‘Cheap sex’ changing our lives and politics

A major change from when sex was a strong bargaining point for well provided, stable and long term relationships to an age of easily available copious copulation – ‘cheap sex’ – may have major implications for our society and our politics.

There is an apparent swing to more educated females and less mature males – and to more extreme left wing and right wing politics.

I presume there are still some like myself who are more traditionalists when it comes to sex and relationships – I still think there are major advantages to monogamous marriage-like relationships – but younger generations may be quite different.

A few days ago Alan posted a link to a very interesting article from from Park MacDougald (Daily Intelligencer/NY Mag): How ‘Cheap Sex’ Is Changing Our Lives – and Our Politics

Perhaps nothing is more central to the American culture wars than sex. This should come as no surprise: As members of a sexually reproducing species, we have a natural interest in the act of reproduction. Little wonder, then, that sex and its offshoots —abortion, contraception, teen, pre- and extramarital sex, pornography, and now gender identity — are so prominent in our partisan bickering. Red America hates women, Blue America kills babies. Sex gets the people going.

Yet for all of its prominence in our politics (and regardless of how much importance we attach to it in our individual lives), our understanding of sex is often remarkably narrow. It’s not that we know nothing — we know a lot — but the nature of our knowledge is limited: the mechanics of the act, the social rituals and expectations surrounding it, and maybe various pop theories for why men and women act the way they do. Only rarely, however, are we aware of the structural forces acting on our romantic lives in the same way that the pressures of supply and demand influence the price of coffee.

These structural forces and their consequences are the topic of Mark Regnerus’s book Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage, and Monogamy, published in September. Regnerus, a conservative Catholic sociologist at the University of Texas, provocatively explores how changes in technology and American society more broadly have reshaped intimacy in recent decades, creating a world in which sex is low-effort and abundant, marriage is late, and relationships tend to be fleeting.

Grounded in abundant sociological research, a wealth of in-person interviews, and creative borrowing from critically minded left-wing theorists such as Anthony Giddens and Eva Illouz, Cheap Sex is an important, if at times partial attempt to understand the way we live and love today.

When Regnerus says that sex is cheap, he means it as a technical distinction rather than a moral judgment. The idea that sex has a “price,” and can therefore be cheap or low-cost, comes from an economic theory called the “sexual exchange model,” which posits that sex is a good that women possess and men pursue.

“Sex is cheap,” Regnerus writes, “if women do not expect much in return for it and men do not have to supply much time, attention, resources, recognition, or fidelity in order to experience it.” This doesn’t mean that women don’t desire sex as well, only that they are usually the gatekeepers within the sexual relationship — with consensual sex first happening in a straight relationship when the woman decides it should. (In homosexual relationships, one partner will adopt the gatekeeper role.)

For much of the 20th century and before, sex was heavily bound up with marriage — long understood as the normative goal of romantic relationships — and therefore family and childrearing (it was, as Regnerus puts it, about “production” of the next generation, rather than “consumption” on the part of the married individuals).

Marriage in turn was anchored both by relatively stable male-female preferences as well as by what the economist Gary Becker referred to as “gains from trade.”

Men, then and now, wanted sex, but they also needed a partner to raise their children and run their household while they earned a breadwinner wage.

Women, then and now, on average preferred relationships to casual sex, but prior to achieving economic autonomy also needed someone who could provide them with resources while credibly promising not to abandon them in the future.

This generalises – I presume there are some men other than me who prefer relationships to casual sex – but is reasonably (on average) accurate.

The old system had it’s drawbacks, some of them major.

Regnerus, though at times seeming nostalgic for this older arrangement, does at least acknowledge its more oppressive features: It required sexual double standards and tight restrictions on female sexuality; it was very difficult on those who made bad marriages; and it was often brutal toward sexual minorities. Sexual freedom was limited to the rich or Bohemian.

Regnerus points to three technological advances that have significantly increased the economic and social autonomy of women.

The first and most important of these is contraception, which has separated sex from reproduction and allowed people to seek it for pleasure and self-expression.

In the past way of doing things women not only needed to use sex as a bargaining chip for a stable and financially secure relationship, once in a relationship the burden of child bearing and also most of the burden of raising children, often a lot of children, meant that sex could become a major quandary – short term pleasure versus longer term hardship or hard work.

The second, the rise of online porn, has provided people — mostly men, though increasingly women as well — with an easy, low-cost alternative to sex.

