|
|
Post by carl on Jul 19, 2017 19:41:12 GMT -5
A refuser some how gets into that wierd position where they feel like they have something valuable that you want. How do they make it super valuable - cut out the supply. Any increase in supply devalues in their mind what they have. Perhaps easily done if you are a bit competitive or selfish at times and can't regulate yourself. I think that for some people especially if they have other issues, that position of power just feels too good to let go of. And they know that all the sex they want is mega cheap. So perhaps it looses its rightful desireability. Maybe other brands seem more attractive. They must get something out of refusing. And for some people that might seem like a nice place to be.
|
|
|
|
Post by greatcoastal on Jul 19, 2017 20:15:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by baza on Jul 19, 2017 20:57:06 GMT -5
The fact is that whoever is prepared to walk away holds the real power in these dynamics.
But this is the biggest card in the pack, and, if played, is going to cause whoever plays it as much trouble and inconvenience and pain as it will the other spouse.
So the other spouse is betting that you won't play this card.
And, usually the other spouse is correct. *You* won't play it.
And, if you won't play it, you have no leverage at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheGreatContender -aka Daddeeo on Jul 19, 2017 21:08:20 GMT -5
Prisoner's dilemma much? The fact is that whoever is prepared to walk away holds the real power in these dynamics. But this is the biggest card in the pack, and, if played, is going to cause whoever plays it as much trouble and inconvenience and pain as it will the other spouse. So the other spouse is betting that you won't play this card. And, usually the other spouse is correct. *You* won't play it. And, if you won't play it, you have no leverage at all. |
|
|
|
Post by DryCreek on Jul 19, 2017 21:33:08 GMT -5
Hi, carl. I have a different, but similar, twist on this. W is a hot blonde. Got an overwhelming amount of sexual attention growing up, to the point of being concerned about personal safety. I have a suspicion that she came to see it as worthless and an annoyance. Being desired isn't special or arousing because it's in oversupply. So now, there's no gratitude that someone finds her desirable after decades together; rather, the attention is annoyingly still in oversupply. So, I think your theory can swing both ways - some control supply as a power trip, and some see the demand as worthless. |
|
|
|
Post by baza on Jul 19, 2017 22:17:36 GMT -5
There's a lot in that Brother DryCreek . Some people place a premium value on sexual connection in a relationship. Some people don't value sexual connection in a relationship at all. There is nothing "wrong" with either position. It is what it is. But in an ILIASM shithole environment, the usual market forces of supply and demand do not apply. There being only one supplier of the commodity under the social conventions of a relationship. That is a monopoly situation. You may of course, go off market to get the commodity you place a premium value on - if you are prepared to pay the price this choice entails. |
|
|
|
Post by lwoetin on Jul 20, 2017 2:00:28 GMT -5
Hi, carl . I have a different, but similar, twist on this. W is a hot blonde. Got an overwhelming amount of sexual attention growing up, to the point of being concerned about personal safety. I have a suspicion that she came to see it as worthless and an annoyance. Being desired isn't special or arousing because it's in oversupply. So now, there's no gratitude that someone finds her desirable after decades together; rather, the attention is annoyingly still in oversupply. So, I think your theory can swing both ways - some control supply as a power trip, and some see the demand as worthless. Gosh, I didn't realize I was hurting your situation, DC. I will try not to gawk too much from now on. carl, you also have a supply and demand situation in your advantage as well. She's happily staying with you, isn't she? |
|
|
|
Post by shamwow on Jul 20, 2017 8:42:45 GMT -5
A refuser some how gets into that wierd position where they feel like they have something valuable that you want. How do they make it super valuable - cut out the supply. Any increase in supply devalues in their mind what they have. Perhaps easily done if you are a bit competitive or selfish at times and can't regulate yourself. I think that for some people especially if they have other issues, that position of power just feels too good to let go of. And they know that all the sex they want is mega cheap. So perhaps it looses its rightful desireability. Maybe other brands seem more attractive. They must get something out of refusing. And for some people that might seem like a nice place to be. Interesting that you frame it in terms of economics (an interest of mine). The key element of economics is the concept of scarcity. The more scarce a good is, the more valuable it is. In terms of intimacy (the service here), our spouse is the only "legal" supplier of that scarce service. They control the supply, and thus have an out-sized effect on what price (and in our case, it is not money...it is emotional battering, happiness, and depression) we are willing to pay for it. The technical term of a single supplier who provides a good or service is a monopoly. A monopolist, almost invariably, is not concerned about the market, but exclusively about squeezing as much from their market position as possible (selfish fucks, right?). They will also take whatever steps to squash any competition that will interfere with their market dominance. However, throughout history, the monopolist always seems to forget is that a monopoly is an unstable arrangement. Yes, they