Sexual economics: Price of sex hits all time low.

In today's volatile economic climate, there's one highly sought-after commodity that has apparently dropped in price to a record low: sex.

Yep, apparently women are giving up more easily, readily and eagerly than ever before, without expectations of commitment, dinners, relationships or even a second date.

"No wooing, dating, goofy text messaging," reported the New York Post in response to a new study on the price of sex, carried out by the University of Minnesota.
Advertisement: Story continues below

"Hooray!" yell the blokes in glee, concurring with the statistics.

"Yes, it's not hard to find a woman who will hop into bed with you on the first night," says Ben, 32.

"That's what I did on the weekend," nods Harriet, 35, in agreement. "Why should a guy have to buy me a drink? I want sex just as much as the next guy and if he's willing to go for it, why not? By the way, we've since been hanging out so it wasn't even such a bad decision after all."

It appears she's not alone. According to the study, 25 per cent of women nowadays are giving it up within the first week of dating.

And the men?

The study found that 30 per cent of young men are seeking relationships based purely on sex without commitment, emotional attachment, wooing, courtship or traditional dating values.

Blame it on the poor economy, or the availability of cheap sex, but it seems many women aren't exactly revelling in having to put out so cheaply, quickly and routinely.

So why are they doing it?

There are a multitude of reasons.

Firstly, everyone else is doing it. And when all your peers are sleeping with men in order to get a date, find love or attempt to fall into a relationship with them, other women feel the need to do the same to keep up. After all, apparently there just aren't enough men to go around.

As Ben tells me: "There's slutty behaviour in cities with an imbalance between men and women. But it also has a lot to do with culture. Women just don't place that much value on sex any more."

Supply and demand is something I've written about in this column before. There are more single women in the US, Australia and Britain than ever before, outnumbering single males.

Secondly, as culture (and my friend Harriet) dictate; women can be just as sexually empowered as men and therefore, if they want it, why not do it?

But here's the caveat: despite what society might tell us, the universal truth is that often while men want sex, women want love. And on closer inspection, it seems all this female bed-hopping is more to do about a woman's expectations than empowerment.

I'm not going to go into all the reasons as to why women struggle with this concept (oxytocin, hormones, expectations?) but we often talk in this column about what men want. True, men want sex while women want love. And yes, there are many women out there who then believe that, by giving a man sex, they'll gain love in return.

No such luck, or at least not most of the time.

So what else does a woman have to offer? Perhaps many should start looking at themselves, not just their sexual prowess.

A recent article in the Huffington Post stated the top five things that men actually do want from a woman, and surprise, surprise, it's not just the horizontal hanky panky they're all after.

Instead, says Nicole Forrester, a sports psychologist consultant, there are five (other) things men look for in a woman, including attraction (and that doesn't mean she needs to "look like a Barbie doll or an air-brushed model"); independence, fun, sanity, and support.

I adore the advice book by ex-pimp and author Big Boom whose title of his book says this: "If you want closure in your relationships, start with your legs".

Enough said?

Confessions of a Player

"Monogamy bores me terribly," intoned France's first lady Carla Bruni in an interview last year.

"Monogamy is making us miserable!" concurred a story in London's Telegraph more recently, which outlined the reasons for and against being with one person for the rest of your life, till death do you part.

Interestingly enough, the story spoke about those who have dabbled in open relationships, and those who have stuck firmly to their vows, despite how miserable they might get. The conclusion? Those who stuck it out for the long haul with just one person found greater happiness than those who decided that infidelity might make things more "exciting".
Advertisement: Story continues below

I used to think that it was men who struggled greatly with monogamy, but over the past few years statistics have revealed that women cheat just as much as men; they're just better at hiding it.

Nevertheless, when it comes to monogamy, an unofficial poll around my office revealed that, while most women can't wait to get hitched in holy matrimony for the rest of time (it's in our biological make-up to strive to do so), the men are shunning it for as long as possible.

And so men can. After all, with no biological clock to worry about and with time being on their side, why should they bow down to societal norms if they don't have to? Because, let's face it, the older a man gets, the better his stock price becomes.

A 35-year-old man can date women 10 years younger or 10 years older; it doesn't matter. Women on the other hand have it a little (OK, a lot) tougher. The older we get, the fewer options we seem to have.

I've studied men for almost a decade. And, still, the startling revelations of a candid player at the weekend had me stumped. All I could think of as he regaled me with stories of his sex life was … really? Is this really what goes on inside the mind of the average man?

As I sat at the dinner table with three such types - all single, all in their 30s, all going through women faster than they change their underwear - I had to ask the hard questions. And they were only too happy to answer them.

"So, what are your thoughts on monogamy?" I asked one.

"I don't really know. Maybe it's impossible. Because it's the same with every guy: whenever we look at a woman, all we think about is having sex with her.

"Every girl?" I asked, perplexed.

