Commodification of Females

Post Reply New Topic

Go to hell.

Empirical research has shown, though, that very few women are likely to give the high-cost strategy preference over the low-cost strategy. In other words, unless the male has particularly stringent, even masochistic goals in mind, the rational strategy is the low-cost, multi-choice one.

That was a lot of words, so I only read
the title, but why do you want to turn
women into toilettes?

Go to hell.

No, men who use the low-cost, multi-choice strategy inherently commodify women to a greater or lesser extent; those who use the high-cost, single-choice strategy do not. Environmental pressure (i.e., romantic and sexual frustration) resulting from a lack of success using the high-cost, single-choice strategy may result in a man switching to the low-cost, multi-choice strategy, which inherently commodifies. The high-cost strategy, as its name makes clear, is very costly to utilize; a man will invest a great deal of effort romancing the woman he fancies, but all the same, she could turn him down. During that time, he was unable to pursue other women because all his efforts focused on his would-be lover. Rejection after using this strategy is also more likely to have strong emotional repercussions than the low-cost strategy: more frustration, depression, and other forms of negative affect. For the low-cost strategy, since the emotional connection was always flimsy to begin with, any emotional hurt incurred would be light and transient.

As an alternative to switching to the low-cost, multi-choice strategy, a man who has failed employing the high-cost, single-choice strategy may switch to the high-cost, no-choice strategy, which is depression and bitterness. This switch seems to be more common although it is less pragmatic. From a goal-oriented perspective, switching to the low-cost, multi-choice strategy is likely more effective.

The ultimate purpose of dating is neither sex nor further dates; it is an interpersonal relationship. While your "low-cost" strategy effective utilises the Law of Large Numbers, it is far less likely to afford you anything fulfilling. Therefore, your "high-cost" strategy of finding one person you like, which would be absolutely ludicrous in the investment world, is the only worthwhile option in the interpersonal realm.

the theory analyzes both strategies based on whether or not the provide a man with sex. It is possible that some men who utilize the 'high-cost method' are not commodifying women, but the meta-theory does so by basing the 'success' or 'failure' of either method on how much sex the participant gets.

This is hardly the case. If my goal is to metaphorically scratch an itch (the itch being sexual need), then the low-cost strategy is most rational. Even if one's ultimate goal is a long-term relationship, the low-cost strategy has the benefit of introducing a male to a greater number of women, which increases the chances he will find one he desires. Of course, he has to know pretty soon whether he does want to invest more time in a particular woman he meets because, if he does not, he has just switched to thr high-cost strategy.

This is hardly the case. If my goal is to metaphorically scratch an itch (the itch being sexual need)...

Actually the most effective strategy in getting laid is prostitution. Either way, good luck with that.

It was a metaphor to show the relative costs of two dating strategies.

I agree with the parent post in this thread, all of it, and here's why.

AS sufferers (including me) tend to analyze things in much more detail, AS sufferers also tend to adopt a more formal approach to many things including the establishment of a permanent, steady relationship. The original post is an example of good, solid cost/benefit analysis and there is nothing wrong with it.

Here's an example of how the technique can work.

Go back thirty years and young Ed Almos has suddenly discovered girls and he's looking for some company. To aid in this process I signed up with a computer dating company and I suddenly found myself with one printout after another of girls who wanted to meet me. Initially I invested 100% of my time, emotions and money into each girl on the printout, one at a time, and the end result was a series of massive failures which eventually drove me crazy. A far better way of doing this would have been to invest a small amount of my time, emotions and money into a number of relationships at the same time. The effects of this would be:

a) I would have a better chance of finding the right partner because I met more girls.
b) Failure of a relationship would not be such a big deal because I had not 'invested' too much.
c) Multiple failures over time would not have had such a bad effect, in fact it may have hardened me to failure.

Please note, these techniques are not just for men, they can be used by women as well. If I signed up for a dating organization I would EXPECT that a woman which I met for a drink one night would also be meeting other people within the organization. She would also be investing a minimum amount of her time, emotions and money into a number of prospective partners until she met the right man.

Ed Almos