It’s not an equivalent of having a relationship though. Sex in a stable loving relationship can be quite a different thing to pornography or casual sex.

The third and final development is the advent of online dating sites such as OKCupid and apps such as Tinder. These have shifted the emphasis in early relationships toward sexual attraction while vastly increasing the efficiency of cycling through potential partners, not only making sex cheaper (because easier to find) but increasing the opportunity cost, in terms of foregone sex and relationships, of remaining with one person for any serious length of time.

Something else that has changed markedly is less community living – we have moved to a more satellite society where we live amongst far more people but know know them less well. Rather than having sex and forming relationships with people we knew in the village or suburb, we have to search wider, and tend to search for strangers.

These downward pressures on the price of sex, Regnerus argues, have essentially scrambled the incentives that used to promote the formation of stable, monogamous relationships.

Instead, cheap sex has produced a new equilibrium in which, for the college-educated at least, the norm is low-commitment sexual exploration in one’s 20s before stable marriage in the mid- to late-30s (for the poorer and less-educated, it is more often serial relationships and unplanned pregnancies).

Women no longer need to demand a high price for sex because they can obtain money and status on their own, and would have trouble demanding a high price even if they wanted to, since men can get sex elsewhere.

Regnerus says that the most serious drawbacks are for men.

Some, of course, have benefited tremendously. Since there are far more college-educated women than men, the latter are often in a strong position to be choosy about when and with whom they settle down. The most attractive and socially skilled are able to rack up dozens of partners with ease, and even those who are less lucky now have access to sexual stimulation, in the form of pornography, to a degree almost unprecedented in human history.

Yet this seeming benefit is actually the core of the problem, as Regnerus sees it. “Virtually no one,” he says, “is happy with the state of maleness today, and yet the male behavior we witness today seems a rational, if short-sighted, response to their circumstances.” That is, by giving men too much of what they want in the short term, cheap sex is arresting their long-term development.

I’m happy with my state of maleness, and my stable monogamous relationship, but that is no longer the norm.

Regnerus believes, in essence, that cheap sex has removed one of the chief incentives for men to grow up, resulting in the plague of perpetually adolescent men that have become a fixture of the American dating landscape. And because he believes, following Giddens, that male sexuality has a latent tendency toward addiction and compulsion, he predicts that men reared on cheap sex and porn will develop habits and expectations — regarding female beauty, sexual variety, and the superfluity of sacrifice — that will be hard to break later in life.

Is that what is happening now? Are there a lot more immature men? Or are they just more visible via social media?

But even for those skeptical of marriage and monogamy, Cheap Sex hints at some reasons to be uneasy with the way things are headed. Regnerus spends little time discussing the political implications of cheap sex, other than to note a strong correlation, especially among women, between secularism, political liberalism, and high levels of unmet sexual desire, which he provocatively attributes to their searching for transcendent meaning in sex.

Make of that what you will. But the real reason to panic may be that the contemporary relationship market is producing two things in great abundance: highly educated single women and less-educated, low-status single men. This trend is not caused by cheap sex — the real culprit is more likely women’s relative rise and men’s failure to adjust to the new economy — but has been exacerbated by cheap sex’s devaluation of marriage and fertility.

Idiocracy may be more of a male thing.

In New Zealand there has been trends towards boys struggling in equal opportunity schools, and in some university courses in particular females are outnumbering and outperforming males.

Why does this matter? Single college-educated women are among the most liberal constituencies in America and are becoming more so. A recent study by UCLA’s Higher Education Research Institute found that 41.1 percent of college freshmen women consider themselves liberal or far-left, the highest percentage ever recorded — and with the largest-ever gender gap. That gap raises the possibility that in the future, our already fraught relations between the sexes may continue to deteriorate under the pressure of ideological hostility and mutual suspicion.

So the rise in education, status and influence of women may swing things leftwards and towards more liberal inclinations.

At the same time, unattached, low-status men are a nightmare for civilization. They are more likely to kill, rape, steal, drink, and use drugs, and they provide ideal recruits for extremist movements of all kinds, whether fascism and communism in 1930s Berlin or ISIS and the alt-right today. Indeed, the prototypical white nationalist is the NEET — an acronym for those “not in education, employment, or training.”

How much of a problem is this in New Zealand? It would be a good thing to see some research done in.

Monogamy, for all its flaws, was a social technology for dealing with this problem — if everyone gets one partner and sticks with them, there are more partners to go around.

