Post: #1

Social science can be as much a bane as a boon to explaining and predicting outcomes, but here's an interesting sociological article on a new concept called "Erotic Capital". Capital can be understood as a stock of a "good" - physical or metaphysical - the value of which can be assessed by the return it can generate for its owner. The value generated is observed as a flow derived from this stock.

Thus human capital can be understood as a stock/endowment of qualities/education/training that can be used to generate returns in a labor market. Investing in human capital may increase these returns. Physical capital may be understood as machines, factories, mines and land that may generate returns when combined with other inputs, such as labor. Social capital consists of networks of human relations that may allow individuals to deploy effort and energy in such a way as to maximize returns or mitigate risk - for instance getting jobs through others you know, receiving emotional support from civil society in times of trouble, or combating crime in the neighborhood.

This is the first time I've heard of erotic capital. Read it and let me know what you think.

Post: #2

Women do 'invest' in 'being sexy' (aka building erotic capital), spending time on makeup, hair, etc. But the jist of this article is trying to assert that sexiness has some power or economic value. This is pure solipsism. (world revolves around me).

Consider the pornstarlet Belle Knox: although we can't see it, she probably spends 90% of her income funding her porn 'career'. Once you add travel, hotels, food, gadgets, and downtime, she isn't making jack shit. Think about that: in a time when women can make the most money fucking on camera, they don't get any return on the time/ effort invested.

Now consider the actual 'evil' patriarchal companies that are providing real economic value. Every day men look for ways to double, triple, quintuple, max out their investments. Men are getting double returns. Men are getting triple returns. Men are getting triple returns on exploiting women's enthusiasm to be on camera. Belle Knox might get a million dollar TV offer, but rest assured its because men see potential to reap tens of millions.

Yet 'erotic capital' can't break even. That's not economic power. That's a non-entity.

Women are enriching some men at the expense of other men. Bob the plumber will eventually despise young women because people like belle knox make a million bucks. The 'some men' are uncaring assholes who, at the first sign of calamity, will apathetically disown association with said women. That leaves them in the hands of men who were taken advantage of.

Post: #3

I also want to quotes two sentences from this piece, just to see what everyone thinks (try not to laugh):

1). "Female social scientists repeatedly dismiss the idea that physical attractiveness and sexuality are power assets for women vis-a-vis men."

2). Feminist theory has so far failed to explain why men with high incomes and status regularly choose trophy (second) wives and arm-candy mistresses while women who have achieved career success...generally prefer to marry alpha males rather than seek toyboys..."

OK, once y'all have stopped laughing, we can all wonder why social scientists and feminists "fail to explain" what every eighth grade boy and girl instinctively know.

Also, I hate to throw out manosphere cliches here, but why is it whenever a woman makes a point she uses celebrities as an example?

This paper starts by talking about erotic capital by how celebrities leverage it. That's fine. But in the US workplace, attempting to capitalize on your erotic appeal is likely to get your or someone fired.

I swear that in order to succeed in academia you have to be dumb as wood and oblivious as the Titanic captain.

Post: #4

(04-12-2014 10:48 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  This paper starts by talking about erotic capital by how celebrities leverage it. That's fine. But in the US workplace, attempting to capitalize on your erotic appeal is likely to get your or someone fired.

I swear that in order to succeed in academia you have to be dumb as wood and oblivious as the Titanic captain.

Dude that was pretty funny I LOLed. It's doubly true if one works in Academia like I do.

Post: #5

(04-12-2014 10:48 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  I swear that in order to succeed in academia you have to be dumb as wood and oblivious as the Titanic captain.

lip-service to the Cathedral.