can charge a premium price, but if that price gets too high, the marketplace responds. It will seek substitutes (in our case...porn, outsourcing, etc...). Or if the cost becomes too much, the customer decides that particular good/service is no longer worth the price being asked and simply walks (divorce). Or, if the pain has gone on long enough, even if the price is lowered (i.e. reset sex), the customer decides not to be suckered yet another time, knowing the price will just shoot up afterwards (counter refusing). When this point is reached, it is usually very bad for the monopolist. They provide a single service (intimacy). They have one customer (us poor schmucks). They have abused their market power to the point the customer has decided to walk away or seek substitutes. In history, this is when monopolists typically lash out, having become entitled in their entrenched position. But this point is not always reached. Many monopolists are very well attuned to their customer and know just how much they can squeeze before that tipping point is reached. I would wager that the majority of us on this site are customers of such a monopolist. For every one of us that walks, I 'd wager (just by the lurker count) there are 10 who live in quiet desperation, accepting an over-priced service, but not willing to walk away because their "supplier" was smart enough to keep the price down just enough. These situations can continue for decades, usually until some event breaks the camel's back, and it all comes crashing down. |
|
|
|
Post by bballgirl on Jul 20, 2017 9:14:49 GMT -5
A refuser some how gets into that wierd position where they feel like they have something valuable that you want. How do they make it super valuable - cut out the supply. Any increase in supply devalues in their mind what they have. Perhaps easily done if you are a bit competitive or selfish at times and can't regulate yourself. I think that for some people especially if they have other issues, that position of power just feels too good to let go of. And they know that all the sex they want is mega cheap. So perhaps it looses its rightful desireability. Maybe other brands seem more attractive. They must get something out of refusing. And for some people that might seem like a nice place to be. Interesting that you frame it in terms of economics (an interest of mine). The key element of economics is the concept of scarcity. The more scarce a good is, the more valuable it is. In terms of intimacy (the service here), our spouse is the only "legal" supplier of that scarce service. They control the supply, and thus have an out-sized effect on what price (and in our case, it is not money...it is emotional battering, happiness, and depression) we are willing to pay for it. The technical term of a single supplier who provides a good or service is a monopoly. A monopolist, almost invariably, is not concerned about the market, but exclusively about squeezing as much from their market position as possible (selfish fucks, right?). They will also take whatever steps to squash any competition that will interfere with their market dominance. However, throughout history, the monopolist always seems to forget is that a monopoly is an unstable arrangement. Yes, they can charge a premium price, but if that price gets too high, the marketplace responds. It will seek substitutes (in our case...porn, outsourcing, etc...). Or if the cost becomes too much, the customer decides that particular good/service is no longer worth the price being asked and simply walks (divorce). Or, if the pain has gone on long enough, even if the price is lowered (i.e. reset sex), the customer decides not to be suckered yet another time, knowing the price will just shoot up afterwards (counter refusing). When this point is reached, it is usually very bad for the monopolist. They provide a single service (intimacy). They have one customer (us poor schmucks). They have abused their market power to the point the customer has decided to walk away or seek substitutes. In history, this is when monopolists typically lash out, having become entitled in their entrenched position. But this point is not always reached. Many monopolists are very well attuned to their customer and know just how much they can squeeze before that tipping point is reached. I would wager that the majority of us on this site are customers of such a monopolist. For every one of us that walks, I 'd wager (just by the lurker count) there are 10 who live in quiet desperation, accepting an over-priced service, but not willing to walk away because their "supplier" was smart enough to keep the price down just enough. These situations can continue for decades, usually until some event breaks the camel's back, and it all comes crashing down. Brilliant economic analogy!! I thought monopoly before I read your second paragraph and you stated it perfectly. The only one that will monopolize me with no intimacy and affection is Heinz ketchup, that's it! |
|
|
|
Post by greatcoastal on Jul 20, 2017 9:31:33 GMT -5
Brilliant economic analogy!! I thought monopoly before I read your second paragraph and you stated it perfectly. The only one that will monopolize me with no intimacy and affection is Heinz ketchup, that's it! Now you've got me hearing that song in my head, "Anticipation"!! And thinking about Reese's!  |
|
|
|
Post by DryCreek on Jul 20, 2017 10:35:30 GMT -5
Now you've got me hearing that song in my head, "Anticipation"!! And thinking about Reese's! Man, the esoteric things our kids will never experience, like practical techniques for getting ketchup to pour from a glass bottle, and what happens to your burger when the logjam breaks free. "Duh, just squeeze the bottle!" ;-) Now, back to the discussion on sexual economic theories... |
|
|
|
