Is the “Cheapness” of Sex the Reason Men Are Unmotivated?

In an article this week on Slate.com, Mark Regnerus discusses the implications of today’s “sexual economics.” Regnerus argues that while women are traditionally the gate keepers to sex, these days they no longer put up too many obstacles; women are willing to have sex with little commitment from men and with men without many redeeming qualities. This is because of the skewed gender ratio between successful men and women; women outnumber men in college and in the workforce, as well as in churches, another place where people tend to couple up. In populations where men outnumber women, men have to compete with each other to win a woman over and get sex. In populations where the women outnumber the men, men don’t have to work as hard and women cannot afford to be as choosy; they are thus more willing to have sex sans commitment because it’s harder to find a partner, and they want to hold onto the ones they do find. So in summary, whereas men used to have to work hard and compete with each other, doing great things, dressing well, becoming successful, showing a willingness to commit, they no longer have to do so because women no longer require it for access to sex. Regenerus says:

“And yet while young men’s failures in life are not penalizing them in the bedroom, their sexual success may, ironically, be hindering their drive to achieve in life. Don’t forget your Freud: Civilization is built on blocked, redirected, and channeled sexual impulse, because men will work for sex. Today’s young men, however, seldom have to. As the authors of last year’s book Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality put it, “Societies in which women have lots of autonomy and authority tend to be decidedly male-friendly, relaxed, tolerant, and plenty sexy.” They’re right. But then try getting men to do anything.”

Do you think the “cheapness” of sex has anything to do with the lack of drive and motivation some men today exhibit?

Read the whole article on Slate.com.

Hat tip to Michael H. for this link.

{ 63 comments… read them below or add one }

Richmond February 26, 2011 at 4:47 pm

It has a HUGE part to do with it. Easy women make for lazy men.

“Men’s minds are raised to the level of the women with whom they associate” -Alexandre Dumas Pere

Mark Bryan February 26, 2011 at 4:49 pm

I have always said everything a man does is in the interests of women. Every decision a man faces usually reflects attracting a woman whether it be conscious or unconscious. The car he drives, the job he has, the clothes he wears, his grooming habits, even his attitude are all a direct reflection of how hard he’s working to attract a woman. So it makes sense to me.

Walker Pennington February 26, 2011 at 4:51 pm

Damn right.

Tim February 26, 2011 at 5:17 pm

I would argue that while you can still get sex while not achieving your personal best…you are not achieving the best sex you could be getting, or the amount of sex with multiple women of the same very high quality.

That said, there is a very satisfying feeling when you bed a woman that you had to “do a little work on” to get some. Forget the whole “wine and dine” thing, rather when you get a woman hardcore attracted with the success you work hard to achieve.

Andy February 26, 2011 at 5:23 pm

So, we’re blaming women for the fact that we aren’t willing to strive for success anymore? Really?

M. Lawrence February 26, 2011 at 5:27 pm

Remind me not to let my wife read this article.

Seriously, I can totally see this. I think there are a number of factors in today’s modern society which contribute to lazier men, but this could be one of the more significant ones. I know that I’m personally motivated by it (though my wife, to her credit, never uses it to get me to do or not do things, bless her).

Michael February 26, 2011 at 5:40 pm

I’m seeing that there appears to be good money in assuming that American men are dumb slackers and then finding a way to make women the problem.

Frankly, it gets tiring responding to the endless supply of really poorly made arguments. (For example, the use of the one Manhattan ZIP code as “evidence” of an overwhelming imbalance of women is as scientifically awful as my using Anchorage, Alaska as evidence that men still outnumber women. And I didn’t see any specific study of men’s enhanced laziness in that Manhattan ZIP code that would validate the point.)

Frankly, anyone can blame society, but each man has his own upbringing, his own sphere of influence. This is a HUGE country. Mileage varies widely. Anyone claiming a nationwide epidemic of “demotivation” has got to give me more proof and fewer cooked numbers.

Robert February 26, 2011 at 5:46 pm

Did Michael read the article I did? I saw plenty of scientifically supported facts:

Fact: Women now outnumber men in the workforce.
Fact: Women now outnumber men in college. Men are only 43% of undergrads.

To me this is plenty proof of de-motivation.

Furthermore, using Anchorage, Alaska would not work just as well. The author’s point is that successful women outnumber successful men. Manhattan is the epicenter of movers of shakers in a variety of industries. Anchorage is the epicenter of…..?