Today, that balance may be breaking down. And as Ed West and others have suggested, much of contemporary political extremism is, among other things, an exaggerated form of stereotypically feminine (in the case of the far left) and stereotypically masculine (in the case of the far right) behavior.

Perhaps tthe change in male/female roles is evident in politics, especially on the extremes.

Americans used to talk about the “war between the sexes.” The most frightening reading of Cheap Sex may be that the real war is yet to begin.

Perhaps it has already begun, in the US with Trump as a major player (and Clinton as a diminished player).

Somewhat ironically Trump is embroiled in allegations of cheap sex, and free sexism.

And perhaps it is swinging the opposite way here in New Zealand, with a decent but traditional Bill English replaced by a new generation Jacinda Ardern (somewhat ironically thanks to the oldest campaigner, Winston Peters).

There’s a mini war of sorts going on online, but how it plays out in Parliament will be a fascinating thing to watch this year.

And prominent amongst that will be the ultimate result of sex, Ardern’s pregnancy and presumed birth of her (and her apparently stable partner’s) child mid year.

Previous Post

51 Comments

  1. Alan Wilkinson

     /  January 23, 2018

    Good commentary, PG. Other interesting facets are falling birth rates and childlessness amongst educated and the culture clash with immigrants yet to change to the new world.

  2. fewer, not less

    • Gezza

       /  January 23, 2018

      … more educated females and fewer mature males?
      … fewer community living?
      … know them fewer well?
      … for the poorer and fewer-educated?
      … those who are fewer lucky?

      Nope. What are you smoking robert?

      • Kitty Catkin

         /  January 23, 2018

        Harharhar. Oh, the wit.

        Robert-if you shop at Pak & Save, you will appreciate the express DIY checkouts-12 items or fewer. Countdown are not only far more expensive, they are far less literate ‘ x items or less.’ OUCH.

        • Gezza

           /  January 23, 2018

          I did a “Find In Page” search & went through PG’s post. I can’t see where there is an instance where the word “less” is improperly used & should be substitute with “fewer”.

          • Gezza

             /  January 23, 2018

            here’s the missing d for the end of substitute

          • Kitty Catkin

             /  January 23, 2018

            I wonder if he took the more educated women and less mature males to mean more women and less men (ouch)-it could be taken that way.

            I was taught that fewer refers to numbers (fewer clouds) and less to an amount (less rain)

            Also that a picture is hung, a man is hanged. I do dislike it when people say that that a person was HUNG. In that case, they wouldn’t be cut down afterwards.

          • Gezza

             /  January 23, 2018

            Yep, my pick is also that he thort the word less is incorrectly used there.
            Hard to say. It was just a quick dump & run with insufficient detail to identify what it was about.

            • robertguyton

               /  January 23, 2018

              That’s right, Gezza, I was under a severe time constraint. My bad.

      • robertguyton

         /  January 23, 2018

        “fewer mature males” is correct, is it not?

        • Gezza

           /  January 23, 2018

          Not to worry. I used to be a grammar prat before handing over to Corky & Kitty recently.

        • Hollyfield

           /  January 23, 2018

          Unless they are males who are “less mature” ???

          The one that most drives me crazy is:

          Ms Ardern says the baby is due in June of this year and her and partner Clarke Gayford found out she was pregnant just six days…1 NEWS (this was also showing in NZ Herald, because that’s where I first read it)

          The Prime Minister said today her and partner Clarke Gayford are excited “to do this”.
          Source: 1 NEWS

          ….duped her into believing she was a public relations specialist during a meeting with two of her bosses, claims both her and the newspaper deny. 1 NEWS

          Raifee was a passenger in the car but her and her boyfriend denied all knowledge of a point bag and laptops that were found in the vehicle. NZ HERALD

  3. Gerrit

     /  January 23, 2018

    Yes it is going to be interesting how the educated female elite faces up to the growing hoards of NEET young males.

    Not just in the white shaded male but every other hue as well.

    • Kitty Catkin

       /  January 23, 2018

      Women have been educated for a very long time. Lady Jane Grey could read write Latin and Greek as easily as English. There were women’s universities in the 19th century. Women have been doctors since the mid 19th century, Women’s writings show that many have been well read and well educated for a long time, contrary to what some people think now.

      • Gerrit

         /  January 23, 2018

        No question women have been and are continuing to be educated, no one is questioning that fact. The issue raised in the commentary was

        “But the real reason to panic may be that the contemporary relationship market is producing two things in great abundance: highly educated single women and less-educated, low-status single men.

