Sex And Love: Simple Economics?

A recent study takes an utterly unromantic look at sex and love, theorizing that they can be explained by a simple economic model: that sex is a resource women possess, and men acquire it by providing other resources in return -- namely, money and commitment.

The study, titled "Sexual Economics: A Research-Based Theory of Sexual Interactions, or Why the Man Buys Dinner," was presented by Florida State University's Roy Baumeister at the American Psychological Association last month. It looks at heterosexual relationships only and is predicated on the (contested) notion that men want sex more than women do.

But here's where it gets really interesting: Baumeister poses that the more gender equality there is, the more sex is being had. In other words, it can be boiled down to a simple question of supply and demand, Baumeister claims.

As an example, he points to new research published in the Journal of Social Psychology. A survey of over 300,000 people from 37 countries found that countries with a higher gender equality (per rankings from the World Economic Forum Global Gender Gap Report) had more casual sex and more sexual partners. In nations with less equality between the sexes, the opposite was true.

"In countries where women are at a big disadvantage, they restrain sex, so the price is high and men make a lifetime commitment to support them to get sex," Baumeister told USA Today. "Men will do whatever is required for sex."

In a colorful reaction on Slate.com, Amanda Marcotte wrote:

Baumeister's theory is that women are the producers but not consumers of sex, and men are the consumers and not producers of sex … Baumeister is trying to make this women-producers/men-consumers theory fit the evidence that more gender equality leads to more sex, but really, he fails utterly.

Marcotte goes on to argue that in order for the theory to hold up, you have to assume women are not that interested in sex -- a questionable assumption. (Read the whole post here; it's worth it.)

Tracy Clark-Flory writes on Salon.com that, "According to this econ-romance theory, men should be able to commit less and get more from women now. But the rise of sugar daddy websites suggests that the market is more complicated than that."

Referencing the current popularity of sites like SeekingArrangements.com and WhatsYourPrice.com -- where men will pay large sums for the company of desirable women -- she argues that the economic value of women's sexuality may actually be higher than ever.

What do you think? Does Baumeister's theory of sexual economics hold water?

Comments

[jf12]

12:30 PM on 09/26/2011

Next time instead of him asking "was it good for you?" she should ask "was it worth it?"

[Ayngel Overson]

11:03 PM on 09/25/2011

A woman knowing what she wants in bed isn't a bad thing but it sure seems to make some men uncomfortable.

[Palaver]

02:05 PM on 09/25/2011

How do we explain poor single mothers? If they are poor, they should value commitment. If their partners are their equals (also poor), they should engage in more casual sex.

BTW, in U.S. the poor have more sex than the middle class.

[jf12]

06:17 AM on 09/26/2011

It's the simple economics. There are many poor single mothers, so the supply is high so the asking price is less, so there is more of it.

[englishman545]

04:37 PM on 09/24/2011

Just the kind of woman that I want as wife and mother of my children. ...............NOT

[Terence Manuel]

02:37 PM on 09/24/2011

I do believe the author is correct in his premise that greater gender equality has brought about more sex. Women no longer feel compelled, and correctly so I might add, to use sex to get commitment from a man. So this is all for the better in my opinion.

With this greater economic clout, women are now free to express themselves sexually. There are so many women who a married to men who are very successful but the wives are miserable. Why? Because they still want the white-picket fence, two kids and appear as an all American family blah blah blah.

Younger women, especially college educated, have a different mindset. They are saying "screw that" and are finding the men of their CHOICE and not the men of their NEED. We can debate their choices, but nonetheless it is their choice. And that is a good thing.

Freedom works!

[jf12]

04:18 PM on 09/24/2011

It's less sex in toto, mostly because without other incentive the sexual frequency for women goes down. But it is more casual sex, ie.e outside of committed relationships. So the tendency is for the average woman to have slightly more casual sex, because she can choose. But she doesn't choose the average man. For the average man, even casual sexual frequency goes down.

[MasterKat]

11:49 AM on 09/24/2011

I think has more to do with the fact that in unequal societies, women are denied job opportunities. They literally need a man to support them because society denies them a way to support themselves. What, then, do women actually have control over in that world? They (maybe) have control over the family and the home, and they have control over their bodies, specifically access to their bodies.

