Mouse rant blog vent mouse.

Thursday, January 06, 2005

No sex past marriage?

Fred Vincy asks an interesting question so that other bloggers can come up with their own noodling theories.

Anyway, the point of this is to ask: Why, if married people have sex more often, has the American Beauty idea that exactly the opposite is true captured the popular (and, judging from Blanchflower and Oswald, possibly even the academic) imagination?

Read the whole post to get what he's talking about regarding married people having more sex. They do--it's shown to be true repeatedly in demographic studies. Turns out that having someone in your bed every night you're sexually attracted to who likes you too is a really great first step on the road to seduction. (The favored LTR technique of seduction? Poking one's partner awake in the morning with a non-limb appendage. However, I don't have the stats on that, just a good guess.)

Anyway, I think there's a few reasons people believe this. #1: Selective memory--the last time they probably thought of themselves as "single" was when they first started dating their current partner and then they were having sex four times a day. So they are thinking "When we were single, we had sex more often, therefore single people have more sex." But even then, there's probably a bit of muddled memory, because they're probably comparing their day-to-day sex life with the days they saw their partner when they were dating and forgetting the nights they were alone. So maybe even thinking, "When we were single we had sex every time we saw each other. Now we don't," without considering that they now see each other every day.

The selective memory trick is reinforced with cultural stereotypes. It's well-known that people tend to cherry-pick evidence to fit their worldview. So you go into a marriage (or LTR) with the stereotype of sexless marriages burned into your brain. And when the frequency drops off, even a little, it seems to confirm the stereotype to you and so you remember that. Rinse and repeat. Over a period of years and decades, frequency is bound to ebb and flow and the stereotype is there reinforcing the memories of the ebbs over the flows.

The stereotype of infrequent married sex is a sexist one. A joke I heard:

Q: Why does a bride smile so much on her wedding day?

A: She knows she just gave her last blow job.

Under the sexist assumption that men want sex and women want security, it follows that as soon as a woman gains security, she will reduce the amount of effort required to the minimum that it takes to keep security. Sex is seen as a woman's "work" and of course we all want to work as little as possible. The stereotype is also sexist in a negative way towards men.

A man goes to his doctor and tells him that he has trouble getting it up for the missus. The doctor gives him Viagra and sends him home. The man, all excited, takes it on the way home only to find out that his wife isn't there when he gets there. He calls the doctor in a panic. The doctor tells him, "If your wife isn't there, just go fuck the maid."

The man replies, "I never needed it for her before."

Stereotype: Married sex is infrequent because promiscious men are only interested in more partners, not just more sex.

It seems to me that the belief that married sex is infrequent persists in the face of evidence because it's needed to bolster gender stereotyping.

77 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

As for the sex as female resource, it would be interesting to see some feminists comment on the paper

Baumeister & Vohs: Sexual Economics: Sex as Female Resource for Social Exchange in Heterosexual Interactions (PDF)

which makes a pretty convincing case. The comparisons of women to OPEC are at least humorous, in many levels.


Ilkka Kokkarinen

1/06/2005

 
Blogger Amanda Marcotte said...

Ilkka, I'm not going to print out a 71 page PDF on my work computer. But thanks for asking. Frankly, the idea that women's bodies are a resource is a narrow-minded view that is easy for a man who desires women to hold, but doesn't wash for women who desire men and therefore want sex with them, too.

1/06/2005

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The pre-feminist/anti-feminist notion that provision of sex is a woman's one bartering chip isn't going to go away soon. For men to have sexual "ownership" of their woman requires an ideology that the woman's sexual capacity is a marketable "commodity", and not a "gift" in the free will of the giver.

NancyP

1/06/2005

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Even so, Nancy, I'd say your framing, of women's sexuality as "a "gift" in the free will of the giver" implies that women give and men receive, still an assymetrical view of sexuality in which sex is something that men get from women.

That said, I don't think feminism invalidates the view that sex in our society as it is economically a commodity endowed to women, with the supply female and the demand male. It just indicates that our society has a lot of problems. You can think that slavery is wrong and still talk about the economics of slave-pricing and such. (actually, I don't have a problem with straightforward exchanges of money and sex, such as prostitution, etc, provided that it doesn't involve human trafficking (which, in our current society, it does to some extent). However, I do have a problem with implicit commodification of sex in a normatively equal relationship. Go figure.)

Julian Elson

1/06/2005

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Amanda: "Ilkka, I'm not going to print out a 71 page PDF on my work computer."

