Open main menu

Shaming regulates availability, not demand.Edit

Shaming says "This is not for you". It's a declaration of social unavailability. It doesn't decrease the amount someone will look for something. You are trying to psychologically manipulate someone from transferring demand to actual success in the open. Shaming doesn't actually decrease demand, and certainly not desire (probably increases both). If I tell someone they are going to be punished for wanting sex and so they have less sex, it's not because they want it less it's because they are told they will be punished if they have it. IE it's regulating the availability of sex, see supply side sexual economics.

For example, North Korea heavily shames watching foreign films. This does not decrease the demand for foreign films, it only manipulates people who are demanding it to do it less openly so as to reduce the influx of film coming in.

To better explain, we can look at the economics this is based off. Providing incentives or disincentives for behaviour, rather than directly stimulating it through brainwashing or purchasing power is about increasing production, not demand. In the case of supply-side-theory, this is through regulating taxes

Supply-side theorists [not demand side theorists] historically have focused on [...] Lower income tax rates [...] for higher levels of production, and increased production capacity.

—investopedia[1]

And providing incentives for sex is about increasing sexual sublimination, not direct demand

William (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree.

In sexual economics women are mostly modeled as the vendors, i.e. the supply, though, right? With such a more narrow definition, demand vs supply sexual economics would then mean the following:

Increase demand: Increase men's buying power, i.e. affirmative action for men (education, tax reduction, making them more disagreeable and attractive, i.e. increasing their SMV).

Increase supply: Increase the rate at which women hand out sex, i.e. make sex cheaper, i.e. decrease women's standards, reduce monopolization so more goods are available (reducing price) by shaming of male promiscuity.

In that sense, the blackpill is indeed not about demand-side very much as it is not about increasing men's SVM which is seen as largely fixed, external locus of control and requires changes that are largely deemed unrealistic or very ambitious/profound.

If one does not regard women as vendors, then supply and demand seem the same in the sexual market because both can sell sex then (different from real economics in which the buyers are mostly the mass consumers and the sellers some companies producing products and services). So I think one needs to make this distinction women=vendors. Bibipi (talk) 01:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with your first two paragraphs there, and it's good for you to make that clarification. Women are the vendors, unless they start desiring men like men desire women. I need to focus on women=vendors for the economics articles, which I was previously not good at prioritizing.
Also, with regards to the blackpill article, which is something I think you are hinting at. Enforced monogamy is something like sex socialism, but only within families, and only for certain people. It doesn't really fit any market economic model. I labeled it supply side because it reduces the supply of women. But it also regulates demand. But given 'enforced monogamy' is both vague and not much about markets, I should probably delink supply-side economics from the blackpill article. My bad.(talk) 01:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Yeah I couldn't quite wrap my head around it. I'm sure one can re-frame nearly everything in terms of economics, but it does not seem straight forward to assign it to either demand or supply, as enforcing monogamy seems to involve both supply and demand side changes. Enforced monogamy is also a spectrum between full sexual communism where everyone is guaranteed a match by law (often used as strawman), vs. simply moderation of promiscuity, encouragement of (earlier) marriage etc. Most of the time people mean the latter, I guess, which is basically "encouraged monogamy" rather than "forced". Bibipi (talk) 01:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Regarding tax reduction, I agree it is rather supply side, but I was thinking of e.g. tax breaks for unemployed and single men, enabling them to accumulate more money and thus increase SMV, which would arguably be demand side. Bibipi (talk) 01:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
When you include women=vendors this could link to Briffault's law and the notion of gatekeepers. Bibipi (talk) 01:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
"tax breaks for unemployed and single men, enabling them to accumulate more money and thus increase SMV, which would arguably be demand side", yes that would be demand-side, I previously mistook that for supply side by not thinking it through enough, will add that back if that was there beforeWilliam (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Return to "Demand side sexual economics" page.