Henry Laasanen, Steve Moxon, Female Sexual Power, and Sexual Trade Union Theory

An excellent and most interesting article entitled 'Female Sexual Power' was posted on the Spearhead a few days ago.  Although I disagree with a fair bit of it, and want to contrast it with my own 'Sexual Trade Union' theory, its author is to be greatly applauded for producing such an original and stimulating counter-feminist account of sexual power.

The article is based upon a book, as well as an academic thesis, that the author has written in his native Finnish.  It has also apparently caused quite a stir in his homeland.  I'll assume that you'll take a look at it before you read the following 'criticisms', so I won't spend much time explaining the article myself.  And of course, I am aware that his essay is only a short summary (written in the author's second language) of his much longer thesis.  But as the book and thesis are in Finnish, I can only critique (briefly) his Spearhead article.

Very briefly, his conclusion is that 'men want sex much more than women', that therefore 'men need women more than women need men', and indeed that the feminist dictum 'women need men like fish need a bicycle' is true.  Or rather, these conclusions - based upon 'evolutionary psychology, social exchange theory, economic theory of sexuality and Emerson’s power-dependency theory' - themselves serve as the premise from which to draw conclusions about the gender power structure in the world.

As I stated at the beginning, any well researched and considered attempt to explain the true, counter feminist, current (and historical) power structure between men and women is to be welcomed. But to be complete, any such explanation would hopefully give an account of the growth of feminism, the relationship between feminism and the radical transformations of society (including and in particular sexual morality) over the last few decades, and have some predictive power concerning the likely future course of gender relations (particularly important for the men's rights movement).

Perhaps it is because the article is only a thousand word summary of a much larger book/thesis, but for me, this is where Lassanen's theory is a little incomplete.

Laasanen acknowledges that an account of female sexual power is important because of its structural effects upon society :

The third important dimension of female sexual power lies in its structural effects. Have you ever wondered why…

  1. …female romantic sexuality is an acceptable form of sexuality, while men’s sexuality is sick and perverted?
  2. …women’s magazines dominate the official politically correct sexuality, but PUA guides are morally questionable?
  3. …men are the more disposable sex?
  4. …men must usually make the first move in the relationships and risk the rejection?
  5. …men must pay on dates?
  6. …laws are against men’s behavior and not against women’s behavior?

These are all excellent points, and the broad outline of Laasanen's thesis appears very similar to that contained in Steve Moxon's brilliant 'The Woman Racket'.  For Steve Moxon also, the starting point in accounting for the structure of gender relations in society is the fact, rooted in evolutionary biology, that 'women choose' who to mate with, whereas men must compete to be chosen.  Laasanen points to a study consisting of the posting of fake dating profiles which prompt the fake single females to recieve hundreds of messages from prospective male suitors, whereas the fake single males receive none.  Moxon expresses this reality in the phrase that 'women are the limiting factor in reproduction'.  The result of this inherent female sexual power, both Laasanen and Moxon agree, is that society inevitably prizes women above men. (It should be pointed out that both Lassanen and Moxon wrote their books independently of each other, both appearing in 2008 - highly erudite though he is, I doubt if Steve Moxon understands Finnish!).

What both of these authors appear to miss is that the growth of feminism, and the increasing disparity in overt political power between men and women, is due to the corresponding decrease in the female sexual power that industrial society, and now the globalised mass-media society, has brought about.

Laasanen himself makes clear that there is a difference between sexual market value and relationship market value :

WOMEN’S SEXUAL MARKET VALUE AND RELATIONSHIP MARKET VALUE ARE VERY DIFFERENT: Women’s sexual market value is usually much higher than her relationship market value, which means, than women can get high quality partners to short sexual relationships, but she have to lower the bar for longer relationships. For men thing are just the opposites. If a man want just sex (now, today), he must usually settle for the much lower quality partner than himself.

Unfortunately, and again I assume it is because the article is a summary of one aspect of a wider theory, Laasanen does not then go on to draw any obvious conclusions about what the relationship between short-term youthful female sexual power and declining relationship value in older women means in terms of feminism and its possible psycho-sexual motivational basis.