But this is an important and over looked issue that the study apparently did not address: men in countries with greater gender inequality also frequently (and often openly) participate in extramarital affairs. That's because such societies put a heavy emphasis on the institution of marriage and if you reach a certain age without tying the knot, there's something WRONG with you. You can't get promoted, you are gossiped about, your family begins to pressure you, etc.

The fact that the study glosses over this makes it clear that the 'scientists' conducting this study did no serious, in-depth research on the cultures of the various countries that they studied.

[jf12]

01:02 PM on 09/24/2011

Nonsense. Most men do not participate in extramarital affairs. The few who do are a subset of those who can, i.e. those to whom multiple women are attracted, which is already a minority.

[MasterKat]

03:52 PM on 09/24/2011

Clearly you have never lived in China for an extended period.

[englishman545]

04:40 PM on 09/24/2011

I don't know about that, just the other day I went to Costco and women were calling to me from all over!!!

"taste this, do you need new windows?, Direct TV, cell phones, another taste this!

It was overwhelming!!!

[TarzanWannaBe]

11:39 AM on 09/24/2011

The writers asserting simple messages about "want sex more/less" evidently haven't read the same Baumeister I have. The want more/less in critically different ways! Ignoring critical differences will either misrepresent the message, or support an agenda. Reader/writer's choice. Haha.
The model he describes (and he's only one among very many) is of an adaptation humans have made since agriculture. It isn't perfect. All adaptations are trade-offs. Women AND men are equal. Equally exploited! But in *different* ways - for the benefit of civilization. That isn't a political statement as much as biological. Such adaptations aren't intend to please/displease individuals. It's not about you. It's about us.

Now on a brighter note (IMHO), our societies are approaching a sufficient level of development that we are now beginning to see the first bit of light at the end of a long tunnel that is going full circle back to where we came, before shouldering the adaptation in question. Search "savanna principle" to understand our impulses. For a bigger picture than the adaption has required of us heretofore, see "Sex At Dawn" (Ryan, Jetha: http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Dawn-Stray-Modern-Relationships/dp/0061707813/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1316878719&sr=1-1).

And thank you Roy Baumeister for your illuminating "Is There Anything Good About Men" (http://www.amazon.com/There-Anything-Good-About-Men/dp/019537410X).

[jf12]

01:03 PM on 09/24/2011

The only agenda in development is the destruction of one man one woman marriage, with the goal of harems for a few men.

[englishman545]

04:42 PM on 09/24/2011

Harems for a few men???

One woman will drive you nutz, multiple women?????

What a Nightmare!!!

It's the next Stephen King Novel!!

[TarzanWannaBe]

12:28 AM on 09/25/2011

I would be interested in the support of that statement. But if that's where you go, here's what you get when you arrive: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200802/the-paradox-polygamy-ii-why-most-women-benefit-polygamy-an

"Contrary to popular belief, most women benefit from polygynous society, and most men benefit from monogamous society" - PT

[jf12]

12:54 AM on 09/24/2011

Young love with reciprocal grooming wherein I was in demand, briefly. We were 6, in first grade, when Ana, a large dark girl from India, let me play with her long silky hair. Ana hung around boys, either because of or the cause of the other girls not playing with her. Her hair was cool, not warm, and flowed like water. My fingers slowly, over days, went to her scalp, but after mere moments of contact on her skin she stopped me, almost crying. We compromised on her nape, but then she instantly stiffened and her eyes rolled back and she got goose bumps. She insisted on reciprocating, and it was thrilling, not just the girl and the mutual touching but the togetherness.

It went on for weeks, mostly at recess. She very much wanted to kiss, and to show me how her mother did her father, but I had been specifically instructed kissing was forbidden. So we "necked", not only learning the slow tickle of the back but also stroking the sides and throat differently, chastely, as chastely as two highly thrilled 6 year olds with their eyes rolled back could be. I knew all of her spots, the varied hair densities, the warmer greasier areas, the tendons and veins. The teacher finally separated us, although we didn't get in trouble, kept us apart. Then Kim wanted me to do her, and I did, but she wouldn't do me so that didn't last.

[Targa3141]

12:59 AM on 09/24/2011

I didn't know Washoe the Chimp knew how to post on the internet...

[jf12]

11:05 AM on 09/24/2011

Don't be jealous. I wracked my memory trying to recall if any female ever gave me more physical attention than I gave her. This was the only one that even gave me roughly similar amounts.

