Hobbes and Internationalism Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Hobbes and Internationalism - Essay Example Hobbes’ State of Nature It would be taxing for anyone vaguely familiar with Hobbes to not be aware of his widely quoted vision of man’s brutal and short life in the state of nature. For Hobbes, man’s equality in the state of nature is the cause of his terrible existence in that every man has the right to everything, which causes conflict. Man possesses an inherent selfishness which causes him to strive constantly for self-preservation, and in turn is the cause of his suffering (or seeking) competition, glory, and distrust. Such a state is ultimately â€Å"no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death† (1996: xiii). This is not to say that man is a blundering, blind fool simply seeking to grab that which promises to bring greater comfort and success to his life. Rather, man is in possession of reason, which causes him to grasp an understanding of right and wrong conduct. Yet, because no formal standards of right and wrong exist in a state of nature, opinions and rights clash and differ. This is not to assume that Hobbes denies the universality of morality or natural law, rather man is governed by agreements and contracts. However, Hobbes’ contracts are a product of the selfishness of man, and hence are not based upon any form of honour or trust because they will be valid to the point that an individual believes that another will not fall foul of his promise. An example would be that Y does not punch Z because Y does not want Z to punch him. This ‘contract’ is formed on pure selfishness, and only extends to the point that Z complies with the agreement. If Y feels that Z’s agreement lacks strength, he will quickly feel free to break his part of the contract. Such contracts, because they are without honour and because they are a product of selfishness, are very likely to be breached. If we are to apply these points on an international scale, some contradictions emerge. While on the surface it would appear that each state has the right to do anything, the existence of equality is highly questionable. Hobbes evidently thinks that a â€Å"genuine condition of war† exists between states (Hokestra 2007: 118), though not their individuals; rather their sovereigns who are constantly â€Å"in the state and posture of gladiators† (1996: xiii, 12, 63/78). The lack of common power on an international level today is evident, yet could this be utilised to lead to the conclusion that each state is constantly read for, or under threat of war? The temptation to answer this query negatively is backed by the concept of equality. Indeed, there is a great deal of â€Å"radical uncertainty† surrounding the cooperation between states (Newey 2008: 161). Though Hobbes saw men as equal in a state of nature, it could not be said that all states are equal; the opposite is actually evident. America certainly does not feel the need to harbour pre-emptive aggres sion against countries such as Iceland, for example. This leads to the conclusion that internationally, states are in a state of war as man is in the state of nature (Bull 1977: 49). This concept can also be applied to Hobbes’ view of man in nature as essentially unsociable: states across the globe often enter into mutually beneficial agreements. Even larger states provide aid to third world countries, particularly after crises and where poverty is extreme. Although these distinctions may be rather primitive, they gather much ground in establishing weaknesses in Hobbes’ theory being applied on an international level. Man in the state of nature is certainly more equal than countries in the ‘

Challenges of Global Leadership Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Challenges of Global Leadership - Essay Example Environmental scanning refers to the communication to internal stakeholders on how external issues are likely to affect the operations of a business. The scanning also entails the identification of the specific questions that the company is bound to face due to the continuous changes that are taking place in the different aspects of the external environment. The scanning helps reveal the threats and opportunities to an organization and helps global leaders to overcome the challenges that they are faced with by providing a chance for development of alternative courses of action (Binscoff, Mayer, & Quick, 2015). One of the roles of global leaders operating in a changing environment is the identification of the possible threats to his business. Leaders are charged with identifying the issues that the company may face due to the frequent changes in economic, technological, social and political sectors. Through environmental scanning, the leaders can identify the threats and also define possible solutions. Secondly, the leaders recognize the opportunities that arise for the business as a result of the changes that occur (Lawrence, 2015). Global leaders have to determine new opportunities to ensure that they remain in business regardless of the changes that occur. In this light, there is need to invest in research to identify opportunities that remain unexploited that would help an organization overcome the challenges it faces. Moreover, global leaders should always remind the subordinates of the mission, vision and objectives of the business to ensure that changes and challenges they face do n ot cause them to deviate from their fundamental goals. It is only by doing this that leaders remain on top of a situation and identify changes when they arise (Bennis, 2015). One of the challenges of global leadership is team building, team development, and team management. Due to the frequent changes