Tone February 26, 2011 at 5:50 pm

It makes perfect sense. Why else do you think those of a lower socio-economic background breed like rabbits? Those of us in the middle have to work much harder to get what we’re after, but given the quality of tail that’s in the middle to upper end of the socio-economic food chain, it’s worth it.

John February 26, 2011 at 6:22 pm

I guess once you are married this all goes out the window. I work my ass off to provide for my wife and family, get nothing!

M-Squared February 26, 2011 at 6:23 pm

I’ve met a lot of sex-hounds in my travels and dealings. If a man thinks good dance moves will get him laid, he’ll dedicate himself to tearing it up in the club. If he thinks looking great will get him laid he’ll pour his resources into his wardrobe and fitness.

What if, in order to “get laid,” he had to demonstrate maturity, fiscal responsibility, and the commitment to provide for and remain faithful to his wife and family? If women knew it was out there would they desire it enough to shut the gate to lazier men?

Eh, just food for thought.

Stephen February 26, 2011 at 7:08 pm

What’s the problem with 43% of US undergraduates being male? There’s more women in the US than men to begin with. If you take a random group of American people about 43% of it will be male.

John February 26, 2011 at 7:20 pm

Andy February 26, 2011 at 5:23 pm
So, we’re blaming women for the fact that we aren’t willing to strive for success anymore? Really?

I agree with Andy. Men can either have the attitude of, “I’m going to be a real man no matter what – no excuses”, or they can have the mindset of “I’m not going to be a real man because that’s too hard or too uncomfortable, and I’ll find all kinds of excuses for it, blaming everyone but myself”

Darren February 26, 2011 at 7:24 pm

Tone, those of lower socio-economic background tend to have more children, because they used to have less healthcare resources then those of higher economic status. Before we had medical advances to kept us alive and healthy it wasn’t uncommon for parents to have multiple children only to lose them to disease before the age of 18.
But women getting themselves up easily is not something new. This been going on throughout history, they just used to hide it easier in the past because the convenience of the internet not existing.
No offense Tone, but you sound like some the guys I know who lived very sheltered lives.

Lily February 26, 2011 at 7:37 pm

Well I guess that is one way of pointing out the obvious flaws of our societies and how it affects our personal behaviours and the growth of our teenagers and young adults. However let us not forget or ignore, or fail to even mention a lot of the younger females of our new generation are too, quite lazy and laxed and if they could do sexting all day and ‘hook up’ and have fun and not study they will as well. Additionally parents in these generations ‘fake’ being involved in their childrens lives but in reality they are too busy socializing, partying or just plain ignoring their kids teenagers, etc in exchange of sitting around & being lazy watching TV… whatever they feel is more important. Sad but true. Parents and parenting have much to do with the DRIVE of our younger generation and the importance they put on things. In the case of this article, sex being one of them, and unfortunately they think pot or other recreational drugs and easy sex with the easy girlies is better than education, working hard and achieving success! Unfrtunately as they get older, that is all they want to continue doing, that is their lifestyle and they don’t think of it as ‘cheapness’ of sex or become dissapointed. Instead, it is just another easy thrill they can get access to, and they take it. In other words, all those factor together and their attitudes cheapen the ‘Meaning of Sex’… I could go on, but I will stop.

Oarboar February 26, 2011 at 7:41 pm

Andy: You beat me to it.

Robert: I’m guessing Michael did read the article because he’s not impressed with it. This is junk science run by some editor who’s thinking “Hey, we’ve got a page to fill, so let’s run this.” That 63 percent of 22-year-olds in a certain Manhattan zip code are women doesn’t prove squat, but that’s the reach the author has to make to prove his point.

Michael February 26, 2011 at 7:54 pm

@Robert: Yes, those are facts. The issue is whether they’re facts that mean anything. There being a slightly larger number of women than men in the whole of a very large nation doesn’t really support the author’s generalizations.

