Is improving the economics of sex in favor of men "rape?"

DRMMR76 · 2015-02-15T00:48:31+00:00

Their endgame is the idea that is truly at the heart of all of this: the existence of low SMV men is rape. A low SMV male even being alive somewhere on earth is an insult to them. A slap in the face. It disgusts them. So all of these slow incremental movements that broaden the definition of rape little by little each time are just moving them closer to being able to admit their real motivation: Low SMV shouldn't exist and the idea that they are allowed to is a crime in and of itself.

popthatpill · 2015-02-15T01:57:27+00:00

Imagine if prostitution was not only legal but socially accepted and just seen as normal. Pussy stocks would plummet. You'd have a lot of women suddenly acting like they've got a little sense instead of spoiled little princesses because now they have got to sell the whole package and not just the hole.

[deleted] · 2015-02-15T12:20:49+00:00

Women furious that they are the ones who have to do the competing, settle for something lower than what they feel entitled to, then raise the implication of rape after the fact. Seriously, if the value of anything is dropping or being altered because of this, it's the value of the word "rape".

magus678 · 2015-02-15T15:07:10+00:00

Only got about 5 paragraphs in before I got insanely bored and realized it was basic supply and demand. That guys seriously wrote a 90 page thesis on this? College is such a fucking joke.

And he calls it "the balcony question" like it's some existential truth that no one had ever considered. What a tool.

oldredder · 2015-02-15T03:08:10+00:00

Wow, absolute and total disgrace, as if to say women are compelled to have sex with men in their presence rather than saying 'no' or finding more men somewhere else.

Wow.

A shit-ton of economics and university is outright fucking fraud.

MattyAnon · 2015-02-16T15:05:58+00:00

Here's some classic hamster, quoting form a quote in that link:

“When you know there is less guys than there are girls, you feel more like a target because the supply is being controlled,” she said.

Conversely if there were less girls, she would feel outnumbered and therefore a target.

Of course guys hosting the frat parties will try to get as many women there as possible and as few guys. Duhh. If you don't like it - host your own parties. Talk to random guys you like. Go outside college. Go to one of the other frat parties that aren't controlled by the alpha males. Oh wait, you don't wanna.... :)

An_All-Beef_Engineer · 2015-02-15T14:38:51+00:00

While the average BMI of fraternities did not vary between top houses and bottom houses, it did between top and bottom sororities, with top houses having a lower average BMI. While BMI is a major mechanism for competition among sororities, the lack of BMI competition among fraternities shows that they do not need to “compete as rigorously” to convert parties into sex.

Untrue. A muscular guy's BMI reads the same as a fat guy's BMI

“We’re not allowed to have alcohol on our property and we’re not allowed to have boys upstairs in our rooms. So the only place that you can go drink if you live in a sorority house is outside of your house,” Kelly explains. “So where do you go? You go to a fraternity. If you can’t sleep with a boy in your own house, that makes you seek that out somewhere else.”

Solution: (I) Allow alcohol in sororities (II) Allow sororities to have boys in their rooms

Drunk students hooked up more than sober ones, and alcohol increases hookups not only by lowering inhibitions for sexual encounters but also by giving students an “anticipatory excuse” where they blame their behavior on alcohol.

See solution (I) also is he proposing solution (III) - that females in sororities be banned from drinking?

Found it, he's not as thick as we thought guys:

iii. A Way Forward? have parties, sororities should be allowed to have alcohol in their houses. A system that allows them to have men stay the night should be explored.

The moral of this study - Low smv males are universally hated. Keep calm and lift guys.

FortunateBum · 2015-02-16T22:46:11+00:00

“The perplexing question is, why do women agree to attend fraternity parties knowing that they are at a ‘sex-ratio disadvantage’?” Hernandez asks, “in other words, that they will, on average, give away more producer surplus?” The answer is because women have to. To add another water-based metaphor, it is not the baby or the bathwater that is the problem—it’s the bathtub.

Well, ok then. They "have to".

Very scientific.

Women are looking for the highest status (resource) guys. They want to exchange sex for resources from those guys (because they have access to the most resources). The frat system creates an illusion that they are the highest status guys. Maybe they really are. Who knows? Who cares?

I'm not sure why society is responsible for making sure women are getting value for their vaginas.

Looking at sexuality in terms of economics is genius, really.

Definition of sexual assault:

When a woman provides a sexual service without being fairly compensated.

herewegoaga1n · 2015-02-15T09:31:16+00:00

of course its rape. even looking at a woman is rape. even sharing the same air is rape. they have always and will always be victims. if all the men disappeared tomorrow they would swear they left because all the women had been raped too much to be desireable.

activist113 · 2015-02-18T19:07:21+00:00

Update:

I actually read the stupid fuck's paper. I won't relink it, but fuck him. He uses the "marxist theory of exploitation" to justify his claim.

Total horseshit. They should cut him from his phd program.

Title	Is improving the economics of sex in favor of men "rape?"
Author	activist113
Upvotes	9
Comments	41
Date	February 15, 2015 12:44 AM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/TheRedPill
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/2vxdb9/is_improving_the_economics_of_sex_in_favor_of_men/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/TheRedPill/is-improving-the-economics-of-sex-in-favor-of-men.29157 https://theredarchive.com/post/29157

Comments