This is, of course, just a theory, but I see so many echoes of it around — in men, women, in myself — every day, that it makes me quite ill. That's why I consciously emphasize it to make it better remembered, so hold on to the handrails.
On stage under the hot spotlight — the theory of sexual economics.
What kind of beast is this
In 2004, Roy F. Baumeister and Kathleen D. Vohs published an article in the journal Personality and Social Psychology Review, in which they presented human heterosexual and, to some extent, romantic relationships as an economic model.
Sex is a resource.
Men are buyers and create demand. Women are sellers and control supply.
Origins of sexual economics
For many centuries, women have been second-class citizens. If they had any power, it came from men, and more often than not they did without it: commoners worked alongside their husbands, giving birth to 10 children and managing the household. Inheritance rights were limited, there was no right to vote, no right to fully choose a husband, and there was (and this is hugely important!) no possibility to avoid having children.
I’m not saying this to stir up a holy war of feminism, but to clarify: women have had a very disadvantageous position for a long time. However, they had one thing that all heterosexual men needed — sex. More precisely, access to it.
And women decided (not at a special summit, of course, but without colluding, intuitively) to raise prices. What else could they do? There were no other trump cards. I give you sex, you give me a wedding, and with it (in theory) — stability, sustenance, a guarantee of future children, and meat on holidays.
To consider sex as a source of pleasure such a woman could not allow herself, because then there would be a temptation to offer a discount, which could lead not only to a reduction in benefits ("used and dumped") but also to societal rejection, specifically — from other women who, alongside men and clergymen, guarded morality.
After all, a woman who gives away sex cheaply or, even worse, for free is simply engaging in dumping and disrupting the balance of supply and demand, which other women have artificially led into a deficit.
In the interests of the survival of the "species," such women must be vilified and excluded from the support circle so that their connection with men seems as disadvantageous as possible and does not encourage the infusion of valuable resources. And also to punish. There is no space to encroach upon the system.
Hypocritical? Yes. Justified? More than.
And then three things happened:
- sexual revolution;
- suffragette movement;
- condoms with oral contraceptives.
Did the system collapse? Did everyone run to celebrate sex? Not at all.
What do we have now
People change slowly. Society as a whole changes even slower. Many women now have the opportunity to support themselves and can choose to bear children not when having sex, but when they want to, but the old system worked for so long that it became entrenched not at the level of "this is beneficial for me," but at the level of "this is good and right." It has become part of the morality and ethics of the Western world.
Have you ever asked yourself where our sexual prejudices come from? For example, that a woman should not flirt first or that she should not openly offer sex. That even if she wants to, she must "play hard to get." That even when taking off her underwear, she cannot act freely, lest "he thinks poorly of me." And conversely, that a man should initiate and lead the flirting, "bring" a woman to bed, be the male who tames and takes the female.
Of course, there can be a lot of spice in this as long as both parties want to play such games and understand why they do it. The problem is that we have taken this to the point of absurdity and automatism.
Education
What do you think dad will say if his son asks him about sex? I think dad will say that sex is cool, and then, if he isn't a fool, he will talk about respect, safety, and unwanted pregnancy.
And what if a girl asks her mom? I guarantee that the lecture on safety accompanied by a heightened concentration of horrors will be the first point. Or maybe the only one. I personally don't know a single woman who was even hinted during such a conversation that sex is great.
Most men will never experience even the fear of rape when alone with a woman.
Yes, sex is riskier for women. Women can get pregnant, men cannot. Rape is primarily a women's issue. I'm not trying to say that men and boys are not raped, but most men will never experience even the fear of rape when alone with a woman.
All of this is true, but the education of the "fear of flesh" is not a solution. Girls also want to, and they will have sex anyway, and the fear instilled in childhood will lead to one of two outcomes: either the girl will rebel (I'll sleep without a condom to spite my mom), or she will suffer trauma (I want to but I'm afraid), and then she will "trade" sex.
The cult of virginity
Losing virginity is a matter for two, but we praise girls for their virginity ("good girl, saving herself for her beloved"), while boys receive no praise. It's okay that our virgin girl will end up with her beloved, knowing nothing about her body (you know how often women over forty after a divorce and buying their first vibrator suddenly discover that they can have orgasms?), but look for yourself: the virginity of one group is highly valued, while the other's is not. How is this supposed to work?
Meanwhile, boys have their own cult and social stigma: to not be a virgin. Never. Have you had sex? Of course. As soon as I was born, that’s what I did. Male sexuality is not valued in this economy, so there is no need to "save" oneself. On the contrary, the more victories a guy has (read: the more sex he gets for the minimum price), the cooler he is.
But girls have been taught the opposite things, and boys have to persuade, threaten, flatter, deceive, and do anything to get sex. Not to make the partner feel good, but to avoid being seen as losers themselves.
Do I alone see how rotten this system is?
Slut, slut, slut!
This starts in childhood and seeps into adult life. For girls, having a lot of sex is bad. For boys, it’s good. The paradox here is the same as in the previous point.
At the same time, most adults, if asked abstractly, would agree that having a lot of sex is definitely better than having little, but the economy tells women: hold back the resource, otherwise your personal value will decrease. In other words, you are the number of men you've slept with. And the more of them there are, the worse you are. Cheaper.
The same message is conveyed to men, who often split into two camps. Those who hate "sluts" (in this context — women who love sex) and condemn them, and those who enjoy such women's company but cannot perceive them as full-fledged partners. Such a man can sleep with them once, while looking for another "right" woman for a relationship (the so-called Madonna/whore complex), often cheating on her with "sluts" because a "right" woman isn't liberated enough and doesn't satisfy him in sex.
I’ll give, but only for those earrings over there
We have come to the crux of the matter.
The main legacy of the economy of sex is the belief that sex cannot be given away just like that.
"I like you, I want you, and I'm ready" is not a sufficient reason. A man has to earn sex.
I'm not saying that all women have to sleep with the first man they encounter if he seems at all attractive. Promiscuity is a purely voluntary matter. It's just that for some reason, no one is surprised by ladies who wait for the third (fifth, twenty-fifth) date to assess the partner's financial viability. She asks not "what kind of person is he and can I relax with him," but rather "what can he give me in return."
This approach breeds sexually passive women (after all, sex is for him, and she is merely a reservoir for the resource) and men who perceive a girl as a sex doll rather than a full participant in the process ("whoever pays gets to choose the music").
This works like a charm in "daddy-girl" types of relationships, where he works hard and makes decisions, and she is pretty, but you can't build horizontal, partner relationships on this model. And the sex will likely be mediocre. Not a collaborative creation and ecstasy, but one person's masturbation on another. So, does it excite you?
Not married, poor thing
Millions of people still consider marriage the pinnacle of women's social hierarchy, as phrases like "you’re already X years old, and still without a husband" are not only said to unemployed fools sitting on their parents' necks but also to smart, ambitious business ladies. The latter face even more scrutiny. It sounds particularly funny when such a woman has a steady partner, with whom she is completely satisfied.
What will this ring give her? No, I’m not against marriage, especially when it comes to future children and all related legal matters; it’s just important to understand one thing: if a man wants to leave, he will leave, and the ring won't stop him. And if he wants to stay, he will do so even without a ring.
Women who rushed to marry the first man they met under pressure from moms and grandmothers, and who spent years going through scandals, depression, and the painful process of dividing property, wonder: "What did I do wrong?" The answer is simple: she believed in the illusion that marriage would solve her problems. That by getting a stamp, she secured her cozy place in the economy. She has won. He belongs to her and won't go anywhere. Well, well.
She gives, he takes
The difference in sexuality between men and women is greatly exaggerated.
Yes, we have different genitals, hormonal backgrounds, and other objective factors (physical strength, pregnancy) that generally make women more cautious and selective regarding sex, but the economy absurdly inflates this difference.
All these "women don’t like sex," "men are beasts and can’t help it," "men are from Mars, women are from Venus" — this is a social construct, a subjective paradigm of thought that works on two fronts: taming female sexuality and demonizing male.
From this, for example, the so-called rape culture sprouts. No murder victim is blamed for having "too much life," but rape victims are often blamed for having "too much sex."
In the sexual economy, if a woman frequently gives sex away for free or simply positions herself that way, she loses the right to ask for a price for it (even if that "price" is humane treatment) or to refuse it in principle. "If you gave it to them, you should give it to me too, what makes me worse?"
And men are led to believe that they must take sex, and if it's not given to them, it implies their inadequacy. If it's not given, it means they have nothing to "pay" with. In debates about the objectification of women, photos of equally photoshopped muscular guys are often presented as evidence. As if to say, see, it's also objectification. The problem with this comparison is that it's fundamentally erroneous. Men's appearances are attributed far less value than women's.
But there is objectification of men too. Based on the thickness of their wallets.
This puts pressure on the psyche (just as the “slut” stigma pressures women) and breeds generations of men who are convinced that they must work hard to buy what everyone else wants to do anyway, and prove something to someone with such "purchases."
Where is the life hack?!
The life hack here is simple: don't play. Because from the suggestion to women that their natural desires are sinful, and to men that they must "buy" sex, in the end, no one wins.
And let the holy war begin!
