“Re: Is the supplicant frame “hardwired” in men?” (by finalD) | PUA Archive | alt.seduction.relationships

I don't disagree with most of what you said. But there is a
central point, which uses analysis that will not be familiar to
a casual thinker, that I'd like to hammer home. You actually
seem to "get" the point, although you briefly reject it.

Here is you "getting" it:

TShandy wrote at Mon, 18 Aug 2003 06:17:00 GMT in
news:96928.14849@discussion.fastseduction.com:

> By the same token, the model of male and female psychology
> posited in TFM is still pretty consistent with this. The
> external "economics" of a society does not fundamentally
> alter ideas like male initiative, bitch shields, ASD, or
> the rest; it just provides a context in which they are
> calibrated.

I would go even further, to say that the model of male and
female psychology posited in TFM, which limits itself so often
to the "economics" of sex rather than some other metaphor, not
only fails to alter ideas like those; not only simply provides a
context; but actually MISREPRESENTS those ideas, and confuses
many people. It's stuck (as nearly all of us are) on the
economic model of sexuality. The rocks-diamonds-gold metaphor
fails at certain points (it's mostly very useful) BECAUSE it's
an economic metaphor. But sex is not a "trade off." Women
perceive it as such, our society perceives it as such, but OUR
JOB is to STOP THINKING OF IT THAT WAY. The "exchage" frame is
WHAT DESTROYS SEDUCTION.

Here is a minor return to the exchange frame, from your post.

> But typically, this sort of
> conclusion

[that the plains natives of America were totally communal, and
therefore their sexuality was also communal]

> is the result of underanalysis, if I'm
> understanding you right. That is, there are usually mutual
> dependencies and arrangements, sometimes just tacit, but
> often quite intricate, underlying such apparent sharing.

No, that's my point. It's not UNDERanalysis, to limit your
economic description of sexual politics to one in which you fail
to note the strict porperty rights. Rather, it's OVERanalysis to
think that sexuality can only be described in terms of property
rights. Sure, it's POSSIBLE to extend the economic metaphor, to
where everything we know about money and all the words that we
invented for the economy can be used to describe social
interactions between humans; and it's even possible that the
descriptions would be accurate, and that a more limited
description could be based only on underanalysis. But we
shouldn't WANT to do that, because it clouds the issues rather
than illuminating them.

Using economic metaphors and language, to describe sexuality,
puts the cart before the horse. We should be using sexual
metaphors to describe the economy; also, to describe the
military, and schooling, and maybe religion. For example. Sex
came first. Biological drives to procreate (Crablouse: "she
likes bumping privates, and don't analyze any further" ARE the
thing that we all ALREADY understand. We don't need to explain
them in terms of economics. Economics is the artificial human
invention, that came along millennia afterwards. IT'S the thing
that's hard to understand, unnatural, fucked up. Sex can help us
understand it, maybe; but not vice versa.

That you can only conceive of EXTENDING or REDUCING the economic
metaphor (as you say, it's "underanalysis" to do a bad job of
the economic metaphor) indicates JUST HOW IN THRALL you are to
economic thinking. Try for a while to imagine a world where man
has never invented money, or barter, or exchange, or even ...
gasp ... language. THEN tell me what kind of "ownership" is
possible? You grew up in the West, in the Twentieth Century.
You're an economist, whether or not you like it. The Dutch
bankers of the early Enlightenment are in your past. Merchant
and Trade unions occupy your assumptions. The Hanseatic League
seems like a brotherhood of friendly street vendors ...

So, although I agree the economic metaphors can be applied, I
disagree that they should be. Sure, it's possible to use an even
more complicated economic metaphor to finally come to a greater
more complicated metaphor; but that still leaves us in the world
of thinking with our wallets. Women do it; most men do it. Teach
the world not to do it.

