From: Robin Hanson (hanson@hss.caltech.edu)
Date: Mon Aug 18 1997 - 12:33:38 MDT
"Natasha V. More (fka Nancie Clark)" writes:
>I'm not sure I understand this post, or who it is from.
It really was from me, Robin Hanson.
>Whether or not one is in "demand" or "able to participate" is really minor
>to the obvious sexiness of one's attitude, brain and integrity.
Huh? If one has "obvious sexiness", then one is likely is demand.
And one can easily be very frustrated if unable to participate for
whatever reason.
CurtAdams@aol.com writes:
>To some extent, sex isn't something subject to a market. To me, a great part
>of the sexual experience is being desired and valued. Really, I can't buy
>that.
I meant "markets" to include non-monetary exchanges, such as in the
"marriage market".
>Yet discussing sexual matters is, I think, a good way to improve one's sexual
>desirability and confidence.
Yes of course. And if most people were physically starving, I
wouldn't feel uncomfortable with talk of nutrition, and how to grow,
transport, and preserve basic foodstuff.
I agree here with Steve who said:
>things like embarrassment, rejection, disease, alienation,
>psychological warfare within couples ... If people talk about
>variations on those things, I (e.g.) might overcome my squeemishness
>and pay attention.
Robin D. Hanson hanson@hss.caltech.edu http://hss.caltech.edu/~hanson/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:44 MST