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

[Monk Of Reason]

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?

Historically marriage has been a vital need for a woman. If a woman did not marry she had little ways to take care of herself because of the societies that existed.

In today's world its quickly changing and women have more equal rights and hopefully more equal pay in the future. So the argument really hinges upon the old notion that men marry so they can have sex and women have to get married to have anything in life.

But if a woman is fully capable of providing for herself then there is no need for her to get married and it can be done if and when she finds someone she would like to spend the rest of her life with rather than a fiscal issue.

 

[chinu]

But what do you make of the argument?

Men also don't buy cow if the milk is for everyone

 

[Drolefille]

Men also don't buy cow if the milk is for everyone

Some do.

 

[psychoslice]

True! The better question would be who wants a cow who charges you a fee every time you want to milk her?

So true, I only paid for milk once and it was sour.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Men also don't buy cow if the milk is for everyone

this analogy seems a bit stretched in modern times. It alludes to women as mere cattle and possessions and sexual intercourse as rightfully owned by the man and the woman's duty to produce it.

Neither of which I agree with.

 

[Drolefille]

this analogy seems a bit stretched in modern times. It alludes to women as mere cattle and possessions and sexual intercourse as rightfully owned by the man and the woman's duty to produce it.

Neither of which I agree with.

Sadly it wasn't until only about 20 years ago that marital rape was criminalized. And rape victims who have previously had sex with their rapist are still stigmatized even further as liars.
I wish it were more antiquated.

 

[chinu]

Some do.

Am talking about Men, A Real Men, you know.

 

[chinu]

this analogy seems a bit stretched in modern times. It alludes to women as mere cattle and possessions and sexual intercourse as rightfully owned by the man and the woman's duty to produce it.

Neither of which I agree with.

You hunter!
Do you know any unhappy cow ?

 

[Sunstone]

Am talking about Men, A Real Men, you know.

Interesting. You seem to know as little about men as you do about women. Better stick to speaking of gods, Chinu.

 

[Drolefille]

Am talking about Men, A Real Men, you know.

I know many men. Some men don't treat women's sexuality like a possession, and some don't feel the need to be jealous about it.

 

[psychoslice]

Am talking about Men, A Real Men, you know.

I don't know what a real man is, I never meet one.

 

[Pegg]

But what do you make of the argument?

i dont appreciate being likened to a cow

 

[Monk Of Reason]

You hunter!
Do you know any unhappy cow ?

I ate a hamburger that didn't feel to chipper.

 

[Penumbra]

Looks like a pretty terrible article to me. It reads like it came out of a time capsule from decades ago.

-The article makes big claims without supporting evidence. Like, "Those men who are as well-educated as you are often interested in younger, less challenging women." Source? Numbers? Any usual statistics to make the claims more convincing?

-It's insulting to women. It downplays a woman's sex drive, as though sex is all about the man rather than the woman; something she rewards him with. It says highly educated men generally want younger, less challenging women (like, 30's are considered old in this article). It implies that career for a woman isn't as important as that of a man- that women are the ones that should worry less about their careers to focus on getting a good husband while men should pursue all of the career focus they want and get a wife too. "You should be spending far more time planning for your husband than for your career—and you should start doing so much sooner than you think."

-It makes men look stupid, pathetic, and all alike. Like, "And if you start to earn more than he does? Forget about it. Very few men have egos that can endure what they will see as a form of emasculation." or "Once you're living off campus and in the real world, you'll be stunned by how smart the men are not." or "Casual sex is irresistible to men, but the smart move is not to give it away." Basically the articles makes men look like emotionally fragile little breeding grunts.

-I only scanned this thread rather than read all the replies, but apparently evolutionary biology came up as a topic? She didn't refer to any studies, any facts, or any clear evolutionary biology principles. So if the article is indirectly about anything like that (she didn't mention it), then it must just be about the vague pop-culture cliff notes understanding of evolutionary biology rather than an actual rigorously evidenced application of it.

So the message is, women should downplay their careers to focus on finding a good guy in college, especially 'cause it would hurt his feelings to eventually make more money than him anyway, and we wouldn't want that. Guys are mostly stupid sex monkeys, and the few smart guys amongst the pile of breeding grunts generally prefer 20-something women that aren't as smart as them, so you've got to lock down that smart guy in college before it's too late, because you're only as valuable as your 20-something body, unlike men.