        Are the uneducated NEET males a concern to educated women?

        if not, all OK.

        If it is a concern what is the prognosis for the future?

        • Blazer

           /  January 23, 2018

          Raises interesting questions.The old economic rationale for the ‘family unit’ is disappearing fast.The current template of individualism,materialism and personal responsibility may see a big drop in the birth rate of 1st world countries,and a big drop in hetero marriage at..least.Modern technology may replace the natural order of reproduction.Caesarian sections ,bottle feeding,nannies have all become commonplace and the next trends seem to be AI,gender selection,and more devotion to a more self centered society..almost a bewildering choice of niche..sexualities.Xena coming soon to…cut the balls off those who don’t adapt.These highly educated women can satisfy Maslows Law easily and then confront an epicurius paradigm of..self..fulfillment.The modern Cleopatra surrounded by..reluctant..eunuchs.

  4. Blazer

     /  January 23, 2018

    Immigration=a cheap…trick.

    • Kitty Catkin

       /  January 23, 2018

      Blazer=a cheap (word that rhymes with trick)

  5. There may be more in the book, but the above commentary fails to mention several major factors: spirituality, emotions, philosophy and morality.
    To be of any value as an enonomic equation, it should also consider the motivations of those promoting the so-called sexual revolution, which was more about getting so-called rights without the balance of individual responsibility.

    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  January 23, 2018

      But these are the traditional explanations, Duncan. This work is showing they may not be the most significant after all.

      Another question this work raises is whether female polarisation towards the political Left survives their transition to becoming major earners and taxpayers. We won’t know until their radical youth become older and wiser.

      • Kitty Catkin

         /  January 23, 2018

        The expression ‘free love’ was used at the turn of the c.18-19. The concept is nothing new. It was a dud then and it’s one now.Anyone who has read history will know that there was never a time when sex was confined to monogamous marriage. The idea of open marriages is very old indeed.

        People must think that calling promiscuity polyamory will make it different. It won’t,

        • phantom snowflake

           /  January 23, 2018

          I’m guessing that you do actually know the difference between promiscuity and polyamory, and that you equating them is just an expression of your prejudice. But just in case you are remarkably uninformed:
          Promiscuity involves frequent casual sexual encounters with many partners, and implies an indiscriminateness regarding choice of partners.
          Polyamory involves having more than one concurrent loving, sexual relationship, with the knowledge and agreement of all involved.
          There is a major difference in terms of love and respect for oneself and others between the two. Perhaps you see everything that is not “monogamy” as being “promiscuity”; if so that is an incorrect and blinkered view. I note that again you are taking a socially conservative stance. (Last time it was on abortion.) I can’t help thinking, thus, that the Conservative Party might be a more natural fit for you than your favoured ACT Party.

          • Kitty Catkin

             /  January 23, 2018

            Conservatives with Colin Craig and Christine Rankin-do me a favour.

            Do you really think that it’s possible in most cases for people to live like that ? The fact that a word implies something to you, doesn’t mean that it does to everyone. Don’t do a Blazer and put words in other people’s mouths,

            • phantom snowflake

               /  January 23, 2018

              A limp response indeed. Even a cursory glance at a dictionary would set you straight.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  January 23, 2018

              I don’t suppose that you appreciate people putting words in your mouth-most people don’t.So don’t do it to me. Nothing would induce me to consider joining the Conservative Party.

              The idea is hardly new. The Shelley circle believed in free love-in fact, the expression was around then. Human nature being what it is, free love tends not to work out. Do you remember Centrepoint here ?

              Read a biography of Katherine Mansfield. Or one of E Nesbit-yes, the writer of The Railway Children. George Eliot’s partner was all right with the idea of free love until he found that he couldn’t divorce his wife because he had condoned her adultery.

              Whatever the current word is in any given age, it works better in theory than in practice-in Western society, at least. Of course, there are exceptions to every rule.

              Did you know that Lord Melbourne-the Victorian Prime Minister-was the son of his mother, but not her husband ? He inherited the title because the elder son died (his half brother, Lord Melbourne senior’s own child by Lady Melbourne) but was no more entited to it than you are. He was married to Caroline Lamb. It would take far too long to describe that marriage or Caroline Lamb’s life and loves.

              There are untold examples in history of this..

