Men won't buy the cow if the milk is free

[Sunstone]

An article by Susan Patton appeared in today's Valentine's Day Wall Street Journal. Patton made several arguments for college and university women to focus much of their time and energy on finding a mate and getting married.

In one of her arguments, she brings up the old notion that casual sex is disadvantageous to women on the grounds that men are unlikely to commit to women who give them sex. As she puts it, "Men won't buy the cow if the milk is free".

A problem I see with that argument is that it seems to encourage marrying someone primarily or perhaps even exclusively for sex. That strikes me as a lousy reason to marry someone if you intend to have a lasting and happy marriage.

A second problem I see with that argument is that it seems to encourage abstinence before marriage, which strikes me as a very good way to increase one's chances of marrying someone you are sexually incompatible with.

But what do you make of the argument?

 

[Sees]

Yeah I think it would lead often to more rushed marriages to satisfy hormones and/or lead to "tail on the side" and then broken or forever tainted relationship. It's a new spin on an old concept.

I don't think sex should be as soon or careless as it is for many at the same time. Of course people are free to do what they want.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

But what do you make of the argument?

Never underestimate the role of jealousy in a purely sexual relationship.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

First, the notion that men will not commit if a woman "allows" him to have sex with her is archaic and sexist to both men and women. It derides men for being shallow, and it objectifies women's sexuality into nothing more than being a prize to be earned.

Second, defining marriage as a primarily sexual relationship fails to create the commitment long term relationships require. Study after study shows that it's the friendship and the communication integrity that determines the length and quality of lifelong marriages.

 

[bobhikes]

I'll agree that marring for sex is wrong.
I do think that casual sex(one night stands) is wrong but see no problems experimenting with sex if your are thinking about committing.
I doubt any man will ever find a compatible woman sexually after marriage especially after kids.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

That's a bunch of crap. I'm not marrying anyone who I haven't had sex with (many, many times) beforehand. There's no point in waiting if you both like each other enough.

 

[Erebus]

But what do you make of the argument?

Based on the cliff notes you've provided I think my opinion can be summed up in two words:

UUUUUUUUUUGGGHHHHHH! BLEEEUUUUUUGGGGHHHHHHH!

Perhaps I should elaborate. Firstly I love the fact that women are likened to cows. Effectively they're livestock needed only for their biological functions? That's progressive. I'm not complaining mind, nipping down to the market to pick up a lass is probably a much simpler way of doing things. It's just I was under the impression that the vaginas on legs were sentient. My bad.

Secondly, abstinence before marriage (I agree with you, this argument does seem to imply it) is such a tremendously stupid idea that I'm amazed it's still considered a virtue at all. I'm not that big on marriage either mind you, "this certificate says you love each other, thanks for the cash" seems somewhat hollow, but then maybe I'm a cynic. Refusing to rub certain parts together until you have the appropriate paperwork seems completely bizarre.

Finally the argument basically boils the two genders down to simplistic and unpleasant stereotypes that I'd have hoped society would be able to move past. Men are emotionally stunted humping machines that have to be tricked and coerced into a semblance of monogamy. Women are hopelessly clingy shrews who simply put up with sex in order to please their men.

To sum up, here's my current face as interpreted by a dog.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

An article by Susan Patton appeared in today's Valentine's Day Wall Street Journal. Patton made several arguments for college and university women to focus much of their time and energy on finding a mate and getting married.

In one of her arguments, she brings up the old notion that casual sex is disadvantageous to women on the grounds that men are unlikely to commit to women who give them sex. As she puts it, "Men won't buy the cow if the milk is free".

Marrying someone so you can have sex is like buying a Boeing 747 to fly to Hawaii.

 

[Sunstone]

Perhaps I should elaborate. Firstly I love the fact that women are likened to cows. Effectively they're livestock needed only for their biological functions? That's progressive. I'm not complaining mind, nipping down to the market to pick up a lass is probably a much simpler way of doing things. It's just I was under the impression that the vaginas on legs were sentient. My bad.

I too feel the same profound shame and guilt for having assumed that women weren't cattle. How could I have ever overlooked such a striking fact? I can only blame the many years I spent as a youth indulging in heavy drinking.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

UUUUUUUUUUGGGHHHHHH! BLEEEUUUUUUGGGGHHHHHHH!

