Selling sex
Jan 17th 2008 From The Economist print edition
IT IS all too easy to become a lost soul in New Orleans. The annual meeting of the American Economic Association this month was part of a huge gathering of social scientists sprawled across the city. Each venue itself was a warren of meeting rooms. Take a wrong turning and a delegate seeking an earnest symposium on minimum wages might innocently end up in the conference session devoted to the market for paid sex.
The star attraction there was Steven Levitt, an economics professor at the University of Chicago and co-author of “Freakonomics”, a best-selling book. Mr Levitt presented preliminary findings* from a study conducted with Sudhir Venkatesh, a sociologist at Columbia University. Their research on the economics of street prostitution combines official arrest records with data on 2,200 “tricks” (transactions), collected by Mr Venkatesh in co-operation with sex workers in three Chicago districts.
The results are fascinating. Almost half of the city's arrests for prostitution take place in just 0.3% of its street corners. The industry is concentrated in so few locations because prostitutes and their clients need to be able to find each other. Earnings are high compared with other jobs. Sex workers receive $25-30 per hour, roughly four times what they could expect outside prostitution. Yet this wage premium seems paltry considering the stigma and inherent risks. Sex without a condom is the norm, so the possibility of contracting a sexually transmitted infection (STI) is high. Mr Levitt reckons that sex workers can expect to be violently assaulted once a month. The risk of legal action is low. Prostitutes are more likely to have sex with a police officer than to be arrested by one.
Pricing strategies are much like any other business. Fees vary with the service provided and prostitutes maximise returns by segmenting the market. Clients are charged according to their perceived ability to pay, with white customers paying more than black ones. When negotiating prices, prostitutes will usually make an offer to black clients, but will solicit a bid from a white client. There are some anomalies. Although prices increase with the riskiness of an act, the premium charged for forgoing a condom is much smaller than found in other studies. And attractive prostitutes were unable to command higher fees.
By chance, the authors were able to study the effects of a demand shock. As people gathered for the July 4th festivities around Washington Park (one of the neighbourhoods studied), business picked up by around 60%, though prices rose by just 30%. The market was able to absorb this rise in demand partly because of flexible supply. Regular prostitutes worked more hours and those from other locations were drawn in. So were other recruits—women who were not regular prostitutes but were prepared to work for the higher wages temporarily on offer.
One controversial finding is that prostitutes do better with pimps—they work fewer hours and are less likely to be arrested by the police or preyed on by gang members. The paper's discussant at the conference, Evelyn Korn of Germany's University of Marburg, said that her favourite result from the study was that pimps pay “efficiency wages”. In other words, pimps pay above the minimum rate required by sex workers in order to attract, retain and motivate the best staff. Mr Levitt said that a few prostitutes asked the researchers to introduce them to pimps.
A separate paper** on sex workers in Ecuador echoed some of these findings. As in Chicago, the paid-sex market in Ecuador is tiered, with licensed brothel workers earning more per hour than unlicensed street prostitutes. These gradations might reflect different tastes: brothel workers tend to be younger, more attractive and better educated. They are also slightly less likely to have an STI. Condom use is the norm: 61% of street prostitutes surveyed used a condom in the previous three transactions. In Chicago, condoms were used in only a quarter of tricks.
What about the johns?
These studies contribute to our understanding of the suppliers of paid sex, but tell us little about their customers. The session's organiser, Taggert Brooks of the University of Wisconsin, attempted to fill this gap in knowledge. He shed light on the sex industry's demand side in his analysis† of men who attend strip clubs. He argued that habitués of strip clubs featuring nude or semi-nude dancers are in search of “near-sex”—an experience of intimacy rather than sexual release. They are aware that paid sex is on offer elsewhere, should they desire it.
Strip-club patrons are more likely to be college-educated (cue some uneasy seat shifting from conference delegates), to have had an STI, and to have altered their sexual behaviour because of AIDS, than non-patrons are. They are typically unmarried, relatively young (against the stereotype of old married men) and are characterised as “high-sensation seekers”.
Although all speakers at the session were careful not to draw very strong conclusions from preliminary findings, a few broad themes nevertheless emerged. In many respects, the paid-sex industry is much like any other business. Pricing strategies are familiar from other settings. Despite evidence of a myopic attitude towards risk, there have been plenty of recent examples of that in the finance industry too. Illegality and lack of regulation are likely to heighten public-health risks. The Ecuador study concluded that rigorous policing of street prostitution might limit the spread of STIs by directing sex workers into the safer environs of licensed brothels. For an audience facing an evening away from home in the Big Easy, there was much to ponder.
