You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Female Sexuality is not a commodity
And why is female sexuality viewed as a commodity when male sexuality is not?
The female reproductive system is time sensitive, and so sexual market value is a thing.
It is a commodity most women don't realize that they own, and it has value.
Male success /wealth/ resource accumulation, is seen as a commodity in the same mating game...
Male sexuality , ie usefulness - is not time sensitive..
If you're looking at the data, everybody's reproductive usefulness is time sensitive. As males get older their sperm become more and more likely to present with genetic abnormalities that mean children conceived by older men are more likely to be unhealthy.
That being said, when I speak of sexuality as a commodity I am talking about using the bodies of women (although I recognize that men are not exempt from this) to sell things. Our bodies are used to sell everything from gum to burgers to firearms in a way that men's bodies are not used.
I will also add, reproduction and sexuality are not the same thing.
That's not remotely comparable, and I don't think you can support that with history of the last 5000 years to make that a valid point, sorry.
All cultures show precisely the same dynamic of older men with resources, mating with younger -highly fertile- females..
I totally agree.
Maybe the sexual value gives an inference to 'creation of life' and to associate it with the product, makes it priceless...( I just came up with that at I'm not saying its true!)
Men's actions , and not their aesthetics are used to sell. Success breeds success. Fastest, toughest, blah,blah,..
No, but sexual attractiveness to plays a part in human reproduction.
Sexuality would not exist without the reproduction 'engine'.
Sexuality only has one purpose, biologically speaking.
Dr. Sarah Hrdy from the University of California Davis notes in her research - which is built on the research of others working to refine Bateman's original premise that males of any species can mate successfully with many females over the course of their entire life - reported in an article published in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences in 2000 that "older men. . . even if still potent, might deliver along with their sperm an added load of genetic mutations." Additionally (and this is me now) making claims regarding the social structure of mating does nothing to disprove that there is, in fact, an ideal time for men to sire children. All it does is serve to prove that women have, historically, been economically disadvantaged and have paired themselves with men who have resources.
Dr. Jonathan Marks, an anthropologist from the University of North Carolina, has stated "To confuse human (cultural) sexuality and (natural) reproduction is classically pseudo-scientific [emphasis added]. Of course sexuality is for reporduction - if you're a lemur. If you're a human, sexuality is far more than for reproduction; that is what evolution had done for human nature." (citation: https://popanth.com/article/nulture). To claim that sexuality only has one purpose is to completely disregard the fact that we are social animals. Sex and sexuality have a variety of biological and social purposes that are critically important to understand. When the odds of a male actually fathering a child are 3.1% (according to Wilcox, et al) with each coital act, do you really mean to tell me that 97% of all sex had is completely pointless?