This is going to be tricky because I never took economics and make it a point not to know anything about investing in the stock market.
That said, when my friend Emily passed this Slate article along, my interest was instantly (and obviously) piqued.
even when they’re failing in life.
Mark Regnerus hits on a topic I’ve been mulling around for ages: the supply and demand nature of sex among male and female 20-somethings.
Let me attempt to break down the article in as simple terms as possible, then we’ll talk about the massive issue I think it’s missing:
- 20-something men aren’t doing so well in life. “…earnings for 25- to 34-year-old men have fallen by 20 percent since 1971. Their college enrollment numbers trail women’s: Only 43 percent of American undergraduates today are men. Last year, women made up the majority of the work force for the first time”
- 20-something men are doing incredibly well in bed. “36 percent of young men’s relationships add sex by the end of the second week of exclusivity; an additional 13 percent do so by the end of the first month. A second indicator of cheap sex is the share of young men’s sexual relationships—30 percent—that don’t involve romance at all: no wooing, no dates, no nothing.”
- Men like and want sex more than women. (This is the article speaking, not me, but the article is backed by legit research). “In one frequently cited study, attractive young researchers separately approached opposite-sex strangers on Florida State University’s campus and proposed casual sex. Three-quarters of the men were game, but not one woman said yes. I know: Women love sex too. But research like this consistently demonstrates that men have a greater and far less discriminating appetite for it. As Baumeister and Vohs note, sex in consensual relationships therefore commences only when women decide it does.”
- Women make it very easy for men to get the sex they like slash want. So women hold the “sexual purse strings,” but they’ve driven the cost of sex down very low. In other words, men have to do very little these days to get sex from women.
- This sitch happened because women outnumber men. Well, that’s part of the reason, and the part this article highlights. 20-something women outnumber 20-something men these days in environments like college campuses and major urban centers (NY, LA, Chicago). Women outnumber men means that their supply is greater, driving down their demand. If there were more men than women the men would have to work harder to woo the women. Because there are more women than men the control lies with the men. This has been studied: “Analysis of demographic data from 117 countries has shown that when men outnumber women, women have the upper hand: Marriage rates rise and fewer children are born outside marriage. An oversupply of women, however, tends to lead to a more sexually permissive culture.”
- As such women are complaining that their boyfriends and the men they casually date put off commitment and keep things casual for as long as possible. “Michelle, a 20-year-old from Colorado, said she is in the same boat: “I had an ex-boyfriend of mine who said that, um, he didn’t know if he was ever going to get married because, he said, there’s always going to be someone better.”
- And, to the final point: all this success in bed may actually be making men less productive in life. “Don’t forget your Freud: Civilization is built on blocked, redirected, and channeled sexual impulse, because men will work for sex. Today’s young men, however, seldom have to.”
I find this article totally fascinating. First, it hits on an issue I’ve been harping on for years – the very simple fact that if women gave up sex less easily, men would commit faster and more often. It’s a clear-cut case of supply and demand. But the part I find even more interesting is the issue of the end product in this supply and demand chain – that being sex.
See, in general supply/demand economics the product is inanimate and the seller’s goal is to sell as much of the product as possible. So say we’re dealing with bananas. If the banana growers have an excess of bananas the banana purchasers know they can get their bananas cheaper by going to a different growers and negotiating a deal. There are plenty of bananas to go around. Why would they waste their time on a relationship with one banana seller who charges more than another, even if they had a long-standing relationship with that first banana seller and their bananas are of good quality. Supply and demand never fails.
But sex is not bananas – at least it isn’t bananas to the people who “produce” it – which in the case of this supply and demand situation (according to this article) is women. Women are to sex as banana farmers are to bananas. They stand between that sex and the men who want it. But unlike banana farmers, the goal of women is not (innately) to “sell” as much of their product as possible. What I mean is – banana farmers sell bananas and make money. Done deal. End of story. The supply/demand chain is closed. Women have sex and, according to this article, get nothing. And, to make matters more confusing, we know that women don’t like sex as much or as often as men (again, according to the article. Obviously there are the Samantha Jones’ of the world who want as much sex with as little emotional connection as possible). So even if you’re inclined to say, “well, women are getting sex out of this “business” relationship. That must be what they want?” we know that that’s not generally true. Therefore what we’re left with is a situation where women are giving away their product for virtually nothing and what little they’re getting isn’t even something they really want. That’s just bad business.
My issue with this article isn’t that it raises a wrong or invalid point, it’s that it doesn’t ask the glaring question that’s most worth asking. Why are women allowing this to happen?
If we were to stick with economics the answer would be because in selling their product for little to no money they believe they’re making progress toward another goal – their ultimate goal. So back to the banana farmers. A banana farmer may give away a lot of bananas to one buyer because they want to get into a long-term business relationship with that buyer. Their selling strategy is one of investment not immediate gain. I sell you these bananas for cheap with the hopes that you come back and buy my bananas next time. Translate that to the relationship world and it means women are giving away sex to get something else, something bigger or better. And I don’t think it’s taking a giant leap to assume that the something is a relationship.
Why do women think giving men lots of free sex is going to lead to a relationship? I don’t really know. Maybe it’s because it actually does? Maybe because everyone else is doing it, so if one girl doesn’t she’s just going to lose out to all the other girls who do? Or maybe it’s because women don’t realize that they have control over the entire sexual market.
Banana farmers need to sell bananas to survive. They can’t decide to hold out because they’re mad about how low the price has been driven – they need money. Women don’t need casual sex. They may like it and they may want it, but ultimately they don’t need to “sell” their “product” if they’re not pleased with the return. Sex is not bananas.
So then why are women behaving like banana farmers?
14 comments
Comments are closed.
Ironically, I’m reading this blog right now instead of working on the paper I’m supposed to be writing for my Competitive Strategy class.
And I think competition is exactly the WHY point that you’re missing. The article makes it subtly by saying that there are too many women, i.e. too many sex suppliers. To stick with the economics of it… competition pretty much always drives price down. If you’re selling for too high, someone will come in and undercut you and win the sale. If there aren’t that many competitors, this isn’t that big of a deal, but when there are too many competitors price keeps going lower and lower and lower. So in this case, in order to catch a guy, women keep accepting less and less and less b/c they’re afraid if they don’t, someone else will and they’ll lose the dude.
There are basically two solutions to this. 1.Collusion, where women collectively decided that they will ALL demand more. Or 2. differentiation, where you keep your “price” high b/c you know you’re better than all the competition.
Damn I wish I had thought of this as a term paper topic…
I do believe competition is the WHY as Katie explains above. Then, the real question is, what are we really competing for? Men are obviously on a downward spiral…less are graduating from college, less are in the workforce overall, etc. An interesting article that ties into this very topic written in the WSJ a couple weeks ago entitled ‘Where Have the Good Men Gone?’ argues that men have gone into a period of extended adolescence (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704409004576146321725889448.html). And I think the notion of sex becoming less and less “costly” for them is perpetuating their decline. Yes, we are competing for them, but now why?
Just because I like to be the devil’s advocate, I’m going to say that inkling of hope becomes larger than the “relationship” at hand and answers why we are competing for these boys. If a guy does the smallest thing (and I’m talking small…”holds open the door for you” small), we girls read all the way into it. That text message at 5am screams, “well at least he thought about me…even if he was hammered, who cares if I’m the last resort, he still thought of me” and that head nod while passing by says, “omg, he noticed me”. These are the small prices boys have to pay for sex. But then you have to wonder, how much is sex worth? Is it really worth a 5am text message, a head nod in the hallway, a shoulder pat in the breakroom…? Well if those actions indicate that there could be a relationship to us, then yep, sure is worth it.
Just one more thing, I’m in an interesting situation that probably perpetuates these men to pay such a low “price” for sex. I know I’m moving to a new city in 4 months, thus I don’t want a relationship…hell, I don’t even want to like someone and have the hurt of breaking it before leaving. But I would like to continue to have sex…thus the relationship with no romance/no strings attached/casual sex situation is born. The sex isn’t that great and the guy is boring as all get up, but he will do for the time being and get me through feeding my sex needs until I move. He fits my needs for right now and that’s why I am paying a low price for sex.
Interesting, frank discussion of a problem that plagued my youth.
I also think there’s several reasons why women are giving away their bananas, not just to get a relationship. Now I will list them.
1. While women may not want or need sex as much as men, they still want/need it a hell of a lot.
2. Everyone in movies/music/whatever seems to be doing it all the time. Puts pressure on young women to be sexual.
3. Booze. Women have more disposable income, its more socially acceptable for women to drink now. Booze, in turn, lowers inhibitions.