You don't have to print it, just use the Acrobat Reader. I don't know why they do not offer the article in HTML. Google of course provides an HTML conversion."Frankly, the idea that women's bodies are a resource is a narrow-minded view that is easy for a man who desires women to hold, but doesn't wash for women who desire men and therefore want sex with them, too."

Admittedly the theory describes the reality quite well from the male point of view, but it does wash for women too. From the said article, section "Why a Female Resource?" :

"Social exchange theory has featured the “principle of least interest” (Waller & Hill, 1951). According to that principle, a party gains power by virtue of wanting a connection less than the other wants it. [...] If men want sex more than women, therefore, men would have to offer other benefits to persuade women to have sex, even if women desire and enjoy sex too."

NancyP: "For men to have sexual "ownership" of their woman requires an ideology that the woman's sexual capacity is a marketable "commodity", and not a "gift" in the free will of the giver."

Commodities and "gifts" given out of "free will" are not mutually exclusive concepts. Free will goes naturally with free market, and I challenge anyone to name a market that is more free than the sexual marketplace in modern Western countries.

If the general trend of these "gifts" follows a statistically predictable marketlike pattern instead of being showered randomly upon recipients, some kind of market mechanism is probably involved underneath the visible surface.

The "sex as female resource" theory predicts that in general, women do not have sex with all men with the same probability. For example, the theory predicts that it would be quite rare for beautiful twentysomething women to freewillingly give their gift of sex to unemployed fiftysomething low-status men. How do the competing theories fare in the prediction department?


Ilkka Kokkarinen

1/06/2005

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I hardly ever had sex when I was single, and when I got married, I was happily expecting to have sex often, maybe even every day (as newlyweds). My hubby, who was 30 when we got married (to my 26), turned out to be much less interested in sex than I am, and his interest has decreased slowly but surely over the 12 years of our marriage. It's very frustrating for me. YMMV.

Sedna19

1/06/2005

 
Blogger Amanda Marcotte said...

"If men want sex more than women..." Big if. If sex is a market, then it's not a free market but one where women, like diamonds, have their "value" artificially inflated by social ostracism that accompanies living as a free agent.

Enter social circles where women aren't so harshly judged for having sex and you'll find that the market ideaology where men are consumers and women are products doesn't hold. Women trade sex for....sex. And that's it.

Hell, that women can't "buy" more than sex with sex is the very underpinnings of the whole movement to persuade women that feminism makes them unhappy. The idea being that women's lives where better when they supressed their sexual urges to they had that at least to dangle over men's heads. What they neglect to mention is the whole dance of sexist courtship, while temporarily appealing to women, quickly turns sour after you're turned from a temporary object of desire to a lifelong "helpmate".

1/06/2005

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Admittedly the theory describes the reality quite well from the male point of view, but it does wash for women too."

No it doesn't. "Cool, this guy wants sex more than I do, so I can trade sex for all kinds of things I want" isn't at *all* what my experience was as a single woman. Rather, it was more like this: I'd better be careful. At any moment a guy might decide I'm doing something that offers him a promise of sex, and he might get nasty when I turn him down. And, since I don't want to, and can't, have sex with the whole world, I have to keep thinking: Am I dressing too seductively? Am I standing too close? Am I doing something that will make men think I'm flirting, when I don't want to be? What am I doing wrong? How do I not look too easy?

That's not feeling like a powerful dispenser of a prized commodity. If women own and dispense sex the way certain countries in the Middle East own and dispense oil, the way I experienced the process had more resemblance to being occupied Iraq than to being OPEC when it's pulling together and doing a good job of controlling the marketplace. You have no idea how unpowerful a woman can feel as the person who's responsible for not handing out sex too freely.

Lynn Gazis-Sax

1/07/2005

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

yami mcmoots: "Ilkka, if you think predicting that "women do not have sex with all men with the same probability" is that notable, you really need higher standards."

It is actually pretty notable, since most feminist social theories of sexual relations don't seem to be able to make even this commonsense real-world prediction.

Amanda: "Enter social circles where women aren't so harshly judged for having sex and you'll find that the market ideaology where men are consumers and women are products doesn't hold. Women trade sex for....sex. And that's it."

"Sex and the City" is fiction, created by gay men.

The swinger community would probably be the most extreme example of a social circle where women are not judged for having sex. It is also well-known that swinger communities welcome single women, but do not allow single men to enter. Without resorting to the theory of sex as female resource, can anyone explain this curious asymmetry?

Lynn Gazis-Sax: "I'd better be careful. At any moment a guy might decide I'm doing something that offers him a promise of sex, and he might get nasty when I turn him down."