"Yes. Every guy has a thought about what the girl looks like naked. In fact, whenever a guy looks at a girl, usually all he thinks about is having sex with her. Every single guy. It's our testosterone talking. It's just the way it goes. From then on, it all depends on what she is going to have to offer."

The other men sitting at the table nodded in agreement. "Yep," they said. "That's correct."

"So then what happens?" I asked.

"Well, I test women," said the first guy. "I want someone who is going to be able to keep up with me. I want the mental stimulation. If there is a little hook that can bite, that is what is going to keep me interested. But most of the time there might not be anything. But I still just want to try, try, try. It's like a mission impossible: can I get her in the sack or not? The point of it is simply the conquest. To know that you have slept with her. It's that little thrill of chasing. If it's a tough nut to crack and if you manage to crack it, you know it's another experience you've dealt with. Then if another nut comes along that is even harder to crack, you've already learnt how to crack it."

"And then?"

"Once you do crack that nut, so to speak, you can get over it [her] pretty quickly. A lot of times it's that thrill of the chase and that little accomplishment that you're after. After that, sometimes you can want more but generally you don't. I'll either tell her that I'm not ready for anything serious or I'll just ignore the person. Sometimes it's like they never existed."

"What about the women? Surely after you've put in all that effort to woo them they would be really upset if you just stopped talking to them?"

"If they get upset because they say they liked you, then I think that she's just a sad girl. It takes a lot more to start to like someone properly. There's a long-term sort of thing; that's what getting to know what this person is really about. Sometimes you sense that there are some girls you might have to impress a little bit more … but you don't mind because there might be a conclusion. With others you couldn't be bothered to invest in any time, but you still try and just see if they're going to jump on the hook, and, if not, then you couldn't be bothered and move on to the next."

"So what are you looking for then?"

"I want to settle down, but at this point I don't feel the need to go out with someone to validate myself," piped up another man at the table. "I am not going to go out with just anyone. I'd rather be single and be my own person than be engaged in a relationship half-heartedly, otherwise I will cheat on them. It comes to the point where you realise you're wasting your time."

"I have an amazing girl," said the first guy as he was fiddling with his BlackBerry.

"Really? And can I ask how long it took you to sleep with her?"

"Oh we haven't slept together yet," he said. "I enjoy the mental stimulation she gives me. I don't even think about sleeping with her when I'm around her."

His BlackBerry suddenly beeped. "That's her now," he said. "Excuse me."

As he left the table to take her call, I began to wonder … is monogamy really that bad? Is it so boring? Or have we simply not met the right person who is going to make us want to wake up next to them every day for the rest of our lives? And will men ever really be able to stop looking at every woman like a conquest? Or, are we as a modern society, just doomed?

"Here's my advice for women," he said, returning to the table.

"Lay your cards out on the table with what you want. If a guy runs, he's simply not the right guy for you."

He added: "And women need to strive to have a life without a man. Because, once you find someone, it's not one life you live, it's three: your own, their own and your life together. And if you get the equation right, monogamy doesn't seem to bad after all."

Wise words from a player ...

It's not him... it's YOU

Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston are back in the news. This time Pitt has come out and called his ex-wife "dull", telling US magazine Parade that in his marriage he felt rather pathetic and spent his life with her sitting on the couch, smoking weed and hiding from the world. (He's since spent the past few days back-pedalling big time!)

While we've long wondered exactly why Pitt made such a hasty exit from the gorgeous Aniston (surely Angelina Jolie couldn't have been that convincing?), all this makes me wonder: who really is at fault when relationships go sour? The man in having too many expectations and not being able to be monogamous? Or the woman showing some startling behavioural traits that make a man want to run for the nearest exit and never look back?

Just in case you're wondering, here's a startling revelation: I don't believe all men are bastards. Seriously.
Advertisement: Story continues below

Yes, I've been cheated on, lied to, been given false hopes and been told that he's in love with me, only to discover he's been dating someone else all along. (True story.)

But if you're constantly finding yourself dumped by yet another man you've dubbed a "douchebag" who gives you a spurious reason (or no reason at all but, instead, simply decides one day to go MIA and then moves on without a word), then think about it this way … it might not be them, it might in fact be you.

Or at least that's the theory of Dr Michelle Callahan, TV host, psychologist and author of Ms. Typed: Stop Sabotaging Your Relationships and Find Dating Success.

"You may be sabotaging yourself with men and not even realising it," she writes.

She says there are eight types of female personalities that deter blokes from wanting to commit.

Reading through her list, I chuckled at some, was appalled by others, and definitely recognised all eight in the women who constantly whine and complain to me that all men are bastards.

The problem with being one of these women, says Callahan, is that Mr Right could easily pass you by.