* “An Empirical Analysis of Street-Level Prostitution”
** “Sex Work and Infection: What's Law Enforcement Got to Do with it?” by Paul Gertler (University of California, Berkley) and Manisha Shah (University of Melbourne)
† “In Da Club: An Econometric Analysis of Strip Club Patrons”
Copyright © 2008 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Time to amend the Constitutiom
The Straits Times
Oct 12, 2007
NON-DISCRIMINATION OF WOMEN
Time to amend the Constitution
By Radha Basu
A RECENT exchange between Singapore officials and a UN committee promoting gender equality was an interesting example of pragmatism pitted against principle.
The committee, tasked to examine member states' adherence to Cedaw (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women), lauded Singapore for progress made by women here, but it also expressed concern over the lack of specific local laws proscribing gender discrimination.
Representing Singapore, Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon, the Minister of State for Community Development, Youth and Sports, gave a valiant defence of how the Republic had met its obligations under Cedaw, to which it acceded in 1995. She also called a press conference last week to give more information on Singapore's counter-arguments.
'We agree with Cedaw's objectives, but have a different way of achieving these objectives,' she said.
Rather than enact difficult- to-enforce laws, Singapore preferred to focus instead on increasing opportunities for women to excel in studies, work and public service, she pointed out.
She cited a list of priorities: getting more older women back to work, helping women to earn more and ensuring that women young and old have enough opportunities to balance career demands with the time and space to fulfil their duties as mothers, daughters or wives.
Helping older women back to work is a particularly pressing concern, with Singaporeans - particularly women - living longer than ever before. Only about 42 per cent of women in their mid- to late 50s currently work, compared to 78 per cent of men.
A tripartite committee has been formed to look into how these numbers can be improved.
Indeed, the Singapore approach of identifying problem areas and solving them in an organised way has yielded rich dividends.
Singapore has the world's lowest infant mortality rates. Maternal mortality rates too are low, comparable in most years to those in Europe.
Women graduates outnumber men. Also, women own or co-own 87 per cent of Housing Board flats.
Violence against women has been kept well in check. Despite population increases, the number of rapes per 100,000 population actually declined from 3.04 in 2000 to 2.85 in 2005.
The number of female victims of violence seeking medical help in public hospitals also plummeted - from 658 in 1998 to 297 in 2005.
And while neighbouring Asian giants China and India are facing demographic doom because of rampant female infanticide and foeticide, such practices are virtually unheard of here.
Indeed, Singapore is ranked 18th out of 175 countries in the United Nations Gender Empowerment Measure which tracks gender inequalities in opportunity.
Why then the UN committee's concern? Mainly because of Singapore's 'reservations' about - or refusal to fully accept - Articles 2 and 16 of the treaty.
Under Article 2, state parties are required to condemn discrimination against women 'in all its forms' and agree to embody the principle of gender equality in their national Constitutions or in other 'appropriate' laws.
Article 16 requires state parties to eliminate discrimination against women in all matters pertaining to marriage and family relations.
Singapore's official stance is that specific laws against gender discrimination - including a Women's Charter which some people have suggested in the past - are not necessary as the Constitution already guarantees the equality of 'all persons' before the law.
Advocacy groups such as the Association for Women in Action and Research (Aware) are not convinced that such a guarantee is enough. Despite the equality clause, practices that can be regarded as discriminatory towards women remain entrenched, it says. An example: Dependants of female employees in many organisations are seldom entitled to the same rights as the dependants of male employees.
Aware also points to the fact that while the Constitution recognises that all persons are equal before the law, it guarantees that there will be no discrimination against citizens on the basis of only 'religion, race, descent or place of birth'. Aware wants this clause to include gender and marital status as well.
Such a guarantee, says Aware president Constance Singam, would be the most 'significant acknowledgement of political will' to grant equal rights to women here.
For the Cedaw committee, Singapore's policy of allowing Muslims to defer to Syariah law in family matters is another sticking point. Certain aspects of Syariah law - which allow for men to have up to four wives, and require women to seek the consent of a male guardian before they marry - are deemed discriminatory.
