>
>joanna bujes wrote:
>
> >Well, I'm a Miranda gal all the way. I must say, though, I found the
> >poll results very worrysome. I'm assuming a vote for fucking
> >Charlotte, is a vote for the attractions of prim virginity. Never
> >could understand that. But I'll defer to the male experts on this
> >list if I'm misinterpreting the Charlotte vote.
>
>They can only weigh in if they cite sufficient solid bourgeois scholarship.
>
>Doug
Don't know if University of Miami School of Business is bourgeois enough, but some work done by Michal Strahilevtiz, a few years back suggests that value escalates with unowned possession in men and with owned possession in women. That is that a man in possession of something will value it more if he doesn't own it, while the longer a woman owns it the more valuable it becomes. The experiment in question was rather short, ownership/possession periods of only 2 hours were enough to find significant gender effects.
The lit review of this work makes it relevant to the topic. Males rats in a maze, given a choice of ending up with a female rat with whom they have never mated and a female rat with whom they have already mated, will choose the new mate. This is the opposite of the typical female rat's response.
The other foundation for this , which embarrassed the author to even admit as much was a pop dating/relationship advice book for women "The Rules"
In this light, I don't think it is a stretch to say that male value of the virginal and never "owned" Charlotte would be higher than the more easily "owned" Samantha.