Female Sexual Power

by Featured Guest on February 2, 2012

By Henry Laasanen

“Female Sexual Power” is the title of my book (2008, in Finnish only!) and part of the title of my master thesis (2006) in sociology (Female sexual power: The critique of feminist equality paradigm). This article is an introduction to the ideas of the book.

The book received a very angry response, especially from women and feminists. I was labeled as a “basement wanker who couldnít get laid”. Bashing me (argumentum ad hominem) was more important than fighting my arguments (I received bashing like this first comment against Roy Baumeister).

Finland’s biggest newspaper, Helsingin Sanomat, has a board of 100 “intellectuals” who declared, by majority vote, that women don’t have more sexual power than men.

My book has the same basic idea as Catherine Hakim’s book “Erotic Capital: The Power of Attraction in the Boardroom and the Bedroom”, but I draw different conclusions (note: my book has nothing to do with Jessica Valenti’s book with a similar sounding title). The starting point of my (and Hakim’s) theory is that men want more sex than women. In economic terms you could say that there is much more demand for female sexuality than for male sexuality.

The old saying “Women need men like a fish needs a bicycle” is right. Men need women more than women need men. And feminism has succeeded in reducing female dependency of men still further.

Scientific backbone of the theory comes from the Baumeister and Vohs article “ Sexual economics: Sex as female resource for Social Exchange in Heterosexual Interactions” (2004). Thet theory is build by combining evolutionary psychology, social exchange theory, economic theory of sexuality and Emerson’s power-dependency theory.

There is an old (2005) discussion of female sexual power in Alas-blog, which you may find interesting.

The critiques of the theory

The idea of †female sexual power gets lots of criticism. Two main critiques come from opposite directions. Some people (usually men) say, that “while the theory is very true, the idea of female sexual power is not a great scientific breakthrough, because it is self evident. Everybody has known it for ages” ( one that kind of critique in English is here).

Other people (usually women) say the opposite: “The idea of female sexual power is bullshit. Women want sex as much as men. And even if the idea of female sexual power is somewhat right, it’s not a real or useful form of power.

For me the idea of female sexual power is at the same time (1) self evident and (2) important. It’s important because it brings the female power in to the scientific and political discussions. It’s important to the men’s movement, because it shows that patriarchy is not the only gender power structure in the world.

You can say that female sexual power is part of the “common knowledge”, but common knowledge has not much value, until it’s written as an scientific theory. You cannot fight feminist science with common knowledge.

Men want more sex than women

Comment sections (in Hakimís book discussions) are filled with the politically correct claim, that women want sex as much as men. The claim is untrue.

There are lots of studies of sexual desire, and all of them point in the same direction: men want more sex than women. Men want sex faster, with more partners and they want more casual sex.

Universal Sex Differences in the Desire for Sexual Variety: Tests From 52 Nations, 6 Continents, and 13 Islands.

“This study provides the largest and most comprehensive test yet conducted on whether the sexes differ in the desire for sexual variety. The results are strong and conclusive – the sexes differ, and these differences appear to be universal. Men not only possess a greater desire than women do for a variety of sexual partners, men also require less time to elapse than women do before consenting to sexual intercourse, and men tend to more actively seek short-term mate ships than women do. These sex differences are cross-culturally robust and statistically significant regardless of whether mean, median, distributional, or categorical indexes of sexual differentiation are evaluated. These sex differences are robust and significant regardless of the measures used to evaluate them.”

If you don’t believe in scientific studies, you can make your own experiment, like Simon Owens. He wanted to find out, how hard it was to get laid using Craigslist. Here are the stats on how many people responded to each person.

New York:

Straight female looking to have sex with a male: 165 responses

Straight male looking to have sex with a female: 0 responses

Bi-curious male looking to have sex with a male: 9 responses

Bisexual female looking to have sex with a female: 2 responses

Chicago:

Straight female looking to have sex with a male: 200 responses

Straight male looking to have sex with a female: 0 responses

Bi-curious male looking to have sex with a male: 6 responses

Bisexual female looking to have sex with a female: 2 responses

Houston:

Straight female looking to have sex with a male: 54 responses

Straight male looking to have sex with a female: 1 response

Bi-curious male looking to have sex with a male: 10 responses

Bisexual female looking to have sex with a female: 1 response

Bisexual female looking to have sex with a female: 1 response

Sadly, for a heterosexual male it is easier to find gay partners than female partners.

Amanda Marcotte has claimed many times, that women want sex as much as men. She has attacked the straw man argument “women don’t want sex“. No one has claimed that women don’t want sex; women just want much less sex than men. And women’s sexual desire doesnít create the same kind of demand on the market that men’s sexual desire does.