Mrs Yu-Foo's explanation: Singapore has to 'respect the rights of its indigenous people' - namely the Malay-Musliims - 'to practise their personal and religious laws'.
She added that adequate safeguards had been built into the system to ensure that Muslim women are not victimised.
But these assurances cut little ice with the Cedaw committee. It urged Singapore to study statutes of countries with similar interpretations of Muslim law and 'remove the inconsistencies between civil and Syariah law'.
Aware too supports this notion. Malaysia, the group points out, is able to guarantee equality for women of other faiths under its Constitution even as it maintains Syariah law for Muslims. Other Muslim countries, such as Algeria and Morocco, have also done the same.
So what next?
In many ways, Singapore women have it better than their counterparts in many other countries, but there is probably still room to see how local laws, including the Constitution, can be revised to ensure better protection of women's rights.
For apart from punishing transgressors and providing victims with hope and avenues for swift redress, laws set the tone for the principles a society lives by. Statutes do shape attitudes.
Countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom enshrined gender equality in their statutes as early as the 1960s and 1970s, when most women stayed home to keep house and raise children while men reigned supreme in their roles as patriarch and provider.
It is true that laws guaranteeing gender equality may be difficult to enforce but, to take a parallel, this did not prevent the Government from recently deciding not to repeal a law criminalising male homosexual sex, which is not only regarded as discriminatory by some, but is also equally hard to enforce.
Some political office-bearers have gone on record to say the Government is not going to actively enforce the gay-sex law. In other words, it stays as a matter of 'principle' - largely because homosexuality is still frowned upon by most people here. Here, attitudes are shaping statutes.
But whether attitudes shape statutes or the other way round, surely society here is ready to enshrine in the Constitution a philosophy that states that no one should be discriminated against just because she was born a woman?
In a place where women make up more than half the population, are better educated than men and have been empowered to carve out their own careers, I'm hoping that the answer will be a resounding 'yes'.
http://www.straitstimes.com/Review/Others/STIStory_166192.html
Oct 12, 2007
NON-DISCRIMINATION OF WOMEN
Time to amend the Constitution
By Radha Basu
A RECENT exchange between Singapore officials and a UN committee promoting gender equality was an interesting example of pragmatism pitted against principle.
The committee, tasked to examine member states' adherence to Cedaw (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women), lauded Singapore for progress made by women here, but it also expressed concern over the lack of specific local laws proscribing gender discrimination.
Representing Singapore, Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon, the Minister of State for Community Development, Youth and Sports, gave a valiant defence of how the Republic had met its obligations under Cedaw, to which it acceded in 1995. She also called a press conference last week to give more information on Singapore's counter-arguments.
'We agree with Cedaw's objectives, but have a different way of achieving these objectives,' she said.
Rather than enact difficult- to-enforce laws, Singapore preferred to focus instead on increasing opportunities for women to excel in studies, work and public service, she pointed out.
She cited a list of priorities: getting more older women back to work, helping women to earn more and ensuring that women young and old have enough opportunities to balance career demands with the time and space to fulfil their duties as mothers, daughters or wives.
Helping older women back to work is a particularly pressing concern, with Singaporeans - particularly women - living longer than ever before. Only about 42 per cent of women in their mid- to late 50s currently work, compared to 78 per cent of men.
A tripartite committee has been formed to look into how these numbers can be improved.
Indeed, the Singapore approach of identifying problem areas and solving them in an organised way has yielded rich dividends.
Singapore has the world's lowest infant mortality rates. Maternal mortality rates too are low, comparable in most years to those in Europe.
Women graduates outnumber men. Also, women own or co-own 87 per cent of Housing Board flats.
Violence against women has been kept well in check. Despite population increases, the number of rapes per 100,000 population actually declined from 3.04 in 2000 to 2.85 in 2005.
The number of female victims of violence seeking medical help in public hospitals also plummeted - from 658 in 1998 to 297 in 2005.
And while neighbouring Asian giants China and India are facing demographic doom because of rampant female infanticide and foeticide, such practices are virtually unheard of here.
Indeed, Singapore is ranked 18th out of 175 countries in the United Nations Gender Empowerment Measure which tracks gender inequalities in opportunity.
Why then the UN committee's concern? Mainly because of Singapore's 'reservations' about - or refusal to fully accept - Articles 2 and 16 of the treaty.