"You could miss out on the man because he's ready for you but you're not ready for him. This could be the man you've been hoping and praying for but if you and your life are a mess, in his healthy state of mind he might decide to move on. Men aren't going to want to date you if you're a hot mess on the inside or the outside. So why not spend time when you're single working on being the best you can and resolving your own 'issues' so that, when he shows up, you're ready?"

The issues she describes in the book are below. My thoughts follow on each … What are yours?

Ms Second place: "She allows herself to be a low priority in a man's life."

True, men have work, mates, sports and their own independence to take care of. But when you're constantly being delegated to second place in his life, things aren't exactly so peaches and cream for you. I'm not quite sure why so many women decide that they'd be better off being in second place than having no man at all. Especially when there are plenty of men out there who will happily put you first. But heed a word of advice: no amount of nagging or cajoling is going to make him change his mind.

Ms Sex Machine: "She settles for physical intimacy when she really wants an emotional connection."

Recent stats came out from the University of Iowa saying that casual sex can indeed lead to something more meaningful and lasting.

Journalists the world over picked up the story in haste declaring that sex on the first date is back! That more women should break the rules! That we should live our lives according to how we want, rather than a set of stringent rules! Well, guess what? Sleeping with a dude before you've created a real connection can never go well. Women go crazy (thanks to oxytocin), the men get cocky ("I've had her … next!") and all goes to hell in a hand basket. I'm not advocating being a prude, but if you are not yet sure of his intentions, you better make damn well sure you find out before you hop into the sack with him.

Ms Soul Mate: "She so wants to be in love that she mistakes every date for 'the one'."

Ah, the soul mate searcher, also known as the "husband hunter", "boyfriend searcher" or "desperate singleton". Men complain to me about these types of women all too often.

"It's become a sport for these women," says one lothario. "I see them out at the bar: they're looking anxiously for their husband and it seems any man will do as long as they have a job and a credit card. It's not appealing at all. I worry about these women."

Ladies, what happened to getting to know someone? To working out whether or not he's good enough for you, rather than constantly trying to prove that you're good enough for him?

While societal pressures these days force women to believe that they must find a man urgently, settle down and have babies before it's too late, if you slow down to smell the roses and actually get to know yourself and the men you date before deciding they're "the one", you might be able to avoid all this "hunting" behaviour and actually snag a decent one.

Ms Drama Queen: "She only dates bad boys and unavailable men."

I've seen this behaviour, often stemming from deep-rooted father issues, being played out all too often. These women don't trust men and don't believe that there are any good ones out there.

Feeling "safe" in a relationship isn't an option. So they choose the baddest bloke of the bunch, believing that they deserve to be treated the way these men treat them because that's the only thing they know. Things inevitably spiral out of control and they find themselves dating yet another (often worse) bad boy who refuses to commit, is emotionally abusive and, worst of all, just doesn't give a shit.

Sounds charming, doesn't it?

Ms Mom: "She makes it a priority to fix her man's life instead of her own."


True, many women would love to "fix" their blokes. And yes, there are many women out there whom psychologists would dub innate "rescuers". Hence they go about finding a man with flaws so big they feel their mission in life is to fix them and then all will be right in the world and their relationship.

While there's nothing wrong with helping a man grow, change and advance, the trouble occurs when the man simply doesn't want to be fixed, and the woman's left feeling under-appreciated and worthless. The key here is to finding your own self worth elsewhere (preferably within) and attracting a man who already has his life together.

Ms Anaconda: "She's so needy, she suffocates every man she dates."


Almost 100 per cent of men I interview say the top turn-off in a woman is if she's needy. The only solution? Get a life, pronto.

Ms Independent: "She's been hurt before and won't let her guard down."

These are most single women I know. With the marriage age being delayed and more and more single girls out there than ever before attempting to navigate the sticky world of dating, we've seen more bad male behaviour than we'd care to have witnessed in a lifetime.

The only choice we've had? To become so independent that it doesn't matter whether he's there or not.

Somehow I don't think this personality trait is such a bad thing. In fact, the other day I saw Eva Longoria tell Ellen DeGeneres on her show that, after her divorce from Tony Parker, she learnt the most important lesson of all: modern women should never define themselves by a man.

"Women are socially constructed to put their identity with a man or their marriage," she said. "But it's important for women to have an identity without either."

Amen to that ...

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life/blogs/ask-sam/its-not-him-its-you-20110921-1kkfp.html#ixzz1YdaQo5DA

Mistresses speak out or should they keep quiet?

Mistresses are speaking out. And it's not pretty. But then again when sordid affairs, cheating, lies, deceit and sexual activities are involved, it makes for a heady concoction of drama and pain that inevitably goes sour.

Lately mistresses have been dominating the news, with Madison Ashton, the mistress of the late billionaire Richard Pratt, letting loose some startling revelations as she fights for part of his cash.

Then there's 2004 US Democratic vice-presidential nominee John Edwards's mistress, Rielle Hunter, who has recently demanded that his love child to her be present at his daughter's wedding – the daughter of his dead ex-wife.
Advertisement: Story continues below

Media attention aside, I'm not quite sure what these types women are thinking getting embroiled in these affairs: that they're in love with these men? That they can't do better? That they'll never be a priority in the bloke's life, so they might as well reconcile themselves to being second best … permanently?

The other night I saw a preview of a short film in the Manhattan Short Film Festival, which will start in Sydney on October 1. The film, titled Sexting, centres on the monologue of a woman (played by the gorgeous Julia Stiles) who is having a relationship with a married man.

With promises that he's going to divorce his wife never actually coming to fruition (do they ever??), Stiles's character decides to boldly go and confront her lover's wife in broad daylight.

Sitting opposite the woman at a coffee shop she tells her this:

"I've been to your place. I've slept in your bed. I thought you needed to know."

And she continues: "He told me he f---ing hates you and can't wait till it's over or she's dead." Ouch.

While we certainly gain a rarely seen insight into what the "other woman" is feeling, thinking and how she too is hurting over the whole sordid affair, I wonder if we should really be giving her - and other women in her position - any sympathy at all.

Surely she has a choice in the matter? Surely she realises that if this married man is cheating with her, one day he could be cheating on her with someone else?

For answers, I called the writer and director of Sexting, Neil Labute, and spoke to him from his home in Los Angeles.

He told me this: "I think to give sympathy to the mistress is a grey area. She has been led to believe one thing and has seen another. So she wants to get it out. I like the idea that you can give understanding to a person who has been mislead. It's not always so cut and dried. She's thinking, 'Hold on … I'm being f---ed around here too.'"

Yes, indeed she is. But, then again, does she not deserve to be?

A girlfriend of mine once had an affair with a married man, only she didn't know that he was married. Head over heels in love, she did think it was rather odd that he would see her only once a week, never answered her calls and never show her where he lived.

When she discovered he was married, she vowed never to speak to him again.

"Not only was I in pain over the fact that I was put second best, but I felt incredible guilt towards his wife," she told me. "No woman should have to be put in a position where another woman is calling another woman's man and having no idea about the trouble she's causing."

Why more mistresses don't feel this type of loyalty to their sisters (isn't rule 101 "thou shalt not sleep with another woman's husband?") is beyond me. Of course the men are to blame too, with all their false promises and fake declarations of love that draw these women in, only to see themselves spat out when the bloke in question has had enough.

I'm sure there are certain perks to being the "other woman". Especially when money, sex and promises of a future are given.

But surely these women are smart enough to know that it's not going to end well, ever ...? And when the ending does come along, shouldn't they keep mum rather than attempting to exact revenge on the dude if they knew what they were getting themselves into in the first place?

What do you think?

What do single people do at 40 and over?

Works too hard. Won't compromise. Commitment-phobic. Cancels plans. Forgets plans. Doesn't call back. Sigh. While it seems we're often preoccupied in his column with naming and debating the myriad douchebag behavioural traits of men – lying, cheating, sexting other women or, worse, not texting you – lately I've come across a possible reason behind all this anti-male malice: it's not him, it's his age.
"He's too young!" cried a singleton recently to me after meeting the man of her dreams, only to discover (post hook-up) that he was 10 years younger. When she told him she was only five years his senior, he responded with, "Yeouch, you're really old!" Little did he know …
Nevertheless, he proceeded to court her for the next few weeks. That's because (generally speaking here) younger men love the chase. Everything is fresh, new and exciting. Women are unknown to them. No one has broken their hearts just yet. Hence, they're romantic, thoughtful, endearing, excited, filled with energy and brimming with ideas on how to please her.

