I'd add, I think there are "communities" (not geographies, but social groups) in which a lot of this holds true, and echoes through society (sex sells) but as a heterosexual male in his 40s, the "women are the suppliers, men are the demanders" narrative is not my experience outside of shallow situations (even if it can be a shallow characterization of, say, the dance floor at a bar)
Is that a direct quote? I got a very different impression from the article. It seems they are looking more at a societal level. The women can still be exchanging sex for resources, even if they are the ones desiring sex. For example, it's common for a woman to flirt to have a man buy her a drink, pay for the uber, etc. So while they ultimately want sex, they know they can get sex plus some other resources.
Obviously this can even be the inverse in individual interactions, as their chart eludes to for what lowers or raises the price (age, attractiveness, etc). Just as their statement about there being no value to male sexual favors is only true at the societal level (maybe not even then) and not the more granular one.
>The theory treated sex as a valued good for which there is a marketplace in which women act as sellers and men as buyers. The initiation of a sexual relationship corresponds to a transaction in which men offer women other resources in exchange for sex. Those resources correspond to the price of sex [...]
>The analysis of sexual interactions as social exchange, with sex itself as a female resource, appears capable of supporting a broad range of testable predictions. It is also a potentially useful link between nature and culture
In India many places still have the dowry system. When two people get married, the girls father gives money, gold and land to the new family. If the guy is a software engineer this can be worth $100k-$200k !
It's supposed to be illegal, but very common.
Are the women you're basing this on also in their 40s? Or even 30s?
The dynamic changes a lot with age. Women in this age bracket - especially if they want kids - are of course not in a position to be nearly as selective as they were able in their early 20s.
> as a heterosexual male in his 40s, the "women are the suppliers, men are the demanders" narrative is not my experience
Is it that you no longer demand sex because you're over 40, or women are demanding more? I suspect in any case the women are interested in more than just sex most of the time, unlike many men.
I don't mean that women want children, but that they are seeking longer term romance/companionship/etc over just sex, more so than men are, in many situations.
This is "common knowledge", yes. But what does it derive from, and what is the purpose of opposite sex romance/companionship exactly if the children are out of question?
I think that highly depends on whether you are in the top 20% of males when it comes to attractiveness or not. The top 20% of males can pick and choose. The rest not so much.
Also, apparently the male to female ratio on online dating sites (in the west) is 100 to 1. Evidence that access to woman is a limited resource in high demand.
Is it out of touch, and is it being sexist a bad thing? It seems a major point of it is to illuminate the sexist treatment and double standards. I would have liked to have seen more in depth analysis about how these notions affect the outcomes of divorce.
>Perhaps the most interesting question to emerge from the review process for this article was why, if the economic analysis is correct, people are reluctant to acknowledge the exchange processes overtly? This reluctance extends from the refusal of dating partners to talk specifically about how much the man should spend to have how much sex, to the low prestige accorded prostitutes (who explicitly trade sex for money) in nearly all cultures, and even to any widespread reluctance to entertain the theory and analysis we have proposed. Even the most obvious examples are concealed: For example, these days most single people are aware of a supposed obligation that a wedding engagement should be marked by the man giving the woman a ring costing 2 months’ worth of his salary, with no corresponding gift from her to him. Believers in gender equality are rightly offended by this practice, but in our
view it simply indicates tacit acceptance that underlying all the fancy rhetoric about liberation and equality, the man is still essentially paying for sexual access. No one wants to acknowledge this, however.
Of course not. If this is how relationships were commonly portrayed (specially in mass media), what would the consequences be? How many more men would be demotivated, and quit? How many construction workers and so many other insanely important and usually dangerous professions are occupied almost entirely by men desperate to financially support their family? I like electricity and running water, I don't challenge the status quo unless I have a reasonable alternative.
Thinking about this subject as a market helps explain why males who have sex with a lot of woman are called “studs” by other men. And why females who have sex with a lot of males are called “cheap” (and worse) by other woman.
I found this quote interesting in the 2022 context of explosive growth in OnlyFans as a side hustle:
However, at the low end of the economic spectrum, many women had to turn to prostitution at some point. Bullough and Bullough (1998) reviewed multiple historical studies that calculated that between 5% and 15% of women in late 19th or early 20th century urban centers engaged in prostitution at some point in their lives. This is a shockingly high figure by modern standards. Evidence suggests that most of these women were not full-time regular prostitutes. More typically, perhaps, they had low-paying office or factory jobs or worked as domestic servants, and they would occasionally supplement their meager incomes by having sex for money.
Nothing shocking about it really. Woman have the option to do it. Heterosexual men usually don’t. So woman who choose not to do it are not worse off than low income men in the same situation. In other words, woman have the advantage of having a choice and some choose to take advantage of it. Good for them. If they find it to be a better choice than working in a soul destroying Amazon warehouse or low income foot joint why not?
24 comments
[ 4.0 ms ] story [ 62.2 ms ] threadI'd add, I think there are "communities" (not geographies, but social groups) in which a lot of this holds true, and echoes through society (sex sells) but as a heterosexual male in his 40s, the "women are the suppliers, men are the demanders" narrative is not my experience outside of shallow situations (even if it can be a shallow characterization of, say, the dance floor at a bar)
Is that a direct quote? I got a very different impression from the article. It seems they are looking more at a societal level. The women can still be exchanging sex for resources, even if they are the ones desiring sex. For example, it's common for a woman to flirt to have a man buy her a drink, pay for the uber, etc. So while they ultimately want sex, they know they can get sex plus some other resources.
Obviously this can even be the inverse in individual interactions, as their chart eludes to for what lowers or raises the price (age, attractiveness, etc). Just as their statement about there being no value to male sexual favors is only true at the societal level (maybe not even then) and not the more granular one.
>The analysis of sexual interactions as social exchange, with sex itself as a female resource, appears capable of supporting a broad range of testable predictions. It is also a potentially useful link between nature and culture
The paper is purely theoretical and not based on any empirical data. So wild claims and exploratory discussion are par for the course.
The dynamic changes a lot with age. Women in this age bracket - especially if they want kids - are of course not in a position to be nearly as selective as they were able in their early 20s.
Is it that you no longer demand sex because you're over 40, or women are demanding more? I suspect in any case the women are interested in more than just sex most of the time, unlike many men.
IMHO this is overstated considering the rise of the childfree "movement".
Also, apparently the male to female ratio on online dating sites (in the west) is 100 to 1. Evidence that access to woman is a limited resource in high demand.
Of course not. If this is how relationships were commonly portrayed (specially in mass media), what would the consequences be? How many more men would be demotivated, and quit? How many construction workers and so many other insanely important and usually dangerous professions are occupied almost entirely by men desperate to financially support their family? I like electricity and running water, I don't challenge the status quo unless I have a reasonable alternative.
However, at the low end of the economic spectrum, many women had to turn to prostitution at some point. Bullough and Bullough (1998) reviewed multiple historical studies that calculated that between 5% and 15% of women in late 19th or early 20th century urban centers engaged in prostitution at some point in their lives. This is a shockingly high figure by modern standards. Evidence suggests that most of these women were not full-time regular prostitutes. More typically, perhaps, they had low-paying office or factory jobs or worked as domestic servants, and they would occasionally supplement their meager incomes by having sex for money.