Christopher Cesany February 26, 2011 at 8:04 pm

Being a younger male 25 years of age, And the industry i work in (Tattoo). I would say this topic is a bit of a Grey area. On one hand i would say this subject is absolutely true, However i think the reason may be off a little bit. I think women over all have lowered their standard greatly. At the same time i think the life lessons for boys becoming men have been lost. Things as simple as how to treat a women with respect, You really don’t see to many young men opening doors for women simple stuff like that. Therefor Women have lost the need for chivalry and manliness. So why should a man show something that he isn’t required to do in order to obtain something he ways ? Which is completely wrong for both parties. In conclusion I think the way to fix this problem is the life lesson this web site is trying to teach. Teach boys how to act like men they’ll show women what it is to be a gentlemen in thus order will be restored.

Robert February 26, 2011 at 8:23 pm

If you believe something is bunk, then the burden is on you to offer possible alternative explanations. Simply calling something “junk science” is a junk argument. Why is Manhattan 63% women if women make up 50.7% of the US population as a whole? Also, the researcher found that the higher the gender imbalance at colleges, the more likely women are to have premartial sex at that school. What is your alternative explanation for that?

Also, the umbrage of “how can we blame women for this” is so predictable, and predictably off base. If an article says that that because traditionally male-dominated jobs are being outsourced, men are losing more jobs than women, who would say, “How can you blame market forces for this?? Men just need to man up and find a job!” I’m sure that would really help a man who was let go from his factory job and can’t find another job. I bet he didn’t know that he could overcome an economic force simply by sheer will! Market and cultural forces effect men, period. Acknowledging this is not blaming it’s simply describing the situation without the fear of being politically correct.

Harry February 26, 2011 at 11:05 pm

It would be interesting if they did a comparison study at my alma mater – 3:1 guys/girls ratio. That happens at a lot of engineering schools, so I hear, and it used to be worse.

Mike M. February 26, 2011 at 11:24 pm

It did, Harry. About 10:1 when I went through the engineering program at Virginia Tech.

Jack Donovan February 27, 2011 at 12:57 am

It is great to see more and more posts with teeth around here, dealing with some of the problems men are facing.

Helpful tips are great, but it is also good to see you engaging this big discussion that is happening about the future of men–but so seldom involving regular guys who are not part of the NYC/LA media establishment.

Jonathan February 27, 2011 at 3:06 am

It’s like beer and champagne. Beer is cheap, plentiful and available to the masses. Champagne is expensive, rare and for the few that can appreciate it. Which would you choose? There is space in my life for all of it, but I always choose the best I can.

Mike A February 27, 2011 at 4:12 am

“If you believe something is bunk, then the burden is on you to offer possible alternative explanations. Simply calling something “junk science” is a junk argument.”

Not a scientist or a philosopher are you? Burden of proof falls to the person making a claim, not to the person who disbelieves it.

But since you asked, here’s why the article is lousy. The data it presents (IE, at schools with more women than men, the women are more likely to be promiscuous) is corrolation, but the argument it makes is cause and effect.

Here’s what I mean. If I interview 10,000 people who attended a middle school play in the last six months and 10,000 people who attended an NFL game, I’d find more pedophiles in the former group. If I were to argue that this evidence “proves” watching a middle school play can cause pedophilia, you would most likely object.

That’s exactly what this article is doing. It proved there’s a correlation between environments with more women than men, and the promiscuity of the average women in them. Then it made the unwarrented claim of cause and effect. That’s why the Slate article is garbage. It claims cause and effect, and doesn’t even attempt to prove it.

Andy M. February 27, 2011 at 11:39 am

Hate to burst the bubble, fellows, but I’m afraid it isn’t just as simple as calling it a “man” problem. I had occsion to speak recently to a female coworker of the late teens/early 20′s generation, and the topic of relationships chanced to come up. What SHE had to say on the ma…tter was that nowadays a woman only wants 2 things if she isn’t in love: Money, and great sex. She then went on to FURTHER elaborate that a smart woman did not have to get both these things from the same place. Let us not continue deluding ourselves–the traditional “Married with children” relationship, as the social norm, is gone, and it is never coming back.

Manuel February 27, 2011 at 12:06 pm

In my opinion it doesn’t matter who someone else wants you to be. The only thing that matters is who you yourself want to be or strive to be. If you want to be a better person for someone else then you are doing it for the wrong reasons and in the long term it won’t work.

So i don’t think you can blame women for mens failure. -> if to blame a woman then maybe your mother for not raising you right, but then on the other hand maybe she couldn’t do better because dad was out drinking half of the week.