Advertisement: Story continues below

"So what if it can't go anywhere?" said the female singleton, fielding yet another text message from him begging for a date. "It's refreshing. Much better than all these old guys who are so set in their ways that there's hardly room for you in their lives, let alone a full-time girlfriend."
It's a universally acknowledged truth that age does matter. And, while socially acceptable age gaps have widened in recent times (thanks in part to the likes of Demi Moore, Madonna and Samantha Jones), I've begun to notice a strange pattern emerging: when it comes to the dating game, older men are increasingly the problem.
For years women have thought that if they met and impressed an older, wiser, established, secure bloke, he'd be mature enough to know what he wanted when he saw it, get down on one knee, pop the question and be done with all the dating hoo-ha.
No such luck.
"But I thought because he's older and has his shit together, he would propose!" complained one woman who recently found herself single after dating a man aged 47. (She's 34.)
Unfortunately the answer was a resounding no. Not only was he quick to shag her, introduce her to his daughter and tell her she was "the one", but he was even quicker to dump her before swiftly moving on to the next.
Take a look at Simon Cowell, who at 51, has allegedly just kicked out his fiancée and sent her to live in his other property, nicknamed the "girlfriend graveyard" – a place where all his exes wind up just before they're given the flick … for good.
Then there's perpetual bachelor George Clooney, who swaps his girlfriends more often than most men change their underwear, never stopping to think that, by 50, he might want to stick with just one. Oh no.
After dumping Italian actress Elisabetta Canalis, Clooney has now moved on to former wrestler Stacy Kiebler. (If I were her, I wouldn't be fobbing off other dates any time soon.)
In my quest to discover the reason behind the delayed marriage age (men are now marrying at an average age of 31.5 according to the ABS), I've discovered that the older a man gets, the less likely he is to commit … ever. And by the time he reaches 40? It's near to impossible. So at 50, I'm not quite sure what the women who date these men are thinking. That they'll change them? Be the ones these men will finally commit to?
Author Dr John T. Molloy of Why Men Marry Some Women and Not Others concurs the reason some men don't marry is definitely due to their age.
Based on the 3000 interviews of married couples that he conducted for the book, he discovered that, after men reach the age of 37 or 38, the chances that they'll ever commit drops dramatically. After 43, it drops even more, rendering the hope of marrying a bloke this age almost hopeless.
Carl Weisman concurs. Author of the book So Why Have You Never Been Married? 10 Insights Into Why He Hasn't Wed, he surveyed 1533 single men aged 40 plus, and discovered that men over 40 have more fears about getting hitched than their younger counterparts. Fears of not having enough money, divorce and choosing the wrong woman were among the top 10 reasons they hadn't wanted to tie the knot.
Age makes women desperate to "settle"  
What I found fascinating from my research was the colossal disparity between how the men and women think of the same situation. Paradoxically, age makes women more clucky, clingy, desperate and downright determined to tie the knot.
Evidenced by Lori Gottlieb's vehement cry of "Marry Him!" in a piece she wrote for The Atlantic, (and in her subsequent book of the same name), she writes that "every woman I know - no matter how successful and ambitious, how financially and emotionally secure - feels panic, occasionally coupled with desperation, if she hits 30 and finds herself unmarried". Thirty. Hit 40 and I'm pretty sure things get even worse for the fairer sex and their marital ambitions.
Gottlieb's advice? Quit waiting around for Mr Perfect.
She writes: "Don't worry about passion or intense connection. Don't nix a guy based on his annoying habit of yelling 'Bravo!' in movie theatres. Overlook his halitosis or abysmal sense of aesthetics. Because, if you want to have the infrastructure in place to have a family, settling is the way to go."
And it seems Molloy concurs, telling women this: "Consider unpolished jewels, men who are just as nice, intelligent, hard-working, and successful, but lack looks, height or social skills."
Or, as my single girlfriend from the beginning of this piece would say: "Pick a younger dude instead ... "

The Internet is no substitute for the dying Newspaper Industry

"The old newspaper model is dying. Period. Done." So opines one of the commentators in a new documentary, Page One: Inside The New York Times, that I saw the preview of the other night.
The filmmakers spent a year doing their research behind the scenes at the Times media desk.
Yet it's clear that, while the old newspaper commercial model might be broken, modern mainstream media companies are far from dead.

Advertisement: Story continues below

At the heart of this riveting documentary, directed by Andrew Rossi, is former crack addict and single father turned New York Times media columnist David Carr. With his passion for the newspaper and the sardonic tone in which he talks about its power, reach and relevance, he puts the new-media heavyweights in their place.
He rendered Newser.com's Michael Wolff speechless during an Intelligence Squared debate on the merits of mainstream newspapers when he printed off the website's front page, cut out every story based on a mainstream news source and showed the audience a piece of paper filled with holes.
He won the debate, proving that online social media news sites such as Wolff's would be nothing if they could not continually source their material from mainstream newspapers.
Carr nevertheless admits that being at a newspaper is not an easy place to be right now.
"For those of us who work in media, life is a drumbeat of goodbye speeches with sheet cakes and cheap sparkling wine," he says, referring to the layoffs and regular downsizing that have come to be commonplace at The New York Times.
A debate about whether online will surpass print news has been raging for a decade.
Yet, while we've seen (and survived) one of the worst crises in journalism ever, the mainstream newspapers and their websites still garner the most readers. Twenty million newspapers are still sold in Australia every week, while The New York Times website, which has been running since 1996, generates 30 million unique visitors a month.
I've loved journalism since I can remember. Straight out of university, I got into the industry because I wanted to report on issues, events and news that affect humanity.
I worked at various Australian news outlets until after the tragedy of September 11, when I believed there was no better place to be reporting about the world than right in the centre of it all: New York City.
While living, studying and working as an intern at the Fox News Channel, I would read The Sydney Morning Herald online every single day – it was the only way I felt I could be in touch with what was going on back home.
On my return, I became obsessed with writing for the website. To me, it was not only the future of journalism, but the way my generation would digest, discuss and debate the news.
When I started in 2006, there were only a handful of blogs. Nowadays, there are almost 50.
After a few months of writing online for The Sydney Morning Herald, people would gawk and glare when I told them what I did.
"You're a blogger?!” they'd scoff.
Nowadays, it's a very different story. People marvel that it's my job to generate online content. "You're lucky. You're paid to do what so many people do anyway for free," they say.
It's hard to ignore the fact that perhaps the traditional commercial model of newspapers is indeed dying.
But it's even harder to argue against the fact that our main news is still generated by traditional news-gathering institutions and that they attract a greater readership than ever before.
They are the ones that have the power to get stories written in war-torn countries, to carry out in-depth investigative pieces, to break the big stories and still hold the power to change the face of everything from politics to war to the movies people go to see.
And, as the documentary denotes, these are also the very stories that fuel the world of social media. While social media sites and other news sources might be quick on the mark, many of their stories are either rehashed from mainstream newspapers or commentary and opinion based on those stories.
There's no doubt that the advent of WikiLeaks, Twitter and the iPad have changed the way we read the news, what we digest and when we digest it.
But there's also no doubt that, when news breaks, those in my generation might see it first on Twitter or Facebook, but will go straight to The Sydney Morning Herald, The New York Times or The Guardian websites to get the facts and the bigger picture.
To me, newspapers aren't dying, they're evolving. There is also no doubt that journalism is essential and that mainstream media companies are the best outlets to provide the news. And without the journalists who hail from this newspaper and those like it, we would be lost.
The new question is how to pay for it.
But as Carr says in the film, put an end to mainstream newspapers and "see what Facebook turns up? ... I don't think so."

The power of Erotic Capital

Flirt your way to the top? Use your sexual prowess to get ahead in the workplace? Seriously?
Well, at least that's the theory of a senior lecturer at the London School of Economics, sociologist Catherine Hakim, author of the new book Honey Money: The Power of Erotic Capital. 
Apparently, if women want to take on the male-dominated workplace, all they need to do is wield their sexual prowess, be aware of the male "sex deficit", use their "erotic capital" and, voila! They can easily get what they want, as long as they realise that it's their looks, beauty and sexuality that will get them there.

Advertisement: Story continues below

At my first glance of the book, I wondered what the heck the author is on about.
Let's look at her first made-up term: the "male sex deficit".
The premise of this concept is based on the theory that men's desire for sex is greater than women's. And that, because they have wanted it for so long, and it's up to the women to hand it over, the women hold all the power. "As popular wisdom already knows, men never get enough sex," she writes.
Which brings us to the next term she's coined: "erotic capital".
Against everything that a modern feminist would stand for, Hakim defines this as "a nebulous but crucial combination of beauty, sex appeal, skills of self-presentation and social skills", which she reckons should be employed in the workplace to get what a woman wants. 
She also argues that women have been ignoring their erotic capital for so long because of the patriarchal ideologies that have "systematically trivialised women's erotic capital to discourage women from capitalising on it – at men's expense".
So men have prevented women from being too sexy? I think not. But (as Hakim argues) it's one of the few places in life where women have a big advantage over men, so why not use it?
Argh.
Working in a male-dominated environment is never easy. But using your sexuality to get where you want to go? Now that's just ludicrous. Surely we haven't come this far to listen to such feeble advice?
Her argument is that we should champion female sexuality rather than abolish or ignore it. And while I'm all for a little cleavage or some leg in the right context (on a date, in a club, at the races), when it comes to the workplace, we haven't come this far to revert to a Mad Men-style sense of a lack of self worth whereby the only way to get ahead is to manipulate men with our sexuality ...
Sure, looks matter. And yes, she might have a point that attractive people (mainly men) get better jobs, secure higher wages and become the President of the United States.
But right now, when we're still fighting for equal wages, gender equality and the end of sexualisation of women, I'm not sure there's a place for Hakim's erotic capital hypothesis after all ...

What do women want? Sex with a "cad". To marry a "dad"

What do women want? In an attempt to discover the answer to the perpetual question, I've been doing some investigating.
And this is what I've discovered: women want a man who works hard, but makes her his priority. Has a nice car, but isn’t a try-hard. Acts manly, but has a feminine side. Isn’t afraid to moisturise, but not too much. Isn't afraid to cry, but only once a year. Wears skinny jeans, occasionally.
He doesn’t mind watching Glee, but doesn’t watch it more than she does. Is older and wiser, but not so set in his ways that he isn't willing to compromise.

Advertisement: Story continues below

He knows where the vacuum cleaner is, and uses it often. Knows where the clitoris is, but won't attempt to go there till she’s ready.
Whew. Confusing, isn't it?
So much so, that researchers at the University of British Columbia decided to work out (scientifically) exactly what the heck women want. Hence they polled more than 1000 people to find out just what was going on inside the female brain.
What they discovered was that women are more sexually attracted to "brooding" men than to those who are smiling, happy and seem genuinely sweet and kind.
Which led the researchers to conclude that women are indeed more attracted to bad boys.
(The opposite was true of women: the study found that men prefer smiling, nice women; so, nice ladies, you're safe!)
"It's their charisma," one bad-boy aficionado explains it.
"It's their charm," says another. "They don't have to be super good looking. But they know how to charm the pants off you … literally."
Still, all this had me a little flummoxed.
The Bad Boy Syndrome is one that has long been questioned, probed, analysed and attempted to be emulated by the nice guys who just can't seem to get a sexual break.
Personally, I've never understood the big bad boy appeal. Give me a geeky, sweet, romantic dude over a foul-mouthed, rugged bad boy any day.
Putting Darwinian mate selection theories aside, shouldn't one be attracted only to someone who treats you well, likes you back, isn't dating half the city and actually puts you as a priority? Who smiles a lot, is happy, makes you laugh and doesn't have permanent PMS?
In fact, all this bad-boy scientific research sounded a little bogus to me and, in my extensive research into this matter, I have come to the conclusion that, despite what evolutionary psychologists claim (that women will genetically be attracted to certain "genes" displayed by the bad blokes which suggest they will be good providers and protectors of their future families), I'm not so sure.
Neither were the folks at the University of Michigan, who decided to find out what type of man a woman would want in a long-term partner, rather than just based on initial sexual attraction.
In their study, titled "Dads vs cads", the researchers concluded this:
"For long-term relationships, women like dads - men who are kind, compassionate and monogamous. But for short-term relationships, women prefer cads - the classic Romantic dark heroes who are dominant, promiscuous and daring."
One researcher, a social psychologist named Daniel Kruger, said the study found this:
"About 60 per cent of the women said they would prefer to have sex with a cad when considering a brief affair."
So, nice guys, perhaps there is hope for you yet. As long as you're after more than just a one-night stand ...

Things women should know

While the results might shock, astound, surprise or have you nodding your head in agreement, I did learn a few things that I think all single women can benefit from ... 
Do not have a 'friend with benefits'
Aside from what the men said they think of this arrangement, ("Free sex! No strings attached! Hooray!"), Rutgers University has finally proved what we've long suspected: women fall in love after having sex.

Advertisement: Story continues below

Call it the "orgasm curse" if you will, but if you think you can handle a "friends with benefits" situation, ladies, think again. The researchers discovered that oxytocin will inevitably ruin your ability to think rationally about the person you've just bonked, whether he's a douchebag or not. Which means that, unless you're willing to get your heart broken (or you've really taken the time to get to know him), don't do it.
Justin Timberlake's character in the film Friends with Benefits expresses the same sentiment as many of the blokes I surveyed: sex is more like playing a game of tennis than a declaration of a true-love, soul-mate connection.
And (spoiler-alert!), just because JT got over his commitment-phobia, does not mean that by bonking a man silly, he might come around and actually ask you on a date.
Don't say I didn't warn you ...

If he bolted after sex, it wasn't your fault
Whether you make him wait five minutes or five weeks, when there's one thing on a man's mind, he's going to do everything to get it. And once he gets it, he's going to bolt regardless of the standards or timeline you set him.
Unfortunately, there's no way to tell the different between a five-minute bolter or a five-date bolter when you first meet them. Especially since both types pretend to really, really like you at the time.
"If I'm only after one thing with a girl, if she offers it up, I'm going to take it, and not exactly treat her like a girlfriend right afterwards," said one man I surveyed.
Blokes have smartened up. (Or at least the players among them.) They know what to say, do and buy to get you into bed as quickly and as cheaply as possible, without a thought about it afterwards.
Also if he does bolt, and you're left scratching your head wondering why the heck this has happened to you yet again, remember that you are not the first (or the last) woman he's going to do it to.
It's not you, it's him, seriously.

Do not text or call him incessantly, especially after sex
When I asked the men what makes them dump their new girlfriends, many told me it was because the women were simply too needy, clingy and communicative.
"What makes a woman seem needy?" I asked one in a follow-up email.
"She would send me like five texts a day," he said.
While five texts a day might seem like nothing to some women, to men it reeks of desperation and makes them feel as though you're cramping their style.
"A woman who gives me my freedom is a woman worth committing to, eventually," responded another.

Men get moody … and it's not your fault
"What makes you so moody?" I asked the gents. And I discovered that it was this:
When things don't go their way at work or in the sharemarket, they might come home in a foul mood. They might not want to talk to you, or talk at all.
The solution? Don't badger them. Many men define themselves by their careers, money-making ability and financial success. If they feel they might not be able to provide for you, or the future of their family, they will go quiet as they try to figure out a way to do it.
Let them stew in their man caves over their conundrums for as long as they need to.

