better regulation and monitoring of the industry to prevent it.   We need tough laws against "revenge porn" as well. And we should probably require that at least all free porn sites (that don't require a credit card for age verification) be shunted onto the .xxx top-level domain so exposure to such sites can be more readily blocked and filtered from children (currently, the average age of first exposure is 11, and often accidentally).  All of these things need to be done yesterday.

But at the same time, we must also take a nuanced view that porn is not always inherently bad or unhealthy, and realize that censorship is NOT a solution--it is in fact a part of the problem, as is the denial of Women's agency. And furthermore, we also need to realize that once we start punishing people for "thoughtcrimes", we will have essentially crossed the proverbial Rubicon on the road to [insert dystopian novel here].   And that, ladies and gentlemen, is far more horrifying than even the very worst gonzo porn out there--which really says something!

As I like to say, if we make the perfect the enemy of the good, we ultimately end up with neither.