            • phantom snowflake

               /  January 23, 2018

              Your verbosity (and pomposity) does not disguise that you (again) fail to address my main points. Centrepoint = “free love?” That’s preposterous, even for you. I’m going to leave you to it (again) but will first point out that I notice you repeatedly returning to old posts, seemingly in order to have the last word. I’m calling that as being a Narcissistic trait.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  January 23, 2018

              Well, what would YOU call Centrepoint, with Bert Potter et al ? Wasn’t that one of the reasons for its existence ?

              I would suggest that before you accuse other people of narcissism, you examine yourself. How you do loathe anyone knowing more than you do.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  January 23, 2018

              How flattering that you find my posts so fascinating; I wish that I could return the compliment.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  January 23, 2018

              I’m calling that as being a-ouch. Now that IS verbosity-and incorrect verbosity.

            • phantom snowflake

               /  January 23, 2018

              @KCK
              – Centrepoint: A culture which includes systematic child sexual abuse & sexual slavery definitely doesn’t qualify as “Free”, “Love”, or “Free Love”.
              – I’m not bothered about you correcting my grammar etc., no “ouch.” Feel free.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  January 24, 2018

              The other side was disguised as being free love, even if that term wasn’t used as such. Everyone sharing everything, including their bodies…what wasn’t mentioned was that the children’s bodies were shared, too. Bert Potter was a dirty old man with a powerful and hypnotic personality from the sound of it. A university friend had friends who lived there and she and her husband spent a few weekends there…needless to say that when people were there, the other side of the sharing was not visible. She was appalled to hear what had been happening, there was nothing to indicate such horrors when they were there. How strange-I don’t think.

      • Traditional yes, but should still be acknowledged in the wider context. I would suggest that the trends discussed in the original post are in fact a result of rejecting the factors I refer to.

        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  January 23, 2018

          So how do we judge or measure the relative importance of these factors?

          • That’s a hard one. It seems obvious that society changes as societal attitudes change. But to quantify? You would need access to stats and/or research. My point was, that there are multiple reasons for the advent of “cheap sex”, and there are the questions of cause and effect of other factors which didn’t appear to addressed. That’s not to say the research is invalid, just incomplete.

  6. David

     /  January 23, 2018

    The market for cat food is going to get a lot bigger…

  7. David

     /  January 23, 2018

    It doesn’t get much cheaper than this;

    http://www.bbc.com/news/stories-42665317

    • Kitty Catkin

       /  January 23, 2018

      Have you read Boswell’s London Journal, written in the 18th century ?

      • David

         /  January 23, 2018

        Yes

        • Kitty Catkin

           /  January 23, 2018

          I am particularly fond of the scraps of conversation that he records between the unknown ‘cits’-especially the one where the doctor is asked about the patient with the fractured skull. “Aye, all to pieces. However, I got her cured.’ ‘Good lord.’ I’ll say.

          • David

             /  January 23, 2018

            I found his discussions as to his acquiring of a case of gonorrhea far more entertaining.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  January 23, 2018

              Like when he and Louisa ( I think it was Louisa) were accusing each other and each denying that they had given it to the other one ? It can’t have been ME !!! I really do love the little conversations, which make the reader feel as if they are back in history. What a great book. He doesn’t hold much back, does he ? Do you have the one where he’s looking for a wife ?

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  January 23, 2018

              I always feel as if I shouldn’t laugh at those bits, but one can’t help it !

    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  January 23, 2018

      Only for the right man, David. And it seems to have turned out pretty well for them both.

  8. PartisanZ

     /  January 23, 2018

    Elephant in the room …. prostitution …?

    “Nothing new” I hear you say Miss Kitty, quoting “the oldest profession” and you’ll be quite correct … but almost completely out-of-context …

    One day someone will research, map and record the CONTEMPORARY growth of prostitution in Aotearoa New Zealand and, like many other things, will find a significant correlation between it and a miasma of Rogernomics euphemisms like ‘economic reform’, ‘deregulation’, and free-market globalization … interwoven with a tangled web of work-permit, holiday visa, human trafficking and immigration misuse and abuse …

    A nexus of incipient, creeping corruption which progressively ‘worsened’ (or one might say ‘financially improved’ [along with gambling]) for about 20-25 years largely unenforced and unregulated … before prostitution was finally legalized so that precisely the same activities could become mainstream, orthodox businesses, legitimated by an albeit necessary human-rights and women’s rights ‘legal overview’ … It ‘had to happen’ rather like Nuclear Free, Waitangi Tribunal and same-sex marriage ‘had to happen’ …