 

[Penumbra]

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.

Well, it encourages marrying for sex and kids and locking down the smart guy while he's still in college before it's too late.

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.

I don't generally view extremely casual sex as a healthy thing in most cases, but I think the far end of the spectrum of saving sex until marriage is terrible advice today. That notion came around when people married younger, when marriage was often arranged with limited or no focus on courtship and love, and when there were no reliable methods for birth control or disease prevention. In an era when people marry a lot later (the average is late 20's in the US and many countries, as high as the early 30's in some countries) and where there are a lot of reliable methods for safety and where deep emotional and intellectual connections are sought after, saving sex until marriage doesn't make any sense, because most people have a strong sexual desire starting in early teens and it would go unsatisfied and have to be sexually repressed for an average of a decade and a half. That seems like a good recipe for rushing into marrying for the wrong reasons and then being sexually unsatisfied and inexperienced in the marriage too because they're not as compatible as they guessed.

But what do you make of the argument?

That it lacks intellectual rigor, as a polite way of putting it.

 

[Sunstone]

It's just my personal taste, but, all else being equal, I'd pick a promiscuous woman with brains and accomplishments over a monogamous woman without brains or accomplishments. That wouldn't even a tough decision for me.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

It's just my personal taste, but, all else being equal, I'd pick a promiscuous woman with brains and accomplishments over a monogamous woman without brains or accomplishments. That wouldn't even a tough decision for me.

Depends on what you mean by promiscuous. A woman cheating on me would be a deal breaker so I would assume that any woman I would date or marry would be monogamous. But monogamous doesn't necessarily mean only one sex partner ever. It just means one at a time. (wow that last part sounded kinky)

So I assume you meant monogamous as in lifetime sexual partners rather than sexual behavior at any given time?

 

[Sunstone]

Depends on what you mean by promiscuous. A woman cheating on me would be a deal breaker so I would assume that any woman I would date or marry would be monogamous. But monogamous doesn't necessarily mean only one sex partner ever. It just means one at a time. (wow that last part sounded kinky)

So I assume you meant monogamous as in lifetime sexual partners rather than sexual behavior at any given time?

What I mean is, if I had only two choices -- a woman who'd had and was likely to continue to have multiple sex partners, and a woman who was likely to remain just with me alone, I'd pick the woman with the brains and accomplishments, whichever that one was. To me, and it's probably just a matter of personal taste, brains and accomplishments mean more than either promiscuity or chastity.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

What I mean is, if I had only two choices -- a woman who'd had and was likely to continue to have multiple sex partners, and a woman who was likely to remain just with me alone, I'd pick the woman with the brains and accomplishments, whichever that one was. To me, and it's probably just a matter of personal taste, brains and accomplishments mean more than either promiscuity or chastity.

In that case I would move on and date neither. I don't want a woman who wouldn't respect me enough to stay monogamous (at least during our relationship) but at the same time I don't want to date a ditz either. I would agree that a woman's quantity of previous sexual partners shouldn't really be an issue.

 

[Penumbra]

It's just my personal taste, but, all else being equal, I'd pick a promiscuous woman with brains and accomplishments over a monogamous woman without brains or accomplishments. That wouldn't even a tough decision for me.

Depends on what you mean by promiscuous. A woman cheating on me would be a deal breaker so I would assume that any woman I would date or marry would be monogamous. But monogamous doesn't necessarily mean only one sex partner ever. It just means one at a time. (wow that last part sounded kinky)

So I assume you meant monogamous as in lifetime sexual partners rather than sexual behavior at any given time?

What I mean is, if I had only two choices -- a woman who'd had and was likely to continue to have multiple sex partners, and a woman who was likely to remain just with me alone, I'd pick the woman with the brains and accomplishments, whichever that one was. To me, and it's probably just a matter of personal taste, brains and accomplishments mean more than either promiscuity or chastity.

In that case I would move on and date neither. I don't want a woman who wouldn't respect me enough to stay monogamous (at least during our relationship) but at the same time I don't want to date a ditz either. I would agree that a woman's quantity of previous sexual partners shouldn't really be an issue.

These posts don't seem to clarify whether they're talking about an open relationship or actual cheating. There's a difference between a betrayal of trust to break an agreement of monogamy, and an initial agreement to not be tied to one partner, for people that want that.