Analysis of John Adams Quincys Quote about a Leader Essay - 16

Analysis of John Adams Quincys Quote about a Leader - Essay Example In the contemporary work settings, what fails most of the businesses is not lack of finances or assets. It is the lack of an effective leader who can inspire the followers to visualize success and lead them through as they pursue the company’s goals and objectives. John Adams’ Quincy’s quote indicated above touches on the core of leadership; inspiration. As Adair (2009) puts it, to lead effectively is not just to be at the forefront. Good leadership is evaluated based on various parameters including the ability to inspire and bring out the best from the followers. Quincy says to become a leader one must be able to inspire other people to dream more; to imagine great things. A good leader stimulates their team to set goals and objectives that may sound ridiculous. The leader should instil confidence and a sense of belief amongst the followers. This makes the team develop the resilience that no matter what challenges they go through, they never lose focus and determination on their set goal. For example, in a situation where workers have virtually no substantial plans other than working for the company in the same capacity for years, a Human Resource Manager (leader) may inspire such staffs not only through the words they speak but also actions. In the end, the staff may feel rejuvenated after they are challenged to seek for more out of their lives (Northouse, 2010). Consequently, Quincy talks about learning as an art of demonstrating leadership. A learner is both a learner and a teacher. The behavioral theory of leadership maintains that leadership is as a result of behavior learning. The theory posits that good leaders can be trained and inspired by their mentors (Hoffmann, 2007). The behavioral theory bases its arguments on the ability of humans to learn through observation, hearing or even modelling. This means that leaders can be a source through which followers retrieve skills and knowledge of how to do or how not to do. An influential person with a strong ego is likely to influence learning and behavior change than others.

Consuming Healthy Fresh Green Foods Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Consuming Healthy Fresh Green Foods - Essay Example The function of this essay is about the differences in fresh food and canned food. In my opinion, flavors, health benefits, and costs are the main factors in our decision to consume either fresh food or canned food. I will never forget the taste I experienced one day when I ate fresh vegetables from the garden. This was in stark comparison to the taste of the asparaguses, which were kept in oily water in a can. Besides, I did not know how long the vegetable had been there. The look of the soft, moist vegetable was unappetizing compared to the green color and texture and overall taste of fresh food. The main unique difference between these two types of food is in the flavor. Fresh food has a nice texture and the freshness makes you want to consume even more. Despite this, the vitamins in the vegetable will begin to lessen as soon as the vegetable is picked from the garden and sent onto the consumer. The next comparison between fresh food and canned food is the health benefits involved. Fresh food helps to prevent illness. This is especially true for organic food. Organic food is safe for the human body as it contains more vitamins, calcium, and iron than non-organic food. Organic food is healthier and tastes better than conventional produce. Fresh vegetables are more beneficial than other types of food. Canned fruit and vegetables have the same amount of vitamins as fresh food; however, this should not be consumed too often as canned food has some chemical factors that are not good for your body and will harm your health in the long term. Today, most canned food is available for people who want to have a balanced diet. The price is another huge difference between these two kinds of food. Canned food often entails less cost than fresh food and can be bought throughout the year. Canned food is a lot cheaper than fresh food because not much preparation time has been put in. In many cases, canned food can be very beneficial for families who have busy

History Western Civ Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words - 1

History Western Civ - Essay Example News of such atrocities by the Muslims angered the Christian peoples of Europe so that nobles and commoners alike were summoned over for the mission of recovering the Holy Land from Islam. Numerous knights joined the crusades because the popes promised them forgiveness of their sins as a reward for fighting for Christ. In short, Christians considered crusades as holy wars against the enemies of God. However, not all the crusaders had such pure and noble motives for many of them had selfish intents as well. To the landless, the crusades were an opportunity to acquire lands in Asia whereas to the adventurous, the crusades offered excitement. For the greedy, the crusades meant the possibility of rich loot from the East while the ambitious ones chased after glory and monarchical recognition. The Muslims, perceiving their own advantage of defending Islam to be the chief benefit that would eventually influence Islamic nations, regarded wars against European crusaders as jihads or ‘holy wars’, believing that these were means to fight for their god ‘Allah’ against the unbelievers. Crusades were also launched to address the growing suppression in pilgrimages of Christians. Being a pilgrim is an aspect of Christian life which greatly affects the religious as well as the socio-political grounds of living as a Christian at the period Europe was experiencing the height of political turmoil in several respects among its nations. European Christians to this day have adhered to the faith that pilgrimages, like the essence of penance, is able to purify or atone one of all the present iniquities once a passionate journey to Jerusalem is successfully carried out. In the absence of pilgrimage, it would be difficult for Christians to claim authority and possession of a certain region thus, crusade was necessitated to intervene and cease oppression and persecution of Christians by Muslims who took extensive