Lily February 27, 2011 at 3:48 pm

Nice Manuel! I like your thoughts! And, oh so painstakingly true! Andy M. your thoughts as well, however unfurtuntate that is. And I have to add, as long as girls continue to lower their stds, the boys will continue not to care and won’t work as hard. If they can get an easy come (literally & metaphorically) they will continue ‘taking’ with out doing the work to earn it. Same goes for the married crowd, infidelity is a bigger problem than it was before, yet another unfortunte but true fact. It’s all about women not having any self-worth or self-respect and making themselves ‘easy-get’s’ for the men. And if they are married (especially on both sides) then it’s even more ideal! I know, I’m in married relationship of 18yrs, my husband was unfaifull with a married woman. Until I confronted her via text & she panicked, her husband got a hold of her phone and spoke to me…. long story. Anyway, I am not sure if it’s over, but my hubby is more attentive to me and I have not heard from the other woman. Are they better liars now, I don’t know and I don’t care! I am a female and I like this website which is why I’m subscribed to it. I have two boys ages 18 & 14, I want them to be better than that for sure, So it does help me to read these articles and the opinions posted. I always discuss these type of articles or topics with my older two sons. I am very open with them yet at the same time, very strick with my moral values and unrelenting when it comes to teaching them about studying and workking hard for the things they want in life. I also tell them that sex in a realtionshipp is a perk and a ‘connection’ you make with someone you care for deeply. Not something to be taken lightly as if they were merely playing pinball.
All of you gentlemen, have a lot of great points, very valid ones. It is nice to read your opinions keep them coming. I am interested. :-) Thank you!

Patrick February 27, 2011 at 5:09 pm

I don’t know about you guys, but cheap sex motivates me more.

I’ll play penny slots all day.

Byron Willaims February 27, 2011 at 8:45 pm

I think what it really comes down to is that a man of quality will seek a woman of quality before he commits to a serious relationship. If all that you are looking for is a sex partner then that is precisely what you’ll get. No real relationship can be be based solely on sex. It must be based on mutual respect and compatibility.

Ian February 28, 2011 at 10:33 am

If this argument were logically true, then married men would always become lazy piles of dog poo. I’m with Andy and Michael – this is a gross oversimplification. Men with drive don’t stop going forward with their dreams once they are getting sex.

I want to write books and get awesome at Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, and neither of these things matters much to my mate, and nor do I think of impressing her with either of them. She is understanding but I know part of her would rather I spent the time with her.

Also, quoting Freud is weak. It’s not hard to turn the rifle of psychoanalysis back on Freud and discover he was sexually frustrated. There are much better sources out there – Erich Fromm, for instance.

Clair February 28, 2011 at 6:14 pm

What about women’s age-old lament–where have all the good men gone.
Or the other classic–all the good men are either married or gay.

I think women obviously desire “good men”–define it how you will, I’m sure it includes a mature attitude toward sex. But men as a group overall just don’t make the grade.

I know a couple of single/divorced women in their 40s and their biggest complaint about dating is that the men want sex on the first date, and they really feel the pressure to comply because of their age.

Mark Petersen February 28, 2011 at 6:27 pm

Again quoting Dave Chappelle,
“If p**** was on the stock market, that shit would be plummeting right now because you’ve flooded the market with it. You’re giving it away too easy.”

I think women are giving it away too easy and then they settle for a tool. Now there is no incentive for being a good guy.

Rob February 28, 2011 at 6:36 pm

Ok, so there is a lot of nostalgia going on here.

Since we see that sexual preferences are evolving the real question that is brought up is: How does a man handle this? How can you be a better man in an environment of ‘cheap’ (I am sure all the men with paternity claims would argue with this) sex and promiscuity? Can a man be promiscuous yet honorable and manly? Why not a woman then? Would a real woman or man care what others think of them?

Rob February 28, 2011 at 6:40 pm

@Mark Peterson

The incentive to be a good man is not women; being a man is incentive enough.

Kevin February 28, 2011 at 6:46 pm

I’m over 30 and wish I could go somewhere, anywhere, where women willing to date someone over 30 significantly outnumbered men and were open to sexual advances. The only places I’ve seen more women than men are yoga class and nail salons. My late 20′s female friends agree, except they also are around more women than men when they are hanging out with their girlfriends. So maybe these stats are true for college age people, but I don’t see it in my age bracket.