Yes. But note that your experience perfectly fits the theory of sex being a female resource.

For some mysterious reason, very few men have to constantly worry that women that they meet want to have sex with them, and then get nasty when they don't get their wish. The vast majority of men could not give sex away for free if they tried, perfectly in line with the theory of sex being a female resource.


Ilkka Kokkarinen

1/07/2005

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The notion of an evolving woman-controlled "market" for sex doesn't wash with me, particularly when one considers practices like arranged marriage and coverture. The notion that women control the proceedings is just laughable - when your husband can legally rape or beat you if you do not offer sex, owns the title to all your property, and will automatically retain custody of all your children if you should divorce, who is controlling the "market"?

Your argument (and, from what I can tell, the argument in your PDF) ultimately boils down to "all women are conniving whores." I'm not impressed.

- MKA

1/08/2005

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

MKA: "The notion of an evolving woman-controlled "market" for sex doesn't wash with me, particularly when one considers practices like arranged marriage and coverture. The notion that women control the proceedings is just laughable - when your husband can legally rape or beat you if you do not offer sex, owns the title to all your property, and will automatically retain custody of all your children if you should divorce,"

These issues are quite relevant in Iran, but in the sexual marketplace of modern liberal Western societies... exactly how?

"who is controlling the "market"? "

Whoever controls the dispensation of the female sexual resource. This is probably the fathers of sexually desirable girls, and by transition, whoever has sufficient control over these fathers. (People generally want to control valuable things and do not really care about controlling worthless things, which by itself is a pretty clear hint here of how things are.)

Like it or not, for some reason sex is a female resource in the society we live in. Sexuality of women has a significant value, whereas sexuality of men has no value whatsoever. If someone can come up with evolutionary explanations for this, all the better, but this is not really necessary for pointing out what is obviously valuable in the market and what is worthless.

I can't come up with an evolutionary explanation why a penthouse in Manhattan is more valuable than a trailer in rural Alabama, but even so, this is clearly the way that things are right now. How much a stone hut presently costs in Iran, or what the relative worth of land in Manhattan and Alabama were in the prehistoric age, doesn't make any difference here.

Even so, I would like to point out that as the evolutionary history of humans goes, "titles to property", "custody" and "divorce" are such brand new concepts that they have not really had time to affect the human genome evolutionarily.


Ilkka Kokkarinen

1/08/2005

 
Blogger Amanda Marcotte said...

Sexuality of men has no value? Tell that to a teenage girl mooning over her crush on a teen pop star.

"Sex and the City" was a book written by a straight woman, not a gay man in disguise. The writing staff on the show is made up of a variety of people, but from what I understand, the two head writers are a straight man and a straight woman. But I am not referring to TV shows, Ilkka. I am referring to the society I live in, where women are much more free than they are in say, Waco.

All your examples are easy enough to explain--in a world where women are considered second class citizen, it's natural that they are afraid that first class citizens will use them and abuse them when they leave the house.

If you want to look at physicality to see which sex is more voracious, look at the one that has multiple orgasms, I say.

1/08/2005

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Amanda: "Sexuality of men has no value? Tell that to a teenage girl mooning over her crush on a teen pop star."

Faced with that quote, I am honestly speechless.

""Sex and the City" was a book written by a straight woman"

I have read the book, and it has basically nothing in common with the TV show of the same name, neither in content nor in spirit.


Ilkka Kokkarinen

1/08/2005

 
Blogger Amanda Marcotte said...

I would agree with you there--the book was grossly cynical and the show was, I think, a more accurate portrayal of how people are. One thing they both have in common, though, is that they both accept that women's sexual desire is equal to men's.

1/08/2005

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"For some mysterious reason, very few men have to constantly worry that women that they meet want to have sex with them, and then get nasty when they don't get their wish."

Of course they don't. Whatever could I do to a man who doesn't want to have sex with me, and why would I want to, when I know from personal experience just how unpleasant it is to be treated as if I don't deserve to control access to my own body?

"Whoever controls the dispensation of the female sexual resource. This is probably the fathers of sexually desirable girls, and by transition, whoever has sufficient control over these fathers. "

Ah, OK. If you're arguing that cultures treat female sexuality as a resource that *other people* get to control, then I can see your point. I've heard this kind of line so often from men who argue that women are the more powerful ones because they get to be the ones to dispense sex, that I tend to assume that implication to it.

Lynn Gazis-Sax

1/08/2005

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"These issues are quite relevant in Iran, but in the sexual marketplace of modern liberal Western societies... exactly how?"

