Speaking from a male perspective, I view status as an instrumental value for sex. You say in the comment below (above?) that a terminal value is so when you trade other values for it: do you see often men exchanging sex for status? I think status remains an instrumental value because underneath every calculation there’s the question: “If I do this, I’ll have access to more females”. Also I’m not surprised that as a female you’re not concerned with status (besides some very rare alpha females, aka queen bees, females don’t). So: a) I don’t value status --> meh, not surprising said from a female human (which usually competes for attention, not status) b) other people do value status terminally --> I doubt it, I think status is instrumental for sex c) I assumed they all value truth and understanding --> Haha, I pity you :p
A vow of celibacy is a way of trading sex → status. Ditto just committing to “no sex before marriage” or even just avoiding casual sex / polyamory / adultery.
A vow of celibacy is a way of trading sex → status
Yes, it is.
Ditto just committing to “no sex before marriage” or even just avoiding casual sex / polyamory / adultery.
That’s true only if you actually have liberal access to as much sex as you want, which usually is not the way most males perceive themselves. No sex before marriage is just a way to sacrifice a little of sex now to a (presumable) lot of sex later.
I suppose “no sex before marriage” really depends on culture. If the most reliable way to get ANY sex is such a commitment, then you’re probably right.
Outside of such a culture, though… well, the women with higher sex drives are presumably LESS likely to want to wait until marriage, so by waiting you both delay gratification AND probably end up with a partner who has below-average sex drive. AND you’ve made it more difficult for yourself to change partners.
Of course, whether the average male believes this to be true is another matter entirely :)
Suffice to say, if sex is a terminal value and you’re able to move cities, this is blatantly the incorrect strategy. So either “no sex before marriage” is used by people who don’t know better, or there’s some other factor that has a higher priority :)
I can’t think of any real gain to “no sex before marriage” beyond the status/reputation aspect, so I’d be forced to conclude that it is indeed an aspect of trading sex → status/reputation
“No sex before marriage” could make casual dating less expensive, meaning you’re more likely to find somebody more compatible with you. Polyamory is of course another solution, but is socially expensive.
“Polyamory is of course another solution, but is socially expensive.”
I’d think that would be an example of “trading status to gain sex”, so presumably the opposite is true of refusing this option. So we seem to be in agreement there at least...
Socially expensive, not financially expensive; it’s kind of theoretic either way, because if we posit a society in which “No sex before marriage” is the standard, we might as well posit a society in which polyamory is the standard, but in the case of such a society, there would be less resistance to casual dating.
a society in which “No sex before marriage” is the standard
That seems an unfair comparison, since, as far as I know, there actually ARE quite a few examples of that, both historically and currently. I’m not aware of anywhere near the same level of polyamory-as-standard (it generally seems to be polygamy or some other variant where high status earns you additional mates, rather than the “Bay Area” style of simply dating multiple people)
A vow of celibacy is a way of trading sex → status.
If it’s sincere, and you you don’t secretly change your mind later. Nepotism is what they called it when supposedly celibate church officials favored their secret children (whom they called their “nephews”).
Ditto just committing to “no sex before marriage” or even just avoiding casual sex / polyamory / adultery.
In those cases the status gives you access to sex partners who insist on a monogamous partner.
Speaking from a male perspective, I view status as an instrumental value for sex. You say in the comment below (above?) that a terminal value is so when you trade other values for it: do you see often men exchanging sex for status? I think status remains an instrumental value because underneath every calculation there’s the question: “If I do this, I’ll have access to more females”. Also I’m not surprised that as a female you’re not concerned with status (besides some very rare alpha females, aka queen bees, females don’t). So:
a) I don’t value status --> meh, not surprising said from a female human (which usually competes for attention, not status)
b) other people do value status terminally --> I doubt it, I think status is instrumental for sex
c) I assumed they all value truth and understanding --> Haha, I pity you :p
A vow of celibacy is a way of trading sex → status. Ditto just committing to “no sex before marriage” or even just avoiding casual sex / polyamory / adultery.
c) Yeah, I deserve that :)
Yes, it is.
That’s true only if you actually have liberal access to as much sex as you want, which usually is not the way most males perceive themselves. No sex before marriage is just a way to sacrifice a little of sex now to a (presumable) lot of sex later.
I suppose “no sex before marriage” really depends on culture. If the most reliable way to get ANY sex is such a commitment, then you’re probably right.
Outside of such a culture, though… well, the women with higher sex drives are presumably LESS likely to want to wait until marriage, so by waiting you both delay gratification AND probably end up with a partner who has below-average sex drive. AND you’ve made it more difficult for yourself to change partners.
Of course, whether the average male believes this to be true is another matter entirely :)
Suffice to say, if sex is a terminal value and you’re able to move cities, this is blatantly the incorrect strategy. So either “no sex before marriage” is used by people who don’t know better, or there’s some other factor that has a higher priority :)
I can’t think of any real gain to “no sex before marriage” beyond the status/reputation aspect, so I’d be forced to conclude that it is indeed an aspect of trading sex → status/reputation
“No sex before marriage” could make casual dating less expensive, meaning you’re more likely to find somebody more compatible with you. Polyamory is of course another solution, but is socially expensive.
Why would “not having sex” make dating cheaper?
I’d think that would be an example of “trading status to gain sex”, so presumably the opposite is true of refusing this option. So we seem to be in agreement there at least...
Socially expensive, not financially expensive; it’s kind of theoretic either way, because if we posit a society in which “No sex before marriage” is the standard, we might as well posit a society in which polyamory is the standard, but in the case of such a society, there would be less resistance to casual dating.
That seems an unfair comparison, since, as far as I know, there actually ARE quite a few examples of that, both historically and currently. I’m not aware of anywhere near the same level of polyamory-as-standard (it generally seems to be polygamy or some other variant where high status earns you additional mates, rather than the “Bay Area” style of simply dating multiple people)
A vow of celibacy is a way of trading sex → status.
If it’s sincere, and you you don’t secretly change your mind later. Nepotism is what they called it when supposedly celibate church officials favored their secret children (whom they called their “nephews”).
Ditto just committing to “no sex before marriage” or even just avoiding casual sex / polyamory / adultery.
In those cases the status gives you access to sex partners who insist on a monogamous partner.