Sexual Economics [pdf] (2004)

2004

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)

>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.

What about the market for marriagable men over the longer run? Surely there's interplay...but the paper ignores it.

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.

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.