[TheWM]

11:10 AM on 09/22/2011

I'm not sure where gay men, lesbians, bisexuals and transexuals fit into the worldview of studies like this or of those beer commercials telling men to "man up." One more reason I have difficulty taking either one, or Florida State, for that matter, seriously.

[shaqmi]

04:31 PM on 09/22/2011

I love the "man up" commercial...they are so right on.. Who man cries because he has to leave his girl for two days..really?

[englishman545]

04:43 PM on 09/24/2011

They each have seperate channels on cable.

[jf12]

10:00 AM on 09/22/2011

Shirley Q. sez: All y'all mens is so ignernant. Alpha, beta, its igrnant greek to us wimmins. Wimmins sho do luv us some mens. Why cain't y'all mens all be like the mens we luv. Most mens be gripin' complainin'. We don't lak them mens. We like the mens that wimmins like. Jus' be like those gut mens, not them igly ignornent mens. All you betas, jus' be alphas instead.

[Calculator]

10:35 AM on 09/22/2011

You're losing your composure. ;-)

[ccrickett59]

02:07 AM on 09/22/2011

"WhatsYourPrice.com -- where men will pay large sums for the company of desirable women -- "
OK....I know I can be a little naive and dense once in awhile, but when I read this line in the article my first thought was.....Isn't that called a hooker, prostitute, call girl? ;)

[Lacy May]

02:22 AM on 09/22/2011

If you consider the high percentage of women and men in relationships where the woman is getting a nice home, car, clothes, expensive jewelrey, club memberships, domestic help, etc. and men are getting a sexual outlet, arm ornament, someone to listen (or at least appear as is she's listening) to his daily woes, a hostess to his business gatherings and so on...then a lot of "socially acceptable" men and women in our culture are essentially "johns" and "prostitutes." Thank God others of us have found that loving, caring, sharing (good moments and even the not so good), and mutually respecting our mates can be an amazing and PRICELESS experience to be valued and maintained daily...

[Terence Manuel]

07:04 AM on 09/22/2011

You speak the truth Lacy. Those relationships and marriages are based on lies and deceit. Maybe that's why a recent study showed that only 30% of married women are "in love" with their husbands. Which might explain why the majority of the time the woman files for divorce.

[englishman545]

04:45 PM on 09/24/2011

I totally agree with you!!

But after 5 marriages I am going to Real Doll.com and solving the problem.

[Lacy May]

01:41 AM on 09/22/2011

While our culture and behaviors regarding sex has certainly changed (a good thing) women still (generally speaking) are the "gate keepers." Men are programmed to have sex (especially in their younger years - testosterone levels way up) as often as they can. Women are programmed to 'select' the more attractive (this doesn't just mean physical) option. This does not mean women aren't sexual or do not enjoy (good) sex as much as men, it's just the way nature programmed us to keep the population from spinning off the planet! Having said that, human beings and human nature (lust and all) have a lot more "layers" than what Baumeister has accounted for in this study...

[Bellanova]

03:10 AM on 09/22/2011

I am so glad to have fanned you!

[Lacy May]

04:25 AM on 09/22/2011

Ditto Bella ;-)

[Terence Manuel]

07:11 AM on 09/22/2011

"Women are programmed to 'select' the more attractive (this doesn't just mean physical) option." Is this selection based on love? I do not think so?
How do you explain a woman who selects a "thug". "bad boy", "jerk" or other "undesirable? Are they deemed the most "attractive?"
Otherwise, I agree with your post!

[liven]

12:47 PM on 09/22/2011

Yes, to some women, they are the most attractive. Those people exude self-confidence, or maybe stupidty mistaken for self-confidence. Either way, many women find that attrractive.

[TheBluesGuy]

05:21 PM on 10/23/2011

"How do you explain a woman who selects a "thug". "bad boy", "jerk" or other "undesirab­le? Are they deemed the most "attractiv­e?"
__________

Yes. They are the most attractive. The same alpha male characteristics which define the bad boys are the characteristics which define captains of industry. Women are drawn to both.

[European1919]

01:18 AM on 09/22/2011

Excellent article. I have thought that for a long time. The, to some probably disturbing, repulsive or unsavoury, conclusion is: all women are prostitutes. And all men are clients. To what extent depends on the people involved.
After having been married/engaged I for one will no longer play this game. Either it is a straight swap or there is no deal. She does not get to move in, she will not be married and she pays her own meals/drinks/way.

