Is Gender Equality Disrupting Sexual Supply and Demand?

Over the past couple of weeks practically every media site has run a piece on a new “economic theory” that argues that gender equality is driving down the price of sex. Valid critiques have been made but analysts are missing one very important point: This is not an economic model and if it was it wouldn’t be a very good one.*


Here is the basic argument by social psychologist Roy Baumeister. Men like sex more than women and so in the market for sex they represent the “demand.” Women like sex less than men, so in the market for sex they are the “supply.” In short, men have to compensate women in order to entice them into having sex. In a simple supply & demand model then, the price of sex is the point at which supply equals demand.

Now, to complicate matters, this is not a perfectly competitive market. In this market the women collude with each other by agreeing to reduce the supply of sex which has the effect of driving up the price. So, this is very much like the OPEC oil crisis in the 1970’s when oil producers created massive inflation by reducing the supply of oil on the world market, except sex inflation is happening a much larger scale since it involves all the women in the world.

Now the OPEC cartel’s strategy to raise world prices didn’t last very long and that is because oligopolies tend to break down fairly quickly. On a market for sex where women are colluding to keep prices high there is always an incentive for one woman to deviate; she can always offer sex at a lower price and capture a large share of the market. Okay, so all the other women call her a slut, but she is getting more resources and more sex so who could blame her?

Economic theory predicts that with a large number of suppliers on the market there is no hope for an oligopoly and that market price is set at the perfectly competitive level. Apparently though, according to the authors of this study, the extent of human history has been an insufficient amount of time to reach this market equilibrium. Instead this cartel among women did not break down until women began to gain financial independence from men. Only then, when women no longer needed men’s resources, did women begin to increase their supply of sex on the market.

So to recap, women with little or no power used sex to extract resources from men by withholding sex, and now women who have more power no longer use sex to extract resources from men because…maybe they no longer want men’s resources?  I don’t have the answer for that since it isn’t discussed in the paper and I myself can think of no reason why it would be true.

The authors prove this point by using data on sexual behavior in 37 different countries collected by Durex’s website (yes, the condom producer) combined with gender gap data from the Global Gender Gap Report 2006. They find that countries with greater gender equality are also those with more promiscuity measured in terms of: greater number of sexual partners, more one-night stands, lower age at first sex and a more liberal attitude toward sex before marriage.

Some excellent points have already been made in the argument that this relationship between promiscuity and gender equality is probably attributable to factors other than a breakdown of the female sex cartel (see for example, Amanda Marcotte’s piece on Slate) but I have a purely economic theory – one, in fact, that we have discussed before here on Dollars and Sex.

There is a strong correlation between gender equality and national income; it is the wealthiest nations in the world that allow women the greatest independence. You could argue that sex is a luxury good (one that you consume more of as your income increases) and that would give you the simple statistical relationship between more sex and greater gender inequality. But, I suspect that the relationship is more complicated and comes down to what makes nations wealthy in the first place; laws and social norms that place limited controls on individual behavior.

To quote my previous post:

 …cultural traits that encourage [economic] growth are openness to new ideas, trust, and a willingness to accept risk.  It is possible that these same characteristics are ones that encourage promiscuity.  After all, what can be more trusting, and more risky, than sex with a stranger? If I am correct, it is not income that leads to promiscuity, but rather other characteristics of a free society that lead to both high income and high promiscuity.

You won’t be surprised to learn that I do think economics can tell a story about human sexual and mating behavior. But economic theories are complex, just like human sexuality, and go far beyond a primitive understanding of supply and demand.  Much of the criticism of this paper, focusing on whether or not men are buyers and woman are sellers of sex, somewhat misses the point; that even you accept that premise the theory is seriously flawed because it ignores basic economic principles on the way that markets operate.

*  Commentators seem to have had a difficult time locating the paper that all this debate has spawned and, in fact, I contacted the author who wrote me back to say there was in fact no study with the title "Sexual Economics: A Research-Based Theory of Sexual Interactions, or Why the Man Buys Dinner" which has now been widely cited. The actual paper is the more blandly titled “Cultural Variations in the Sexual Marketplace: Gender Equality Correlates with More Sexual Activity” published in the Journal of Social Psychology in April.