Tom February 28, 2011 at 7:34 pm

I half disagree with this. The hardest working guys I know get the least, and the guys who take all the shortcuts get the most. Watch Jersey Shore: those guys pull it in but don’t seem to work too hard. I would say the men I know who I admire the most (due to personal ethics)are the least attractive to women for some reason. The shaved chests, fake tanners, roid fed muscle, serial cheaters….women eat it up.

Steve February 28, 2011 at 8:03 pm

There is some truth to this, but it seems too tempting to push the theory too far or make it too totalizing.

It is true that a guy doesn’t really have to do too much to get a shag.

But, in the end, he is the one shooting himself in the foot, in my humble opinion. Low commitment, serial sex is a cheap thrill which erodes your sense of personal dignity and ability to enjoy meaningful relationships. I realize I sound “Victorian”. Why settle for notches in the belt, when you could have the satisfaction of a meaningful relationship in marriage? Said chav must not lay the blame at the feet of the local ladies.

Additionally, I disagree that the only reason to “improve yourself” or “strive” or anything like that would be to get tail. What happened to the satisfaction of effort for its own sake?

In the article’s defense, though, I do think that many women seek to gain love and respect by offering their bodies easily, but that this very rarely has the intended effect. Rather, they often get opportunistic dudes rather than men.

I would finally like to defend the honour of beer from Jonathan’s indictment of unworthiness. Tongue in cheek, of course.

Keri March 1, 2011 at 9:58 am

Huh. This seems to say that for society to be better as a whole, and for men to be more responsible, that women need to be less autonomous and have less authority. That’s bullshit. Blaming a lack of manliness on women is a cheap, decidedly un-manly cop out.

Russ March 1, 2011 at 10:43 am

I wonder if women really want good men anymore. The reason I say this is that, in my opinion, good men expect something from women too – besides sex. Good men also want a woman to have maturity, responsibility, commitment, and contentment. In the past, women seemed more willing to offer these traits than men. However, I think that ship has sailed in many ways and now many men I know are finding themselves on the opposite side. As always, we tend to swing from extreme to extreme. Instead of making modest adjustments toward greater equality from some of the male-centered extremes of previous centuries, women have chosen to swing to the opposite extreme and now they’re getting their “revenge” by offering little and focusing only on themselves. A lot of women I’ve encountered don’t believe they should have to be women of character anymore – that they’re entitled to be treated like princesses and get what they want without having to give anything that requires much of them. It doesn’t require much to open your legs, but it does require something to demonstrate real character and to be held accountable for it.

The other problem with cheap sex I see is not just with the women, but with the men who are settling for it as well and not demanding more of women also. Sure, it requires less of us. But, less investment means less reward – i.e. You get what you pay for. I know I’m working hard to make my way back from ways I’ve settled and rejecting the eternal boy-ishness that society promises me I can cling to. It’s not easy, but I’m looking forward to the greater sense of worth and manliness that having greater convictions and character can bring. I am also confident that it will invite commitment-based sex built on genuine admiration rather than hormones and primal drives.

Phil March 1, 2011 at 10:46 am

If you can’t be free, please be cheap.

Russ March 1, 2011 at 10:52 am

I agree with Rob and Tom above.

Keri, yes, I agree that blaming women ONLY is unfair. However, having good relationships and good sex does require women to be somewhat less autonomous. Real relationships are based on mutual need, appreciation and admiration. Women have made a god out of this idea of independence and it is destroying what they really want most deep down. Again, that is not to say that all independence is bad, but the sort that doesn’t acknowledge need at all. Most men like a woman with some independence. However, this “I don’t need a man” stuff is far closer to arrogance and self-deception than respectable independence that comes from character.

Russ March 1, 2011 at 11:40 am

In addition to my above comment about independence:
“The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they please: we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we risk congratulations.”