Benefits and costs

Sexual power has two main dimension: benefits and costs. A person with sexual power gets benefits and possibilities; a person without sexual power gets costs and reduced possibility.

The person with sexual power (for example beauty pageant contestant) has possibility…

  1. …to have sex whenever and with whoever she wants.
  2. …to marry up.
  3. …to make money through prostitution.
  4. …to feel sexually desired, get invitation to parties and so on.
  5. …to get benefits in worklife.

The person without sexual power (typically a man without status, looks, and money or PUA skills) has the possibility to choose…left or right hand.

The person without sexual power has a choice between 2 main costs:

  1. The psychological costs of unwanted celibacy.
  2. Costs of getting sexual relationships.

The choice is same kind as the choice between PUA and MGTOW. If he chooses option number two, he faces different costs:

  1. Search costs (going through bars, writing in internet dating sites and so on)
  2. Marketing costs of learning PUA skills.
  3. Investing costs (raising your market value by getting money, muscles, status and so on).
  4. Psychological costs of getting rejected.
  5. Opportunity costs (he could do something else pleasant instead of chasing women).

Whatever you do, there is no escape from costs, because biological sex drive is the root cause of the costs. MGTOW lifestyle offers no solution, because it brings the costs of unwanted celibacy.

Gender structures in the society

The third important dimension of female sexual power lies in its structural effects. Have you ever wondered why…

  1. …female romantic sexuality is an acceptable form of sexuality, while men’s sexuality is sick and perverted?
  2. …women’s magazines dominate the official politically correct sexuality, but PUA guides are morally questionable?
  3. …men are the more disposable sex?
  4. …men must usually make the first move in the relationships and risk the rejection?
  5. …men must pay on dates?
  6. …laws are against men’s behavior and not against women’s behavior?

The answer to all those gender structures lies in female sexual power. Women’s sexual resource (Erotic capital) manifests itself in gender structures that are beneficial for women.

It’s also possible to explain female sexual power structures in society by using Marx’s terminology of† “gender classes“, if you put women in the position of the bourgeoisie (sexual capital) and men in the position of proletariat. The male-female relationship becomes as a system of exploitation, where women get the surplus value of men’s work.

Marx has also the concepts of base and superstructure. Base is the women’s sexual domination in the base of mating market, which produces the women-friendly ideologies (women’s sexuality is good, men are disposable sex…) in the superstructure.

Theories in the book

DOUBLE AND TRIPLE PAY THEORY: Women can get income from (1) their own work and from (2) men’s work. Therefore, it is not adequate to compare only work wages – you have to take all the income into account. And there is also the triple pay theory. Women get much more welfare benefits from the state. So, if you want do economic comparison between men and women, you must take account of women’s triple pay.

WOMEN’S LIFE STRATEGIES: Women have more available life strategies than men: (1) The wife strategy; (2) The blond strategy (prostitution, modeling, short relationships with wealthy men…); (3) The feminist strategy (make your own money and advance feminist politics); (4) The glamour feminist strategy (combining the sexual power and work life power). Women can use those strategies opportunistically in different phases of life.

FINNISH LEVEL THEORY OF MEN: In Finnish discussion the alpha-beta terminology is not the standard. Instead we have level theory, in which men are divided in 3 levels: higher, middle and lower level, depending on the sexual success (idea is similar to rich, middle income and poor). The problem with alpha-beta terminology is the double meaning of words: alpha and beta refer to the certain types of men – dominant and submissive, but sexual success doesnít always go hand in hand with the types: beta can have lots of sexual success.

PORN IS MORE EQUAL THAN ROMANCE: Think about it. In mainstream porn everything is equal: no one has clothes, man is in the top, woman is in the top, woman gives blowjob, and man gives cunninlingus…Romance is very unequal. Cinderella is very poor, the prince owns everything. And when they marry, Cinderella gets huge economic benefits.

WOMEN’S SEXUAL MARKET VALUE AND RELATIONSHIP MARKET VALUE ARE VERY DIFFERENT: Womenís sexual market value is usually much higher than her relationship market value, which means, than women can get high quality partners to short sexual relationships, but she have to lower the bar for longer relationships. For men thing are just the opposites. If a man want just sex (now, today), he must usually settle for the much lower quality partner than himself.

MARKET VALUE THEORY’S 7 THESIS:

  1. Market value is the potential demand for the person in the sexual marketplace.†
  2. Market value predicts the quality of the persons partners.
  3. If partners have same level of market value, relationship has good chance of lasting long.
  4. Women’s market values are generally higher than men’s market values.
  5. Women’s sexual market value is usually much higher than her relationship market value.
  6. Women arrive at their market value peak younger than men.
  7. Menís market values are more spreader than womenís market values.

{ 132 comments… read them below or add one }

Leave a Comment

{ 3 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: