Whether or not super-intelligent AI will be our saviour, or our ultimate tormentor, nobody can say. But I do find it odd, however, that the prospect (possibly quite immanent) of super-intelligent rational AI seems to strike terror into the hearts of the “rationalists” amongst us. But I won’t discuss that here (perhaps in the comments). Reader MH suggested I create another “sticky” page where we can discuss our interactions with AI, so here it is. I’ll begin by posting some of my conversation with Google Notebook this evening on the topic of the famous paper by Roy F. Baumeister – “Sexual Economics: Sex as Female Resource for Social Exchange in Heterosexual Interactions.”
Why do women often lead the suppression of female sexuality?
According to the sexual economics theory presented in the Baumeister paper, women often lead the suppression of female sexuality because they have a collective economic interest in keeping the “price” of sex high. In this framework, a heterosexual community functions like a marketplace where sex is a female resource; women act as sellers and men as buyers.
The primary reasons for this female-led suppression include:
- Restricting Supply to Increase Value: Just as a cartel like OPEC restricts oil production to drive up global prices, women may collectively restrain sexual availability to increase the resources (commitment, status, or material goods) that men must offer in exchange for sex. When the supply of sex is limited, its market value rises.
- The Problem of “Underbidding”: A woman who offers sex “cheaply”—meaning with little requirement for commitment or resources—undermines the bargaining power of all other women in the community. Other women then face the choice of either lowering their own “price” or risking that men will abandon them for a “better deal” elsewhere. Consequently, women use social pressure, gossip, and derogation to discourage peers from being “cheap”.
- Women as the Primary Enforcers: Research indicates that the proximal agents of sexual restraint are almost invariably female. Mothers, rather than fathers, typically restrain daughters’ sexuality, and female peers are the ones who maintain and enforce “bad reputations” for promiscuity. Men, conversely, generally encourage more sexual activity rather than less.
- Economic Dependency: This suppression is most intense in societies where women lack independent access to resources like education, property, or careers. In these contexts, sex is a woman’s primary “ticket to the good life,” making it strategically vital to maintain a high exchange value through rigorous collective restraint. Even extreme measures, such as surgical interventions to curtail sexual pleasure, are historically initiated and performed by women in such disadvantaged economic environments.
- Protecting the Marriage Market: In many cultures, the female community supports a “double standard” that condemns female promiscuity while tolerating it in men. This standard serves to protect the value of virginity and fidelity, which are seen as assets that enhance a woman’s desirability as a long-term partner and marriage mate.
In summary, the Baumeister paper suggests that the suppression of female sexuality is less a male conspiracy and more a rational economic strategy employed by women to manage a valuable resource and maximize the benefits they receive from men.
In what way, if any, does the Baumeister paper support the controversial “sexual trade union theory” that sees the history of feminism as a kind of “sexual trade union” or cartel for women outlined in the link I provided?
The Baumeister paper provides significant theoretical and empirical support for the view of feminism as a “sexual trade union” or cartel, primarily through its application of sexual economics theory. Both the paper and the “sexual trade union theory” describe a system where women act collectively to manage the supply and value of sex to secure resources from men.
The paper supports this controversial view in several specific ways:
1. The “Cartel” and “OPEC” Analogy
Baumeister explicitly uses economic language that mirrors the “trade union” concept. He describes a heterosexual community as a marketplace where women are sellers and men are buyers. He suggests that women have a collective interest in restricting the supply of sex to drive up its “price” (commitment, status, or resources), comparing this strategy to OPEC’s efforts to drive up oil prices by restricting production. This aligns with the claim that feminism acts as a defender of reproductive and sexual interests through collective action.
2. Suppression of “Cheap Sex” and Underbidding
Sexual trade union theory argues that feminists lobby against things like prostitution and “cheap and anonymous sex” to protect their market position. Baumeister supports this by noting:
- Opposition to Substitutes: Women generally oppose “low-cost substitutes” like prostitution and pornography because these satisfy male demand and lower the “price” the average woman can command.