In the comments section below the article, Lassanen links to the following graph, which does contrast the respective difference between sexual and relationship power over the course of a man and woman's adult life :

sexual market value by age

Although the graph confuses peak fertility with peak sexual attractiveness and has an abusrd element - are 35 year old women really as sexually desirable as 18 year old girls? - it does cover rather nicely the basic point that women's 'reproductive' value decreases over time, whilst a man's increases.

And an essential point has to be made.  The distinction between 'sexual' and 'relationship' market value both really refer to 'reproductive' value - the difference being that for women that means relationship value (but they only have their sexual power to win it), and for men it means sexual value (but they only have relationship power to win it).

And in the words of the incomparable Tom Snark -

Men’s sexual desires are more immediately intense than women’s.

But the baby rabies are still more powerful.

For both Laasanen and Moxon, female sexual power defines gender relations in society and condemn men to being subservient to women.  Unfortunately, and somewhat bizarrely seeing how it is staring them in the face, they both fail to see the significance of changes in the sexual market place that have occured in particular over the last 50 years, and that these changes have quite spectacularly brought about a huge increase in the sexual power of young women relative to the drastically diminishing relationship value (which is what women value and seek as an end in itself) of older and less sexually attractive women.

In fact, it is not just older women that have seen their relationship/reproductive value decrease with the advent of the pill, the secularisation of sexual morality, pornography, and the internet.  There might still be large costs for men seeking sex - sending template messages to hundreds of women on Craigs List and the like in the hope of getting lucky with one or two - but only several generations ago and a man would expect to have to devote himself to pursuing one woman, involving time, dedication, and money, in the hope that she would eventually agree to marry him in order that he could enjoy sex.  From that point on, he would be sexually bound to her for the rest of his life, as each day her body became more aged and less desirable - in fact pregnant for much of her fertile life.  Today, with HD porn of any kind available for free on the Internet, the alternative to marriage for men is at the end of his wrist (as another Spearhead commentator eloquently puts it).  Even stunningly attractive girls can expect their male partners to seek (and to be able to obtain) sexual outlet elsewhere, real or virtual (and to the female mind virtual is 'cheating').

Despite being steeped in EP theory (on a different level to myself, or any MRA that I know) Steve Moxon still largely blames Cultural Marxism for the incredible rise of second and third wave feminism, ignoring the possibility that the loss of reproductive value of, in particular older women, could be to blame for the present feminist hijacking of political power and moral and social discourse. (However, Steve Moxon does devote entire chapters of his book to explaining feminist laws restricting male sexuality on prostitution and pornography in terms of evolutionary psychology).

Claiming that 'women have inherent sexual power over men' seems to me simplistic if it ignores the differences in sexual power between young women and older women, between the attractive and the plain or downright ugly, as well as ignoring the difference between what women value in sex and what men value. Claiming that 'men need women more than women need men' seems absurd if women stress relationship value more than sexual value. Laasanen doesn't ignore these things, but he certainly does seem to ignore their consequences and the obvious conclusions to be drawn from them in relationship to the history and current dynamics of feminism and gender power.

Why account for female power over men in society solely in terms of their inherent evolutionary based sexual power, while discounting the admitted relationship power that men have, and in fact increasingly have in a world in which new technology increasingly makes sexual outlets and alternatives for men cheaper, more varied, and more instantly available?  Why admit that women want more than cheap sexual gratification from men, and then claim that women have increasing power despite social change making it increasingly harder for them to obtain what they want?

I'm more inclined to attribute the historical privileges accorded to women to the needs of group survival in relation to reproductive capacities and the consequent disposability of the male.  Yes, certain women, chiefly young good looking women and girls, have sexual power over men, and it's true that even a 45 year old slut could probably walk into a bar and find at least one male desperate enough to pump and dump her, leaving her 'babies rabies' mind feeling raped the next morning.  But young women and girls have little political power in society and a much more convincing explanation is the relative and rapidly declining sexual power that older women - feminists and their support base - increasingly have in an inherently ever more open sexual society.

Yet, there is a sense in which Laasanen is entirely correct - men having to compete with other men for sex with young women is a key determinant in women exercising power over men in society - even older women.  Take a look at a news story from this morning : Poor Turnout for Men's Group Symposium.

