sexual economics – RADIOACTIVE COOKIES https://www.radioactivecookies.com Go on, take a bite! Fri, 18 Mar 2016 20:23:08 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.5.3 108799538 Best Of RadCooks 2010 https://www.radioactivecookies.com/best-of-radcooks-2010/ https://www.radioactivecookies.com/best-of-radcooks-2010/#respond Thu, 30 Dec 2010 19:12:22 +0000 http://radioactivecookies.com/?p=2591 Continue reading Best Of RadCooks 2010 ]]> What a year it's been! 2010 was Radioactive Cookies' inaugural year and I think we did a pretty great job! Since it's inception on February 24, 2010, RadCooks has received almost 30,000 hits and I couldn't be happier! In honor of the New Year, we of course need to recap all the amazingness of 2010. So here's a best of list that'll make you laugh, cry and probably cringe. 5 Most Visited Posts 1. PHAT GIRLS: 25 Hot Full Figured Women In Hollywood: All you skinny bitches can move aside because 2010 was the year of the big girl! As a proud curvaceous woman myself, I am so happy that the chubby chasers of the world have made Phat Girls my #1 most visited post the year! 2. RadFem To Watch: Jaclyn Santos: Thanks to a Tweet from the RedFem herself, Jaclyn Santos, this post received 2nd honors! Thanks Jaclyn, we hope to see more of you in 2010! 3. HAPPY MILF DAY: 40 Hot Hollywood Moms: Mother's Day 2010 was my busiest day of the year. With the most posts I've ever done, I also received the most viewership. Shame on you all for reading my glob instead of spending quality time with your mommy! 4. THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE: A Look At Ass-To-Mouth Surgery: The Human Centipede, what can I say? Those of you that read this post along with honorable mention THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE Review I just want to let you know that you are all very sick and you are not alone! 5. VAJAZZLE With A "J" & VAGAZZLED aka Swarovski Pubes: Let's not forget my Vajazzled posts! The pair, tied for 5th place were some of my very first posts! Though I can't take all the credit, I have to give a shout out to Bryce Gruber who took one for the team and had her lady garden bedazzeled on camera! MissBleecker's Top 5 Posts 1. KATY PERRY: The Ironic Feminist: Who could forget my massive and incredibly late Katy Perry post? Not only was this one of my most extensive posts but it was also one of the funnest. Let's not forget it introduced Prof.PurplePants! 2. CHRISTINA AGUILERA'S "NOT MYSELF TONIGHT": A Lesson In Radical Feminism: One of my top rated posts, NMT was a great song that I felt was seriously underrated. And of course, I'll always have a spot in my heart and on my glob for my #1 girl Christina Aguilera! 3. AUTO-FELLATIO: Sampling Your Own Pancakes: Oh auto-fellatio, you almost made it into the top 5! What can I say, it was a simpler time when I could write about a man pleasuring himself orally, though I have heard of a slight demand for an autolingus post... 4. The No Makeup Week Series: A great week of my life was spent au natural for you good people. It was a really great experience and hopefully the first of more to come in personal experiments! 5. RadFem Of The Century: The Ho That Boned 13 Duke Athletes And Wrote A Thesis About It: How could we forget the Duke Fuck List author Karen Owen? This was your year girl, relish in it! 5 Posts You Didn't Read But Should 1. The Interactions With An Anonymous Stranger Who Will Remain Nameless Series: This series is a personal favorite of mine. With three volumes down, I hope to keep you updated on the awfully bad attempts made at yours truly. 2. The 2010 Oscar Predictions and Outcomes Posts: I really cannot believe that there were so few readers of my 2010 Oscar posts. Not only did I predict nearly all the winners (yeah, you could have cleaned up in your office pool) but I analyzed the Oscars through a feminist and political lens. Let's not have the same fate for Oscar Watch 2011! 3. MissBleecker Goes To Washington: I was on a bus for 10 hours in one day, I missed all of my friends, I wore cookies on my breasts, and I came home to keep the party going for Halloween as Ke$ha and you still didn't read my post?! 4. The Theory of Sexual Economics Pt. 1 & Pt. 2: I have to admit these posts were a bit off collar for RadCooks but interesting nonetheless. Check them out to see what personality type is your best match according to me! 5. “THE RUNAWAYS” REVIEW: Men, You Can’t Stomach This Kind Of Gore: Now I will admit, having seen The Runaways, it was not the best movie of the year, it wasn't the worst either. It just didn't get much recognition either way, as my review did. However, I attended a screening with Joan Jett and she had some insider scoop that any rock 'n roller would love to read! Well there you have it, the Best Of RadCooks Lists 2010! I hope you all had a great year! I can't wait for 2011, I'm sure it'll be as disastrous a year in pop culture as 2010 was!]]> https://www.radioactivecookies.com/best-of-radcooks-2010/feed/ 0 2591 AMERICA’S NEW CORN: The Theory Of Sexual Economics Pt 2 https://www.radioactivecookies.com/americas-new-corn-the-theory-of-sexual-economics-pt-2/ https://www.radioactivecookies.com/americas-new-corn-the-theory-of-sexual-economics-pt-2/#comments Wed, 28 Apr 2010 14:12:29 +0000 http://radioactivecookies.wordpress.com/?p=984 Continue reading AMERICA’S NEW CORN: The Theory Of Sexual Economics Pt 2 ]]> Well... here we are again. It seems I've been a tad negligent to one of my RadCooks categories. When I revamped this glob, I took it from only hypotheticals and expanded it to everything satirical and feminist. Sadly, I have forgotten my roots, and so I shall go back to them. I was looking through my favorite feminist blog, Jezebel and it came to me. I read an article that seemed to be about a lot of things: fembots, porn, oversexualized children, Heidi Montag, ect. And I thought to myself, I said, "Bleecker, you need to write about this, but you need to make it your own and you need to make it