Economics is often called ‘the dismal science', and having sat through graduate level courses in Economics as part of my MBA, I can verify that claim. I found economics to be incredibly frustrating because it can articulate grand concepts like supply, demand, consumption, distribution and production, but higher order analysis is founded on two completely wrong assumptions. First, economic analysis assumes that people act in their own self-interest always, and it assumes people have all the relevant information they need to make a decision. Clearly, these two assumptions are wildly, grossly incorrect: people do not always act in their own self-interest (which is why Donald Trump will be the next POTUS), and people rarely have all the information they need to make decisions, because there's simply too many variables to consider.
I do not have the ‘all numbers and calculations are inherently interesting' gene, and therefore, given that all economic analysis proceeds on the basic of two deeply flawed assumptions, I found the math maddening. There appeared to be no point, other than to make pretty graphs. Economics is not like finance, which also requires some complex calculations and advanced quant skills, but at the end of a long series of numbers, you are left with something useful, such as the ability to calculate the future value of a stream of money over x amount of time at y rate of interest. You can go backwards and discount a sum, too! All very useful. Economics, not so much.
The basic principles of economics are useful, even if the specifics are not. And they are especially useful for describing the relationships between men and women. Milo Yiannopoulos has an interesting column up at Breitbart:
The whole article is worth a read, but here is a section in which Milo touches on the economics of sex"
Women were told by feminists that they could "have it all" — the career, the husband, the kids and the book club. But it was a lie. What they've ended up with instead is a tiny apartment in an "up and coming" bit of town, friends they hate, a string of disastrous and emotionally unfulfilling past relationships and a cat.
Had the relations between the sexes been healthier today, there wouldn't be much call for sexbots to get in the way. Women already had the upper hand, sexually. They had what men wanted. There's a reason the Ashley Madison leak showed that the site was over 90 per cent male.
But gender relations in the West are at their worst for fifty years, possibly more, which is why popular men's bloggers are now asking whether sexbots will replace women entirely. The consensus seems to be: for some men, yes, totally. For other men, they will become a masturbation tool. A few "alphas" and players at the top will be able to bang their way around the entire female population, which will be comprised of ever more neurotic, backstabbing and insane behaviour.
What Milo is describing here are the basic economic concepts of supply and demand.
Let's oversimplify, and consider what women want from men, and what men want from women. Both want the same things, but they want them in different orders of priority:
When Milo writes that ‘women have always had the upper hand' when it comes to sex, this is what he means. Sex is first on the priority list for men, and last for women. Demand is high, supply is tight, the suppliers set the price. The price for sex used to be very high, indeed: regular sexual access to a woman meant you legally married her, supported her and the resulting children, and remained committed for the rest of your natural life (which ended rather sooner than hers, thanks to the stresses of being the sole provider for a family).
Obviously, a great many men were not happy with this situation, not the least because the supply side could be tightened after marriage, but a man's obligation to support his family was static, and extremely difficult to avoid or change. That whole dying years earlier thing kind of sucked too. I find it incredulous that feminists were able to spin the power and control women had because they controlled the supply side of sex oppressive. Despite being able to set the price for the supply of sex so high, women were somehow victims! Betty Friedan, the most famous of all the bored housewives, spearheaded women sense of being mistreated and downtrodden, and women jumped on board the bandwagon in droves.
And unwittingly gave up their power to set the price for sex high. The birth control pill and the sexual revolution ushered in an era where the supply of sex suddenly exploded and men were under no obligation of any kind to meet the demand that sex be exchanged for men's resources. Cue the single mother, who found a way to oblige men to support her in exchange for sex, by claiming the support was for the child. Very clever, really. This sleight of hand goes a long way towards explaining why women resist all requirements that they prove resources acquired from men, for the purposes of supporting children the man may or may not have biologically fathered, are actually being used to support that child.
Women's mass entry into the workforce shattered men's ability to earn a family wage, so suddenly men had to move access to a woman's resources higher up the priority scale. This has resulted in what the Economist calls assortative mating – women have not changed their priorities in the least – access to a man's resources still remains the highest priority for women, but those women can, by and large, no longer trade just sex for access. They have to trade resources of their own.