An MSU men's group says they're disappointed but not surprised by a lack of attendance at their "Men's Issue's" event, Thursday night.The MSU chapter of the National Coalition for Men organized a symposium to raise awareness of problems in men's lives.The group geared the event towards fraternity students at the college and invited speakers to talk about things like men's rights when it comes to sexual misconduct investigations on-campus.No one showed up to the event but organizers say the lack of attendence is not due to a lack of interest."One of the fraternity boys, I was working out at the gym, and he walked up to me, 'Hey, hey, you're the guy that did the presentation on the men's group, right?' He didn't want anyone to hear that he was talking about this in public. He was very interested in it, but didn't want anyone to know that he was interested in men's rights, men's issues. So, that kind of shows why no one turned out," says President of the MSU chapter of the National Coalition for Men Chris Thompson.

I tried organising a men's rights group in a similar setting some time back, and experienced exactly the same thing.  The young men were reluctant to take part, not because they couldn't see the valid point of men's rights, but because they (rightly) feared that publicly putting their own interests as men on the same level as that of women would make them unpopular with women - in other words, women would exercise their sexual power to choose to fuck other men, the men who wouldn't stand up for themselves.  Men don't become MRAs because they 'can't get laid', they can't get laid when they become MRAs.  This is probably a large reason why most 'public' MRAs tend to be older and not competing in the sexual market anymore.

The co-educational university system, in a free sexual market, is a place where young women do have sexual power, and use it to maintain an ideology that they are being brainwashed into - feminism - that is chiefly about preserving the sexual interests of older women, who whilst having little or no sexual power themselves, do have political power.  Any theory that fails to take all of these things into account, is incomplete.

17 thoughts on “Henry Laasanen, Steve Moxon, Female Sexual Power, and Sexual Trade Union Theory

  1. Deano

    The 'Sexual Trade Union' theory seems to be the one most supported by the evidence. In fact, one can almost predict the next move the feminists will make with this theory.

  2. theantifeminist

    Post author

    Something ironic is that Henry Laasanen points out near the beginning of his article that feminists and manginas in Finland have accused him of being bitter because he 'can't get laid'. Of course, all MRAs face the same accusations. Despite this, most MRAs still refuse to reply in kind, despite the fact that when applied to feminists it's not merely a simple shaming language ad homenin attack - it actually explains the entire history of feminism, and as you say, even predicts how feminism will likely develop in the future. Despite the fact that all feminists are almost universally ugly, and always have been from the social puritan movement and the Suffragettes up. Despite the fact that the priority of feminists has always been to introduce legislation which protects their own sexual power, in absolutley direct correlation to the degree in which new technology is weakening their sexual power over men.

    Quite bizarre really. Maybe sexual trade union theory is too simple for them. Or maybe it's because a majority of MRAs still mistakenly blame feminism for actually creating the free sexual market in the first place.

  3. theantifeminist

    Post author

    And with regard to the predictive power of the theory - I've been predicting since I started this blog (and on YouTube) that feminists will increasingly turn their attentions to restricting or even banning pornography outright (for decades it had almost become a dead issue), once that they had firmly established the 'under 18 are children/paedophilia' meme (which was possible by distinguishing between child porn and 'adult' porn), and as porn becomes better (HD, 3D, interractive, soon holographic) and more available. This is exactly what we're seeing with the rise of femiservatives in the USA such as Michelle Bachman running for presidency and promising to make all porn illegal, and here in the UK and Australia with hysterias over the 'sexualisation of children' being used to justify the restriction of adult pornography.

  4. inclinedreader

    Although the graph confuses peak fertility with peak sexual attractiveness and has an abusrd element – are 35 year old women really as sexually desirable as 18 year old girls?

    Perhaps it hinges on the interpretation of "sexual market value". A 35-year-old is hardly as sexually desirable as an 18-year-old girl. But in terms of matching an assumed average "search pattern" which possible male sexual partners adhere to, perhaps it is indeed justified to equate 18-year-olds with 35-year-olds. Both ages are on a similar level in that they just about fall outside the core "target group" for average adult men seeking a sexual partner. Moreover, the graph, rightly in my opinion, assumes that from their late 30s, women fit that "core pattern" to a much lesser degree than 18-year-olds.

    A three-dimensional graph might be the answer - chronological age on the "x" axis, "degree of search pattern congruence" on the "y" axis (in lieu of "sexual market value"), and "absolute sexual attractivity" on the "z" axis which can be presumed to decline steadily for women from about age 20 (how and in what way it declines for men would be another interesting subject of debate).