Post by greatcoastal on Jul 20, 2017 11:24:49 GMT -5
A refuser some how gets into that wierd position where they feel like they have something valuable that you want. How do they make it super valuable - cut out the supply. Any increase in supply devalues in their mind what they have. Perhaps easily done if you are a bit competitive or selfish at times and can't regulate yourself. I think that for some people especially if they have other issues, that position of power just feels too good to let go of. And they know that all the sex they want is mega cheap. So perhaps it looses its rightful desireability. Maybe other brands seem more attractive. They must get something out of refusing. And for some people that might seem like a nice place to be. It's looking like divorce will be a turning of the tables. That looong list of "things my wife hasn't done in a long, long time", you know household and children chores,etc.....(something valuable that she wants) is about to be taken away from her. That "person" who makes her look and feel like wonderful christian mother, wife,homemaker,pillar of society, will no longer be her servant. I get to be the refuser. I will still be doing all those things. None of it for her. She will have to put on her big girl pants. It's crumbling for her, and she's failing. (no longer my concern) My teens are already expressing there "desire" to spend more time with me. They avoid her more and more. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2017 15:01:15 GMT -5
A refuser some how gets into that wierd position where they feel like they have something valuable that you want. How do they make it super valuable - cut out the supply. Any increase in supply devalues in their mind what they have. Perhaps easily done if you are a bit competitive or selfish at times and can't regulate yourself. I think that for some people especially if they have other issues, that position of power just feels too good to let go of. And they know that all the sex they want is mega cheap. So perhaps it looses its rightful desireability. Maybe other brands seem more attractive. They must get something out of refusing. And for some people that might seem like a nice place to be. Interesting that you frame it in terms of economics (an interest of mine). The key element of economics is the concept of scarcity. The more scarce a good is, the more valuable it is. In terms of intimacy (the service here), our spouse is the only "legal" supplier of that scarce service. They control the supply, and thus have an out-sized effect on what price (and in our case, it is not money...it is emotional battering, happiness, and depression) we are willing to pay for it. The technical term of a single supplier who provides a good or service is a monopoly. A monopolist, almost invariably, is not concerned about the market, but exclusively about squeezing as much from their market position as possible (selfish fucks, right?). They will also take whatever steps to squash any competition that will interfere with their market dominance. However, throughout history, the monopolist always seems to forget is that a monopoly is an unstable arrangement. Yes, they can charge a premium price, but if that price gets too high, the marketplace responds. It will seek substitutes (in our case...porn, outsourcing, etc...). Or if the cost becomes too much, the customer decides that particular good/service is no longer worth the price being asked and simply walks (divorce). Or, if the pain has gone on long enough, even if the price is lowered (i.e. reset sex), the customer decides not to be suckered yet another time, knowing the price will just shoot up afterwards (counter refusing). When this point is reached, it is usually very bad for the monopolist. They provide a single service (intimacy). They have one customer (us poor schmucks). They have abused their market power to the point the customer has decided to walk away or seek substitutes. In history, this is when monopolists typically lash out, having become entitled in their entrenched position. But this point is not always reached. Many monopolists are very well attuned to their customer and know just how much they can squeeze before that tipping point is reached. I would wager that the majority of us on this site are customers of such a monopolist. For every one of us that walks, I 'd wager (just by the lurker count) there are 10 who live in quiet desperation, accepting an over-priced service, but not willing to walk away because their "supplier" was smart enough to keep the price down just enough. These situations can continue for decades, usually until some event breaks the camel's back, and it all comes crashing down. Excellent Analogy Shamminator!! I would like to add that said sellers do not have a unique product, but a commodity. So they only THINK they have a monopoly. And when you restrict or unreasonably limit access to said commodity, it is only logical that the consumer will find a supplier who offers the same commodity, but differentiates him/herself by offering additional tangential products or services, which enhance the new supplier's desirability. Maybe there are bonuses for a loyal customer, or regular specials which keep the consumer coming back for more, so to speak. Then the consumer moves to a new supplier and wonders why he/she ever did business with the old supplier. And the supplier is wondering where his/her SOLE customer went. Such a supplier never gets it. I was a marketing major in undergrad. |
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Jul 20, 2017 15:37:36 GMT -5
I get where you are coming from with the notion of economics, with intimacy "flowing" as a kind of currency. I think it's a bit different though when you consider the perspective of both partners.