Related Articles

Major study: Drug overdoses over a 38-year period reveal hidden trends

It's just the current cycle that involves opiates, but methamphetamine, cocaine, and others have caused the trajectory of overdoses to head the same direction

From the study: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6408/eaau1184
popular
  • It appears that overdoses are increasing exponentially, no matter the drug itself
  • If the study bears out, it means that even reducing opiates will not slow the trajectory.
  • The causes of these trends remain obscure, but near the end of the write-up about the study, a hint might be apparent
Keep reading Show less

How a huge, underwater wall could save melting Antarctic glaciers

Scientists think constructing a miles-long wall along an ice shelf in Antarctica could help protect the world's largest glacier from melting.

Image: NASA
Surprising Science
  • Rising ocean levels are a serious threat to coastal regions around the globe.
  • Scientists have proposed large-scale geoengineering projects that would prevent ice shelves from melting.
  • The most successful solution proposed would be a miles-long, incredibly tall underwater wall at the edge of the ice shelves.

The world's oceans will rise significantly over the next century if the massive ice shelves connected to Antarctica begin to fail as a result of global warming.

To prevent or hold off such a catastrophe, a team of scientists recently proposed a radical plan: build underwater walls that would either support the ice or protect it from warm waters.

In a paper published in The Cryosphere, Michael Wolovick and John Moore from Princeton and the Beijing Normal University, respectively, outlined several "targeted geoengineering" solutions that could help prevent the melting of western Antarctica's Florida-sized Thwaites Glacier, whose melting waters are projected to be the largest source of sea-level rise in the foreseeable future.

An "unthinkable" engineering project

"If [glacial geoengineering] works there then we would expect it to work on less challenging glaciers as well," the authors wrote in the study.

One approach involves using sand or gravel to build artificial mounds on the seafloor that would help support the glacier and hopefully allow it to regrow. In another strategy, an underwater wall would be built to prevent warm waters from eating away at the glacier's base.

The most effective design, according to the team's computer simulations, would be a miles-long and very tall wall, or "artificial sill," that serves as a "continuous barrier" across the length of the glacier, providing it both physical support and protection from warm waters. Although the study authors suggested this option is currently beyond any engineering feat humans have attempted, it was shown to be the most effective solution in preventing the glacier from collapsing.

Source: Wolovick et al.

An example of the proposed geoengineering project. By blocking off the warm water that would otherwise eat away at the glacier's base, further sea level rise might be preventable.

But other, more feasible options could also be effective. For example, building a smaller wall that blocks about 50% of warm water from reaching the glacier would have about a 70% chance of preventing a runaway collapse, while constructing a series of isolated, 1,000-foot-tall columns on the seafloor as supports had about a 30% chance of success.

Still, the authors note that the frigid waters of the Antarctica present unprecedently challenging conditions for such an ambitious geoengineering project. They were also sure to caution that their encouraging results shouldn't be seen as reasons to neglect other measures that would cut global emissions or otherwise combat climate change.

"There are dishonest elements of society that will try to use our research to argue against the necessity of emissions' reductions. Our research does not in any way support that interpretation," they wrote.

"The more carbon we emit, the less likely it becomes that the ice sheets will survive in the long term at anything close to their present volume."

A 2015 report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine illustrates the potentially devastating effects of ice-shelf melting in western Antarctica.

"As the oceans and atmosphere warm, melting of ice shelves in key areas around the edges of the Antarctic ice sheet could trigger a runaway collapse process known as Marine Ice Sheet Instability. If this were to occur, the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) could potentially contribute 2 to 4 meters (6.5 to 13 feet) of global sea level rise within just a few centuries."

Why the worst part about climate change isn't rising temperatures

The world's getting hotter, and it's getting more volatile. We need to start thinking about how climate change encourages conflict.

Christopher Furlong/Getty Images
Politics & Current Affairs
  • Climate change is usually discussed in terms of how it impacts the weather, but this fails to emphasize how climate change is a "threat multiplier."
  • As a threat multiplier, climate change makes already dangerous social and political situations even worse.
  • Not only do we have to work to minimize the impact of climate change on our environment, but we also have to deal with how it affects human issues today.

Human beings are great at responding to imminent and visible threats. Climate change, while dire, is almost entirely the opposite: it's slow, it's pervasive, it's vague, and it's invisible. Researchers and policymakers have been trying to package climate change in a way that conveys its severity. Usually, they do so by talking about its immediate effects: rising temperature, rising sea levels, and increasingly dangerous weather.