When I talk about coverture and legalized marital rape, I am talking about North America in the twentieth century. It's not as far removed as you think.

Like it or not, for some reason sex is a female resource in the society we live in. Sexuality of women has a significant value, whereas sexuality of men has no value whatsoever.You are exaggerating. If we're going to talk in terms of market value, the sexual value of unattractive, poor older women is not significant; the sexual value of attractive young men is significant, particularly in places (college campuses, for example) where women outnumber men.

You seem to admit that the sexuality of women has not always been under our control — it has "belonged" to our male relatives. In many societies, we have been literally cattle (chattel). Was sex not, therefore, a male resource, just as the milk provided by a cow is the farmer's resource and not the cow's?

If someone can come up with evolutionary explanations for this, all the betterI would argue that the physical and social risks promiscuity poses for women are greater than those it poses for men. We worry about pregnancy; we are more vulnerable to certain sexual diseases; we are much more likely to be socially condemned by both women and men (not just by women as the article suggested; it's not at all difficult to find men who condemn "sluts"). We are not brought up to an ethic of sexual "conquest" or "studliness." I do not think that this proves that women are frigid gold-diggers by nature.

Even so, I would like to point out that as the evolutionary history of humans goes, "titles to property", "custody" and "divorce" are such brand new concepts that they have not really had time to affect the human genome evolutionarily.The female-organized, female-controlled "market," then, has had even less time to affect the human genome, since women have spent so much of human history as the property of males.

-MKA

1/08/2005

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"These issues are quite relevant in Iran, but in the sexual marketplace of modern liberal Western societies... exactly how?"

When I talk about coverture and legalized marital rape, I am talking about North America in the twentieth century. It's not as far removed as you think.

Like it or not, for some reason sex is a female resource in the society we live in. Sexuality of women has a significant value, whereas sexuality of men has no value whatsoever.You are exaggerating. If we're going to talk in terms of market value, the sexual value of unattractive, poor older women is not significant; the sexual value of attractive young men is significant, particularly in places (college campuses, for example) where women outnumber men.

You seem to admit that the sexuality of women has not always been under our control — it has "belonged" to our male relatives. In many societies, we have been literally cattle (chattel). Was sex not, therefore, a male resource, just as the milk provided by a cow is the farmer's resource and not the cow's?

If someone can come up with evolutionary explanations for this, all the betterI would argue that the physical and social risks promiscuity poses for women are greater than those it poses for men. We worry about pregnancy; we are more vulnerable to certain sexual diseases; we are much more likely to be socially condemned by both women and men (not just by women as the article suggested; it's not at all difficult to find men who condemn "sluts"). We are not brought up to an ethic of sexual "conquest" or "studliness." I do not think that this proves that women are frigid gold-diggers by nature.

Even so, I would like to point out that as the evolutionary history of humans goes, "titles to property", "custody" and "divorce" are such brand new concepts that they have not really had time to affect the human genome evolutionarily.The female-organized, female-controlled "market," then, has had even less time to affect the human genome, since women have spent so much of human history as the property of males.

-MKA

1/08/2005

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Me: "Whoever controls the dispensation of the female sexual resource. This is probably the fathers of sexually desirable girls, and by transition, whoever has sufficient control over these fathers."

Lynn Gazis-Sax: "Ah, OK. If you're arguing that cultures treat female sexuality as a resource that *other people* get to control, then I can see your point."

Nice selective quotation. If you look at the context of my quote above, I was talking about medieval theocracies such as Iran or Afghanistan. In such societies, the sexual resource of a woman is controlled first by her father, then by her husband.

And of course, this violent need for control strongly indicates that female sexuality is an important resource. In every society, important and useful resources of all kinds quickly find themselves people who want to control their use, whereas worthless or non-scarce things can go as they please.

Modern liberal Western societies are a very different story with respect of who gets to control the particular resource in question. In such a liberal society, a woman is pretty much in full control of her own sexuality and therefore also stands to reap the benefits of her sexual resources.

Of course, a woman might choose to give up these benefits, or perhaps minimize these benefits by, say, gaining 200 extra pounds. But in no way does this possibility negate the existence of the resource, which has been the issue here all along.


Ilkka Kokkarinen

1/08/2005

 
Blogger mythago said...

Let's be clear that there is a particular kind of "sex" that's a commodity: intercourse that is physically satisfying only for the man, along with the risks and drawbacks of that sex being borne entirely by the woman. This commodity is traded in an environment where a man's interest in obtaining this commodity from a woman is her main value.

Which is to say, women who have their own income, who expect pleasurable sex from a partner, and who have the power to say something about these things, are not likely to be giving up blowjobs after married or putting out for diamond earrings. Why should they? They have other, better alternatives.

1/08/2005

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And of course, this violent need for control strongly indicates that female sexuality is an important resource.Of course it is, if by "female sexuality" you mean "intercourse aimed at reproduction." Pleasure-seeking female sexuality as such is *not* construed as a resource. It has either been demonized or denied altogether until quite recently.

Indeed, for much of the history of the West, female sexual desire was characterized by male writers as more voracious than male sexual desire — rampant, uncontrollable, and essentially evil. It doesn't exactly jibe with your argument that women are essentially uninterested in sex and only have (oh, I'm sorry, "trade") sex for economic gain.

-MKA

1/08/2005

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nice selective quotation. If you look at the context of my quote above, I was talking about medieval theocracies such as Iran or Afghanistan. In such societies, the sexual resource of a woman is controlled first by her father, then by her husband.I wasn't trying to selectively quote you; I honestly thought that you were acknowledging that women's sexuality is often controlled by others (obviously to a greater extent in Iran and Afghanistan than here, but even in the US, it would be too much to say that a woman's sexuality is something she's fully regarded as owning).

Anyway, I went and read the paper and blogged about it some. I don't promise to have time to respond to comments, though.

Lynn Gazis-Sax
http://leones.notfrisco2.com

1/09/2005

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

yami mcmoots: "What feminist social theories are you talking about, exactly?"

Those that deny that there is a very strong correlation in the preferences of individual people on what they look for in a mate, and which deny the existence of the social hierarchy that this uniformity of preferences inherently creates.

See any feminist discussion on fat acceptance for practical examples.

Lynn Gazis-Sax: "Anyway, I went and read the paper and blogged about it some."

And that was one thorough analysis. In fact, I liked it so much that I went and read lots of other stuff in the archives of your blog.


Ilkka Kokkarinen

1/09/2005

 
Blogger Amanda Marcotte said...

Ilkka, you totally misread fat acceptance. No one is going to force you to have sex with a fat woman, so please relax. Though maybe sex might be an easier "resource" to obtain if you didn't feel it only counts if you can count all ribs on both sides. Fat acceptance is mostly about remembering that fat people are humans who shouldn't face discrimination at work, etc. simply because Ilkka doesn't want to fuck them.

Nonetheless, I do find the contradiction in your logic puzzling. On one hand, sex is a resource women "own" and men have to compete for it. But on the other hand, you expect women to put out quite a bit more exertion to get sex from men like dieting and whatnot. If women diet, go to beauty parlors, wear high heels, wear make-up, learn to speak softly, purchase dating advice books, wear push-up bras and get plastic surgery all to get sex out of men, which sex is it again that owns sex and which is it that has to work to get it out of the other?

1/09/2005

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Amanda: "Nonetheless, I do find the contradiction in your logic puzzling. On one hand, sex is a resource women "own" and men have to compete for it."

There is no contradiction. Women control the resource of sex, but they still have to compete against each other for who gets the best men and who has to settle for the low-status loser men. Just like women, men exhibit enormous variation in their desirable and important qualities, and outside the romance novels, there are not enough successful high-status men for every woman.

(A simple application of pigeonhole principle shows that in a monogamous society with equal numbers of both sexes, for every loser man there necessarily exists some woman who either remains an old maid or settles for this loser man.)

This is pretty much the same situation as when the workers (in this analogy, men) compete over jobs (in this analogy, women).

In the job market, each position is 100% fully controlled by the employer, who can choose to create as many positions as they wish, hire anyone they want or even leave any position unfilled or terminate it if they so choose. No employer = no job, no matter what the job applicants want.

But even so, the employers can't just sit back and cherrypick the best workers without having to exert any effort themselves. If the employers want somebody who is qualified to fill the position, they have to put out quite a bit more exertion to actually get a worker. For example, they have to pay him better than their competitors, and offer all kinds of other benefits.

The better the worker, the better the salary and other benefits have to be for him to consider the job.

Now that I think about it, I can also think of many other analogies between the job market and the sexual market. But perhaps I'll leave those to another time, for example, trying to come up with the job market analogical counterpart of the fat acceptance movement.


Ilkka Kokkarinen

1/10/2005

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And now that I just wrote that, I immediately realized that landlords and tenants would be an even better analogy for women and men in the sexual marketplace.

A landlord fully controls the apartment that he owns. Even so, he fill have to fix it up to get a tenant, and perhaps even offer lower rent and other perks, especially if there are lots of other landlord competing over tenants with their vacant apartments.

In no way does this disprove the claim that the landlord fully controls the resource of the apartment that he owns.


Ilkka Kokkarinen

1/10/2005

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ilkka, I think you're mistaken in thinking that all women pick their partners based on economic status hierarchies. Not all women partnered with non-CEOs have "settled for the losers."
--Lo

1/10/2005

 
Blogger Amanda Marcotte said...

Ilkka, if it's so simple, then why isn't an actual market? Why don't women just get on an auction block and sell themselves off? I mean, if we all secretly know that men will always trade up for the prettiest woman and women will always trade up for the richest man, why are we keeping it a secret?

I know you don't believe me, but I wouldn't "trade up" for a richer man. And, take your heart pills, if I want my actual boyfriend to make more money, he wants the same for me. So we both have more money.

If you're having trouble in the wuv department, it might not be that we're all shallow wenches intending to secure a rich man and that you can't afford a woman good looking enough for you to fuck. It might be that, well, some of us like to see our relationships as something more than a market transaction. That might be turning the ladies off a little.

1/10/2005

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I assume his use of "loser" is meant to accomodate more than one definition of success."

You would assume correctly. There are many valid definitions of success.

But in the end, there really isn't that much disagreement on what constitutes a "loser".


Ilkka Kokkarinen

1/11/2005

 
Blogger Amanda Marcotte said...

Huh--I guess then I'm all confused why you always then see good-looking girls with losers. I mean, if we all know what a loser is. And I see it all the time.

Of course, I called a guy a loser once for being proud of his BMW to an obnoxious degree.

But I mean the general definition you're aiming at which is a layabout pot-smoking no job loser. Somehow, they still seem to score good women at times. Without these couplings, country music would be beside itself.

1/11/2005

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I urge everyone who hasn't read Baumeister & Voh's article to do so, and to try and keep an open mind about the theory.


The authors rest their theory on resource exchange, and the first print of social exchange is from Aristotle (The Nicomachean Ethics). (Link to citation: http://www2.pfeiffer.edu/~lridener/courses/EXCHANG2.HTML)

The theory is all about the network of exchange in any given (hetero) society. There is unquestionably an exchange of resources within societies and Baumeister & Voh's contribution is the hypothesis that sex is a female resource. They support this hypothesis in a way that it is hard to not acknowledge it's validity.

Resources are, with support from economic theory, anything there is demand of, not only material. Respect, commitment, time, affection, etc. The more scarce and/or hard to get, due to competition and so forth, the resource is the more value it holds.


I once again urge you to read the article before commenting the theory. The authors had to fight hard to support their hypothesis against the norms of western societies. (Norms which many of the posts on this site upholds).

The article does NOT oppose equality between the sexes, it simply acknowledges that one of the resources that is subject for exchange resides with one of the sexes.

The theory does NOT say that women enjoy sex less than men, it only acknowledges the fact that sex is demanded to a higher degree by men and that women to a lesser degree (than men) strive to get into bed as soon as possible.

The theory does NOT judge the hypothesis as right or wrong, it simply examines how transactions of resources are being made within a (heterosexual) community.


There is obviously some degree of economic conciousness regarding our social value and relative market value (the value of the resources of wich we dispose, relative to that of wich others dispose of).

A few hints of this:
-"She is cheap". As relative to what? My being more expensive? Cheap as not requiring a lot in the way of resources for what? sex?

-The notion of not having a chance with someone. Why? Because of earlier experience or because one does not have the amount of resources necessary?

And the opposite:
To judge someone as not good enough for oneself or someone else. Because of lack of resources?
Which resources are then? Physical attributes or wealth? Gender differences?

Research on contact/dating adds make an interesting contribution to the subject. It shows that all over the world, crossculturally, in individualistic as well as in collectivistic cultures; women claim to have great physical assets and men claim to have great material assets. Never the other way around. Is this a coincidence?


The theory of social exchange applyes economic theory on social exchange with advantages. All aspects of economic theory can be applyed on social exchange (market value, oligopoly, competition, etc) aswell as it can be applyed on any other resource exchange.

However, all aspects of social exchange can NOT be accounted for in economic theory. This is not of concern, however, the theory's only ambition is to chart the network of transaction within a (hetero) community and to distinguish resources and their value.

Other theories, on attraction for example, deal with the symptoms of exchange, this theory deals with the reasons.

I hope this post contributed in some way to the debate, thank you for taking time reading it!

Social Psychology Student, Sweden

4/20/2005

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I love your information on commodity trading! I bookmarked your blog and will be back soon. If you want, check out my blog on commodity trading secrets that shows unveils all the secrets there are to know about commodity trading. May I put a link to this blog of yours on mine?

8/31/2005

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, you have a great blog here! I'm definitely going to bookmark you!

I have a herlev sygehus
site/blog. It pretty much covers herlev sygehus
related stuff.

Come and check it out if you get time :-)

11/05/2005

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

High Google and Yahoo link popularity can be yours,

11/11/2005

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

More Passion & Intimacy with Great Sex from Oprah Romance Expert - Tips will drive your man or woman wild.

11/14/2005

 
Blogger Editor said...

Hi, great site that you have here, i have a site that has everything on it that you would like to know aboutsample viagra Be sure to check it out.

11/14/2005

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

hey i love your blog!

if you want some free noble peace prizeprizes try blingo, its free to sign up and you can win free prizes! I just won a free movie ticket! Lets win together!

11/15/2005

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

if u want an ipod, you can go to www.getipodsforfree.com and do an offer. follow the instructions and they'll actually send you a freeipod, no joke, there's reviews all over the internet

11/17/2005

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, I thought I would check out your blog.

I have a linux web site hosting site/blog. It pretty much covers ##WEB HOSTING## related stuff.

Come and check it out if you get time.

11/18/2005

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

sex sexsex sex

11/18/2005

 
Blogger Editor said...

You probably want to visit this site, it contains everything that you want to know about cheap cialis online

11/19/2005

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was searching for sex sex and found this other blog that had nude pictures of the Milton Twins and there it was! I really enjoyed visiting and commenting on your blog. Your page is great!

Feel free to post a link back to your site on my blog. I authorize all comments. Take care!

11/22/2005

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sick site, I like the way you put it together.

dating questions
http://www.dating-information-online.com/

Regards,
Gerald E.
http://www.dating-information-online.com/
dating questions

1/03/2006

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your blog is perfect and nice, we are offering stop premature ejaculation to learn more visit stop premature ejaculation or No sex past marriage? http://www.manifestingpower.com/premature-ejaculation.html
stop premature ejaculation http://www.manifestingpower.com/premature-ejaculation.html

1/09/2006

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your blog is perfect and nice, we are offering retrogade ejaculation to learn more visit retrogade ejaculation or No sex past marriage? http://www.manifestingpower.com/premature-ejaculation.html
retrogade ejaculation http://www.manifestingpower.com/premature-ejaculation.html

1/12/2006

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You have a awesome blog! WOW!

I've got on penis enlargement guide related info.

Come see when you can.

1/13/2006

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Blog. It's nice . If you ever need embraced penis enlargement related stuff, I'm sure you'd be interested in embraced penis enlargement

1/13/2006

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've got a new site up which might to be of interest to some. I run a penis enlargement vacuum related site.
Alot of interesting comments on this blog, I was searching for penis enlargement vacuum related info and some how came across this site. I found it pretty cool, so I bookmarked. I'll really theme, that got my attention.

1/13/2006

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your blog is perfect and nice, we are offering premature ejaculation to learn more visit premature ejaculation or No sex past marriage? http://www.manifestingpower.com/premature-ejaculation.html
premature ejaculation http://www.manifestingpower.com/premature-ejaculation.html

1/13/2006

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was reading a paper from a university about this subject. Nice article. You know what you are talking about. Along the lines of this theme, I have a similar site potency penis enlargement where more information can be found on the subject. Thanks for the bit of information you posted here.

1/13/2006

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was reading a paper from a university about this subject. Nice article. You know what you are talking about. Along the lines of this theme, I have a similar site program penis enlargement where more information can be found on the subject. Thanks for the bit of information you posted here.

1/13/2006

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What a decent blog. Interested in online free music, over 9 billion tunes.
visit my link below.
bollywood download free mp3 music
mp3 Maestro.

1/13/2006

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your blog is perfect and nice, we are offering pre ejaculation to learn more visit pre ejaculation or No sex past marriage? http://www.manifestingpower.com/premature-ejaculation.html
pre ejaculation http://www.manifestingpower.com/premature-ejaculation.html

1/14/2006

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm always on the lookout for other people interested in advanced penis enlargement. Glad I found you. Another site I would recommend on the subject is advanced penis enlargement Happy Day.

1/14/2006

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have a similar site related to method penis enlargement Come by some time.
I definitely like your site, bookmarked! This post is good stuff.

1/14/2006

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, I was searching blogs, and came onto yours, and I like it. I kinda landed here on accident while searching for whole penis enlargement, but nice blog.. I got you bookmarked.
If you got time , go visit my site, it�s whole penis enlargement. It pretty much covers whole penis enlargement and other similar topics available.

1/14/2006

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is always a pleasure to visit sites like yours. I was searching for some info on discount airline ticket and arrived at your site. I found it very informative though I was really interested in discount airline ticket related information.

Drop by my site one of those days if you care to http://www.cheap-flights.ebizempires.com

1/15/2006

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I found your blog when I was googling for love and romance articles. I also visited an interesting site at http://top-personals.net that is also related to local personals and has some useful tips for singles, check it if you�re interested.

1/15/2006

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have a similar website tied to quit smoking Come by some time.
I absolutely fancy your website, It's bookmarked! This information is fine stuff.

1/16/2006

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your blog is perfect and nice, we are offering premature ejaculation help to learn more visit premature ejaculation help or No sex past marriage? http://www.manifestingpower.com/premature-ejaculation.html
premature ejaculation help http://www.manifestingpower.com/premature-ejaculation.html

1/16/2006

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your blog is perfect and nice, we are offering stop premature ejaculation to learn more visit stop premature ejaculation or No sex past marriage? http://www.manifestingpower.com/premature-ejaculation.html
stop premature ejaculation http://www.manifestingpower.com/premature-ejaculation.html

1/19/2006

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your blog is perfect and nice, we are offering premature ejaculation to learn more visit premature ejaculation or No sex past marriage? http://www.manifestingpower.com/premature-ejaculation.html
premature ejaculation http://www.manifestingpower.com/premature-ejaculation.html

1/22/2006

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your blog is perfect and nice, we are offering sex problem to learn more visit sex problem or No sex past marriage? http://www.manifestingpower.com/premature-ejaculation.html
sex problem http://www.manifestingpower.com/premature-ejaculation.html

1/24/2006

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your blog is perfect and nice, we are offering retrogade ejaculation to learn more visit retrogade ejaculation or No sex past marriage? http://www.manifestingpower.com/premature-ejaculation.html
retrogade ejaculation http://www.manifestingpower.com/premature-ejaculation.html

1/26/2006

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your blog is perfect and nice, we are offering pre ejaculation to learn more visit pre ejaculation or No sex past marriage? http://www.manifestingpower.com/premature-ejaculation.html
pre ejaculation http://www.manifestingpower.com/premature-ejaculation.html

1/31/2006

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your blog is perfect and nice, we are offering premature ejaculation help to learn more visit premature ejaculation help or No sex past marriage? http://www.manifestingpower.com/premature-ejaculation.html
premature ejaculation help http://www.manifestingpower.com/premature-ejaculation.html

2/04/2006

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your blog is perfect and nice, we are offering stop premature ejaculation to learn more visit stop premature ejaculation or No sex past marriage? http://www.manifestingpower.com/premature-ejaculation.html
stop premature ejaculation http://www.manifestingpower.com/premature-ejaculation.html

2/06/2006

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your blog is great,, Here's a subject that may interest you; Orange County real estate Bad Credit? No Problem! http://thehomemortgageguide.com

3/22/2006

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Keep up the good work! I�ve been looking for photo personals online and I found this site - http://top-personals.net. It�s amazing that you can find single sex and so many picture personal ads from your area there. Adult Singles

6/05/2006

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nice blog. Loved all the free online adult movie. Keep up the good work and I shall return.

7/15/2006

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hello Friend! I just came across your blog and wanted to
drop you a note telling you how impressed I was with
the information you have posted here.
Keep up the great work, you are providing a great resource on the Internet here!
If you have a moment, please make a visit to my airfare discounts for military site.
Good luck in your endeavors!

8/10/2006

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hello Friend! I just came across your blog and wanted to
drop you a note telling you how impressed I was with
the information you have posted here.
Keep up the great work, you are providing a great resource on the Internet here!
If you have a moment, please make a visit to my airfare discounts for military site.
Good luck in your endeavors!

8/10/2006

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hello Friend! I just came across your blog and wanted to
drop you a note telling you how impressed I was with
the information you have posted here.
Keep up the great work, you are providing a great resource on the Internet here!
If you have a moment, please make a visit to my airfare discounts for military site.
Good luck in your endeavors!

8/10/2006

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have been looking for love advice relationship problem sites such as http://single-dating-service.org and I found this blog. It's really interesting.

10/10/2006

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

dating personals photo

2/09/2007

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

job web site

3/06/2007

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

guy fawkes

3/06/2007

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

home match.com myhome.aspx

4/01/2007

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home