Partner 1 is interested in rooting her spouse.
Partner 2 is averse to rooting his spouse. Doesn't desire sex with that person. Is not attracted "that way". Would rather play videogames or do nothing.
Partner 1 values the sex with her partner. Sex that is scarce, and in it's scarcity, an increasing priority.
Partner 2 does not value the sex with his partner. In fact, it has negative value - it is a chore. Perhaps a loving chore, like changing a baby diaper. The longer it is neglected, the higher the priority for Partner 1, whereas Partner 2 would rather it also become a low priority.
The "withholding of sex" does not increase the value of sex with Partner 1 to Partner 2, who doesn't want it. It is simply the reflection of how much that partner is averse to sex with Partner 1.
Partner 2 may or may not value sex in general, but as both partners are invested in the outward behaviors of a monogamous marriage, his aversion to sex with Partner 1 *exceeds* his relative desire to have sex *in general*. It presents to them both as the kinder story - that he's just not that into sex. Until the expectation of monogamy is dropped, there is no way to test whether that's true. And ultimately, it doesn't matter because it ends up at the same place.
It's easy to intuit the feeling of a loss of control as a supply/demand dynamic in which Partner 2 keeps the value of sex high for Partner 1, but I'd say it's more that the sex doesn't have an objective intrinsic value. The problem the couple faces - and they both face it - is that Partner 2 doesn't desire Partner 1 sexually. Whether or not Partner 2 enacts the sex that Partner 1 values, it doesn't change the value of that sex to Partner 2. It likely emphasizes Partner 2's aversion and disgust. It's simply not what Partner 2 wants to do with Partner 1.
So if it's an exchange of value - it's both parties playing an increasing game of brinksmanship around the sexual aversion - balancing their need to demand/avoid unwanted sex vs the consequence that someone blinks and pulls the trigger on a divorce, and losing the rest of the lifestyle benefits enjoyed by married people.. Each side is counting on the other changing their position.
|
|
tori
Junior Member
Posts: 89 
Age Range: 41-45
|
Post by tori on Jul 20, 2017 17:36:13 GMT -5
I get where you are coming from with the notion of economics, with intimacy "flowing" as a kind of currency. I think it's a bit different though when you consider the perspective of both partners. Partner 1 is interested in rooting her spouse. Partner 2 is averse to rooting his spouse. Doesn't desire sex with that person. Is not attracted "that way". Would rather play videogames or do nothing. Partner 1 values the sex with her partner. Sex that is scarce, and in it's scarcity, an increasing priority. Partner 2 does not value the sex with his partner. In fact, it has negative value - it is a chore. Perhaps a loving chore, like changing a baby diaper. The longer it is neglected, the higher the priority for Partner 1, whereas Partner 2 would rather it also become a low priority. The "withholding of sex" does not increase the value of sex with Partner 1 to Partner 2, who doesn't want it. It is simply the reflection of how much that partner is averse to sex with Partner 1. Partner 2 may or may not value sex in general, but as both partners are invested in the outward behaviors of a monogamous marriage, his aversion to sex with Partner 1 *exceeds* his relative desire to have sex *in general*. It presents to them both as the kinder story - that he's just not that into sex. Until the expectation of monogamy is dropped, there is no way to test whether that's true. And ultimately, it doesn't matter because it ends up at the same place. It's easy to intuit the feeling of a loss of control as a supply/demand dynamic in which Partner 2 keeps the value of sex high for Partner 1, but I'd say it's more that the sex doesn't have an objective intrinsic value. The problem the couple faces - and they both face it - is that Partner 2 doesn't desire Partner 1 sexually. Whether or not Partner 2 enacts the sex that Partner 1 values, it doesn't change the value of that sex to Partner 2. It likely emphasizes Partner 2's aversion and disgust. It's simply not what Partner 2 wants to do with Partner 1. So if it's an exchange of value - it's both parties playing an increasing game of brinksmanship around the sexual aversion - balancing their need to demand/avoid unwanted sex vs the consequence that someone blinks and pulls the trigger on a divorce, and losing the rest of the lifestyle benefits enjoyed by married people.. Each side is counting on the other changing their position. [ Wow! I don't possess the intelligence to add to this convo but wow that's deep.. |
|