These things are bad, make no mistake about it. But the thing that makes climate change truly dire isn't that Cape Cod will be underwater next century, that polar bears will go extinct, or that we'll have to invent new categories for future hurricanes. It's the thousands of ancillary effects — the indirect pressure that climate change puts on every person on the planet.

How a drought in the Middle East contributed to extremism in Europe

(DANIEL LEAL-OLIVAS/AFP/Getty Images)

Nigel Farage in front of a billboard that leverages the immigration crisis to support Brexit.

Because climate change is too big for the mind to grasp, we'll have to use a case study to talk about this. The Syrian civil war is a horrific tangle of senseless violence, but there are some primary causes we can point to. There is the longstanding conflicts between different religious sects in that country. Additionally, the Arab Spring swept Syria up in a wave of resistance against authoritarian leaders in the Middle East — unfortunately, Syrian protests were brutally squashed by Bashar Al-Assad. These, and many other factors, contributed to the start of the Syrian civil war.

One of these other factors was drought. In fact, the drought in that region — it started in 2006 — has been described as the "worst long-term drought and most severe set of crop failures since agricultural civilization began in the Fertile Crescent many millennia ago." Because of this drought, many rural Syrians could no longer support themselves. Between 2006 and 2009, an estimated 1.5 million Syrians — many of them agricultural workers and farmers — moved into the country's major cities. With this sudden mixing of different social groups in a country where classes and religious sects were already at odds with one another, tensions rose, and the increased economic instability encouraged chaos. Again, the drought didn't cause the civil war — but it sure as hell helped it along.

The ensuing flood of refugees to Europe is already a well-known story. The immigration crisis was used as a talking point in the Brexit movement to encourage Britain to leave the EU. Authoritarian or extreme-right governments and political parties have sprung up in France, Italy, Greece, Hungary, Slovenia, and other European countries, all of which have capitalized on fears of the immigration crisis.

Why climate change is a "threat multiplier"

This is why both NATO and the Pentagon have labeled climate change as a "threat multiplier." On its own, climate change doesn't cause these issues — rather, it exacerbates underlying problems in societies around the world. Think of having a heated discussion inside a slowly heating-up car.

Climate change is often discussed in terms of its domino effect: for example, higher temperatures around the world melt the icecaps, releasing methane stored in the polar ice that contributes to the rise in temperature, which both reduces available land for agriculture due to drought and makes parts of the ocean uninhabitable for different animal species, wreaking havoc on the food chain, and ultimately making food more scarce.

Maybe we should start to consider climate change's domino effect in more human and political terms. That is, in terms of the dominoes of sociopolitical events spurred on by climate change and the missing resources it gobbles up.

What the future may hold

(NASA via Getty Images)

Increasingly severe weather events will make it more difficult for nations to avoid conflict.

Part of why this is difficult to see is because climate change does not affect all countries proportionally — at least, not in a direct sense. Germanwatch, a German NGO, releases a climate change index every year to analyze exactly how badly different countries have been affected by climate change. The top five most at-risk countries are Haiti, Zimbabwe, Fiji, Sri Lanka, and Vietnam. Notice that many of these places are islands, which are at the greatest risk for major storms and rising sea levels. Some island nations are even expected to literally disappear — the leaders of these nations are actively making plans to move their citizens to other countries.

But Germanwatch's climate change index is based on weather events. It does not account for the political and social instability that will likely result. The U.S. and many parts of Europe are relatively low on the index, but that is precisely why these countries will most likely need to deal with the human cost of climate change. Refugees won't go from the frying pan into the fire: they'll go to the closest, safest place available.

Many people's instinctive response to floods of immigrants is to simply make borders more restrictive. This makes sense — a nation's first duty is to its own citizens, after all. Unfortunately, people who support stronger immigration policies tend to have right-wing authoritarian tendencies. This isn't always the case, of course, but anecdotally, we can look at the governments in Europe that have stricter immigration policies. Hungary, for example, has extremely strict policies against Muslim immigrants. It's also rapidly turning into a dictatorship. The country has cracked down on media organizations and NGOs, eroded its judicial system's independence, illegalized homelessness, and banned gender studies courses.

Climate change and its sociopolitical effects, such as refugee migration, aren't some poorer country's problem. It's everyone's problem. Whether it's our food, our homes, or our rights, climate change will exact a toll on every nation on Earth. Stopping climate change, or at least reducing its impact, is vitally important. Equally important is contending with the multifaceted threats its going to throw our way.