You don't think seven pages of arguing isn't out of hand? We're barely being civil enough through paper thin wording here.
I agree with TM. My argument in parts for easier reading:
The central point to our social exchange analysis of sex is that sex is essentially a
female resource. When a man and a woman have sex, therefore, the woman is giving
something of value to the man. In that sense, the interaction is one-sided — unless the man
gives the woman something else of comparable value.
A consideration of the cultural economy of sex goes beyond the simple recognition
that men want sex from women. Insofar as that is generally true, the social network will
recognize it and organize the behavior of individuals and couples on that basis. Treating
sex as a female resource means that each culture (we define culture as an informationbased
social system) will endow female sexuality with value, unlike male sexuality.
Women will receive other valued goods in return for their sexual favors. Male sexuality, in
contrast, cannot be exchanged for other goods. Put another way, women become the
suppliers of sex, whereas men constitute the demand for it and play the role of purchasers
and consumers. Even though in one sense a man and a woman who are having sexual
intercourse are both doing similar things, socially they are doing quite different things.
Thus, the first prediction based on the social exchange theory of sex is that
interpersonal processes associated with sexual behavior will reveal a fundamental
difference in gender roles. Men will offer women other resources in exchange for sex, but
women will not give men resources for sex (except perhaps in highly unusual
circumstances). In any event, the bottom line is that sexual activity by females has exchange
value, whereas male sexuality does not. Female virginity, chastity, fidelity, virtuous
reputation, and similar indicators will have positive values that will be mostly absent in the
male. Put another way, it will matter more to the formation and continuation
of a relationship whether the woman is a virgin than whether the man is; whether the
woman engages in sex with another partner than whether the man does; and so forth.
Why a Female Resource?
Why would sex be a female resource? Symons’s (1979) original answer focused on
reproductive strategies shaped by evolution as the ultimate cause. In his account, the
minimal male investment in parenthood is almost zero, whereas for a woman it is
substantial. Therefore, he proposed, sex for a man is all benefit with little or no cost,
whereas for a woman the potential cost (possible pregnancy, with pain and possibly death
attending childbirth) is substantial even if the pleasure is quite high. The risk of high cost
will be an incentive for the woman to hold back, and so the man must offer her some
benefits to offset this. However, Symons also acknowledged (p. 261) that human beings do
not necessarily care about these ultimate causes, and so the immediate psychological
factors that lead people to treat sex as a medium of exchange require further explanation.
A somewhat different explanation for why sex is a female resource can be deduced
from motivational differences. 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. For example, Waller and Hill proposed
that the person who is less in love has more power to shape and influence the relationship,
because the one who is more in love will be more willing to make compromises and offer
other inducements in order to keep the relationship going. 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.
The social exchange analysis emphasizes that sex is a female resource, so that men
must offer women other resources in exchange for it. But how much? The price of sex (so to
speak) may vary widely. In order to commence a sexual relationship with a particular
woman, a man may have to offer her a fancy dinner, or a long series of compliments, or a
month of respectful attention, or a lifetime promise to share all his wealth and earnings
with her exclusively. This price is negotiated between the two individuals in the context of
the prices that other, similar couples set.
Sexual norms thus constitute a kind of local going rate as to the appropriate price for
sex. Across cultures and across different historical periods, the going rate may vary widely.
Within a given community, however, it probably varies much less. Market forces will tend
to stabilize this rate within a community (but not necessarily across communities). To
illustrate, suppose a particular woman demands too high a price for sex, such as if she
refuses to have sex until the man has promised to marry her and has given her an
engagement ring. Her suitor may abandon her and turn his attention to another woman –
but only if other women in the community will offer sex at a significantly lower price. If all
the woman in her community demand an engagement ring before giving sex, however, the
man will be more likely to agree.
A related prediction is that a low price of sex favors men, whereas a high price
favors women. Therefore men will tend to support initiatives that lower the price of sex,
whereas women will generally try to support a higher price. Ideologies of “free love” (that
is, sex unaccompanied by any other obligations or exchanges) will appeal to men more
than women.
The price of sex is not restricted to money, of course. Our broad conceptualization of
resources (as money, material gifts, respect, love, time, affection, or commitment) is
consistent with arguments that women do not select their sex partners on the basis of
material goods alone.
To the extent that sex is a female resource, courtship can be seen as a process by
which the man seeks to persuade the woman to have sex with him. He may invest material
and social resources in her, such as by buying her gifts, paying for her food and
entertainment, spending time with her, and declaring himself willing to commit to having
a long term relationship with her. Even though the woman may desire and enjoy sex too,
she will typically refuse sex until the man has invested a sufficient amount of resources
(according to local norms and personal standards, which may vary widely). In essence, sex
is something that she gives to him, and so he must first give her other resources in
exchange. In many cases, the woman wants a committed, loving relationship in exchange
for her sexual favors, and so she will withhold sex until that relationship has been
established or at least offered.
In support of this analysis, an investigation of teenage girls’ approach to courtship
and dating found that love — or at least a declaration of love — was typically required
before a girl would have sex. “Sex without at least lip service to love places the girl in
danger of developing a [bad] reputation.” (Wilson, D., 1978, p. 115). Thus, the girl has to
have reason to believe that the boy loves her before she can justify having sex with him.
Notably, Wilson found that it is the other girls (not boys) who enforced this code, with girls
regulating their social interactions to heighten the importance of this process. Hence,
requiring love or declarations of love from a man before a woman will have sex not only
wards off an unfavorable personal reputation for her but also upholds the standards of
exchange across men and women more generally.
If sex is a female resource, then it will ultimately be up to the female to decide when
and whether sexual relations commence. This view of women as sexual gatekeepers was
supported by Cohen and Shotland (1996), who computed correlations between when
people thought sex should start in a given relationship and when they actually began
having sex.
For the hapless men, the correlation was not even significant, indicating
that their wishes and preferences were essentially irrelevant, whereas for women the
correlation was very high indicating that sex occurred when they preferred. This
study also found that men wanted sex to commence earlier than the women. Thus, women
decide when sex commences, and the man’s role is to invest time, money, attention,
commitment, and other resources until the woman is sufficiently satisfied.
The asymmetry in courtship roles can be examined by studying cases in which one
person fails to live up to the implicit bargain. Buss (1989) examined the complaints that
men and women have about each other, and his results fit nicely with the social exchange
analysis. Men reported the greatest anger and upset over women who accepted resources
but failed to provide sex in return, such as the flirtatious woman who let a man spend
money on her but then rejected his sexual advances. In these men’s view, the woman
deceived them by seeming to promise sex in exchange for resources but then reneging.
Meanwhile, women were most upset and angry about men who seemingly offered a
relationship but then reneged after they obtained sex, such as the man who pursued the
woman with declarations of love but then abandoned her once his sexual desires were
satisfied.
Just a tiny scratch of the argument. And I think it fits perfectly. Men do have it harder and economics PROVES IT.
06 Jun 2012, 11:43 am
