I stumbled on this bit of RP gold in the comment section of something that was posted here.

http://www.justfourguys.com/the-problem-of-the-natural-and-just-figure-it-out-for-yourself/#comment-12689

Critical Detail #1. Sex is “priced” in two major currencies of exchange: Sperm Donor Currency and Provisioning-Protection Currency. The key relationship is the SD:PP exchange rate, and this is what realistically should be quoted. Another way of putting it would be the “Hotness vs. Commitment” exchange rate.

Two major controlling assumptions apply here:

A) In aggregate and over time, men are intuitively/boundedly-rational consumers and they respond to incentives. A man has both Hotness/SD and Commitment/PP resources to expend in the sexual marketplace; in the absence of distortions and asymmetric information, he will become aware of his best buying opportunities and will plan accordingly using the appropriate resources.

B) SD:PP reflects relative bargaining power; it is a seesaw, and social factors which lower the perceived need for male Provisioning and Protection will simultaneously raise the value of Sperm Donor hotness.

Critical Detail #2: Lowering the price of sex in commitment units means raising it in required hotness units. Some men benefit from this, while other men lose out. Thus the current “low” price of sex is really just a conceit of a one-sided analysis; for many men, sex is still priced far too high because said men simply do not come with a competitive level of the hotness attribute. They would have been better off if commitment units were more valuable, which in turn means they would have been better off if female needs for male economic provisioning and physical protection were greater, which in turn means that they would have been better off before feminism. These are all chained together and you can’t play with one dial without affecting other variables.

Thus the experiences of men in the SMP are becoming increasingly bifurcated, and economic “superstar effects”—common in professional sports, entertainment, etc.—may magnify the impacts of even small differentials in hotness.

Critical Detail #3: The worst conceit of all is that men fail to differentiate between validation sex and transactional sex. If there was a Red Pill for women and I was put in charge of it, I would build the entire foundation on understanding this aspect of male sexuality. Transactional sex is FAR less psychologically enriching for the male and is FAR more vulnerable to dis-intermediation (infidelity) and substitution (porn) than is validation sex.

A man can have a very beautiful mate and cheat on her with a less attractive woman if the attractive mate has a transactional sex policy and the mistress generates validation sex—validation sex is a superfood for the male brain. If a beautiful woman has mastered at least the appearance of generating validation sex, she can get a guy to do literally anything for her. Thinking that men just care about “sex” as a monolithic entity misses a crucial psychological distinction in a man’s experience of his own sexuality.

As if this was not bad enough for hotness-challenged men, the Sperm Donor/Hotness exchange systematically leads to a different, high-psychological octane form of sex—validation sex—than does the Provider-Protector pathway. So even if you had two guys who were on paper getting exactly the same amount of sex, the guy who was getting more validation sex would have a much more rewarding outlook on his sexual experiences than would the guy who was getting more transactional sex. I am not sure if a ratio could be easily applied, but I believe that one night of validation sex is worth many nights, perhaps many months, of transactional sex when we look at the actual effects on male hormonal and neurotransmitter amplification cascades,

IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO LOOK AT WHO IS GETTING THE MOST SEX; YOU MUST ALSO LOOK AT WHO IS GETTING THE MOST VALIDATION SEX.

The idea that the solution for the SMP from a female perspective is to push for dis-economic outcomes in which a price-fixing cabal artificially increases the exchange price of sex well above its free market clearing price—in order to forcibly extract more resources from men—is an idea that will work about the same way as any other central planning intervention would work. it opens the door for a single disruptive technology or social innovation to destroy the entire market, and with a speed and violence that will catch many flat-footed. We’re not dealing with a closed, fixed system—we are dealing with a dynamic and complex one.

Critical Detail #4: Online porn and near-universal, chronic male jack-off habits have possibly changed everything. By definition, price-fixing would serve to increase the level of transactional sex being put on the exchange, and transactional sex is the kind that is most readily replaced with porn. Women who are looking to “sell” sex are not just competing with each other—they are competing with porn.

Guys with the strongest sex drives who would have been willing to pay the highest prices for sex are—no surprise here—jacking off to porn the most. What is a guy willing to pay for sex when he’s depleted his balls 2, 3, 4x per day using porn? This is the ongoing, large-scale social experiment that is underway. Raising the price won’t work: some % of guys have already looked at the current price of sex being demanded and decided it is way too high. They are essentially checking out and voting with their hands by—you guess it—fapping themselves to oblivion. Even SMP alphas fap regularly to porn—the movie “Don Jon” explores this phenomenon in an amusing way. And of course the most frenzied masturbators of all are married guys with A) clinically sexless relationships and B) unwillingness to try to change things because of the soul-eroding, transactional nature of the sex that is still left.

In summation: I think that economic models of the sexual market place need to distinguish between relative exchange values for two currencies—Hotness/Sperm Donor and Commitment/Provider-Protector—and to look at how these respond within a larger, holistic social context. I also believe that further differentiation needs to be made between Validation and Transactional expressions of sex, and to consider the vulnerability of Transactional sex to one-click porn substitution.