[Bellanova]

03:56 AM on 09/22/2011

This conclusion would be reasonable if sex was just a commodity or transaction devoid of emotions, and especially love. Unfortunately, the slant of the study promotes this distorted view.

[European1919]

04:04 AM on 09/22/2011

You're not seriously expecting us men to actually love and cherish women when we are faced with such hard-nosed business proposals?
When I'm looking for true affection without strings attached, for true companionship, even love ... I need look no further than to my trusted hound. I would do anything for him.

[Rob Huggins]

12:22 AM on 09/22/2011

A big commodity not being mentioned is an enjoyable relationship. My relationships involving sex have not been with women that can simply be replaced with just any other women. The relationship itself was more important than the sex. In my experience sex was always just a bonus that came with finding a great woman to spend time with.

I find it interesting that a lot of the men I see in the comments speaking of how women do use sex as a tool are the same men speaking of their trouble in getting sex. I've even seen one poster in paticular that seems mad that he can jump through all the hoops and still not get sex.

Maybe, just maybe, the reason these men have issues getting sex is that they believe there is some set of hoops that will lead to sex. They have the same assumptions as this study that women are really after money, security, reputation, or something the man can give them in exchange for sex. This false assumption is leading them to try to provide the wrong thing to women in exchange for sex, when all the women really want is to find someone to enjoy life with.

[Lacy May]

02:05 AM on 09/22/2011

Wow...can we get a copy of this to every young guy before they go out into the world seeking sex as opposed to love?

[Bellanova]

02:58 AM on 09/22/2011

Yes, please. Along with this nifty little book, "Love and Responsibility" -- quite likely the best book on sexual love ever written:
http://www.amazon.com/Love-Responsibility-John-Paul-II/dp/0898704456

[Terence Manuel]

09:12 AM on 09/22/2011

Yes, and do not forget to give copies to the ladies as well! By the way Rob, I do not have a problem getting sex. I have learned, the hard way, how to play the game.
Why the hell is it always what women want? Since you seem to be into "feeling", do not how men feel matter?

[Bellanova]

02:56 AM on 09/22/2011

Thank you, Rob, once again (third time on this thread, if I'm not mistaken).

An even bigger "commodity" not mentioned here is love. Sure, the title references it, but the study and its conclusions, and the comments from so many people here, have curiously omitted this one piece of data that is of absolutely crucial importance when discussing sex.

I know it is quaint and un-hip to talk about love in the context of sex nowadays, but unless we'll bring this unfashionable topic back into discussion, we'll just continue groping in the dark (no pun intended).

You hint at it in your comments, of course, and you express as much when you acknowledge that you see your partners as unique and irreplaceable people. This recognition, that women are not sex objects but human beings desiring to give and receive love, is sadly (and terrifyingly, I must say) missing from many of these comments (the way the study looks at sex does not help it).

There is no shortcut to happiness that could bypass the recognition of our dignity as individual persons, wanting to be recognized and loved for who we are and not just for what we can offer. As long as we treat others as objects, and our relationships as commodities, we are not going to understand the meaning and real value of our sexuality; we will remain unhappy in love and continue to blame others for it.

[Rob Huggins]

07:28 AM on 09/22/2011

Yep, but I think part of the root of the problem is that some of these people have never learned what love is. Some of these guys make love sound like an attempt to pretend to care to get what they want, which oddly seems to be what they are upset about women doing. If there was any love, they would be doing things for each other because they actually cared, not just pretending.

I don't know if I'd go so far as saying I loved every woman I had sex with though. I use that word to describe my feellings for my family including my wife, and there is a difference between how I feel about my wife and some my earlier relationships.

Relationships don't always work out. Every relationship before my wife didn't work out long term. I can't imagine dragging on a relationship for years that ends up being nothing more than manipulation, resentment, and selfishness. It sounds like some of these commenters have done just that. It sounds miserable even if sex wasn't lacking. Love is worth far more than sex. That sounds cliche, but its repeated often, because its true.

[jf12]

07:53 AM on 09/22/2011

Re: shortcut to happiness. For men.: be good looking. That way there will be multiple women you will have sex with, and you don't even have to jump through hoops or even love them. See how easy it is guys?

[Tox of Oz]

07:55 PM on 09/21/2011

"Men will do whatever is required for sex."

Did we realy need a study to find this out, welcome to the male mind, we don't go hiding it.

[englishman545]

05:03 PM on 09/24/2011

Sometimes to the extreme.