Analysis and consideration prior to developing operations in Research Paper

Analysis and consideration prior to developing operations in Australian wine industry - Research Paper Example The recommendations given will aid the company to settle and establish itself without many problems. In addition, the techniques used to do this study include evaluation of other wine companies, government’s policies, and other deterministic factors. Here, competitiveness refers to the forces that are likely to hamper productivity while attractiveness refers to profitability of a business venture by a company. The continent has good climatic conditions for growing vineyards, a rich cultural heritage of wine making and skilled work force. Moreover, most of the wines industries and vineyards are owned by families, with a few commercial plantation and firms. Australia produces three percent of the world’s wine, and is the second to Italy largest wine exporter country (Allen, 2003, p.43). Primarily, the wine industry in Australia is experiencing rapid growth and international recognition in the present days (Gibson, 2010, p.301). This nation has some of the world’s most proficient winemakers, mainly based in the southern region. The industry highly depends on the export especially to the United Kingdom, Canada, and New Zealand. (Kym, 2004, p.264) The common regions of wine production are south and west Australia, Victoria, and New South Wales, which have a wide range of grapes produced. Australia is largely a tropical region; however, some parts such as the south have warm temperate and cooler climates (Gibson, 2010, p.301). Wine production is done in the cooler region of the country. Needless, other regions without the conducive climate for vineyards growing have used methods like irrigation that facilitate production of grapes. The Shiraz type of grape is the most common as it grows even in the warmer parts of Australia, while other types of grapes like the chardonnay and cabernet sauvignon have adapted well to the climatic conditions. In addition, the landscape has a system

Sexual Economics Essay Example for Free

Sexual Economics Essay Abstract A heterosexual community can be analyzed as a marketplace in which men seek to acquire sex from women by offering other resources in exchange. Societies will therefore define gender roles as if women are sellers and men buyers of sex. Societies will endow female sexuality, but not male sexuality, with value (as in virginity, fidelity, chastity). The sexual activities of different couples are loosely interrelated by a marketplace, instead of being fully separate or private, and each couples decisions may be influenced by market conditions. Economic principles suggest that the price of sex will depend on supply and demand, competition among sellers, variations in product, collusion among sellers, and other factors. Research findings show gender asymmetries (reflecting the complementary economic roles) in prostitution, courtship, infidelity and divorce, female competition, the sexual revolution and changing norms, unequal status between partners, cultural suppression of female sexuality, abusive relationships, rape, and sexual attitudes. Sexual activity is often regarded as among the most private of activities, negotiated by two individuals on the basis of their own individual desires and values. Idealistic treatments describe the two individuals as potentially equal and interchangeable. In this manuscript, we place sexual negotiations in the context of a cultural system in which men and women play different roles resembling buyer and seller — in a marketplace that is ineluctably affected by the exchanges between other buyers and sellers. In recent decades, two main theoretical approaches have dominated the field of sexuality. One of these emphasizes biological determinants, especially as shaped by evolutionary pressures. The other emphasizes social construction, especially as shaped by political forces. Both have proposed to explain differences between men and women. The evolutionary approach stresses the different reproductive strategies of men and women and the difference as to what pattern of sexual respon se would have led to the highest quality and number of successful offspring. The social constructionist approach, generally based on feminist theory, has emphasized male subjugation of women and how women respond to their oppressed position in society. Thus, the disciplines of biology and politics have been most prominent in guiding how psychologists think about sex. This article turns to a different discipline, namely economics, in order to elucidate a theory of sexual interactions. An economic approach to human behavior was defined by (subsequent) Nobel laureate Gary Becker (1976) as having four main