Sunday, 15 December 2013

Sexual Economics: Market Research supports ‘Repressive Feminist’ Thesis

Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty

Anglo-American feminists continually tell us that their movement opposes sexual freedom for purely altruistic reasons – that is, that such freedom leads inevitably to illegal porn, ‘sex trafficking’ and other crimes. However, we in the libertarian Men’s Movement argue that these noises represent a vain attempt by ageing/obese/ugly women to restrict sexual supply in western societies, thereby raising their own socio-sexual standing. In short, we believe feminism functions as a ‘sexual Trades Union’ for women on the wrong side of the youth-beauty Bell Curve, nothing more. This is especially true of Anglo-American feminism which, despite its ‘revolutionary’ rhetoric, shares exactly the same repressive, misandrist values as traditional Anglo-American culture.

Now, devastating support for our position has emerged from the field of marketing. This demonstrates that women have an instinctive tendency to prefer marketing that promotes the ‘scarcity value’ of sex:

While sex appeal in marketing campaigns generally turns women off, it can entice them to buy a product when used correctly, new research suggests.

A study published in the journal Psychological Science discovered that women's otherwise-negative attitudes about sexual imagery in ads can be softened when the images are paired with a product that connotes high worth.

"Women generally show spontaneous negative attitudes toward sexual images," the study's authors, including psychological scientist Kathleen Vohs from the University of Minnesota, wrote in the research. "Sexual economics theory offers a reason why: The use of sexual imagery is inimical to women's vested interest in sex being portrayed as infrequent, special and rare."

Before starting their research, Vohs and her colleagues predicted that women's negative attitudes toward sexually explicit ads might soften if sex were depicted in a particular way. That is, the ads must portray sex as being of great value. The researchers predicted that sexual imagery would be less off-putting to women, for example, if paired with high-priced consumer goods, which can convey exclusivity and high value.

To test their hypothesis, the researchers had male and female participants view advertisements for women's watches. Some of the ads presented the watch alongside a sexually explicit image, whereas others pictured the watch against a majestic mountain range. Additionally, some of the ads priced the watch at $10 and others at $1,250.

The study's authors found that, overall, women who saw the sexual imagery with the cheap watch rated the ad more negatively in comparison to women who saw the sexual imagery paired with the pricey watch. Men, on the other hand, reported similar reactions to the sex-based ads, regardless of the advertised price. Researchers believe these negative ratings from women seem to be driven by their negative emotions — feeling upset, disgusted, unpleasantly surprised or angry — in response to the ad that paired sexual imagery with the cheap watch.

A second study replicated the first experiment's results and ruled out the possibility that men's ratings didn't differ because they deemed the women's watches to be irrelevant. In the second study, men gave similar ratings to sexually explicit ads that included men's watches, regardless of how the watches were priced.
 The study's results surprised Vohs and her co-authors, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology’s Jaideep Sengupta and the University of British Columbia's Darren Dahl, despite corresponding with the predictions of sexual economics theory. The researchers were surprised that these effects occurred even when participants weren't actually in a purchasing scenario.
"Just a quick exposure to an ad was enough for theories of sexual economics to kick in," Vohs said. "This suggests that the process happens at a deep, intuitive level."

Originally published on BusinessNewsDaily

 Now, all this reinforces our own perspective on Anglo-American feminism. Far from being 'revolutionary', its themes and preoccupations are those of 'traditional' women, at least as they exist in the Anglosphere. These shared preoccupations include misandry, repression and a hysterical desire to suppress male sexual choice

The pigs on Animal Farm spring to mind.

Cheap, high quality sex: what traditional women and Anglo feminists resent.


  1. Rookh:
    Spot on analysis---there's no doubt that Anglobitches want to repress male sexual choices. But this raises an interesting conundrum that's being bandied about the Manosphere a lot lately, and I'd like your opinion on it:

    The femihags to a large extent have succeeded in repressing male sexual choices in the Anglosphere. However, in spite of their near sexual monopoly, they don't expend it by pursuing the most desirable males---which would be the objective of a sexual trade union. Instead, the least desirable men are pursued by the few remaining desirable women.

    I was thinking that may be part of that type of sexual trade unionism---that the feminists encourage thug-chasing to damage or diminish the sexual market value of desirable women. What are your thoughts on this?

    1. *The femihags to a large extent have succeeded in repressing male sexual choices in the Anglosphere. However, in spite of their near sexual monopoly, they don't expend it by pursuing the most desirable males---which would be the objective of a sexual trade union. Instead, the least desirable men are pursued by the few remaining desirable women.*

      The question is this, I suppose: 'What's the payoff?" That is, what benefits do femihags receive for demonizing male sexuality and restricting male sexual choice? At an instinctive level, one would expect their ‘payoff’ to be biological; that unattractive women would be more likely to attract and keep a mate in a repressive culture, thereby improving their own reproductive potential. However, many feminists have little interest in men or reproduction. And those that do often prefer to raise children without a father. Perhaps the benefits are subtler and less direct. A society where fewer resources and less male attention went to young, attractive women would still benefit old, unattractive feminists in a personal, subjective sense.

