Trusted, Automoderated users
17,538
edits
Talk:Demand side sexual economics: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
<references /> | <references /> | ||
[[User:William|William]] ([[User talk:William|talk]]) 18:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC) | [[User:William|William]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Bibipi|Bibipi]] ([[User talk:Bibipi|talk]]) 01:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC) | |||