structured, or else you'll go on and on in the opening paragraph about nothing and no one wants to read that." Of course I'm not doing that now... And so I thought and a light bulb flicked on. Sexual Economics! Sounds beautiful doesn't it? Well it's a new theory I have and it goes a little something like this... Hypothetically speaking... do we produce sex because there is a demand for it, or is there a demand sex because it is mass produced? Sex is fast, cheap, easy and accessible. We churn it out on a daily basis in mass. But do we have the capacity to consume it at the level it's being produced, or is sex soon becoming the next corn? Advertising. We are told to buy and we comply. Psychologists, group studies... all show advertisers how to best market a product. Will a product sell, even if there is no demand for it? I think the Snuggie speaks volumes on that. What we, as a modern American society have created is a Sexual Equilibrium. Using the "supply and demand" model to determine a woman's sexuality we see that: Men demand x and so Women become y. As Men are the dominant factor in our society, no one can deny this, women have to conform to their requirements. Porn is a prime example of an overly sexualized product that is mass produced. But is a male's desire for certain sexual qualifications a byproduct of porn or is porn a byproduct of male fantasy? Has society, in trying to satisfy the demand, oversupplied? Is there a surplus of sex that needs to be liquidated? This would explain the schism between uber-feminists and fembots. Some women feel the need to counterbalance our overly sexualized society. Jezebel says,
...instead of freeing women, the sexualization of culture has trapped young women in a double-bind: they must appear to be liberated and independent, while working daily to please their men...''But certainly the young women I have spoken to … aren't at all confident in negotiating sex. They still feel as though they have to meet the boyfriend's needs first before their own," she said. It seems that this is what it comes down to: how are women supposed to navigate a world where sex is highly visible, but still shrouded in a certain level of unreality? How does one be "sexy" when the messages are so mixed? Toy and Dana show us one side, yet there is another: the so-called "new prudishness." ... Ada Calhoun noted the backlash against promiscuity. Since then, the sides have been drawn with many women falling into one camp or the other. It's as though we're unconsciously dividing ourselves into the old Madonna/Whore categories, leaving little room for nuance. Instead of choosing sides...
In Sexual Economics we will equate sex as the product, quantity for product in our society is high (ie fembots), price for product is low (porn is free.). Demand correlates to quantity and price so if quantity is high and price is low there is less of a demand for the product. A person's sexuality is the intersection of these factors. Just because demand is low does not mean people will stop buying, there is a market for sex, and as long as the cost is low there will be vultures who are willing to buy low, exploit and publicize it and then make a profit when the demand goes up. Demand goes up because fashions change and trends start, trends start by advertising, be it in the media or on your neighborhood block, the publicity of an item usually correlates to how popular it will be, thus increasing the demand. Therefore, if we examine sex through a supply and demand model we can conclude that if there is a high supply of sex and the cost of that supply is low then the demand must also be low. We can only conclude that there is a set amount of female sexuality desired by a male, however since every male is different the scale for sexuality is sliding and determined by the individual. The problem in generalized Sexual Economics arises when one tries to privatize sexuality and average the desire for it. The Jezebel article concludes, "But for now, at least we can all agree on this: There has got to be a better answer to the question what is woman? than what do men want?" Now I know I've been yammering on for almost 1,000 words about the idea of Sexual Economics (what the fuck is that? Stop making shit up Bleecker!) but I think it's a valid question to ask, do we want all this sex or is it just being jammed down out throats? Judging purely based on the traffic of my glob, the kinkier the post the more people view it. So I'm saying, yes, there is a clear desire for sex... just maybe not the type women are being told to buy or buy into... hypothetically speaking. Side note: Did anyone else just get that? Because if you did you might need to explain it to me. I wrote this while on an ego trip after reading the Jezebel article and then a Wikipedia article on supply and demand in economics. I have no place in the economic world, I should probably get back in the kitchen...]]>
https://www.radioactivecookies.com/americas-new-corn-the-theory-of-sexual-economics-pt-2/feed/ 1 984
You Love What You Lack (The Theory of Sexual Economics Pt 1) https://www.radioactivecookies.com/you-love-what-you-lack-the-theory-of-sexual-economics-pt-1/ https://www.radioactivecookies.com/you-love-what-you-lack-the-theory-of-sexual-economics-pt-1/#comments Sun, 25 Apr 2010 18:12:37 +0000 http://radioactivecookies.wordpress.com/?p=1046 Continue reading You Love What You Lack (The Theory of Sexual Economics Pt 1) ]]> I'm working on a theory (look for Sexual Economics in future glob posts) and this is going to provide some backing for it. What I am conjecturing is that a relationship will work best when all 4 of the above categories are being met. However, it does not matter who is meeting what category. Traditionally men are physical/dominant and women are emotional/submissive, but with our modern culture and society we've evolved beyond traditional archetypes. A woman can be physical/dominant or even emotional/dominant, or any number of combinations. Jump to find out what your personality type is and who you will work best with! How To Read The Chart Ignore the color of the boxes for now, those will come in later. Firstly, ask yourself how you relate to people, are you more dominant or submissive? This can be manifested in your family life, are you similar to your family or much different? If your personality varies from your nurture then you might be dominant. It can be how you relate to your circle of friends; do you plan a lot of events or go along with what everyone else wants to do? It can be how you relate to people at work and in a competitive setting; even if you are not the boss do you tend to throw out a lot of ideas or do you sit back and let other people do most of the talking? Whatever your answer to the first question is is your underlying personality type, if it is dominant your are masculine, if it is submissive you are feminine. Secondly, figure out how you express yourself, are you physical or emotional? This could be how you express your feelings, do you go to the gym to work out your problems or do you talk them out with whatever emotion you're feeling? Also, how do generally find yourself throughout most of the day; do you do more latent things like watching movies, looking at art, reading? Or do you enjoy more physical activities like sports, walking, or working with your hands? If you have a job that requires you to be inside but you ache to go outside and walk, then you are physical. How you express yourself also relies a lot on how you would want to express yourself in a perfect situation. Whatever the answer to the second question is is your overlying personality type, if it is physical you are masculine and if it is emotional you are feminine. Now you put both underlying/overlying personality types together, for example lets say you are dominant/emotional, the you are a masculine/feminine. It does not matter what your sex is, for the purpose of this personality chart we are using masculine and feminine to define traditional connotations of the word and not the gender/sex it connotes. What Does Each Personality Type Mean Feminine/Feminine - You will work best in a relationship with Masculine/Masculine. You are generally submissive with your non-sexual relationships, which carries over into your romantic engagements. You like to hear people's ideas, but don't feel the need to chime in all the time. You would rather watch a movie or go to a museum than go hiking or play sports. If you do work out it will probably be a less aggressive routine, along the lines of yoga, walking, light jogging or other light cardio routines. You get along best with those who dominate the conversation, give unique thoughts and like to plan events. You also get along with those who express themselves physically, ie those who enjoy sports, working with their hands and being outdoors. Masculine/Masculine - You will work best in a relationship with Feminine/Feminine. You are generally dominant when it comes to non-sexual relationships, which carries over into your romantic engagements. You like to speak up in meetings, you like your ideas to be heard, and you are a natural born leader. You would rather play a sport or go camping than read a book or look at art. If you work out you probably enjoy more rigorous routines like martial arts, swimming, running or rock-climbing. You get along best with listeners, those who, after you bring up a topic, can talk about it, but still stay on your idea. You also get along best with people who express themselves emotionally, ie watching movies, reading books, taking photos. Feminine/Masculine - You will work best in a relationship with Masculine/Feminine. You are generally submissive with your non-sexual relationships, which carries over into your romantic engagements. You like to hear people's ideas, but don't feel the need to chime in all the time. You would rather play a sport or go camping than read a book or look at art. If you work out you probably enjoy more rigorous routines like martial arts, swimming, running or rock-climbing. You get along best with those who dominate the conversation, give unique thoughts and like to plan events. You also get along best with people who express themselves emotionally, ie watching movies, reading books, taking photos. Masculine/Feminine - You will work best in a relationship with Feminine/Masculine. You are generally dominant when it comes to non-sexual relationships, which carries over into your romantic engagements. You like to speak up in meetings, you like your ideas to be heard, and you are a natural born leader. You would rather watch a movie or go to a museum than go hiking or play sports. If you do work out it will probably be a less aggressive routine, along the lines of yoga, walking, light jogging or other light cardio routines. You get along best with listeners, those who, after you bring up a topic, can talk about it, but still stay on your idea. You also get along with those who express themselves physically, ie those who enjoy sports, working with their hands and being outdoors. What I'm concluding is that in an ideal relationship all 4 personality traits: submissive, dominant, physical and emotional are being met. However, who is meeting what does not matter. What this creates is a relationship-equilibrium, an even give and take of qualities. Since I am saying that the scale is sliding, meaning the more dominant you are the less submissive you are going to be or the more dominant one person is the more submissive the other person will be. Obviously there are exceptions and some non-inclusive relationships might work, but this is the general rule. If say only 3 or ever 2 of the traits are being met there will be a power struggle over who dominates the overlapping trait(s). The best relationships are those in which both party's personalities are being complimented by one another.
]]>
https://www.radioactivecookies.com/you-love-what-you-lack-the-theory-of-sexual-economics-pt-1/feed/ 1 1046