Many of the topics people talk about here can be seen in a clearer way if one is capable of understanding a few concepts from (intermediate) microeconomics, and apply them to sex and gender issues. Two big "tools" are

  • utility/production surfaces

  • diminishing marginal utility

If you haven't taken college level courses on these topics then they might be difficult to understand. I found a few resources after a quick search, but none were as basic as I was hoping for:

For example, "women aren't interested in casual sex" In terms of diminishing marginal utility, this makes a lot of sense. If you've already been able to do something as much as you'd more-or-less want to, then it won't be very appealing to you.

Things get more interesting when you allow for two or more "inputs" to the utility/production function. Utility is economics-speak for happiness, or enjoyment. When considering things from the perspective of a company, you'll see "production function" rather than utility, but it's really all the same thing. The two inputs are usually graphed on the X and Y axis, and "level of happiness" on the Z, or vertical, axis. The 3D graph can be thought of as a surface.

Keeping things as simple as possible, we can think of happiness/enjoyment/utility as a function of

  • sex, vs.

  • everything-not-sex

Example, now "what are your standards" can make a lot more sense. The relative value of something, the value you give it right now, depends on your current mix of inputs. If you have a lot of sex then getting a little more everything-not-sex is going to make you a lot happier than a little more sex.

Is everything-not-sex an extremely broad category? Yes, but that's not the point of this thought experiment.