assumptions. First, the behavior of individuals is interconnected in market systems in which individual choices are shaped by costs and benefits in the context of stable preferences. Second, scarce but desirable resources are allocated by price shifts and other market influences. Third, sellers of goods or services compete with each other (as buyers also sometimes do, but not as much). Fourth, people seek to maximize their outcomes. Although initially economists focused on material goods and material needs, many have begun to look at nonmaterial goods (such as services) and nonmonetary media of exchange (such as time or emotion). In adopting such an approach, our theory will therefore be primarily cultural in the sense that it looks at how individual behavior is shaped by the market and other aspects of the collective network, but just as economic exchange is based on what nature has shaped people to want and need, natural motivations and tendencies will provide a foundation for the sexual economy. Although applying economic principles to sex may seem novel, psychology has invoked economic theories in other contexts. Social exchange theory has been used to analyze a broad range of social interactions (e.g., Blau, 1964; Homans, 1950, 1961; Sprecher, 1998), based on the assumption that each party in an interaction gives something and gets something in return. Analyzing the costs and benefits of various interpersonal behavior furnishes a useful basis for making predictions about how people will think, feel, and choose to act. In our view, previous attempts to apply social exchange theory to sex have neglected one crucial aspect, which will be featured in this manuscript. Specifically, sex is a female resource. Put another way, cultural systems will tend to endow female sexuality with value, whereas male sexuality is treated by society as relatively worthless. As a result, sexual intercourse by itself is not an equal exchange, but rather an instance of the man getting something of value from the woman. To make the exchange equal, the man must give her something else in return, and his own sexual participation does not have enough value to constitute this. How much he gives her in terms of nonsexual resources will depend on the price (so to speak) set by the local culture and on her relative standing on valued sexual characteristics (see Table 1). When sex happens, therefore, it will often be in a context in which the man gives the woman material gifts, consideration and respect, commitment to a relationship as desired by her, or other goods. There are two main parts to this manuscript. The first will consist of an extended exposition of the theory. We shall attempt to develop and elaborate the economic analysis of sex from an exchange perspective as thoroughly as we can, even extending to aspects and predictions that are not fully testable against extant data. The second section will then review published empirical findings about many patterns of sexual behavior, as a way of evaluating the exchange theory’s capacity to account for what is known. Social Exchange and Female Resource Theory Social exchange theory analyzes interactions between two parties by examining the costs and benefits to each. Interactions are only likely to continue if each party gains more than it loses. Crucially, the exchange analysis assumes that in each social interaction each person gives something to the other and gains something from the other (hence the exchange). The value of what is gained and exchanged depends in part on the preferences of the individuals and in part on the broader market. By applying economic principles to social rewards, one can make predictions about how social behavior will proceed. How much someone pays for a banana, for example, depends partly on that person’s hunger and liking for bananas, but also partly on the shifting balance between the local community’s supply of bananas and its demand for them. The central point to our social exchange analysis of sex is that sex is essentially a female resource. When a man and a woman have sex, therefore, the woman is giving something of value to the man. In that sense, the interaction is one-sided — unless the man gives the woman something else of comparable value. Although the social exchange analysis will invoke a social system to explain sex and is therefore essentially a cultural theory, ironically its most famous advocate came from evolutionary theory (although Cott, 1977, developed a similar line of analysis in a feminist historical context). Symons (1979) observed that â€Å"Everywhere sex is understood to be something females have that males want† (p. 253). By â€Å"everywhere† he meant in all cultures and historical eras, although to be sure he only presented observations from a handful of these. Indeed, he offered relatively little in the way of empirical evidence for his theory, a deficiency that the present article seeks to remedy (aided by the substantial amount of empirical data on sex that have been produced in the decades since Symons’ book was published). Symons also did not find it useful to consider how economic theory might elaborate his basic observation. Nonetheless, his work deserves recognition for h aving put forth the observation that sex is essentially something that women provide and men desire. Although not many others have explicitly discussed sex as a female resource, we believe that that view is implicit, though often unstated, in many writings. For example, James Q. Wilson (2001) has recently published a widely influential sociological analysis of the decline of marriage in