      One thing of note is that feminism has, like conservative Christianity, a hatred of beauty. One of its major fixations is the levelling of all women to the same aesthetic level. In this sense, feminism is a kind of ‘aesthetic Marxism’. You will note that women in the post-feminist Anglosphere take far less interest in their appearance than hitherto. In the UK, many middle class girls now dress in labourers’ boots and overalls at college, or in their leisure time. While feminism promotes this agenda under the pretext of ‘freeing women’ from the ‘male gaze’, it really serves to neutralize the privilege normally given to female youth and beauty. Very clever, really. And, although this agenda mirrors the views of the Christian right, feminists can cloak it in the ‘revolutionary’, liberationist rhetoric that so appeals to young women.

    2. Rookh:
      That's a good observation. The blogger 'The Antifeminist', who's written extensively about the Sexual Trade Union concept, notes that jealousy of female beauty is key component in that dynamic. And as we all know, Marxism is philosophy driven by envy: whether in economics or aesthetics.

      It's interesting that so few bloggers in the Manosphere understand that feminist hatred for female beauty is as deep as their hatred for men.

      As for the British girls cross-dressing in male attire, in the US, beauty is degraded in the opposite way. Here it's not uncommon to see aging, fat, and tattooed women in otherwise sexually-appealing clothes. Here the motivation is even more overtly confessed than in the UK: here this is promulgated in the name of 'raising self-esteem'. Of course, the reality is to level the standards of beauty.

    3. Hatred of female beauty, hatred of men enjoying sex...

      I do often hear that women want to increase the value of themselves - but - if that is true - why women applauding at men getting their penises cut off by their wives or girlfriends?

      It seems to me, that there is a mindless rage against men.

      There is no reason or logic to it.

      People keep talking like there is some "higher power" or "significant intellect" behind it all.

      Sorry, I have to call bullshit on that.

      Most women have become hateful and mindlessly vindictive against men and male sexuality - for no reason other than the lies that are being spread about men.

    4. Richard, maybe women are mindlessly vindictive towards men on their own account, regardless of misandrist media lies.

  2. Rookh wrote, "Cheap, high quality sex: what traditional women and Anglo feminists resent." Your exactly right, they want to corner the sexual market and have a monopoly on sex.

    Feminists want to suppress male sexual choice as much as they can. Here in America, prostitution is illegal in large part because feminists and religious groups do not want it legalized.

    If prostitution was legalized in America, it would give men sexual choice and women would no longer have a monopoly on sex.

    1. Eh, there is a problem with the legalization of prostitution. Oftentimes it is a front by feminists because they seek to regulate sex. Make no mistake, feminists who advocate the legalization of prostitution are no friends of prostitutes. Prostitutes know this. What happens is because it becomes legal, the purchase becomes illegal. This is never mentioned, deliberately. In Norway, the selling of prostitution is legal; the purchase is illegal. This is very very bad for men. If you read the blog by Eivind Berg, you will find all you need to know about this.

    2. But isn't that the whole point? Making the purchase of sex illegal while legalizing prostitution is, in real terms, keeping prostitution illegal. Few civilian women and even fewer feminists want the unconditional legalization of prostitution, for the reasons discussed by the research. The feminist approach does two things:

      1. It hides the true motivation of feminists and allows them to claim they are liberated and sexually progessive (in fact, they are neither);
      2. It permits the ongoing regulation and restriction of male sexual choice. That is the key to their agenda.

    3. I disagree - most women want to destroy male sexuality out of hatred.

      Yes, I am a broken record.

    4. Make that ALL women. Women know that men are superior in every way, and they cannot stand it. Wretched creatures.

    5. Anon 09:21

      Indeed. The ancient greeks believed women are soulless, mindless animals, basically savage beasts, and only men have souls.

      Sometimes i think they were onto something.

      Women are garbage, simple as that.

  3. Rookh:
    No sooner had you mentioned the ideological connection between religious puritanism and radical feminism than this story popped up:

    The signs left by these 'activists in the Name of Jesus' say about all that needs to be said...

  4. I have to disagree with one thing:

    "...a hysterical desire to suppress male sexual choice".

    I would change that to "an insane rage to destroy male sexuality - PERIOD".

  5. Eric

    Very interesting. I have never heard of Christian Anarchists before - out of America, always something new. Their activities and slogans are classic 'left-wing' feminism however, demonstrating the intimate link between 'revolutionary' feminism and 'conservative' Protestant Christianity.

  6. Rookh:
    Well, historically the term 'Christian Anarchism' came out of Russia where it was propounded by Count Leo Tolstoi. However, considering Tolstoi was a pacifist and an anti-feminist, I doubt if these Americans (most of whom are probably only semi-literate anyway) are followers of his.

    Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if they were all big fans of Tommy Fleming!

  7. I suppose that their desire to raise rather than lower the value of sexual intimacy is the reason for their hatred and anger at being outed as sluts. Perhaps the meaning of the slut-walk is to imply, not that they are sluts, but that they are desirable, though only the most unattractive girls seem to attend such events.

    Even the most promiscuous of women put up fitness tests wax lyrical about morality and dislike being treated as easy.