For
free? Are you absolutely sure?
Theo would disagree.
Anyway, here's the incriminating article:
A heterosexual community can be analyzed as a marketplace in which men seek to acquire sex from women by offering other resources in exchange. Societies will therefore define gender roles as if women are sellers and men buyers of sex.
Societies will endow female sexuality, but not male sexuality, with value (as in virginity, fidelity, chastity).
http://www.carlsonschool.umn.edu/Assets/71503.pdf
There are traditional methods in which men try to get women to sleep with them and then there are alternative methods.
I will admit that I only skimmed the article but from what I read it appears that this article is written from a traditional point of view.
There are other ways to go about building a comfort level between a man and a woman so that the only exchange between both parties is sex and this has absolutely nothing to do with exchanging sex for material things or money. In fact, if the male plays his cards right, he can actually get the woman to be the primary giver in the entire sequence of events that lead to sex. It depends on how he displays his value.
If for example, Morrissey wanted to have sex with someone here, he wouldn't have to really give very much. His current status allow him to get women into bed because his value is much higher than theirs. He may not choose to do so but we all know he could.
Men with the right understanding of the male/female dynamic can guide the perceived value (perception is reality) of himself and the female's value relative to his such that she will have a much higher desire for him than she does for the typical guy.
Men typically give far too much of themselves because they believe that will lead to them being rewarded by women when in fact, the opposite is generally true. Women are used to men giving them whatever they want. Men who generally follow rather counter-intuitive concepts will in fact end up better off than the placating chump who gives away everything he has and ends up empty handed as the woman of his desire walks away with some guy that is in his mind a total arsehole.
The guy isn't an arsehole. He just understands the dynamics that create attraction compared to actions that make him look weak, flaccid and very beta. A lot of guys think he is an arsehole because he's not blowing sun up the woman's porthole but in reality he is creating a challenge for the woman. He understands that women actually want sex and that every night women are going home and sleeping with guys they met that night. Instead of being the loser guy that tries to buy her into his bed he reverses the roles so that the woman is trying to get the guy to sleep with her. The guys that buy women drinks are not the same guys getting laid. The guys getting laid are the ones that are making the women buy them drinks.
Another thing about this article that makes it hard to really take seriously is that many of the citations in it are pretty old. I agree that the premise that sex is a commodity that women control is something that many people believe to be true. However, I disagree that it has to be that way. It is that way because too many men have no idea to turn themselves into the commodity. The article fails to mention that women have an innate desire to find a mate that will help them reproduce. This desire can be exploited. Even protected sex (condoms, pill, etc) is still driven by biological desires to reproduce. These inherent desires can be brought to the fore so that a woman WANTS to have sex so much so that it loses it no longer becomes an exchange for anything other than sex.
I think the article was written by someone who has slept with about 3 people.