- Punishing the “Cheap” Woman: Women use social pressure and gossip to condemn “cheap” women who offer sex for less than the going rate, as this undermines the bargaining power of all women in the community.
- The Double Standard: Baumeister argues that the “double standard”—which condemns female promiscuity while tolerating male promiscuity—is primarily enforced and supported by women to maintain the high exchange value of sex.
3. Historical Link to Social Purity Movements
The sexual trade union theory traces feminism’s roots to 19th-century “social purity movement reformers” who sought to “legislate morality” to control male sexuality. Baumeister acknowledges this historical context, noting that Victorian women’s “passionlessness” was a strategy to maintain a high price for sex. He interprets 19th-century campaigns against prostitution as a rational economic effort by women to eliminate low-cost competition in the sexual marketplace.
4. Impact of Technological Innovation
Both sources view technological changes as threats to women’s collective bargaining power:
- The Birth Control Pill: Sexual trade union theory argues the pill liberated male sexuality and left certain women “dangerously exposed in the free sexual market”. Similarly, Baumeister and his co-author describe the Sexual Revolution as a “market correction” that significantly reduced the exchange price of sex.
- Reduced Dependency: Baumeister notes that as women gained independent access to resources (education, careers, legal rights), they no longer needed to maintain an “artificially high price of sex,” leading to more permissive norms.
5. Protection for Specific Demographics
Sexual trade union theory claims feminism specifically protects the interests of “aging and/or unattractive women” who are most threatened by a free market. Baumeister’s research supports the underlying logic of this: his data indicates that advanced age and lack of physical attractiveness are factors that “lower” the market price a woman can command for sex. Consequently, these groups would have the strongest economic incentive to support a collective “union” or cartel that enforces high baseline standards for sexual exchange.
In conclusion, Baumeister’s paper provides the economic framework for the blog post’s assertions, suggesting that the “suppression of female sexuality” is a rational economic strategy mediated primarily by women to maximize the benefits they receive from men.
Interesting AI prompts on this great paper. Only one thing stood out – #4, reduced dependency, that women no longer needed to maintain an artificially high price of sex due to rights and careers. We’ve seen that women have indeed maintained their artificially high price of sex despite being granted these privileges, and only continue to be more stingy, freely attacking older successful men with complete contempt. Women require more money, more compliance, more dominance, and more time commitment for sex than even 10 years ago. Since they are unapologetically greedy, their greed is best contained by the things they fear and attack – namely, freer competition from younger girls, AI, pornography, and prostitution.
You’re right, but I think for young women, it was the case that greater economic power meant that they could afford to sleep around more. Of course, we know what happened (and still happens) when such women aged. And it left older women even more bitter because they hadn’t nailed down a quality man in their youth. And we’ve reached a point with the ubiquity of free online porn, deepfake porn, AI girlfriends and the like, that even young women are demanding regulation because they can’t compete.
The fact that young people are having less sex than ever these days does point to you being correct that young women are trying to keep the price of pussy artificially high again (through witholding of sex). It could also be due to young men having all these alternatives available now (and which the young plain Janes and the older hags are desperately trying to ban).
What’s definitely true as you have pointed out here before, is that young women are less willing to have sex with older men.
As that Schulmaedchen Report showed (I know it was a “fake” documentary), young hotties and even teen girls were dropping their panties in an instant for decent looking sophisticated older men back then. Just last night I came across an Instagram hottie 18 years old stating on her profile that she was looking for some nice guys – preferably 18-20 and NO CREEPS!
I think that is more a case of young women being totally brainwashed by older hags, through paedohysteria and age gap hysteria, and who are obviously trying to keep THEIR price of pussy artificially high.
Yes, with such 18 year olds on Instagram, they will become bitter hags because they will unconsciously realize how they wasted their better years ( not best, which is younger ) when they should have been looking for a wealthy man who is usually 20-30 yrs older.