If he isn't financially stable, don't expect him to propose
So many women whine to me about how desperately they want their boyfriend to propose. When I ask the gents why they won't do it, their answers are surprisingly similar.
"I want to make money first," said one, who dumped his girlfriend of two years because he said they wanted different things. "She wanted marriage, I wanted to make more money first."
Another wrote: "Until I had completely settled into my new job and put a deposit on a house, there was no way in hell I was even thinking about marriage."
The sentiment expressed among so many I interviewed was often the same: work, career and stability come first, a girlfriend comes second, marriage... a distant third.

If he is not chasing you, he doesn't like you enough
Even the shy ones admitted they WILL chase a girl they like. Seriously.
So ladies, if he's not chasing you, then ignore him. Stop trying to get his attention. Move on. Have a life. If he likes you enough, he'll eventually make the effort. Otherwise you're just wasting your time. I know this because the men have told me. And they laugh at us with their mates when we try to sway their opinion ...

The rise of the retrosexual man

Modern men are going under the knife, metaphorically speaking.
I'm not talking about Shane Warne's apparent new penchant for cosmetic enhancements, (which have been denied, although his new look warrants an entirely different debate: should men change their appearance to impress their hot, new girlfriends?)
Nor am I talking about the recent spate of famous blokes and their sordid affairs putting them on the witness stand (another topic worthy of debate on another day), nor even the growing number of men opting to rid themselves of their spare tyres or man boobs.

Advertisement: Story continues below

Instead, I'm talking about the fact that another weekend has gone by, and still more women are complaining to me about the state of the modern man.
"Where are all the real men?" one asked, after attending the opening of a pub over the weekend.
She continued: "All the men were in singlets, skinny jeans and colourful sneakers. Where are the masculine men?"
I don't think there's anything wrong with the state of the modern bloke. They still fix your light bulbs, help you with your book research, change your tyres and carry your grocery bags. They buy you drinks at the bar, tell you the score of the game, help you with the bench press at the gym, tell you when you're wearing too much make-up (or not enough), fix your computer and actually offer solutions to your emotional problems (not just listen to them).
Sure, they get moody when things don't go their way. And so what if they wear skinny jeans, colourful shoes, pink shirts, look in the mirror more than I do, refuse to eat carbs, are afraid of commitment and forget to put the toilet seat down? Does it really matter all that much?
I'm not exactly sure.
So you can imagine my surprise when I came upon not one, but two, modern guides aiming to tell modern men how to be, well, more like men.
The first is by former Esquire editor Marty Beckerman, whose new tome The Heming-Way, says modern men know nothing about the "legendary brand of rugged, alcoholic masculinity" that author Ernest Hemingway embodied more than 50 years ago, and encourages men to go back to their booze-imbibing, animal-slaughtering, hairy-chested roots.
Beckerman's teachings include the injunctions that men should always eat meat ("a meal without meat is like sex without an orgasm"), drink only hard liquor and say farewell to smooth arms and backs in favour of a more hairy derriere. (I thought the Manzilian was in?)
Then there's the proffering of GQ magazine's "Style Guy" Glenn O'Brien in his book How to Be a Man. O'Brien says that being a man is less about the amount of one's hair on one's nads and more about etiquette, politeness, fashion and manners.
In his guide (which by the way is endorsed by both supermodel Kate Moss and clothing designer Tom Ford), he advises blokes to ditch the flip flops, baseball caps, skiing clothes and any major sporting league merchandise for a more refined look. (I'm not quite sure how Aussie males will respond to that!)
In case that wasn't enough guidance, a recent Esquire magazine article lists the attributes that are apparently required to be a real man.
They include the following: real men should always carry cash, be able to cook eggs, rebuild things, fantasise about kung fu, know how to sneak a look at cleavage and not care if they get busted once in a while, not point out that they did the dishes and never drink Sauvignon blanc.
Hmm.
While all these points might be valid in some circles, I think most women wouldn't give a toss about how a man dresses, what shoes he wears (seriously), what wine he drinks and whether or not he's a vegetarian.
In fact, I think all the authors might have it slightly wrong.
The other day, on Channel Seven's Weekend Sunrise with my colleague Sam de Brito, who told the hosts that he believed a real man was someone who kept to his word.
I thought about it after the show, and I think he's right.
I also think that the key to being a modern man is to make a proper effort to understand women, not be afraid to share your true feelings, thoughts and emotions, and, for god sake, to tell us when something is upsetting you so that at least we know how to help you fix it.
But above all, I think there's one thing modern men could do more: practise being gentlemen. While the men I've described at the beginning of the article certainly embody the attributes of a true gentleman, the stories I've heard from the dating trenches indicates to me that these sorts of men are few and far between.
All that being said, I'm rather glad that these new guides don't focus on picking up women in bars or playing head games or teaching men how to deliver the perfect pick-up line. If all that's wrong with the modern male is his choice of attire, I think you blokes might not be doing too badly after all ...