Western cultures, in the course of which he found it necessary to invoke unsupported assumptions such as â€Å"If the culture offers sexual access and does not require in exchange personal commitment, a lot of men will take the sex every time† (p. 15; although no sources or evidence were cited to back up this assertion). Later he speculated that if the government wanted to make marriages more durable, the most effective policy intervention would be to require that fathers retain custody of children after divorce, because this would reduce the men’s ability to attract new sex partners — the implicit assumption being that divorces are caused because husbands but not wives leave their spouses in order to gain access to new, more exciting sex partners. In effect, this policy would reduce what the divorcing husband could offer another woman in exchange for sex. Thus, again, the view of sex as a female resource was implicit in his reasoning, but he did not have any scholarly basis for evaluating that view. Our hope is that an open statement and appraisal of the female resource theory of sexual economy can enable such analyses to have a strong, explicit basis in research findings, including frank recognition of its limitations — and we think that would be preferable to relying on impres sions and stereotypes, as many writers currently must. Sex as Female Resource A consideration of the cultural economy of sex goes beyond the simple recognition that men want sex from women. Insofar as that is generally true, the social network will recognize it and organize the behavior of individuals and couples on that basis. Treating sex as a female resource means that each culture (we define culture as an informationbased social system) will endow female sexuality with value, unlike male sexuality. Women will receive other valued goods in return for their sexual favors. Male sexuality, in contrast, cannot be exchanged for other goods. Put another way, women become the suppliers of sex, whereas men constitute the demand for it and play the role of purchasers and consumers. Even though in one sense a man and a woman who are having sexual intercourse are both doing similar things, socially they are doing quite different things. Thus, the first prediction based on the social exchange theory of sex is that interpersonal processes associated with sexual behavior will reveal a fundamental difference in gender roles. Men will offer women other resources in exchange for sex, but women will not give men resources for sex (except perhaps in highly unusual circumstances). In any event, the bottom line is that sexual activity by females has exchange value, whereas male sexuality does not. Female virginity, chastity, fidelity, virtuous reputation, and similar indicators will have positive values that will be mostly absent in the male (see Table 1). Put another way, it will matter more to the formation and continuation of a relationship whether the woman is a virgin than whether the man is; whether the woman engages in sex with another partner than whether the man does; and so forth. Why a Female Resource? Why would sex be a female resource? Symons’s (1979) original answer focused on reproductive strategies shaped by evolution as the ultimate cause. In his account, the minimal male investment in parenthood is almost zero, whereas for a woman it is substantial. Therefore, he proposed, sex for a man is all benefit with little or no cost, whereas for a woman the potential cost (possible pregnancy, with pain and possibly death attending childbirth) is substantial even if the pleasure is quite high. The risk of high cost will be an incentive for the woman to hold back, and so the man must offer her some benefits to offset this. However, Symons also acknowledged (p. 261) that human beings do not necessarily care about these ultimate causes, and so the immediate psychological factors that lead people to treat sex as a medium of exchange require further explanation. A somewhat different explanation for why sex is a female resource can be deduced from motivational differences. Social exchange theory has featured the â€Å"principle of least interest† (Waller Hill, 1951). According to that principle, a party gains power by virtue of wanting a connection less than the other wants it. For example, Waller and Hill proposed that the person who is less in love has more power to shape and influence the relationship, because the one who is more in love will be more willing to make compromises and offer other inducements in order to keep the relationship going. If men want sex more than women, therefore, men would have to offer other benefits to persuade women to have sex, even if women desire and enjoy sex too. Is it plausible that men desire sex more than women? A literature review recently examined the question of gender differences in sex drive by comparing men and women on behavioral indices of sex drive (Baumeister, Catanese, Vohs, 2001). On every measure, men were found to display greater sexual motivation than women. Specifically, men think about sex more often, have more frequent fantasies, are more frequently aroused, desire sex more often (both early and late in relationships, and outside of relationships), desire a higher number of sex partners, masturbate more frequently, are less willing to forego sex and are less successful at celibacy (even when celibacy is supported by personal religious commitments), enjoy a greater variety of sexual practices, take more risks and expend more resources to obtain sex, initiate more goal directed behavior to get sex, refuse sex less often, commence