Under Article 2, state parties are required to condemn discrimination against women 'in all its forms' and agree to embody the principle of gender equality in their national Constitutions or in other 'appropriate' laws.
Article 16 requires state parties to eliminate discrimination against women in all matters pertaining to marriage and family relations.
Singapore's official stance is that specific laws against gender discrimination - including a Women's Charter which some people have suggested in the past - are not necessary as the Constitution already guarantees the equality of 'all persons' before the law.
Advocacy groups such as the Association for Women in Action and Research (Aware) are not convinced that such a guarantee is enough. Despite the equality clause, practices that can be regarded as discriminatory towards women remain entrenched, it says. An example: Dependants of female employees in many organisations are seldom entitled to the same rights as the dependants of male employees.
Aware also points to the fact that while the Constitution recognises that all persons are equal before the law, it guarantees that there will be no discrimination against citizens on the basis of only 'religion, race, descent or place of birth'. Aware wants this clause to include gender and marital status as well.
Such a guarantee, says Aware president Constance Singam, would be the most 'significant acknowledgement of political will' to grant equal rights to women here.
For the Cedaw committee, Singapore's policy of allowing Muslims to defer to Syariah law in family matters is another sticking point. Certain aspects of Syariah law - which allow for men to have up to four wives, and require women to seek the consent of a male guardian before they marry - are deemed discriminatory.
Mrs Yu-Foo's explanation: Singapore has to 'respect the rights of its indigenous people' - namely the Malay-Musliims - 'to practise their personal and religious laws'.
She added that adequate safeguards had been built into the system to ensure that Muslim women are not victimised.
But these assurances cut little ice with the Cedaw committee. It urged Singapore to study statutes of countries with similar interpretations of Muslim law and 'remove the inconsistencies between civil and Syariah law'.
Aware too supports this notion. Malaysia, the group points out, is able to guarantee equality for women of other faiths under its Constitution even as it maintains Syariah law for Muslims. Other Muslim countries, such as Algeria and Morocco, have also done the same.
So what next?
In many ways, Singapore women have it better than their counterparts in many other countries, but there is probably still room to see how local laws, including the Constitution, can be revised to ensure better protection of women's rights.
For apart from punishing transgressors and providing victims with hope and avenues for swift redress, laws set the tone for the principles a society lives by. Statutes do shape attitudes.
Countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom enshrined gender equality in their statutes as early as the 1960s and 1970s, when most women stayed home to keep house and raise children while men reigned supreme in their roles as patriarch and provider.
It is true that laws guaranteeing gender equality may be difficult to enforce but, to take a parallel, this did not prevent the Government from recently deciding not to repeal a law criminalising male homosexual sex, which is not only regarded as discriminatory by some, but is also equally hard to enforce.
Some political office-bearers have gone on record to say the Government is not going to actively enforce the gay-sex law. In other words, it stays as a matter of 'principle' - largely because homosexuality is still frowned upon by most people here. Here, attitudes are shaping statutes.
But whether attitudes shape statutes or the other way round, surely society here is ready to enshrine in the Constitution a philosophy that states that no one should be discriminated against just because she was born a woman?
In a place where women make up more than half the population, are better educated than men and have been empowered to carve out their own careers, I'm hoping that the answer will be a resounding 'yes'.
http://www.straitstimes.com/Review/Others/STIStory_166192.html
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Why SDU supports University Orientations!
"If you don't include your women graduates in your breeding pool and leave them on the shelf, you would end up a more stupid society...So what happens? There will be less bright people to support dumb people in the next generation. That's a problem." -Lee Kuan Yew in 1983 National Day Rally
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Spartans! Prepare for Glory!
"Messenger : Who does this woman think she is that she can speak among men?
Queen Gorgo : Because only Spartan women give birth to real men. " - 300, Hollywood Film
Queen Gorgo : Because only Spartan women give birth to real men. " - 300, Hollywood Film
Sunday, July 8, 2007
Song Dedication to Ms. JL
"Shoes" by Shania Twain
Tell me about it... Ooh!Men.Have you ever tried to figure them out?Huh, me too, but I ain't got no clueHow 'bout you?