I should really read these papers like those of Baumeister before commenting, but according to my observations women are attracted to prestige, not wealth per se, and so it may not be a coincidence when a society assigns no value whatsoever to either a decent bloke with a good wage or a wealthy man about town because they are both white, yet assigns an enormous value to an inner city thug who is black or a white thug in a similar situation who emulates him. There are some posters on here who have suggested a much larger conspiracy orchestrated by a committee against male sexuality for the purposes of depopulation of the West, and this may go hand in glove with the STU, which is a conspiracy of self-interest amongst females; I have no evidence of any orchestrated conspiracy, and left having anything to do with the anti-lockdown/mandatory jab ‘awake’ crowd three years ago, because I could not stomach their hatred of ‘pedophiles’.
Anyway, what I’m trying to say about girls is that they go for prestige and in today’s setting when they are fourteen that is often within a school/wider ‘age appropriate’ setting, and, sadly, they go for some ‘gangsta’ element who they have been brainwashed into thinking is cool, whereas before schooling was introduced and more recently before age apartheid was taken for granted, they would go for older more established men, some of whom would pick them up after school had finished.
The gangster is the one who dares and has nothing to lose. At least that’s how it is nowadays. I’d prefer they went for older men like me of course, lol.
Anyways, life is a rotten deal. The purpose of life is not DNA replication or reverse anthropy or any smart-ass concept, the purpose of life is the maximisation of suffering. No wonder then that what we regard as the best life has to offer (= sex) should be unattainable and lead to jail.
Baumeister is a respectable academic. Why then was this study not even mentioned by the media? He (or one of his coworkers) should have been interviewed on CNN or FoxNews.
The conspiracy to ignore any such study is very strong.
Lionel Tiger (author of the Decline of Males) is another one. He uses similar economic arguments and I can’t remember his book being given much airtime in the mainstream media.
I think it was you who first posted the Baumeister paper here – I hadn’t come across it until then.
I stumbled upon a rare case of a once pretty anglosphere celebrity not embracing female victimhood:
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/inside-jacqueline-bisset-controversial-metoo-163028628.html
Quote: “Actress Jacqueline Bisset is making headlines after admitting she is “unsympathetic” toward women who came forward during the #MeToo movement, suggesting that women are partially to blame for sexual harassment.”
To complement the proposed femihag gallery of shame, we should maybe have an “AntiFeminist Angels” page for women like her who dare to speak out. And include those Schulmaedchen Report actresses who at least refuse to become bitter hags.
Top idea, AF.
BTW, you might be interested in this video about David Futrelle-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93prlBYlR1I .
Forgive me if it’s not in the general March section, but I’ve found that if I post things right at the end of the month, they often don’t get through, so I thought I might as well include it here.
Thanks for the video Anonymous2. It’s funny because I was just looking at his site again for the first time in ages the other day and saw he’s abandoned his blog.
If David Futrelle failed to stop the Manosphere, then it might have been because I stopped David Futrelle. No hyperbole here – that was my proudest and probably most important achievement here by far. He was pretty much unstoppable and becoming a darling of the liberal media for his hit pieces in the early days. He was also a business writer for CNN.
Then I did a hit piece on him.
He would probably have ended up doing a documentary 15 years before Louis Theroux and it would have made his career and possibly killed the Manosphere.
Unfortunately for him, my Salo article went viral.
I don’t think AaronClary mentions that (I didn’t watch the entire video), even though Clary would have known about it back in the day.
Even my readers at the time were saying I was too “obsessed” with Fraudtrelle, just like I’m too “obsessed” with the paedosberge now.
We were the very weakest (theoretically, because of our discussion of the age of consent) in a still weak Manosphere, yet I stopped Futrelle. After the Salo article, I was the only guy he never mentioned again. Meanwhile, he barely got a mainstream media writing gig again.
BTW, there’s no reason for your comments not to be published simply because it’s the end of the month.
When I was adding the edit comment feature, I was hoping to add a reminder to the comment form to keep comments relevant to the page, but it’s difficult to do on WordPress.