Example: just try to describe dog sex in economic terms, just as
an exercise. You can't. Or, if you can, it's really a silly
metaphor, it doesn't get at the whole of the matter, it's a
demonstration of sophistry only. Male dogs don't "own" their
bitches, or their fucking territories, or their hunting
territories. Their masters "own" the land. Or the city "owns"
it. The males are CONSTANTLY under threat from other males'
encroachment, constantly marking and pissing on everything, as
much to say "I was here" as to say "Don't you come here", but
seldom to say "Mine, and I pay the taxes on it too!", forever
hunting out new bitches, forever losing a little territory or
gaining it. Their "ownership" isn't economic ... it's fluid.
It's not like what we do with currency in our wallet. So, the
dog who gets to fuck one or another particular bitch, is NOT the
dog who offers the right thing in exchange for the fuck. She
doesn't RECEIVE the hunting territory, or the protection of the
strong alpha male^» while she's pregnant with the pups, or
anything else. THERE IS NO EXCHANGE. She is driven to raise her
ass up and lift her tail. He is driven to poke his dick into the
gap. Other dogs are driven the same, and sometimes they have to
fight before someone gets to do it. But what "makes" the bitch
raise her ass up? Nothing. It's in her nature. It's not
economic. She feels that she "wants" to.

That's how humans work. Period. Try to think that way for a
while. Get your money out of the equation entirely, EVEN IF
using a more complicated set of money terms will do a "better"
job of explaining it. At some point, your monetary metaphor will
get so complicated that you might as well just say "money is so
damned complicated, and sex is so damned complicated, that all
I'm doing is enumerating a million details. I'm not getting at
the ideas behind it at all."

So, yeah, it's probably true that the Canela didn't ACTUALLY
have a "true" communal society in which property and sex were
both shared equally. It's probably true they weren't ACTUALLY
happy little communists sharing everything. There were probably
millions of little subtle relationships that the anthropologists
failed to enumerate, that another field trip could start to
investigate. Uncles and cousins in kinship rituals, brideprices,
the whole thing. You could spend your life finding the subtle
cues. But what you'd be doing, is describing a foreign culture
in your terms. They didn't have currency; consequently, a
description that uses the currency terms and vocabulary, is not
a fair description, and misses the point. They DID have communal
sex nights once a month or so, and the women as well as the men
were reported to "enjoy" those nights and were mostly
disappointed when they started to decline.

If your main tool is a hammer, then everythig starts to look
like a nail. Most anthropologists, educated as they are in
Western univerisities and therefore familiar as they are --
inculcated, as they are -- with Western exchange societies,
can't HELP but think in economic terms. All the HBs we all ever
meet, will probably be like that as well. So it's good to know
these things. But they're WRONG. They aren't the TRUE picture.
So, yeah, anthropologists will extend the exchange metaphors,
but they should be rejecting them. That you're still stuck
trying to make some tribes fuck-nights fit what the Federal
Exchange and Alan Greenspan do all day, shows how far down the
road you've been taken, as well.

In fact, whenever I've been intimate with a girlfriend, there
wasn't much "exchanging" going on. The times I protected her
from threat, or gave her a lot of my resources, were not
necessarily the times that she "allowed" me to fuck her. Once
the ice was broken and we were "a couple" in our own minds, we
just fucked when the opportunity presented itself. The only
"exchange" was that the universe allowed it to happen, because
our parents finally got off the phone with us, or the dog had
already been walked, or dinner was well and truly over and
therre were three or four hours before bedtime. So the universe
"gave" us opportunity, and we "took" opportunity from the
universe and "gave" back nothing in return. But she wasn't
really in the mind-set of, "Because he gave me an awesome
lobster dinner, I must trade with him access to my pussy." I
don't think but about 5% of the women in North America are THAT
crass, once they're INVOLVED in an interaction with someone they
"care" about. They WANT to enjoy the sex, they WANT to be let
out of the economic frame of mind, they LIKE IT when men are
attracted to them, they LIKE having their pussies pounded by
good dick. They DON'T WANT to be bought and sold like a
commodity. Some are so limited, or so obsessed with exchange,
that you'll never get their heads out of it. Those will have to
well and truly be nexted. But most don't actually LIVE economic
terms at all, even IF they think they have to for the initial
interactions.

--
The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in
higher esteem those who think alike than those who think
differently.

Friedrich Nietzsche