Female Sex Drive, Supply and Demand, HL vs LL

Aphron had an interesting post on Monday about a study that just came out about female sex drive and how it changes as relationships progress.

Here is aphron's post

Here's the article.

Anyway, during the discussion, Satan made this comment:

"I hate reading these articles because I always feel so damn ABNORMAL afterwards.

In my case, his sex drive has done a complete 180 from when we were first together. Mine has actually gotten stronger as more time goes by in this relationship. (Which is crazy, all factors considered.) We are commited, living together, I've got a ring on my finger, etc etc. Our bond is sealed and yet my libido is going nowhere, and his is on this constant, slight decline.

"The rational for why a woman's sex drive declines may be down to supply and demand. If something is in infinite supply, the perceived value would drop."

Ok. Now I get it. My libido is not valuable to him because it's always there. He wants sex? He gets it. Any way he likes, any time he likes. The value is close to zero because he doesn't have to do any work for it. Someone previously commented on my blog when I wrote that my partner "wants" to be turned down like you see on sitcoms. He feeds into the societal notion that the woman should be desirable, but resistant to the man. Looks like I'm fucking this up for us by actually wanting to have sex with my long-term partner. Who knew?"

I was going to respond in the comments, but this got to be way too long, so I'll post it here.

I DON'T like the supply and demand theory. I've studied too much economics. Um, this is probably going to be a long comment because I'm being very thinky right now.

Supply and demand in short.

Human desire is limitless. We always want and want and want. But we each are unique in our desire. I might want thing A more than widget B and you might be the opposite. We individually place value on things by comparing how much we want them to how much we want something else. We do it subconsciously. When we decide whether or not to buy something -- whether or not is is "worth" the price -- we do it by comparing how much we want the thing to how much we want other things we could buy with the same money.

So, the desire for any individual thing -- how much we value it -- is different for every person, and so the total DEMAND forms a spectrum. Some people would pay a lot for it, while some people might not buy it unless it was very cheap (comparitavely). Most people are in the middle. This is total demand -- total want. How much people buy -- the effective demand -- is determined by price. The price cuts out all those people who want the thing (because we ALL want it, human demand being limitless), but not enough to pay the set price. Therefore, there exists a price such that the effective demand equals the supply of the object and there are neither shortages or surpluses.

So, price doesn't determine demand, price just limits consumption to those who REALLY want it. When price drops, consumption increases because more people are willing to pay the price. At the extreme, when something is free (well, nothing is totally free because it still takes committment and time and energy even if it doesn't take money) then consumption would be very high. Of course, at such extremes the rules break down a little, but the general rule still holds -- as something becomes cheaper, people use more of it.

So, sex. When it is always available "for free" people should consume more. Price doesn't, generally, determine percieved value.

EXCEPT in cases like backward-bending demand curves. This is where price DOES determine value because of vanity. Classic example is a Russian watch manufacturer that make extremely high quality watches that were very cheap, and couldn't sell any. The clientel they were after would rather buy a more expensive watch just for the sake of having the logo of the expensive watch. Vanity. Status. The company raised their prices and sold more because their product achieved "status."

But would this actually apply to sex? Only if someone is wanting to have sex with you to feel special and good about themselves because of the "conquest." Nailing the unattainable girl. Ryan Phillipe in Cruel Intentions chasing Reese Witherspoon just to say he banged the virgin-queen. Why would this sort of attitude apply in a loving relationship?

Thinking deeper, I guess the infinite supply = less value thing would, in some sense, apply to most things in a very limited fashion (if it was worth anything, why would they give it away?), but not in general, and it is not a universal rule. Because, when something reaches the extreme of being "free" it is usually for other reasons, which must be taken into consideration. For instance, I use Linux, which is free, and most people who use it don't think it's value is somehow reflected in it's price -- mainly because we know why the developers give it away. Mainly ideology (stupid Linux-commies). I know that they aren't determining their price because of financial considerations, but because of other, more emotional reasons.

Which is how I also approach sex. If my wife gave me sex on demand would I value it less? Or would I just assume that she was giving it to me because of love? Not because it didn't have value to her, but because it had such GREAT value.

There are also hormonal considerations. Generally, when a woman orgasms her testasterone levels increase somewhere around 200% -- and testasterone is the main chemical controlling female libido. Which is why, as sexual frequency increases women's sex drive usually increases as well. They become aroused easier, orgasm easier, and generally want it more as they get it more. When sexual frequency declines, the opposite happens. They kind of go into hibernation. For us males, it is the opposite. As we get less sex we become more and more compelled to get it. Which is why a guy goes off on a hair-trigger when it's been awhile. The biological imperitve to ejaculate every 48 hours or so comes to dominate.

So the "when sex is plentiful, women want less" idea contridicts the basic female biology. All of which is why I believe this effect is more because of why the sex is so plentiful -- or what the women feel the motivation is. If they feel the sex is just about sex most women (no, not all Ms. Satan), will reject it. They need the sex to be an organic out-growth of the affection in the relationship. If the guy isn't showing her that he loves her OUTSIDE the bedroom, then she's probably going to feel like nothing more than a sex-object and a sperm recepticle and not generally be wanting it. With him at any rate.

I think it is more that when the relationship is secure the man becomes more likely to EXPECT sex, to feel entitled to sex, and not feel the need to dance and romance her. To feel that, now that we're married and all you should just roll over and put out on command when I want it. I already did all that dating and courting stuff. I got the ring on your finger, now spread 'em.

That sort of casual disregard for her feelings is rather typically male. Especially as we generally want to communicate our affection through sex. So, we still feel we are showing her we love her because we want to do her, and she feels used and cheap. And so she wants it less, and her sex drive drops and then we end up in this place where we feel we have some chemical mis-match we want to call a HL/LL relationship (something I feel is, generally, a load of crap), and we have fights and general unpleasantness.

OK, that's all I have to say about that.