Friday, February 9, 2018

The Solution to Sexual Interactions?

To some extent, the Sexual Revolution was a scam. With the idea that shunning girls who had multiple partners was wrong, gradually, the average woman found herself with 2 not-great choices:

  • Have sex when she didn't want to
  • Stay home alone
The average woman's experience morphed from MAYBE having sex with her fiancee/long-term boyfriend, to finding herself unable to draw a line at sex with any man whose company she enjoyed for more than a few hours.

The power dynamic had changed, and not in a way that favored women.

DON'T have sex - or at least a BJ on a "first date" (often, not even that)?


Have sex?

Buh-Bye. MAYBE come back for a second or third repetition.

NOT "involved". NOT "boyfriend-girlfriend". MAYBE "friends with benefits".

Who would often be dropped for a girl who was harder to persuade to have sex.

A lot of my peers fell into that scenario, and are still single. Same with my daughters' generation. Most of them are not entirely happy with it.

This writer makes some sense about the situation. Megan McArdle is a little light on the exact mechanisms that would drive that change, but it's a start on talking/thinking about it.

In a similar vein, Hollywood might restore the Morals Clause. Not because they are all that concerned about morality (come on!), but - having such a clause keeps them from having to pay an actor/director with a scandal. Without it - the producers of House of Cards had to pay Spacey for his work. With it, they could have re-couped some of the cost of replacing him by legally withholding payments for his work.

This is the first time I'd heard about the financial reasons behind the Clause. It makes some sense in that context.

No comments: