Today's Want To Fuck Friday Poetry is on the theme of the economics of sex. Men are required to pay up for sex -- whether it be for a stripper, a prostitute, a girlfriend, a wife or especially, an ex-wife. The following poem couples the hollowness of paying for sex with the horrors of mortality -- two things that are inevitable. This could also be considered an introduction to future posts on this issue, because it is important and rarely discussed from the male perspective.
The payment for sex is culturally ingrained from the hooker and stripper on one side of the spectrum to the wife and mother on the other side. A woman's sex appeal is an actual economic commodity which can be utilized in various ways. From an emotional stand point, the economization of sex is very deadening for the male, because he always has a subconscious hunch that the attention he is receiving is for his pocket book, not for any intrinsic qualities he might possess. Those economic aspects of the sexual interaction color every little bit of fucking.
I know I have a couple of homosexual readers and I would be intrigued for their take on the economic implications of sex or if this is a hetro-guy thing.
Stripped
Green faced dead men
Minutely furrowed brows
Ghostly repetitions in light
Numeric representations
Of my sweat and labor ---
Minutely furrowed brows
Ghostly repetitions in light
Numeric representations
Of my sweat and labor ---
For them I can see flesh.
Grey faced women
Mockingly skin expose
Ghostly apparitions in dark
Simulated representations
Of sex or labor —
For the green faced men.
Mockingly skin expose
Ghostly apparitions in dark
Simulated representations
Of sex or labor —
For the green faced men.
Grey faced man,
Manly fractured hearts
Ghastly searching for mercy
Demanded contributions
Of love and labor lost –
For the old dead poet:
Manly fractured hearts
Ghastly searching for mercy
Demanded contributions
Of love and labor lost –
For the old dead poet:
Sonnets of love
Spilled off the ink of his pen
His love gone
Stripped of life and gone
As is he.
Spilled off the ink of his pen
His love gone
Stripped of life and gone
As is he.
All we are left with is ink ---
Ink bleeding poetry
Or Ink creating furrows in the brows
Of famous dead men –
For which flesh can be stripped away
Leaving nothing but exposed nerves
For the length of a poem or song.
Ink bleeding poetry
Or Ink creating furrows in the brows
Of famous dead men –
For which flesh can be stripped away
Leaving nothing but exposed nerves
For the length of a poem or song.
27 comments:
I never thought of it that way before...especially in regard to women and men who are married, yet sex being a commodity still. You're right, of course. I'll have to think on this a lot more, to see if I need to change things around here for my husband and me.
Am I really making him pay??
"Is she only interested in my money?" the age-old flip-side of "Is he only interested in my body."
In romance it can be complicated.
One can argue that qualities that lead to earning power -- ambition, drive, intelligence, a noble/authoritative bearing -- are just aspects of the complete person just as the body (beautiful, healthy, or otherwise...) is a fundamental part of the whole person. And one may fall in love with the whole including these parts.
The other transactions you mention simplify the matter considerably... ;-)
There's a PRICE to PAY for EVERYTHING! :)
SML,
I intended my comments for more general consumption, but anecdotal incidents would be amusing, illustrative and who knows, maybe even arousing.
From my own experience, sex has always come at a high economic cost. My ex-wife got paid like a very high priced hooker by the time she collected all her alimony. The laws are designed to approve of specific sexual unions and then provide for payment upon dissolution, whether by divorce or death.
I don't know if you can completely escape the commoditization of sex, even in intimate relationships, in part due to the ubiquitous ads equating sex with every kind of economic purchase. We are groomed by Madison Avenue to equate sex with buying and selling.
I'm curious SML -- do you and your husband have a "traditional family" economic relationship, which has the husband bringing home the bacon (both monetarily and sexually, I suppose). If not, how does economics play into sex roles. Just thinking out loud here.
c.L.
I don't think the "only interested in his money" is the flip side of "only interested in her body." There is a fundamental difference between the body and the money. Despite Descartes, the body and the mind are pretty connected. If he loves you for your body, he loves you for you. If she wants his money, this is something outside of him -- separate. Also, the body is used very much in sex, while I have yet to have a satisfying orgasm from a hundred dollar bill.
I would argue that the comparison of male objectification of women and female gold digging, which are used to the point of cliche, are harmful to a more healthy outlook on sexuality.
"The pornography, stripper and prostitute economic game" and the "marry rich economic game" may in fact be a symptom of women not owning up to possessing straight-up sexual attraction to men without the economic side benefits.
I'm totally convinced that the economic aspects of sex cannot be removed. The sex worker industry is too booming to possess a utopian ideal of everyone interacting sexually on a level playing field and with genuine intent. Understanding the economic elements is just one small part in understanding the sexual picture as a whole, which is a microcosm for our very existence. I love the nuances of sexuality.
On a side note, the economic sexual transaction was one of my first babysteps in trying to remove the sexual guilt from my Mormon upbringing. Paying a stripper to take off her clothes always felt like a direct and fair trade. She danced willingly. I paid willingly and their was a decided lack of a feeling of immorality that I had had growing up when I simply made out with some BYU coed because I was horny and not because I wanted to marry her for all time and eternity. You are absolutely right about the stripper transaction simplifying and clarifying the relationship between patron and performer.
However, the point of the original post and poem was to illustrate the shallowness of maintaining only a simplistic economic approach. I also think it hurts the male to feel reduced to the cash in his wallet -- especially when the wallet is empty.;-)
JOOM,
And what am I going to have to pay for your bikini pics this spring?
I'll probably need to start saving.
Finally ladies,
As you may have noted, no guys are ponying up to talk about this. So I'm feeling a little bit outnumbered, but hey, I'm a Mormon male, I should be used to having at least three women around me at any one time.
Well, in answer to your question: I've always worked full time since I've been married, and my wage has always been as good as or almost as good as his, meaning I earn roughly half of what we make together. There were a few years where I made the majority of our money.
I'm not sure economics plays into my sex roles, really. I had sex with him when he was poor and I was too, and money really had nothing to do with the desire fueling those events.
I was thinking that I make him "pay" along the lines of emotional payment when I've felt he hasn't treated me right. Then I make him pay sexually, usually by withholding love or affection or sex until he apologizes. I'm not proud to admit it, but there it is. Sex is sometimes the only thing I have to work with, sadly.
"The pornography, stripper and prostitute economic game" and the "marry rich economic game" may in fact be a symptom of women not owning up to possessing straight-up sexual attraction to men without the economic side benefits.
Different people have different sexual/romantic responses and tastes. There exist people who really are attracted to and aroused by a persona of success. This persona of success is not as superficial as you suggest.
Some women may be making cold, economic calculations and might make different choices of partners if freed from economic necessity. However, I wouldn't just assume that's true of all women.
Linked to your site from JOOM, great site, I'll be back!
Thank you for your comments SML and CL,
As I was preparting to respond, I realized that your comments illustrated the next step in analyzing the effect of economics on sex.
As SML noted, her income has risen to the point that she is on equal par with her husband. This has raised her bargaining position with her husband on the accessibility of sex. Would you be as free to withhold sexual contact if you were sequestered and ecnomically reliant on the male? What if the economic system was such that your economic worth was determined almost solely by child bearing?
Again, much more fodder for future posts, but the sexual morality ingrained by the religion and the society is intertwined with the economic realities -- even when the original reasons for placing those societal controls have vanished or been transformed.
If in fact my original argument, that sex is a commodity in the economic realm has merit, then changes in women's economic status would result in changes in how women can utlize sexuality in the economic realm.
This appears to be the case -- as women's earning powers increase, the amount of legal protection they receive from marriage decreases. The reality is that because SML's income has risen to match her husbands, she would probably not be entitled to alimony in a divorce proceeding, whereas 40-50 years ago she would have, quite possibly regardless of her earning capacity.
I would argue that CL's attraction to the "persona of success" is still part of the economic picture of sexuality and it fits in quite nicely to the overall picture.
As an example, let us take a young 20 something female, who possesses a large cache of physical charms, while being somewhat diminished in her mental abilities. (Her male counterpart, a strapping physical specimen with equal deficiencies is relgated to manual labor or production work for the rest of his economic life.) The societal structure, particularly in the United States that promotes companionate marriage, has given this girl an opportunity unequal to the males if she happens to be strongly attracted to the "persona of success."
I wasn't suggesting that all women are gold diggers, any more than I'm suggesting that all men simply objectify women into sex objects. Visual sexual attraction is part of the sexual matrix. Economics is as well. (Economics by its very nature is macro and societal and does not deal well with individual subjective elements.) I'm quite certain that there are numerous other aspects besides attraction and economics to sex as well -- my blog is counting on it.
My original point is that dealing with sex on a pure economic basis can have a deadening and painful effect on male and female sexuality. I was also trying to make the point that freed from the economic aspects the opportunity presents itself to a more open and a more honest sexual communication between men and women.
Hi, Sara, thanks for coming by and can't wait to see you again.
Is blogging a female thing? I'm feeling way out numbered.
Someone once told me that women have the advantage in blogging and attracting others to their blog...because they are rare compared with all the male computer geeks who blog.
??
One comment, then I'll get to the meat of the post. "Homosexual" sounds so clinical. It's not like we're bugs about to be dissected. It's totally fine to say "gay". Really.
The sex industries were booming in the Victorian era. One of my English/Lit instructors said something I still remember to this day: "societies are consumed with either death or sex." Photography took off like wildfire because for the first time there were subjects who could be captured and shared - and those subjects included naked men and women. Here we are in this century - the internet is a world-wide phenonmenon due in no small part to pornography and adult entertainment service.
I don't see sex and economics as extricately entwined. My perspective is that sex, sexuality and guilt are entwined. Guilt is the primary product. The economics are a secondary factor. Puritanism and mankind's fight against his/her own nature are the causes of repression, denial, subterfuge, and the supply-demand of illicit sex. Where there is denial or frustration, there is someone who will find a way to "get off" and be willing to pay for it in secret. Take away the frustration and denial and the economic factor is gone, too.
While the supposed "institution of marriage" is a far cry from a stellar example, not with a divorce rate of over 50%, many gay relationships try and model themselves after heterosexual couples. Call me an elitist, but I think gay relationships are closer to an ideal than straights, because they're more adept and willing to suspend the beliefs of the social "norm." Is your relationship open or monogamous? Are you monogamous but your partner is open? Are you both open, but tell each other you're monogamous?
The whole "gay for pay" thing is another subject for another day. This is getting way too long.
-Donavan
Donovan,
I wasn't trying to be clinical, academic possibly, but not clinical. Also, wanted homo as an offset to hetro in a synactic balance. I can say gay -- no problem -- gay, gay, gay. So we cool now? lol
I'm glad you posted though, because you confirmed my suspicions. The economic aspects of gay sex aren't as intertwined as in non-gay sex. Much of the current social, cultural and legal structure that injects economics into hetrosexuality doesn't exist with homosexuality.
I don't think you are an elitist, but perhaps an idealist. Your ideal gay relationship isn't any different from my ideal for a straight -- equality of bargaining power, integrity and honesty in discussing sexual issues and removal of societal conventions that could be harmful to the relationship.
I must admit that I'm disappointed in not hearing more about the pay for gay play, because I'm still curious how economics do influence gay sex when the almighty dollar enters the picture.
Hi Kent. I was about to say it is a hetero thing, but then I thought about it and realized it's not. I know lots of gay couples where one has money and the other clearly does not. I think there are other forces at work that make those kinds of relationships tend to last less long in gay circles, but that could be debated. Hey - if you don't have money, and you need it, putting out is a perfectly acceptable method of getting it, whether you are an out and out prostitute, or you are willing to accept a longer term arrangement. That's just my opinion.
I think sex will always be used in society, somewhere, as a commodity.
So many interesting topics, so little time. If what you are saying is right Steve, the lack of duration of economic based gay relationships could or would be a result of the lack of a societal structure that encourages such economic based relationships.
Another aspect would be to see how gay couples adopting or raising minor children together changes the economic dynamic in the relationship. Certainly in the hetro realm, child rearing comes at an economic cost.
I was also struck by your willingness to turn gay sex into a commodity and SML also thinks that sex will always be used as a commodity. As long as that is the case, economics belongs on the table of sexual discussion.
I agree with SML that I would be surprised if sex-as-commodity could ever be entirely eliminated. However, I also agree that women having their own income changes the dynamic dramatically. This has certainly been the case in my life -- the fact that I can support myself without being dependant on a man's income has had a huge influence on my sexual choices.
Aesthetics duly noted, regarding the "hetero" vs "gay" label :) We could clean the slate with a blowjob (joking!)
"Gay for Pay." There are men who are physically gifted: beautiful, hung, or a combination of both. Consider them the equivalent of the golddiggers, finding parters or transactional relationships who reward them based on their companionship and looks. They're the proverbial "prize."
Money is the focus, but it doesn't address the cause. Are these men opportunistic, because they have "the goods" and know there are potential buyers? Are these men playing out the whole guilt or hidden shame of their respective buyers?
Would you do it with a guy for $100? $500? $5000? Would you do it with anyone, male or female, for any amount?
:) Totally separate tangent, but hey, I'm a stream-of-consciousness kind of guy.
Great thread, Wanker.
There are so many ways for humans to swap spit that don't involve sex - for instance, child care, house keeping, lawn and auto care, you can think of move yourselves. And yes, all those activities are economic in nature, and always open to being part of any relationship simply because they can be exchanged for something. Sex is no different. Good luck getting rid of it.
Wanker - you are absolutely right. The lack of a marriage right does lend itself to less stable relationships, as well as the less likely existence of children and family. Frankly, in my opinion, those are exactly the anchors that hetero relationships use to hold themselves together even when times get rough. Without them, hetero relationships probably wouldn't have any longer term stability than gay one. Oh wait. That's already true, isn't it?
So having established that sex can be and often is a commodity, Sideon raises the question how much would you pay and how much would you charge.
Reminds me of the old joke about the guy who offers some outrageous sum of money for sexual favors and then when the woman agrees, immediately asks if she would do it for $5.00. When she is offended, he says, "Honey, we've established you are a whore, now we are just haggling over price."
I'm going to have to think about your question Sideon. I probably have a price for just about anything that won't kill me, so let the haggling begin. I do have a very high priced opinion of myself, however.
Like any other commodity, why would you pay for it when there are so many willing to give it away for free? Or, at least, that is, for a price that doesn't involve a direct transfer of cash? I've never been one to pay cash. I suppose I could afford to, but that would take some of the fun out of it. The enjoyment is, indeed, in the haggling! Can I bed this one with 3 drinks and some chit chat? Do I have to go so far as to cook him dinner? Do I have to agree to move in and fuck in order to get that particular roof over my head? It's about what's the minimum you have to give. Haggling, indeed!
Maybe, just maybe, the commerce of sex is sex.
Backrub for a blowjob. Kissing and licking for a deliberately slow afternoon fuck. "69"
I think Wanker's joke summed it pretty well. Any "giving in" is part of the haggling process.
I'm up there with Steve, too. Why pay for something that is so readily available? In this day and age, you can "hookup" with point and click shopping.
Ok, hetro guy has to jump up and down and scream for a minute here.
I'm seriously pissed off -- Ok, not at anyone who has posted, but at the injustice and cruelty of existence. Gay guys? Hetro gals? Theirs is a point and click shopping spree where every download is free. I have to pay for every download and taxes too.
We could run an experiment and I can guarantee the results: Post three ads:
Gay male looking for non-commital sex -- No Strings Attached.
Straight female looking for non-commital sex -- NSA.
Straight male looking for non-commital sex -- NSA.
Post those three ads and I can pretty much guarantee an in-box full of responses for the first two and nothing for the last -- nada, zip, nuttin.
And you wonder why I'm complaining about paying. I feel like I'm dealing with my own version of OPEC (Organization of Pussy Exporting Cunts) and they keep raising the price on imports.
So the rich get rich and the poor get hornier.
TW...Seriously. Maybe you just aren't asking the right girls. Tsk tsk.
Now, I'm not saying I'm totally unsuccessful, just that it isn't as easy for a hetro-male as our gay friends might have suggested.
Was that sufficiently brash to satisfy male ego requirements?
The majority of the social burden for initiating sexual contact falls on the hetro-male.
I can honestly say I never tried to consciously initiate sexual activity (outside marriage) so I don't know what a burden it is or not.
And are you sure the gay guys will appreciate your assuming it's easy to initiate sex just because they are gay? I think there will be people in all orientations to whom this comes easy and others who are used to being approached vs. approaching.
Also, a woman in her 30s who places such an ad, may or may not actually GET the sex she's looking for. She could be ugly or fat or desperate or whatever turns guys off enough to not actually succeed. You never know. The same applies for the gay ad or the hetero male. You just never know.
Loved the three examples (gay males, hetero females, hetero males). I'm afraid you're most likely correct on who'd not be getting responses. Then again, it's all about marketing and (ahem) packaging. What's the personal ad say? Are there pictures? How risque are the pictures (or not)? If you're looking to hook up (and we're talking about the commerce of sex here), then isn't it up to the hetero guys to get their shit together and be posting attractive ads?
Once upon a time I may have dated a few guys I'd met online. I can say that in those "point and click" days, the number of people misrepresenting themselves was probably 5 to 1. It was outrageous. I had no qualms about meeting someone and immediately leaving. Call me shallow, but if your ad says you're a tall, dark and handsome studmuffin, then I better not be meeting a short, pale, fugly fat ass.
It's up to the straight guy to initiate sex? I beg to differ. I can't tell you HOW many times I've been hit on by straight women. Quite aggressively, in fact. For the record, I'm still a virgin :)
TW - Sex is most definitely not easier for gay guys than straight guys. In fact, the straight guy might have the edge if he's willing to fuck a gay bottom from time to time. Gay guys just love sex with straight guys. Especially if they're married and have kids. *winks*
Glad to hear you've lived up to the law of chastity Sideon -- congrats.
And Steve, I think you would be right about the straight male in homosexual circles -- the straight male is the equivalent of the female in hetrosexual circles. I'm going to have to do an entire post on that dynamic.
I'm also thinking a blog-experiment is going to be in order here. I'll do a new post on this later, but we will get to the bottom of who has the easiest time getting laid.
Post a Comment