sexual activity sooner after puberty, have more permissive and positive attitudes toward most sexual behaviors, are less prone to report a lack of sexual desire, and rate their sex drives as stronger than women. No findings indicated that women had a stronger sex drive than men on any measure. Although certainly there are some women with high sex drives and some men with relatively low ones, these are exceptions, and moreover these exceptional types do not appear to form mismatched couples very often. Byers and Lewis (1988) found that half the couples in their large sample disagreed about sex at least once a month, and without exception all of the disagreements involved the man wanting sexual activity while the woman did not. Likewise, a large sample of couples studied by McCabe (1987) found that the category of partnered individuals who wanted sex but were not having it (â€Å"reluctant virgins†) consisted almost entirely of men. Thus, the sexual negotiations of couples appear to center around the men’s efforts to induce the women to have sex, and not the reverse. The gender difference in sex drive applies both to new and established relationships. Therefore the principle of least interest might predict that men would continue to give resources for sex throughout the relationship. Within established relationships, however, the rules of exchange may be blurred by several factors. In modern marriage, for example, resources are generally jointly owned by both couples, and so the woman already technically has claim to all her husband’s resources. This limits what more he can offer her, thereby removing the basis for exchange or negotiation. Possibly her role is simply to give him enough sex to sustain the marriage. The exchange may also be concealed or complicated by other aspects of long-term marriage, such as declining sex appeal with aging, and the reduced freedom of both spouses to seek other partners and thereby ensure that they get full market value. A last perspective on why sex is a female resource would invoke the economic subjugation of women in society. In hunter-gatherer and subsistence farming societies, men and women already had separate roles and spheres of activity, both of which made vital contributions to survival. The development of a broader sphere of economic and political activity occurred mainly from the male sphere, however, and so as wealth and power were created in society, they were created by and owned by men, leaving women at a disadvantage (see Wood Eagly, 2002). Sex was one of the few resources women had with which to barter for access to these new, social resources (and the material resources that often depended on the social resources). The social exchange surrounding sex may therefore be especially associated with cultures and periods in which women lack avenues other than being a supplier of sex for obtaining material and social resources. The Local Sexual Marketplace Most theories of sex have acknowledged that local norms exist to guide behavior, and even that people are curious to learn about the sex acts of others as a way of learning what those norms are. The exchange theory endows those norms with much greater power and importance, however. One crucial feature of the social exchange analysis is that all the sexual activities within a community are loosely interconnected as part of a sexual marketplace. Sex is therefore not entirely a private matter between two consenting adults. Rather, sex becomes part of an economic system, just as the sale of a house is not purely a transaction between two parties but is tied in to the local economy and housing market. Stated this way, our analysis is compatible with recent dynamical systems approaches to gender differences in mate selection. A comprehensive paper emphasizing emergent social norms during mate selection (Kenrick, Li, Butner, 2003) noted that male and female mate selection does not occur in a vacuum but rather that men and women influence each other’s sexual choices. This reciprocal-influences approach is similar to our perspective, in which the local cultural marketplace influences the behavior of individuals, which in turn changes local norms and expectations, which cycle around again to influence individuals’ behavior. Hence in our model, the local culture and the individuals therein affect one another in a recursive fashion. The social exchange analysis emphasizes that sex is a female resource, so that men must offer women other resources in exchange for it. But how much? The price of sex (so to speak) may vary widely. In order to commence a sexual relationship with a particular woman, a man may have to offer her a fancy dinner, or a long series of compliments, or a month of respectful attention, or a lifetime promise to share all his wealth and earnings with her exclusively. This price is negotiated between the two individuals in the context of the prices that other, similar couples set. Sexual norms thus constitute a kind of local going rate as to the appropriate price for sex. Across cultures and across different historical periods, the going rate may vary widely. Within a given community, however, it probably varies much less. Market forces will tend to stabilize this rate within a community (but not necessarily across communities). To illustrate, suppose a particular woman demands too high a price for sex, such as if she refuses to have sex until the man has promised to marry her and has given her an engagement ring. Her suitor may abandon her and turn his attention to another woman – but only if other women in the community will offer sex at a