    Also, I was wondering if you have seen this article that is being circulated and commented on by a number of bloggers at the moment:

    http://jezebel.com/5881335/why-do-men-love-barely-legal-porn

  5. jack

    I've read the Finnish study too. It is to be welcomed although it says nothing new compared eg to Warren Farrell. Farrell is probably the most comprehensive and the most accessible anti-feminist author for readers who do not want to be clobbered with evolutionary psychology stuff. Incidentally, I ordered "Why men earn more" from Amazon.co.uk, and they've told me they had to cancel my order because the book was not available (unless from other UK "sellers" at extortionate prices, or from the US with the problems of custom clearance). I'll write back to Amazon to say I hope they're not cancelling for politically correct reasons. They might just be out to force customers to buy their Kindle edition though. If you buy "Women can't hear what men don't say", don't get discouraged by the psycho-babble in the first 5 chapters. The subsequent chapters are good.

  6. Thanks for your analysing my article. :-) I have few points.

    1. "Why admit that women want more than cheap sexual gratification from men, and then claim that women have increasing power despite social change making it increasingly harder for them to obtain what they want?"

    My article left unclear, that main dimension of female sexual power are the costs for men. It might well be true, that some or a lot of women don't get any "real" benefits from their sexual power, because they don't get what they want. But, still their power makes costs (that I mention in the article) for the men.

    And, many women want "too much" -older women have the bar too high relative their market value, so it becomes clear, that they don't ain't gonna get what they want.
    But they could get a lot of sex despite of their age or looks, which much more than average guy would get.

    2. Yes, younger women have much more bigger relationship power tha nolder women, but as I mentioned, any older women can get a shit load of sex from much more classy men the herself, which is much much more than average guy would get. So in the sexual market nearly any woman is placed higher than below average guys. And that's huge sexual market advantage for any women.

    3. You mention interesting points with rise feminism and the strugle between older and younger women. In the book there is "theory of female sexual cartel", in which women resisting prostitution, women's slutshaming and so on is part of the keeping cartel together. Warrell and Baumeister have also written about Cartel like OPEC. You use term "trade union", which is about the same.

    4. Feminism is not in the middle of my book (on the purpose), but my biggest point with feminism and women studies are that a) women studies have no thery of mating, whic is peculiar, because mating should be in the middle of the gender theory, b) feminism don't take account for any kind of female power, which makes feminists theories questionable from the very beginning.

  7. evilwhitemalempire

    For Steve Moxon also, the starting point in accounting for the structure of gender relations in society is the fact, rooted in evolutionary biology, that ‘women choose’ who to mate with, whereas men must compete to be chosen.
    **********************
    This is a modern day fact of the western world but it's only relatively recent and is by no means rooted in evolutionary biology.

    For the vast majority of animals (mammals in particular) the females do not select the males at all. The males simply fight and the winner takes the female. And he does NOT sulk in the corner if boopsy has a headache if you know what I mean.
    (The females being more reproductively valuable and being in control of that value are two completely different things.)

    This fallacy is rooted primarily in the study of flying birds where the females DO, in fact, select the males. Because precision flying machines can seldom afford much battle damage that would result from fighting and so must find peaceful ways to compete. This, btw, is the reason for all the weird dances, feathers, and etc.
    Dawkins and others have simply over extrapolated from this.

    For humans, female sexual leverage coincides with the emergence of the peaceful, civilized man (for reasons similar to the birds).

    But even MORE recent is technology that threatens this leverage. And that is where STU theory comes in.

    General order of events:

    prehistory/barbarians: Males fight for female sex value. Winners enharem females. The females (in and of themselves) have little or no sex leverage. (i.e. sexually jealous, violent alpha male types tend to cramp the female style this way) (btw prostitution evolves from harem lord alphas leasing out surplus pussy to beta men.)

    civilization: Females get more sexual leverage as men become more peaceful and are thus less and less willing to fight. Sex leverage, at this point, starts becoming practical for females instead of something too dangerous to do much of.

    very recent civ: Technologies like viable birth control threaten ancient (but not prehistoric) female power. Thus sparking feminism (essentially the females 'battle of the bulge').

