Speaking as someone who is usually really disgusted by the “sexual market” arguments, this is actually very well argued. I think that it is useful to look at the “market” forces to understand the underlying dynamics, but us autistic zoomers tend to forget the next step, which is to then ignore the theory and dive right into real life pra…
Speaking as someone who is usually really disgusted by the “sexual market” arguments, this is actually very well argued. I think that it is useful to look at the “market” forces to understand the underlying dynamics, but us autistic zoomers tend to forget the next step, which is to then ignore the theory and dive right into real life practicalities anyway- none of you older women commenting on this stuff would ever intentionally treat your own significant other in a transactional way, despite all the theorizing.
I remember this old video by Karen Straughan about the transaction that justifies a marriage(or it did historically, idk what in the world is propping up its corpse now). She argues that traditional marriage, at its bones, is actually a young woman trading her fertility for things like lifelong protection and provision as well as a pension after her fertile years are over. This is why there was no such thing as marital rape, and your husband being unable to adequately provide for you were considered legitimate grounds for a separation. The fact of the marriage itself meant that both parties had those entitlements. But I describe it as “at its bones” for a reason- just because it is a transaction does not, and should not, remove all sentiment behind it. In fact, I think that the sentiment holds a marriage together much more than the transaction does, and contrary to what the leanings of other people here might be, sentiments are not empty or worthless. They might just be the most accessible infinite asset we have available.
I don’t know why, but lately I have developed this visceral disgust toward people that are obsessed with explaining away complex ideas like marriage or sacredness or desire. The logic is usually sound, in fact I end up agreeing with pretty much all of it, and yet it all feels so dead and flat and slightly noxious. It’s like a meticulously and beautifully dissected carcass of your once beloved pet. I suppose that just because you can explain the logic behind your feelings doesn’t make you stop feeling them. And just because you read the end of the script in advance doesn’t mean that you don’t play your role in the drama of it anyway.
Yeah I mean, I definitely do not talk in these cold market terms with my husband...I think we both have the "intuitive" understanding of underlying dynamics but it does not show up in our every day jokes and affections for each other and shared life and goals etc. Just like one's career and all the richness, pain, and triumphs lived every day does not reflect the underlying terms governing the job and one's home is much more than the price paid for it and the price one can sell it for. But whenever people are confused by an apparent contradiction in the logic of an argument, usually you can reconcile it if you look underneath what people are saying and focus on what market dynamics would cause you to predict.
I have a particularly bad habit (or skill, depending on one's perspective) at viewing things in transactional/market terms because I'm a transactional lawyer and my whole job for almost two decades now has been negotiating terms between parties on all sides, which makes the veil drop away. How it usually works is that the actual market players have to maintain their relationship and all the social and emotional bonds that are absolutely necessary to make collaboration and deals possible, so they barely even directly discuss such things, and then they turn it over to their lawyers to do the dirty work of negotiating the real terms. Because the real terms have a taint of vulgarity, and can ruin the relationship. This is most blatantly obvious when negotiating a prenup, but actually applies just as much to any business partnership or deal (or dissolution of one).
It has ruined me a little bit. Christmas isn't quite as much fun once you know there's no Santa, and it probably isn't healthy for people to live in a completely demystified and non magical world. So yes, constantly analyzing the world in 1s and 0s like an economist or autist...or at least LIVING and feeling like that, is not going to lead to joy and social harmony. This is one of the problems of the internet though...it has burst so many myths and laid bare underlying market dynamics that weren't previously so apparent...and now we have so much uncertainty because of it. No one really knows what to do and so we're all arguing with each other for our preferred way of addressing things and a million little ideologies are proliferating.
Speaking as someone who is usually really disgusted by the “sexual market” arguments, this is actually very well argued. I think that it is useful to look at the “market” forces to understand the underlying dynamics, but us autistic zoomers tend to forget the next step, which is to then ignore the theory and dive right into real life practicalities anyway- none of you older women commenting on this stuff would ever intentionally treat your own significant other in a transactional way, despite all the theorizing.
I remember this old video by Karen Straughan about the transaction that justifies a marriage(or it did historically, idk what in the world is propping up its corpse now). She argues that traditional marriage, at its bones, is actually a young woman trading her fertility for things like lifelong protection and provision as well as a pension after her fertile years are over. This is why there was no such thing as marital rape, and your husband being unable to adequately provide for you were considered legitimate grounds for a separation. The fact of the marriage itself meant that both parties had those entitlements. But I describe it as “at its bones” for a reason- just because it is a transaction does not, and should not, remove all sentiment behind it. In fact, I think that the sentiment holds a marriage together much more than the transaction does, and contrary to what the leanings of other people here might be, sentiments are not empty or worthless. They might just be the most accessible infinite asset we have available.
I don’t know why, but lately I have developed this visceral disgust toward people that are obsessed with explaining away complex ideas like marriage or sacredness or desire. The logic is usually sound, in fact I end up agreeing with pretty much all of it, and yet it all feels so dead and flat and slightly noxious. It’s like a meticulously and beautifully dissected carcass of your once beloved pet. I suppose that just because you can explain the logic behind your feelings doesn’t make you stop feeling them. And just because you read the end of the script in advance doesn’t mean that you don’t play your role in the drama of it anyway.
Yeah I mean, I definitely do not talk in these cold market terms with my husband...I think we both have the "intuitive" understanding of underlying dynamics but it does not show up in our every day jokes and affections for each other and shared life and goals etc. Just like one's career and all the richness, pain, and triumphs lived every day does not reflect the underlying terms governing the job and one's home is much more than the price paid for it and the price one can sell it for. But whenever people are confused by an apparent contradiction in the logic of an argument, usually you can reconcile it if you look underneath what people are saying and focus on what market dynamics would cause you to predict.
I have a particularly bad habit (or skill, depending on one's perspective) at viewing things in transactional/market terms because I'm a transactional lawyer and my whole job for almost two decades now has been negotiating terms between parties on all sides, which makes the veil drop away. How it usually works is that the actual market players have to maintain their relationship and all the social and emotional bonds that are absolutely necessary to make collaboration and deals possible, so they barely even directly discuss such things, and then they turn it over to their lawyers to do the dirty work of negotiating the real terms. Because the real terms have a taint of vulgarity, and can ruin the relationship. This is most blatantly obvious when negotiating a prenup, but actually applies just as much to any business partnership or deal (or dissolution of one).
It has ruined me a little bit. Christmas isn't quite as much fun once you know there's no Santa, and it probably isn't healthy for people to live in a completely demystified and non magical world. So yes, constantly analyzing the world in 1s and 0s like an economist or autist...or at least LIVING and feeling like that, is not going to lead to joy and social harmony. This is one of the problems of the internet though...it has burst so many myths and laid bare underlying market dynamics that weren't previously so apparent...and now we have so much uncertainty because of it. No one really knows what to do and so we're all arguing with each other for our preferred way of addressing things and a million little ideologies are proliferating.