significantly lower price. If all the woman in her community demand an engagement ring before giving sex, however, the man will be more likely to agree. A related prediction is that a low price of sex favors men, whereas a high price favors women. Therefore men will tend to support initiatives that lower the price of sex, whereas women will generally try to support a higher price. Ideologies of â€Å"free love† (that is, sex unaccompanied by any other obligations or exchanges) will appeal to men more than women. The price of sex is not restricted to money, of course. Our broad conceptualization of resources (as money, material gifts, respect, love, time, affection, or commitment) is consistent with arguments that women do not select their sex partners on the basis of material goods alone. A recent analysis (Miller, Putcha, Pederson, 2002) noted that during much of humans’ evolutionary history, people lived in small groups. Typically, a group of men brought back meat for the group and all the meat was shared. Miller et al. argued that this arrangement obscured individual hunting ability, and therefore women could not easily use gifts of material resources as a sign of long-term mate potential. With a broader conceptualization of resources, however, it would still be possible for a woman to detect the desirability of individual men within her community because she could see how much attention, affection, or time each gave to her. In short, we may regard a local sexual marketplace as a loose community in which men and women act as individual agents seeking to find an advantageous deal. Men will act like buyers who want to get good sex or plenty of sex without spending too much (in terms of time, effort, money, or commitment). Women will act like sellers who want to get a high price for their sexual favors. Each couple may negotiate its own price, but whether this price is a better deal for the man or for the woman depends on how it compares to the going rate within their community. Because much sexual activity is conducted in secret, there is likely to be considerable ambiguity about what the actual norms are. Another prediction is therefore that men and women will seek to convey different impressions. Men would be likely to try to create the impression that many couples are having sex at a low price. Women are more likely to emphasize that sex is unusual outside of serious, committed relationships. Male conversation may feature and exaggerate sexual activity, whereas female conversation should conceal and understate sex. Supply and Demand The laws of supply and demand can be substantiated in all sorts of marketplaces, and there is no reason that sex should be an exception. With sex, the female resource hypothesis depicts that women constitute the supply and men constitute the demand. Patterns of sexual activity should change drastically with the balance between supply and demand, such as the sex ratio. When the pool of eligible women (that is, young, unattached female adults) is much larger than the pool of eligible men, supply can be said to exceed demand. The price will therefore drop, which means that men will be able to obtain sex without giving or promising much in return. In contrast, a shortage of eligible women relative to men means that demand outstrips supply, and so the price is likely to be high. Thus, contrary to any simple view that power in the marketplace depends on having a majority, the price of sex will tend to favor the minority gender. More precisely, men will give women more resources for sex when men outnumber women than when women outnumber men. Another common result of shortages of desired goods is that low-cost substitutes become available. Prostitution and pornography may be regarded as low-cost substitutes for the preferred alternative of having sexual relations with a special, desired partner (e.g., Cott, 1977). The economics of the sexual marketplace would suggest that such low-cost alternatives will be targeted for men and to varying degrees will be welcomed by men. In contrast, women should generally oppose them as if they represent a threat to women generally — which they do, in an important sense. Put another way, why should a woman care whether men in her community purchase pornographic materials and masturbate? But if pornography satisfies some of the male demand for sex, then it may reduce the total demand for her own sexual favors, and as a result the price she can obtain will be lower. Assuming that most men would prefer to have sex with affectionate female partners (as opposed to prostitutes or by masturbating while watching pornography), the women in a community would potentially have a monopoly if they could band together to reduce competition among themselves. A rational economic strategy that many monopolies or cartels have pursued is to try to increase the price of their assets by artificially restricting the supply. With sex, this would entail having the women put pressure on each other to exercise sexual restraint and hold out for a high price (such as a commitment to marriage) before engaging in sex. Economic history suggests that such efforts, as in the case of OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) are only intermittently successful and may often be undermined as individuals seek to underbid each other. Still, monopolies are sometimes sufficiently successful that most developed nations have found it necessary to enact laws against them. It would therefore not be surprising that economic self-interest would occasionally drive women to work together to restrain the availability of sex.