  8. inclinedreader

    Men like young women for the same reason older women hate them: beauty

    Thanks, MRA... I've rarely heard it put this succinctly. :-)

  9. Pingback:

  10. males avoid 18 years old because their life would be over if accidentally she is 17 years old. And because they have been brainwashed that they should not desire younger girls. And even if 16 year olds were legal in certain countries and states, photographing your legal wife still gets you to prison.

    A wonderful demonstration of Antifeminist's theory that the marked value of 18 year olds has been depressed to the benefit of 35 year olds.

    Try to let some tribesman in Africa, Australia or in the Amazon, unfazed by feminist indoctrination, choose between an 18 year old and a 35 year old.

  11. a very interesting comment on that article.

    someone should try to contact that drunkexpatwriter ........., he seems to know a lot

    ==================
    drunkexpatwriter @Donovanesque
    I was speaking in the world of online porn. I get hired to write online porn stories for lots of different sites for lots of different audiences and the companies I freelance for do a ton of market research and when it comes to women looking for dirty stories online every single market research test I've seen shows that non consent of some sort or another is what pulls women into sites with smutty stories on it.Now, the level of non consent does vary. For the lesbian marketplace (and straight girls who like lesbian smut) there's a demand for a sort of lighter type of non consent than full on rape. A young straight identified woman saying "no" over and over again but each "no" being softer than the last as an experienced lesbian seduces her and very gently refuses to take "no" for an answer and then having the orgasm of her life. For the straight girl marketplace it seems like the preference isn't for "guy comes out of an alley and hits you on the head type of non consent" as there is for "hunky guy the girl is on a date with and has a crush on but doesn't want to have sex with yet who forces her, but doesn't hurt her, into having sex."Another huge part of this marketplace for women is mind control stories (which I have to put under the non consent heading) where women are brainwashed to obey/want to have sex with their partner (oddly, these are almost always lesbian themed stories.)But, even offline, there has always been a pretty demonstrable argument to make that non consent fantasies of one sort or another have always been very popular in the female marketplace. I know that with changing political sensitives romance novels now are lighter than they used to be, but until about 10 years ago nearly every single romance story published had the basic plot of "Guy rapes/date rapes girl, girl hates guy, guy rapes/date rapes girl again, eventually she falls in love and has his baby." Those were enormously popular for generations. This is not me saying that women want to be raped, just that as a fantasy is really, really common. But, it also explains why the sites you talk about are popular as well. Sure, many, many women enjoy non consent stories. And, sure it's super popular. But, not every woman likes them. Some find them boring. Some get squicked by them. Those women are tired of going to smutty sites and seeing a topic that bores or bothers them come up time and time again, so they seek out sites that don't offer that. And given the sheer numbers of people who go online, you don't have to offer the most popular fantasy to get tons of people. In fact, by advertising that you are not going to have that fantasy you are doing great marketing because you are hitting your demographic in a positive way (your demographic being women who are bored or bothered by non consent smut.) In fact, going against the grain of what is conventionally popular is how many erotica/porn companies make money. When the HIV epidemic was in full bloom and gay men were demanding safe sex in the porn they watched, sites like barebackcity and bareback.com were able to make a lot of money by saying "if you want gay porn with condoms don't come here!" Differentiating yourself in the marketplace is the way to grow market share, because at this point the popular fantasies all have tons of sites targeting them and it's over saturated. Therefore being like "we are against this popular fantasy and won't offer it" is a great way to set yourself apart in the market and capitalize on the people who don't share the popular fantasies.

  12. Pingback:

  13. Dave

    The only way to cling to any masculinity now is to widen the availability of male-only clubs, keep them legal and the only women allowed in are those behind a bar or dancing on a pole.

  14. Name Does Not Matter

    Feminism word was defined suring 1700s It got publicly fully organized in start of 1900s .
    It started to come in current demonic form in 1960s70s. Its now in full demonic form.

    Though the MRM mvement, which is a genuine movement has lot of traction to gain, but still what is being done today by you and lots of other pioneers of MRM is very important . It is the seeds on which MRM will be in its full blown form in next 30 to 40 years or even less. Then this virtual-stigma will be removed. But you people have given it a really good start and show.
    Can you publish more articles on historical gynocentrism(against fake theory of patriarchy )

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>