Men are like shoes. Made to confuse. Yeah, there's so many of 'em
I don't know which ones to choose(yeah, yeah, yeah)
Ah, sing it to me
If you agree
There's the kind made for runnin'
The sneakers and the low down heels
The kind that will keep you on your toes
And every girl knows how that feels(yeah, yeah, yeah)
Ouch, ah, sing it with me
[Chorus:]You've got your kickers and your ropers
Your everyday loafers, some that you can never find
You've got your slippers and your zippers
Your grabbers and your grippers
Man, don't ya hate that kind?
Some you wear in, some you wear out
Some you wanna leave behind Sometimes you hate 'em
And sometimes you love 'em
I guess it all depends on which way you rub 'em
But a girl can never have too many of 'em
It's amazing what a little polish will do...Men are like shoes... Some make you feel ten feet tall Some make you feel so small Some you want to leave out in the hall Or make you feel like kicking the wall(yeah, yeah, yeah)
Ah, sing it with me, girls
Ooh! (yeah, yeah, yeah)Mmm..
[Repeat Chorus]Some can polish up pretty good...Ah, men are like shoes..
[Instrumental]It's amazing what a little polish will do
Some clean up good, just like.newSome you can't afford, some are real cheap
Some are good for bummin' around on the beach
You've got your kickers and your ropers
Your everyday loafers, yeah some that you can never find
You've got your slippers and your zippers
Your grabbers and your grippersAnd man, don't ya hate that kind?
[Repeat Chorus]I ain't got time for the flip-flop kind...Men are like shoes!
Probably the theme song for the JoJo club......
Tell me about it... Ooh!Men.Have you ever tried to figure them out?Huh, me too, but I ain't got no clueHow 'bout you?
Men are like shoes. Made to confuse. Yeah, there's so many of 'em
I don't know which ones to choose(yeah, yeah, yeah)
Ah, sing it to me
If you agree
There's the kind made for runnin'
The sneakers and the low down heels
The kind that will keep you on your toes
And every girl knows how that feels(yeah, yeah, yeah)
Ouch, ah, sing it with me
[Chorus:]You've got your kickers and your ropers
Your everyday loafers, some that you can never find
You've got your slippers and your zippers
Your grabbers and your grippers
Man, don't ya hate that kind?
Some you wear in, some you wear out
Some you wanna leave behind Sometimes you hate 'em
And sometimes you love 'em
I guess it all depends on which way you rub 'em
But a girl can never have too many of 'em
It's amazing what a little polish will do...Men are like shoes... Some make you feel ten feet tall Some make you feel so small Some you want to leave out in the hall Or make you feel like kicking the wall(yeah, yeah, yeah)
Ah, sing it with me, girls
Ooh! (yeah, yeah, yeah)Mmm..
[Repeat Chorus]Some can polish up pretty good...Ah, men are like shoes..
[Instrumental]It's amazing what a little polish will do
Some clean up good, just like.newSome you can't afford, some are real cheap
Some are good for bummin' around on the beach
You've got your kickers and your ropers
Your everyday loafers, yeah some that you can never find
You've got your slippers and your zippers
Your grabbers and your grippersAnd man, don't ya hate that kind?
[Repeat Chorus]I ain't got time for the flip-flop kind...Men are like shoes!
Probably the theme song for the JoJo club......
Men with a lot of testosterone make curious economic choices
From The Economist print edition
PSYCHOLOGISTS have known for a long time that economists are wrong. Most economists—at least, those of the classical persuasion—believe that any financial gain, however small, is worth having. But psychologists know this is not true. They know because of the ultimatum game, the outcome of which is often the rejection of free money.
In this game, one player divides a pot of money between himself and another. The other then chooses whether to accept the offer. If he rejects it, neither player benefits. And despite the instincts of classical economics, a stingy offer (one that is less than about a quarter of the total) is, indeed, usually rejected. The question is, why?
One explanation of the rejectionist strategy is that human psychology is adapted for repeated interactions rather than one-off trades. In this case, taking a tough, if self-sacrificial, line at the beginning pays dividends in future rounds of the game. Rejecting a stingy offer in a one-off game is thus just a single move in a larger strategy. And indeed, when one-off ultimatum games are played by trained economists, who know all this, they do tend to accept stingy offers more often than other people would. But even they have their limits. To throw some light on why those limits exist, Terence Burnham of Harvard University recently gathered a group of students of microeconomics and asked them to play the ultimatum game. All of the students he recruited were men.