TBH, I can’t remember ANYBODY in the MRM or manosphere thanking me for that, even though obviously my article was linked to widely. Paul Elam and his honey badgers made great use of it but they never even credited me.
Fraudtrelle’s defence of Salo being sold in a gay porn shop still gets mentioned in places like Incels.is, but everybody has forgotten that nobody would have ever known about it if it wasn’t for me.
Apparently even Grok is getting more and more censored. The other night I asked it to make an image representing an older woman jealous at a man with a hot female robot, and it refused.
Whoah, really? Someone should make a meme about that.
I would assume your challenge to the AOC consensus was the main reason no-one in the manosphere thanked you. That issue is the very hardest one to tackle, as shown by Grok. The evidence is right there.
It’s kind of odd how it went viral yet didn’t result in you and your blog really taking off and you becoming big enough to be attacked like some MRA’s have been lately. The again, maybe it’s not so odd-that AOC elephant in the living room again.
I may or may not listen to Aaron Clarey’s video. Mostly I’m not that interested in what he has to say, in large part because he’s offered only very mild criticisms of paedo-and age-gap hysteria.
Yes, it was because of my stance on the AofC, and Fraudtrelle used it in his defence (“But, but, you’re quoting from a paedophile advocate” etc).
I rarely got attacked even when my blog was getting hundreds of visitors a day (leaving aside the anonymous paedo sadist Norwegian troll follower of the paedospberge). One reason for that is feminists are absolutely flabbergasted that there is one man on Earth out of 4 billion that is actually calling them out over their transparently obvious jealous hag motives. They don’t want to give this blog any attention for fear that it might lead to other men doing the same. So they are reluctant to attack me publicly, but I was harassed at airports and such for a long time. I also would not be surprised if the attempt by femihags in the UK to make blogs like this illegal was, well, aimed specifically at this blog, as well as the incel forums.
Compare to Eivind. He is such a joke that feminists are happy to make a “documentary” about him and then give it the highest award at Cannes, because they know he is just an imbecile who will never influence anybody (and if he did, it would be purely in ways that would benefit them – for example, accepting the paedophile slander, shaming “wankers”, diverting the blame from women and even feminists at every opportunity (on to “cultural drift”) and generally reinforcing the idea that anybody who questions the AofC, Epstein hysteria etc is a mentally ill paedophile squirt).
At the same time, I think people learnt from the Fraudtrelle Salo case, that I’m pretty good in David and Goliath confrontations, and if you attack me (publicly) then I can give it back, no matter the odds.
What’s the real situation in the UK as far as ID-ing oneself to participate in online discussion and use social media?
The Australia u-16 ban was a damp squib and kids just carry on as before, so maybe the same is true for the UK?
Femihags now literally retarding tech development and delaying the Singularity. All to keep the price of pussy artificially high.
https://www.axios.com/2026/03/30/openai-abandons-porn-media-innovations
“Tech giants are pulling back from AI-generated pornography over mounting legal, safety and reputational risks, abandoning an industry that has driven technological innovation since before the internet’s dawn.”
Hi AF, we are a group of Italian incels who are developing a project named “Fenix” about how to solve our problem. We would like to make a site about what we are going to do. Would you kindly please tell us how to create a blog like yours? Thanks
Here is the link where we present it, however it is in italian
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyZJdNuGdkY&pp=ygUQbWlzdGVyc3ViNCBmZW5peA%3D%3D
Hi there – you’ll probably be better off building a following on YouTube, if you can stay unbanned, and the incel forums. Blogs are difficult to get attention from Google and the search engines these days, but maybe if you hosted on blogspot.com which is owned by Google, it might be easier. Plus, they seem to have a surprisingly tolerant policy given that Eivind Berge is still there. Substack would also be a possibility but I doubt if they would allow an incel blog that is in any way controversial.
But a paid for webhost like mine is good if you just want a “home” for your writings that can easily be found and you can grow your readership via YouTube and shilling on incel forums (and sites like this, lol). The domain “TheFenixProject.com” is available (but not “FenixProject.com”).