I couldn't have put it better. How does an article like that get in the Wall Street Journal? In my innocence, I'd assumed that paper to be for intelligent (if greedy) people. Can you imagine it in the Financial Times, let alone the Independent? Some of the people who crawl out the woodwork in the US are really appalling.

 

[Sunstone]

I couldn't have put it better. How does an article like that get in the Wall Street Journal? In my innocence, I'd assumed that paper to be for intelligent (if greedy) people. Can you imagine it in the Financial Times, let alone the Independent? Some of the people who crawl out the woodwork in the US are really appalling.

Murdoch bought the paper a few years ago, and changed the editorial policies a bit.

 

[Erebus]

I too feel the same profound shame and guilt for having assumed that women weren't cattle. How could I have ever overlooked such a striking fact? I can only blame the many years I spent as a youth indulging in heavy drinking.

It's amazing how similar to human speech their mindless bleating sounds at times. A bit like those funny dogs on youtube that say "I love you."

I couldn't have put it better. How does an article like that get in the Wall Street Journal? In my innocence, I'd assumed that paper to be for intelligent (if greedy) people. Can you imagine it in the Financial Times, let alone the Independent? Some of the people who crawl out the woodwork in the US are really appalling

.
Ahh you see living in the UK I'm spoiled for choice when it comes to papers. The Sun is nice and soft but the Daily Mail is so much more absorbent.

Sometimes vomiting is the only sensible response.

*edit* Whoops! Just spotted that you're from London, I blame the cider myself

 

[idav]

That's a bunch of crap. I'm not marrying anyone who I haven't had sex with (many, many times) beforehand. There's no point in waiting if you both like each other enough.

To add to this sentiment, I always hear that getting married will lead to less sex so...:angel2:

 

[dust1n]

On the contrary, I'm not going to buy a cow without a sense of it's general output, the quality of milk, the necessary maintenance of the cow, what the cow wants to do on the weekends... I'm at least going to taste the milk for crying out loud.

 

[Revoltingest]

On the contrary, I'm not going to buy a cow without a sense of it's general output, the quality of milk, the necessary maintenance of the cow, what the cow wants to do on the weekends... I'm at least going to taste the milk for crying out loud.

It's also useful to meet the cow's mother, in order to get an idea what the cow will look like in coming years.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

*sigh*

Boys....

 

[dust1n]

It's also useful to meet the cow's mother, in order to get an idea what the cow will look like in coming years.

Don't want to meet an udder disaster. I think they call that a pun.

 

[dust1n]

*sigh*

Boys....

Yea, yea, we're bad. But I prefer it when people focus on whatever it is they wish to focus on, instead of incorrectly pursuing an instilled desire to find a mate and get married. If people want to pair bond and all that jazz, more power to them. If not, the same goes.

 

[Comet]

Woman give milk to child made after sex. Man kill cow for beef! All three full now!

 

[crossfire]

An article by Susan Patton appeared in today's Valentine's Day Wall Street Journal. Patton made several arguments for college and university women to focus much of their time and energy on finding a mate and getting married.

In one of her arguments, she brings up the old notion that casual sex is disadvantageous to women on the grounds that men are unlikely to commit to women who give them sex. As she puts it, "Men won't buy the cow if the milk is free".

A problem I see with that argument is that it seems to encourage marrying someone primarily or perhaps even exclusively for sex. That strikes me as a lousy reason to marry someone if you intend to have a lasting and happy marriage.

A second problem I see with that argument is that it seems to encourage abstinence before marriage, which strikes me as a very good way to increase one's chances of marrying someone you are sexually incompatible with.

But what do you make of the argument?

Here's the article:
Susan Patton: A Little Valentine's Day Straight Talk - WSJ.com

She also reduces men down to a commodity that one has to compete for. (Walking sperm banks?) She also uses a circular argument to encourage women to start in on the competition when they are young, so they don't have to compete against the younger women when they get older? (So are there younger women in there competing, or not? If there are, then why do you need to encourage women to join the competition when they are younger?)
She uses a false appeal to "intelligence" with such faulty reasoning? Pfft! Who's gonna fall for that, except maybe the pseudo-intellectual "cows," as she calls them.