Dr Burnham's research budget ran to a bunch of $40 games. When there are many rounds in the ultimatum game, players learn to split the money more or less equally. But Dr Burnham was interested in a game of only one round. In this game, which the players knew in advance was final and could thus not affect future outcomes, proposers could choose only between offering the other player $25 (ie, more than half the total) or $5. Responders could accept or reject the offer as usual. Those results recorded, Dr Burnham took saliva samples from all the students and compared the testosterone levels assessed from those samples with decisions made in the one-round game.
As he describes in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, the responders who rejected a low final offer had an average testosterone level more than 50% higher than the average of those who accepted. Five of the seven men with the highest testosterone levels in the study rejected a $5 ultimate offer but only one of the 19 others made the same decision.
What Dr Burnham's result supports is a much deeper rejection of the tenets of classical economics than one based on a slight mis-evolution of negotiating skills. It backs the idea that what people really strive for is relative rather than absolute prosperity. They would rather accept less themselves than see a rival get ahead. That is likely to be particularly true in individuals with high testosterone levels, since that hormone is correlated with social dominance in many species.
Economists often refer to this sort of behaviour as irrational. In fact, it is not. It is simply, as it were, differently rational. The things that money can buy are merely means to an end—social status—that brings desirable reproductive opportunities. If another route brings that status more directly, money is irrelevant.
Copyright © 2007 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.
PSYCHOLOGISTS have known for a long time that economists are wrong. Most economists—at least, those of the classical persuasion—believe that any financial gain, however small, is worth having. But psychologists know this is not true. They know because of the ultimatum game, the outcome of which is often the rejection of free money.
In this game, one player divides a pot of money between himself and another. The other then chooses whether to accept the offer. If he rejects it, neither player benefits. And despite the instincts of classical economics, a stingy offer (one that is less than about a quarter of the total) is, indeed, usually rejected. The question is, why?
One explanation of the rejectionist strategy is that human psychology is adapted for repeated interactions rather than one-off trades. In this case, taking a tough, if self-sacrificial, line at the beginning pays dividends in future rounds of the game. Rejecting a stingy offer in a one-off game is thus just a single move in a larger strategy. And indeed, when one-off ultimatum games are played by trained economists, who know all this, they do tend to accept stingy offers more often than other people would. But even they have their limits. To throw some light on why those limits exist, Terence Burnham of Harvard University recently gathered a group of students of microeconomics and asked them to play the ultimatum game. All of the students he recruited were men.
Dr Burnham's research budget ran to a bunch of $40 games. When there are many rounds in the ultimatum game, players learn to split the money more or less equally. But Dr Burnham was interested in a game of only one round. In this game, which the players knew in advance was final and could thus not affect future outcomes, proposers could choose only between offering the other player $25 (ie, more than half the total) or $5. Responders could accept or reject the offer as usual. Those results recorded, Dr Burnham took saliva samples from all the students and compared the testosterone levels assessed from those samples with decisions made in the one-round game.
As he describes in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, the responders who rejected a low final offer had an average testosterone level more than 50% higher than the average of those who accepted. Five of the seven men with the highest testosterone levels in the study rejected a $5 ultimate offer but only one of the 19 others made the same decision.
What Dr Burnham's result supports is a much deeper rejection of the tenets of classical economics than one based on a slight mis-evolution of negotiating skills. It backs the idea that what people really strive for is relative rather than absolute prosperity. They would rather accept less themselves than see a rival get ahead. That is likely to be particularly true in individuals with high testosterone levels, since that hormone is correlated with social dominance in many species.
Economists often refer to this sort of behaviour as irrational. In fact, it is not. It is simply, as it were, differently rational. The things that money can buy are merely means to an end—social status—that brings desirable reproductive opportunities. If another route brings that status more directly, money is irrelevant.
Copyright © 2007 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Female sexuality
Female Sexuality, or rather the ability to exert it for "empowerment", is in truth a temporal facade of ego-boosting power or authority. It is my personal believe that society's perpetual over emphasis on female sexuality weakens rather than strengthens women, because in inculcates into us and consequently, our society, that a woman's ascend to power lies in her ability to unleash her sexuality upon helpless men who think with their testicles and not their brains. This mentality drills into women who won the genetic lottery, a false sense of invincibility as well as sparks off an "arms race" among females, with women competing and comparing, the number of guys who buy them a drink in a club, for example. For a variety of reasons, this would be detrimental to both females and males alike.