    In other words – and for the most part – if cannabis law enforcement had followed the path of prostitution, cannabis grower-users would have been ‘home-and-hosed’, free-and-clear for around two-and-a-half decades since 1987 – 88 …

    One question that emerges: Why was commodified sex used as one of the neoliberal “spoonful of sugar” Pavlovian ‘rewards’ and not a natural psychotropic herbal remedy or ‘high’? [Easy question]

    And, by-the-bye, if word can get through to police to leave the brothels alone regardless of what illegal, despicable, inhuman and despotic activities [like sex-trafficking] they are involved in, why can’t the same ‘discretionary’ leniency be applied to the cannabis ‘home-grow’ population?

    As for ” … pornography, to a degree almost unprecedented in human history” …?

    You can forget the word “almost” !!! Exchange it for “utterly” …

    I partially agree with Duncan Brown about “rights and responsibilities” except that, IMHO, ‘individual’ financial or economic ‘rights’ (the desired behaviour, often equivalent to unethical privileges) have supplanted both individual and collective human rights in this arena … [which equals cultural insanity] …

    If one of the by-products (designed, foreseen and/or unforeseen consequences) is AED ‘baby’ men and ‘cheap sex’ … then …. so … be …. it …

    Let them have killer breeds of attack dogs to make them feel ‘safe’ …

    • Kitty Catkin

       /  January 23, 2018

      I never mentioned prostitution.

      Porn has been around forever. Look at the Greeks and Romans. All that has changed is the technology, Cameras were, of course, a gift to people who made and looked at porn. Written porn has also been around probably since writing has. As soon as moving pictures were invented, people made porn films. Human nature doesn’t change. There was an Australian television show made that had different animals having sex*, filmed to give the prurient a thrill. It was briefly shown here, but taken off at once. The idea of people filming and gawping at animals having sex and sniggering at them doing so is bizarre to me. Anyone’s who’s bred them will find it hard to imagine anyone getting a thrill from watching mating.

      I fail to see why same-sex couples should not have the same civil rights as everyone else. They pay the same taxes and have to obey the same laws.

      * one breed having it with a different breed. Making animal mating into porn-pathetic.

      • PartisanZ

         /  January 23, 2018

        @Miss Kitty – “I never mentioned prostitution”

        I know. I was pre-empting you doing so. But what did you do? You took exactly the same line with pornography … that it’s been around forever …

        However, internet porn, the rapid-fire dopamine-generating ‘click-bait’ version – aimed almost exclusively at men with our *compulsive addictive tendencies* which is arguably more dangerous than any drug on any market legal or illegal has been around for an historic blink-of-the-eye …

        I wasn’t passing judgement on same-sex marriage or any of the other ‘necessary’ social and human rights legislation of the neoliberal era … only commenting that they came along with it … and Asian and specifically Thai and later Chinese prostitution proliferated late 80s to early [and late] 90s, with a significant component of immigration scam involved …

        “The number of Thai women entering the New Zealand sex industry increased dramatically in
        a four to five year period from the late 1980s to the early 1990s (Townsend, 1992b).

        A Thai student in Women’s Studies conducted her PhD research by interviewing 30 former and current Thai prostitutes in Thailand and New Zealand (Menasveta, 2002). This study
        illustrated the poverty underlying most of the women’s entry into prostitution and their
        beliefs that the pains experienced would be the price they paid to be able to provide financial
        security for themselves and their families.

        In mid-1999, a New Zealand Police report into the sex industry indicated that several
        hundred women were employed in the sex industry in this country who were neither New
        Zealand citizens nor New Zealand permanent residents (CEDAW, 2002). Also noted in
        recent years has been an increase in the number of Chinese women working in the New
        Zealand sex industry … ”

        Why not … We were cultivating the ‘Chinese and Asian markets’ in every other way … ?

        https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Publications/sex-industry-in-nz.pdf

        • Kitty Catkin

           /  January 24, 2018

          I hadn’t thought of doing so.

          My feeling about it is that it is equally degrading to both parties, but if both are consenting adults, then it’s their business. My opinion is my own, but I wouldn’t force it on anyone else.

        • Kitty Catkin

           /  January 24, 2018

          You were pre-empting something that was never going to happen.

  9. Kevin

     /  January 24, 2018

    You should read “Sperm Wars”. Most sperm actually isn’t for impregnation but to kill foreign sperm.