Russ March 1, 2011 at 11:41 am

…that quote was by Edmund Burke, from Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790)

Josh Perkins March 1, 2011 at 5:21 pm

A great book on a similar topic is A Return to Modesty by Wendy Shalit. In it, she discusses why a return to sexual modesty (i.e., chastity) would be far more motivating for men and empowering for women than the sexual “liberation” ethic of the last few decades, as it makes men become more responsible in order to get what is highly desirable but not easily obtainable. I highly recommend this book to both men and women; if you’re not convinced, here are a couple of book reviews:
http://goo.gl/tLagD
http://goo.gl/pH8eP

Patrick B March 1, 2011 at 6:34 pm

The lack of manliness constitutes highly in this room to the fact that, men today do not admit when things are actually true and on the point. Men are too worried about how they “feel” on a subject or something, not what is actual. This is a womanly asset. Women “feel” more of their way through life than men; been as thus since the beginning. But nowadays we have crossed genders, splayed the boundaries in order to envelop supposed modern ideals that make a man more of an emotional creature, and so thus, as men, when rung through such and exposed almost in a forceful manner by media influence, and scorned when not adopted by men, makes man lose his MANLY identity. Now this lengthy introduction was needed only to come to this point: woman was never blamed in this article as the ONLY problem. The main problem comes to an understanding that times have changed, and not necessarily for the better. The traditional, conservative days (admittedly not perfect) but tried and true and kept for a reason (not for male dominance). But having been given away, we now have a “free” society that allows and even encourages gender manipulation and other such “modern” practices and acceptances. Woman is the vital part to man, and man to woman, and from this a natural relationship ensues, and roles are established (not always concreted, but encouraged) and a new life begins, but if the role lines have been blurred or manipulated, then how would a relationship between man and woman be successful? It will not. Man is gatherer and woman nurturer, and we work best in this way because it is most natural to our identities. Sex adds into/and/or fits perfectly into the above understanding. That man works for his family, establishes fair authority, is a leader and example to his family (or should be) in the ways of Church, and sacrifices all of himself for the upholding of the values and morals that he wants to instill in his children, and loves his wife as his queen. Somewhat a chivalrous, but highly possible outlook. I started writing to propose in what way the world acts in the man, but I seemed to have found my way into how the man should act in the world. To be separate from his emotions in order to be the decision maker, and pinnacle for the family.
Well, let us part with that idea of not why… but how we can be Men.

Good-day Gentlemen.

Bill McNutt March 2, 2011 at 3:01 pm

A buddy of mine is a teacher in a nearby high school. He estimates that 80% of the girls he teaches are sexually active from the age of 16 on. This happens because the girls want to “have a boyfriend,” and if they don’t provide sex, the boy will drop them for a girl who does.

It’s a fact of life for teens in the school.

bubba March 2, 2011 at 5:00 pm

The bigger issue in all of this is the massively lowered standards that our society has now.

Alexis March 2, 2011 at 5:11 pm

Patrick B, I must applaud you! As a 20-something woman I have found that the traditional roles that are frowned upon in our post-feminism world are the ones I am personally being drawn back to to find satisfaction in my life. 5 years ago I would not have said that. I find that as time goes on and I grow older/wiser I see the wisdom of those generations that came before. A woman is naturaly made to nurture, for proof one only needs to meet a woman who’s biological clock is ticking, or to see what hobbies the majority of women are drawn to.
I don’t see this article as blaming women or men for this problem but rather society. We have changed from having society determined by our elders to having it directed by the young people. When we allow those younger people to determine our society we fall prey to the pitfals of youth in a massive scale. Think of a “typical teanager” (boy or girl) and what their passions are and what they know & think of the world around them. Their thoughts are mainly of boys/girls, themselves, and the immediate future. Now think of our socitey today. It is concerned with sex, individuality and a “right now” attitude. See any similarities?
Stop allowing our world to be determined by those who know nothing of it, and we shall start seeing a change. Stop praising the “useful idiots” and start praising those with true wisdom, and many of our societies problems will start to diminish.

I must at this point say that I am a 27 year old woman, and 5 years ago I would not have known or listened to myself today. I also know that I do not know enough to preach to those older & wiser than me, but I try to learn from them and impart what I do know to those younger.

John T March 2, 2011 at 11:11 pm

Its terrific seeing such involved but respectful commentary. There are some excellent points well made.

If I may: Alexis, I think you’re incredibly insightful. A lot of great comments but I think you summarize the underlying issue precisely.

Larry March 3, 2011 at 10:44 am

i would never underestimate sexuality affecting human behavior, but i wonder if computers and video games are playing a bigger role. when computers and video games came out it seemed more like a guy thing. but now, women play video games a lot too. but it’s the electronic social networking thing thats got them the way games or xbox’s got us.

if you want to say men are the canary in a coal mine, perhaps it’s not about lacking an extra X chromosome, but about the effects from all the stimulating electronic options we are devoted to.

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: