Peter Pan Syndrome and Sexual Economics

[MadImmortalMan]

Sexual Economics, Culture, Men, and Modern Sexual Trends

Roy F. Baumeister and Kathleen D. Vohs



At first, our theory was constructed to fit what was already known, making it an exercise in hindsight. It is therefore highly revealing to see how the theory has fared in Regnerus and Uecker's (2011) pioneering studies of the recent, ongoing shifts in sexual behavior in American society.

The value of an economic perspective is abundantly clear in Regnerus's work. Not only does he analyze behavior in terms of markets. In a political democracy, majority rules, and such political principles have often operated in human behavior. But not in sex. In fact, Regnerus shows over and over that when it comes to sex, the minority rules. This is what happens in economics, especially in the dynamics of supply and demand. When supply outnumbers demand, the suppliers (the majority) are in a weak position and must yield ground, such as by reducing their price. In contrast, when demand outnumbers supply, the suppliers (now the minority) have the advantage and can dictate the terms to their liking, such as by raising the price.

In simple terms, we proposed that in sex, women are the suppliers and men constitute the demand (Baumeister and Vohs 2004). Hence the anti-democratic, seemingly paradoxical sex ratio findings that Regnerus describes. When women are in the minority, the sexual marketplace conforms to their preferences: committed relationships, widespread virginity, faithful partners, and early marriage. For example, American colleges in the 1950s conformed to that pattern. In our analysis, women benefit in such circumstances because the demand for their sexuality exceeds the supply. In contrast, when women are the majority, such as on today's campuses as well as in some ethnic minority communities, things shift toward what men prefer: Plenty of sex without commitment, delayed marriage, extradyadic copulations, and the like.

snip...


Sometimes men have sought to improve their chances for sex by keeping women at a disadvantage in terms of economic, educational, political, and other opportunities (Baumeister and Vohs 2004). For example, researchers have found that in New York in the 1800s, surprisingly high numbers of employed women resorted to occasional prostitution to supplement their meager wages (Elias et al. 1998). But in general this male strategy backfired. Women appear to have realized collectively that sex was the main thing they had to offer men in order to get a piece of society's wealth, and so they restricted sexual access as much as they could, to maintain a high price. {Ed: Dont be a slut!} Recent work has found that across a large sample of countries today, the economic and political liberation of women is positively correlated with greater availability of sex (Baumeister and Mendoza 2011). Thus, men's access to sex has turned out to be maximized not by keeping women in an economically disadvantaged and dependent condition, but instead by letting them have abundant access and opportunity. In an important sense, the sexual revolution of the 1970s was itself a market correction. Once women had been granted wide opportunities for education and wealth, they no longer had to hold sex hostage (Baumeister and Twenge 2002).

What does all this mean for men? The social trends suggest the continuing influence of a stable fact, namely the strong desire of young men for sexual activity. As the environment has shifted, men have simply adjusted their behavior to find the best means to achieve this same goal. Back in 1960, it was difficult to get sex without getting married or at least engaged, and so men married early. To be sure, this required more than being willing to bend the knee, declare love, and offer a ring. To qualify as marriage material, a man had to have a job or at least a strong prospect of one (such as based on an imminent college degree). The man's overarching goal of getting sex thus motivated him to become a respectable stakeholder contributing to society.

The fact that men became useful members of society as a result of their efforts to obtain sex is not trivial, and it may contain important clues as to the basic relationship between men and culture (see Baumeister 2010). Although this may be considered an unflattering characterization, and it cannot at present be considered a proven fact, we have found no evidence to contradict the basic general principle that men will do whatever is required in order to obtain sex, and perhaps not a great deal more. (One of us characterized this in a previous work as, "If women would stop sleeping with jerks, men would stop being jerks.") If in order to obtain sex men must become pillars of the community, or lie, or amass riches by fair means or foul, or be romantic or funny, then many men will do precisely that. This puts the current sexual free-for-all on today's college campuses in a somewhat less appealing light than it may at first seem. Giving young men easy access to abundant sexual satisfaction deprives society of one of its ways to motivate them to contribute valuable achievements to the culture.

snip...


If men don't need career success to get sex, then what if anything do they need success for? Some research indicates that career motivation really intensifies for men when they become fathers. Indeed, it has long been known that the transition to parenthood has opposite effects by gender. New mothers withdraw from their work and careers; new fathers embrace work and career with enhanced seriousness and motivation (for a review see Baumeister 1991).

Many of these changes are beyond anyone's control, and so our comments here are not meant to prescribe a radical shift in policies. Still, it is instructive to consider how these changes may affect the future of society.

TL:DR: Changing gender roles in the modern world providing more access to opportunity for women has benefited men--because it has also provided men with greater access to sex. That, in turn, has alleviated one of the main reasons men are motivated to be successful: to get sex.

I did not quote even half the thing btw. It's long.

[crazy canuck]

Its an interesting take on the phenomenon of males growing up later and later in life.

[The Brain]

It's beyond my control.

[Ed Anger]

Wut?

[Phillip V]

TL:DR: Changing gender roles in the modern world providing more access to opportunity for women has benefited men--because it has also provided men with greater access to sex. That, in turn, has alleviated one of the main reasons men are motivated to be successful: to get sex.

Correct. It's hilarious, but also sad.

My unemployed male peers still happily get laid. Their women subsequently whine about getting nowhere, but I quickly run away lest they mistake me for an ear. But they should be applauded for fucking and "loving" whoever the hell they want!

[Tamas]

a load of BS

[Iormlund]

If all girls were hot this theory might hold some ground.

As it is, I have to concur with Tamas' assessment. All I need to do to prove it is dress in a nice suit or parade in an expensive car.

[crazy canuck]

If all girls were hot this theory might hold some ground.

As it is, I have to concur with Tamas' assessment. All I need to do to prove it is dress in a nice suit or parade in an expensive car.

All girls are not hot which intensifies the competition amongst males.  The fact that you need to put on the airs of success to get the women you want puts you below average according to the theory in the OP

[mongers]

If all girls were hot this theory might hold some ground.

As it is, I have to concur with Tamas' assessment. All I need to do to prove it is dress in a nice suit or parade in an expensive car.

I think there's a few Languishite who disprove the theory as well. 

[crazy canuck]

If all girls were hot this theory might hold some ground.

As it is, I have to concur with Tamas' assessment. All I need to do to prove it is dress in a nice suit or parade in an expensive car.

I think there's a few Languishite who disprove the theory as well. 

How so?

If they are not getting some then they are just below the average - the theory isnt that males who never see the light of day will get swarmed like some Axe commercial?

[MadImmortalMan]

I'm pretty sure no broad theory of anything will apply to every person. There are always outliers. Often many, many outliers.

[Iormlund]

If all girls were hot this theory might hold some ground.

As it is, I have to concur with Tamas' assessment. All I need to do to prove it is dress in a nice suit or parade in an expensive car.

All girls are not hot which intensifies the competition amongst males.  The fact that you need to put on the airs of success to get the women you want puts you below average according to the theory in the OP

You miss the point. All other factors being the same, money will still improve my (or anyone else's) access to "premium" girls, sexual revolution or not. As another example, it was not so long ago that a poll found that 85% of Spanish women would not start a relationship with an unemployed male.

So yeah ... money still matters.

[crazy canuck]

I'm pretty sure no broad theory of anything will apply to every person. There are always outliers. Often many, many outliers.

Yep, but if we applied a standard that a theory needed to explain the behaviour of every single person then we would likely have no theories at all.

[crazy canuck]

If all girls were hot this theory might hold some ground.

As it is, I have to concur with Tamas' assessment. All I need to do to prove it is dress in a nice suit or parade in an expensive car.

All girls are not hot which intensifies the competition amongst males.  The fact that you need to put on the airs of success to get the women you want puts you below average according to the theory in the OP

You miss the point. All other factors being the same, money will still improve my (or anyone else's) access to girls, sexual revolution or not. As another example, it was not so long ago that a poll found that 85% of Spanish women would not start a relationship with an unemployed male.

So yeah ... money still matters.

All other factors are not equal because you are dismissing the wealth of the female.  Why would a wealthy female be attracted to a wealth unattractive jerk if she can get with a very attractive but nonwealthy guy.  ie she isnt in it for the money.

Now if you happen to have money, are attractive and are not a jerk you probably have a leg up on all competition because have a wide selection of females who will be attracted to you for one reason or another.

tldr - guys who only have money have a smaller pool of females to attract.

[Valmy]

I don't know man.  I think attempts to reduce human behavior to singular causes are generally ridiculous and result in BS if taken too far.