First, the purported benefits of propelling sexuality are merely temporal and may be a curse rather than a blessing. Conventional wisdoms suggest that beautiful women (or people in general) have it better. Statistics reveal that when it comes to selecting employees, employers consider first impressions, of which, propelling female sexuality in a fairly dignified manner helps greatly. Regardless of whether it is the entertainment industry or the sporting industry, it appears that it is beauty and sex that sells. The ravishing tennis "star" gets more endorsements vis-à-vis the plain-looking medalist. Taiwan Pop Princess Jolin Tsai (see above picture) wins the coveted Most Favorite Female Artist and the Best Female Artist awards at the 18th Annual Golden Melody Awards 2007. It is no coincidence that she was also voted the number 1 in Maxim's Hot 100, after her twin peaks "grew" from its humble background to the shocking 'G' cup presently. Success, then, it seems lies not so much on one's actual sporting or singing ability, but rather, how much sex appeal, how marketable you are. After all, sex sells. However, just as it was conventional wisdom in the past that the world was flat, the notion that propelling sexuality reaps success for the modern day warrior-princesses eager to conquer the world is fatally flawed. For one, the very same free-market force of capitalism that sweeps sensual, nubile young ladies to the top of the corporate ladder will also be responsible for their eventual downfall. Indeed as Mr. Francois Hollande (leader of the Socialist Party, France) said: "Queens may have their moment but the king will always return to take power." Building a career and success upon the foundations of your sexuality is no better than building a gleaming multi-million skyscraper on sand - its rise will be as spectacular as its collapse. Take for example an extract of an article from The Straits Times:
Ladies Night - but only if you're under 36
IN A black-lace top, a grey Gucci beret and tight jeans, Ms Violet Lim was dressed to party.
But at the entrance of Powerhouse in mega-club St James Power Station, a bouncer asked for her identity card, then denied her the five free-drinks vouchers typically offered to women on Ladies' Night.
The reason? She was 'above 35'.
Last Wednesday night, the 55-year-old dating consultant, a mother of two grown children, was told she had to pay for her drinks.
By then, she was so insulted, she left.
'They are too much,' she said. 'My girlfriends and I have been going to Ladies Night at various clubs for many years and we never had problems getting free drinks.'
The idea of Ladies Night at clubs works on the belief that the promise of free or discounted drinks for women will draw them in, and they in turn will attract men.
Being an adult woman is generally enough to qualify for the privilege - age notwithstanding.
But Mr Andrew Ing, chief operating officer of St James Power Station, said the club's coupons only extend to women 'who fit our target profile' - that is, 'young and trendy'.
'It's to protect the interests of our existing clientele,' he explained.
Two weeks ago, Ms Lim also failed to get the coupons, despite being dressed youthfully in a fitted jacket and trendy black slacks.
She was handed spa vouchers instead.
Similarly snubbed - and annoyed - was 36-year-old nurse Geraldine Lee, who is just one year over the Powerhouse age limit.
'It's like telling you you're old and won't attract guys, so go somewhere else,' said Ms Lee, who was at the club for the first time last Wednesday.
Even so, Mr Ing cited the club's right to turn away customers, and its right to give or refuse Ladies' Night privileges.
'Door policies have always been controversial because they can never be in black and white,' he said.
..............................American investment banker Jason Timothy, 25, said: 'I just don't think a 55-year-old woman would create a great atmosphere to attract men.'
END
But that’s not all. An over-emphasis on female sexuality by society will contort people's perception of women and their achievements will be undermined and swept away and written off as just the result of their beauty and nothing more. Female talk-hosts on the ESPN shows are perceived to be there as just eye-candy. People do not even bother about the possible hours these women spend reading and researching into tactics of various football teams etc. Sportswomen tend to be described by sport commenders differently as compared to sportsmen, with emphasis on looks rather than performance, undermining the years of back-breaking physical conditioning these female athletics put in to compete at the highest level. Thus female sexuality not only provides fleeting glory but eternal obscurity, it also erodes and diminish any legitimate virtues such as perseverance, emotional-intelligence etc, that many women posses through their own efforts, independent of their physical endowment.
The next time you put on your M.A.C makeup, place that false eyelashes and don Triumph's Maxi misers push up bras, remember that the only one you are deceiving is yourself, because if love, fame and power are endorsements and testimonials of value, then "value" that hinges on sexuality expires once you are 36.....
JY
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)