Putting A Price Tag On Sex
Given all the stupid articles ever written about sex, this has to be the stupidest.
Grab a cup of coffee, this is going to take a while.
Women are jumping into the sack faster and with fewer expectations about long-term commitments than ever, effectively discounting the “price” of sex to a record low, according to social psychologists. […]
“The price of sex is about how much one party has to do in order to entice the other into being sexual,” said Kathleen Vohs, of the University of Minnesota, who has authored several papers on “sexual economics.” “It might mean buying her a drink or an engagement ring. These behaviors vary in how costly they are to the man, and that is how we quantify the price of sex.”
By boiling dating down to an economic model, researchers have found that men are literally getting lots of bang for their buck. Women, meanwhile, are getting very little tat for their . . . well, you get the idea.
Do people still think this way? Does a guy still say, “Hey, Doll Face, I expect to get laid tonight after springing for that lobster.” Seriously? I doubt it.
Notice, also, how the writer portrays men as the winners. They get what they want, while women… Well, it can’t be that women want sex, could it? Could it possibly be that women can enjoy sex without (gasp!) commitment? I’m really tired of this sort of article – more tired of people who agree with it: People who believe bargaining with sex will lead to a happily-ever-after.
Here’s the deal. If a person is only interested in having sex with you, then whether or not you sleep with them will not generate a commitment. Sorry, won’t happen. It drives me nuts that society keeps telling women that withholding sex will get them what they are “supposed” to want. God forbid, a woman could have sex because she enjoys sex.
“Every sex act is part of a ‘pricing’ of sex for subsequent relationships,” Regnerus said. “If sex has been very easy to get for a particular young man for many years and over the course of multiple relationships, what would eventually prompt him to pay a lot for it in the future — that is, committing to marry?”
It always comes back to that ring on the finger. It’s also as if women are just a series of vaginas. No brains. No distinct personalities. Nothing more to offer than sex. Have sex too soon? No marriage for you, you bad girl! Who cares if you’re awesome?
So, what can women do to return the balance of sexual power in their favor? Stop putting out, experts say. If women collectively decided to cross their legs, the price of sex would soar and women would regain control of the market.
This is beyond offensive – to men, as well as women. I’m really tired of being told women are in charge of men’s basic urges; that it is somehow our job to civilize them. You know who uses that excuse? A rapist.
This summer a male neighbor stopped over. He started going off on how women dress. His exact words: They are dressed like they want to have sex. My response: Maybe they want to have sex. The expression on his face was priceless. The idea that a woman would want to have sex never dawned on him. Poor guy. After a moment, he continued: Well, they’re asking for it. Now you can imagine my expression. “Really?” I said. “Here’s a newsflash. Just because a women wants to have sex doesn’t mean she wants to have it with you.” Needless to say, he left in a huff. Oh, well.
Viewing sex as a commodity is dangerous. It takes us back to the day of the lobster dinner; to a place where wearing a mini skirt equals a discounted price. It takes us to a place where women are merely products, not unique individuals.
It’s also a load of crap. Sex and love are not synonymous. They can exist together, but pretending they always do is foolish. Wanting to marry a person because it’s the only way to get them into bed is a recipe for disaster. Telling women that not having sex will lead them to Prince Charming is a lie; Telling them that they are selling a commodity and need to up their price is vile.
Women like sex. If you don’t believe that fact… well, it must suck to be you. You, and your partner, have my deepest sympathies.
The problem is there is a shortage of good-looking men, while the world is full of hot girls 🙂
I think the word “price” has some negative connotations in the real world, but in terms of evolutionary/sociology studies it is perfectly legitimate and does not have negative connotations. I think “feminism” is not the ideal lens to look at this issue through.
Evolutionary rationales can provide a lot of insight into the ways we select our mates, and it is in fact based on seeking different types of advantages for oneself or one’s offspring. Of course, being civilized, we are sometimes able to transcend our hardwired evolutionary guidance, but it is still real and powerful.
I don’t think “evolution” is the ideal lens to look at this issue through.
First, the article sets “marriage” up as the goal for women. If a woman’s goal isn’t marriage and offspring what are you left with?
Maybe women want sex – without the commitment as well?
Maybe some men just cannot handle the woman as the sexual aggressor? they want to have sex and be free of commitment?? okay – maybe so do some women. I dont lump genders together like that – not a good call.
Good Grief – I thought this attitude went out with the dionsaurs – controlling sex and procreation is a the rights seems to want to do.
Face it – as the old joke goes – we control half the money and all the ******
WHY WHY WHY does sex have to be equated with material gain? it is a basic human function and need – emotional as wel as physical.
women fart, sweat, bleed just like men do – women also like sex (well I do) why then are we looked at as strange when that is what we want and some dopey guy thinks hes has put one over on us for a glass of chardonnay??
I get so wound up over this – when I was “out there” prior to any committed relationship I did as I wanted – horror of horrors a woman in charge of her body and how she uses it..WOW
men get laid, they are lucky – women get laid they are sluts
will it ever end??
All the good looking men play for my team. 🙂
You are 100% correct, Pandora. The article/study is offensive.
* *
Puck, I’m not saying you are doing this, but I think that many people evoke “evolutionary psychology” (a tenuously testable discipline) to rationalize offensive and unacceptable behavior. Perhaps something happened in human beings that one sees nowhere else(or minimally)in the animal kingdom: humans developed a complex of abilities–consciousness, self consciousness, rationality, nuanced conceptual and linguistic structures–that give them options on how to act in the world. Evolutionary psychology is largely oblivious to that fact.
**
At my age, there are days I’d rather have the lobster than the sex.
Let’s not lose sight of the fact we are discussing an OPINION piece in the NEW YORK POST….
That said, the study is perfectly legitimate. It is an economist saying: “What if we take some of the tools of economic analysis, and look at this aspect of human relationships?”
Nobody is saying economics is the best or the most explanatory way to view sex. But there is nothing wrong with an expert in economics or any other field using their tools and expertise to offer a new way of thinking, or to open up a new window onto one of life’s mysteries. That is what academics do.
The problem with using economics is that they are basing their conclusions on the premise that men want sex and women want marriage. If the premise was that men and women want sex…
The study is flawed by its premise. To correct that they would have had to conduct the study around people specifically looking for, or specifically not looking for, marriage.
And if we’re really dealing with economics perhaps 20 somethings unable to afford moving out of their parents’ homes might figure into that premise.
Telling women to use sex to gain power, to manipulate their partner, is the fastest route to divorce.
Sounds like Female Hysteria is making a comeback.
Who knows what “treatments” conservative Governors will force on young women now.
The New York Post well that clears up a lot
How does Page 6 figure into this equation?
I mean, as long as we’re talking ‘sexual economics’, about half the Post’s revenue stream is based on it.