And this has made women absolutely miserable. Resources have moved up men's priority scale, but women's scale remains unchanged: resources, children, companionship, sex. It's impossible to be both an effective mother and a woman who provides a significant portion of the family's resources. Some women, like Sheryl Sandberg, have shifted children to the bottom of the priority list, but for most women, that simply isn't possible. It violates their deepest sense of purpose, and they are utterly bereft. The Daily Mail ran a story today about three women who had children and found they could not bear to be apart from them. It's interesting that in all three cases, the family resources took a huge nosedive, and the men appear to be okay with that change in their responsibilities. It's hard to say, as none of the men were quoted or interviewed.
I simply have to quote this Forbes survey again, in which 84% of women admitted that staying at home with their children full time was a financial luxury they aspired to, and of that group, one third admitted they resented their husbands for not being able to provide that luxury for them. The resentment part is what I want to focus on: resentment is absolute poison to a marriage. What this Forbes survey demonstrates is that women are unhappy, seething bitches, bitter they made the Feminist Approved Choice™, and it turns out, that choice sucks donkey balls.
Now enter the sexbots. Here is your choice as a man: You want to have regular sex with a woman whose companionship you enjoy, but you are unlikely to be able to provide for a family on your wage alone, so you have to marry a partner who can contribute resources to the family. Once the two of you have children, she will likely be a guilty, exhausted, angry, resentful, bitter, nagging shrew who blames you for making her life so difficult. Your sex life will die, and you will left with this deranged, miserable woman, who, in all likelihood, will file for divorce and take half your stuff and your children.
Or you can go back to your list of demands and reconsider: sex, resources, companionship, children. Sexbots can provide drama-free sex whenever you want. The sexbot will claim no more resources that those to purchase her (and perhaps a bit of maintenance? Sexbot cleaning products?), meaning you can drop resources back down to the bottom of the list, since you will have more than enough to support just yourself. The sexbot cannot provide you with companionship (at least not yet – AI might take care of that), and cannot provide you with children. Milo suggests that ‘marriage will benefit from a reduced focus on sex. With desire taken out of the marital equation, it's conceivable that the number of "partnership marriages" between people who get on well and respect each other enough to share the load of raising children will grow. Without the power imbalance built in to traditional heterosexual marriage — i.e., women holding all the cards — marriage could become stronger than ever'.
That's possible. A lot of men definitely want children, they just don't want the bitchy wife that comes with them, so this is a rational choice. But there is another group of women who see the opportunities in unmet demand, women who have always been able to keep the price of access to them sexually very high: women who know that men value companionship only slightly less than they value sex. Sexbots will be no threat to these women, indeed, sexbots will increase the demand for women who value companionship with men.
Just like economics, this is an oversimplification and of course there are outliers everywhere. Some men don't want children, some women don't want children either, some women are not the slightest bit bothered by handing the children over to the hired help to be raised, some men would like nothing more than to be a stay at home parent, some men only value women for their money…. but those are outliers. In general, men want sex and companionship from women, and trade resources and children to get those things. In general, women want resources and children from men, and trade companionship and sex to get those things. And there is nothing wrong with that. It has worked to create happy, productive, healthy families for centuries.
Dramatically altering the supply and demand curves between men and women has resulted in what Milo calls The Sexodus, whereby men avoid women altogether, and the miseries of slut culture, where women give away sex at an extremely low price, and then get angry and resentful when they are not living the happy life they want. Sexbots will allow men to continue to eschew screaming, misandrist harpies, and women won't have even partial access to men's resources, since the value of sex will be reduced effectively to zero.
That restores the emphasis on companionship, and loving, mutually beneficial relationships between two people who genuinely like and love each other, and want to raise a family together, over the long run. It's a complementary system that balances perfectly. Changes in demand for one aspect are met with changes in supply. The system is designed to maintain what game theorists call ‘the Nash equilibrium'. I think a good solid marriage is always searching for equilibrium, too. That means you really can't mess with supply and demand too much.
On the other hand, like economics, all my basic assumptions could be dead wrong.
What do you think?