4. Misinterpretation. As men make less and less effort to woo women, gestures (like a daytime phonecall) that are actually kinda pathetic seem more romantic and significant to her, and makes her more inclined.
5. The casual sex Elephant in the room. We’re not supposed to admit that we kinda hate hookup culture and would prefer relationships because that would be retro and anti-feminist and “that girl”. (Btw, you can still be feminist and dislike hooking up)
6. Low self-esteem. Despite some half-assed nods to girl culture, girls of my generation were not raised to think very highly of themselves, or to ask for what they want, so they just tend to go along with the flow.
Loving the blog! Can’t wait to read more.
<3AGG2eat
agg2eat.blogspot.com
I told my ex-husband, then boyfriend, that it was a rent to own prospect rather than a simple sale exchange 😉
(this was after his comment of why he should buy the cow if the milk was for free. After I gave him a death stare, this was the answer I gave)
This comment has been removed by the author.
There’s one point that both articles make, and it hasn’t really been addressed.
The point is that, with the economy being what it is, there are less men out there who are “relationship material.” Yet women still want to get laid sometimes, and, since seducing unsuccessful men is easier than competing with thousands of women for the few successful ones, they go for casual sex the same way that men always have.
And, meanwhile, the minority of men who are successful and are “relationship material” have so many women falling over them that they enjoy a level of choice that was once enjoyed only by women and sultans.
Many successful men also have gone through years of constant rejection from girls, so, when they finally find themselves on the opposite side of the fence, it takes them a while to get over the thrill of it- if they ever do.
In the end, the world is not any better or worse than it was before. It’s not that, in the past, women used to “hold out” longer. It’s that they used to get into more relationships with “deadbeat” guys because they were lonely.
I hear way more girls complain “that guy was holding me back,” than “that guy wouldn’t date me.” I also feel like staying with a “sluggish” person who’s fun to have sex with is a whole lot worse than having a non-committed relationship with that person. These days, women ditch the guys who hold them back after they get a little bit of sexual release.
I’m rambling. I’m just kind of shocked at this post because it seemed to be that the articles were saying the world is a better place for women, because they can get by much more easily without men.
In the end, I think that society is asking women a big question: Would you rather commit to a man who can’t support you, or would you rather chase after the same successful men that the whole world is chasing?
Why do you write out the word “slash”?? Why don’t you just use a “/” ??
This is the same Anonymous as 2 posts ago. I realized I left out the third choice. I’m going to add it:
Would you rather commit to a man who will not support you financially, chase after the same successful men that the whole world is chasing, or just be independent?
I also think the following article is very relevant.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tracy-mcmillan/why-youre-not-married_b_822088.html?ref=fb&src=sp
Hold up. Time to examine your premises. Suggesting that women “give” sex to men is also a claim that a) women don’t want / like sex and b) men only put up with relationships to get sex. (ie. Why buy the cow…) The assumptions are also sexist, untrue, and insulting to men AND women. Can we move on now?
I must agree with the female posters in that the women in the article are COMPETING for these particular males who get sex from them without having to contribute a dime. The problem with the article is twofold. First it makes sweeping generalizations about men and women without considering the aspect of “attractiveness” on human decision-making. That is the article assumes that men and women are all of average attractiveness and are acting like weirdos without any guiding compass to lead them down a picturesque economic model.
The second thing the article is assuming is that the attributes of education, wealth and reputation for a male means as much or more than athletic looks to a female in today’s world. Women are becoming more honest with themselves as to what they consider valuable in their choice of mate. This is the age where shame has no grip on their choice, save for the shame of accepting a male who is less than perfect. Women have taken on a greater share of the masculine roles in society, stopping short of dangerous work – lumberjacking for instance, and now are choosing mates much like how men chose mates: looks.
Firstly regarding attractiveness. For one thing a greater volume of females as opposed to males have natural beauty, this trend doesn’t even consider the effects of makeup and diet. So the pool of males with adonis features will be relatively small in comparison to the females. In our modern, media blitzed, topsy turvy Bieber society young females have learned the premium of a male who has these natural gifts. Now women will set aside their egos and actually “work” to acquire this particular specimen of male. The male too, often at a very young age, knows that his life will be easy… he won’t have to get an education, wealth or a reputation because his birthright, a pretty face, does all the work for him. Young women today know that they can get away with waiting for a highly attractive man. Even though there are more attractive females than males in any given population it doesn’t matter. Let’s say 15% of females are of above-average attractiveness. Maybe 5% of the males will have the features the girls go ga-ga over, Athletic, charming, can rap etc.
What the article ignores are the flip side of the coin. The huge pool of males that are completely left out of this sweet deal due to the female’s internal filters for only the “best.” So even though there may very well be more females to males, and many attractive females in that lot, the females only have eyes for the tiny rowboat of males who fit their exacting standards. Then add into the mix the female’s lack of sexual impulse, as opposed to a male’s chronic and agonizing need for sexual release, and you have hordes of beautiful females abstaining from hooking up with a lesser male and simply waiting for one of her desired mates to come looking for her. Then once he is available she caters to his every whim simply because he represents her cultural apex. Invariably this article also glosses over the fact that the males in these arrangements often have the pick of the neighborhood with several female companions at his disposal at any given moment. This particular male is well-fed in all senses of the word as his ego is soothed by the many females who liken to his looks.
Cont’d – For thousands of other males however, this option is only a dream. In fact the luxury experienced by the male’s described in the article come at the expense of hundreds of discarded males who live lives of silent anguish. Insult to injury is heaped upon these scorned males as the average females, who should in all senses of the word be an ever-present source of ego-boosting sex, instead abstain, deny and ignore these men as they pine for Mr. Stud.
Again the main culprit here is the two-pronged malice of women having the economic freedom (through easy soft market jobs) to “purchase” the males they want and cater to them, and secondly their trivialization of the sex drives of the males that they reject. Notice how women do not speak of their lovers like they are a scorecard. The number of lovers does not matter to a female, rather it is the quality of the lover that matters. Men care about numbers as it reflects their worthiness in the society. This is an ever-present need that defines manhood and it is this withdrawal due to the selfish cravings of modern females today that we have the raw anger of bitter men on Pick Up Artist sites as well as Roissy. All that men want are steady sources of sex and very few women today are putting aside their egos to do their natural duty. For men, the quality of the sexual partner must be at least average. For women he must be superman!
The female sex drive is like a tricycle compared to the raw motorcycle engine of a man’s. A man needs sex with at least a moderately attractive woman to validate him, center him, supply him and channel his being back into society. Women have no need for these things because they essentially live off of the comfort of male striving – as long as they are pretty. Ugly women too have station in our society if not for making children, then for raising them, as everyone has that fat friend or aunt who had no suitors but was good for taking care of pets and kids. Men have no equivalent to this. They need sex with young, pretty (often light-skinned) women to avoid building pathologies. Men are more dangerous than women too and without sex the females only encourage the creation of psychos.
Cont’d 2 – Women naturally avoid relinquishing their bodies to any particular man simply because a baby is a high investment. So when women are given a high degree of autonomy within a functioning economy they simply take this concept to the extreme. Women use their salaries now to avoid copulation with men on their rise through the ranks. This really is detrimental to males looking to make a sexual reputation for themselves because now that women have significant amounts of buying power they can skip over all of the men attempting to trade a rung on the ladder for their vagina and instead go straight to the hot model guy who all the girls want. This is another manifestation of denial and languishing that women create in our society, intentionally or not, by being able to evade the sexual fees that they once paid for in the past. Women and fathers all over will say that this is a good thing that they can now cherry pick their sexual partners… but on the other hand this means that most men, and by extension their fathers, now must live in disgrace without any sexual history behind them and without being able to prove themselves a man to the world by snagging a woman.
In essence young, fertile women in American society have been given too much power at the expense of the males. What should take place is to put in functions that naturally lower the status of the average female to the average male. This way the fairy tale demands of the young female will be kept in check and quite a few males will be able to have a lifetime of steady partners. This will also allow a female to take full advantage of her looks at the intended time, and not gamble them away chasing useless degrees and jobs. Nowadays females are using this advantage to copulate with an athletic male and bet that some reject down the line will marry her withered butt and put money in the mouth of her bastard children. The way it is now, no one can get laid unless you’re a singing and dancing pretty boy in a music video.
Katie:
If all women abstained some women would land relationships.
If all men abstained from women for a month at the sametime the end result would be all men would get sex (even short/fat/poor less than ideal by societal norms).
Women hurt themselves when they don’t respect their male counterparts. The benefit of having a man in a womans life is psycological not monetary.
It is really the economic system that require two breadwinners that has made the world out of sync… with it newly invented mental disorders.