Paper: Sexual Economics in Swedish Dating: Pity Poor Men (Ngaosuvan et al., 2022)

Abstract

Sexual exchange theory (SET) is a controversial theory describing heterosexual partner selection in terms of economic market factors. This paper explores SET empirically in Sweden, one of the most financially equal nations in the world. Experiment 1, a vignette study with four dating profiles, tested whether access to resources increases male attractiveness. Experiment 2, a vignette study measured how justifiable men’s disappointment was, depending on financial courtship investments in a failed courtship attempt. The results of experiment 1 indicated that, even in Sweden, men with limited resources are considered less attractive. Male financial resources are not seen as a bonus, but rather a prerequisite. In experiment 2, participants felt that it was not justifiable to be disappointed for men who were ‘cheap’ in courtship. These results indicate that SET is a useful theory, even in a relatively gender-equal society.

The paper specifically contrasts evolutionary psychology (it is biologically expensive for women to have sex and the opposite for men), feminist theory (men oppress women by controlling their sexuality), and social exchange theory (men have a higher sex drive and since the agent with the least interest has an advantage in making a deal, this gives women leverage to demand resources from men). After conducting experiment 1, the authors conclude: "Even in a society where women have the access to stable finances, higher education, and governmental safety-nets to make the partners’ resources seem irrelevant, sexual economic structures still prevail. Not by rewarding the rich, but by punishing the poor men." And in experiment 2, they found that it is "better" for a man to make no gift to a woman than a cheap gift, and best to make an expensive gift, if he wants to convince her to have sex with him (specifically, it was seen as most acceptable for a woman to deny his request to spend the night if he made a cheap gift, and least acceptable if he made an expensive one). The authors explain that the cheap gift is not viewed as an equal exchange and thus makes the woman feel cheap. It is noteworthy that this can be explained by SET but not the evolutionary perspective, which "cannot explain why the man’s disappointment would be least justifiable in the cheap condition". They also note that obvious and blunt gifts might make the woman feel like a prostitute, decreasing the chances of them accepting the gift. Additionally, they argue that SET (but neither the evolutionary psychology perspective nor feminist theory) can explain "slut-shaming for women (price controlling like cartels), virgin-shaming for men (embarrassing less fortunate men), women virgin appreciation, and men stud appreciation" and that "SET is superior to feminist theory in explaining [that low education and income negatively affect men's ability to have children more so than women's]" so that "[i]f there is overwhelming patriarchy that allows men to unilaterally oppress women, then even uneducated and low-income men should find willing partners to have children".

Critiques / notes: - In the first experiment, they did not let the participants see faces but only descriptions hinting at the person's security and economic status, so it is hard to tell what weight these findings have in real-world settings. Furthermore, a gender-swapped version would've added weight to these findings. - One could explain the results of the second experiment using an evolutionary psychology perspective by considering that a cheap present may be a better indicator of a man's low economic status than no present at all. After thinking about this again, this seems to only be a counter if one were to ask the target woman directly, but since the experiment measured how acceptable the female study participants found the man's disappointment, a man's potential economic status appears to be irrelevant after all. - SET nicely complements the evolutionary psychology perspective. On the other hand, feminist theory seems to be in direct opposition to this theory. - The advantages of SET over the evolutionary psychology perspective are: it can explain female slut shaming / virgin appreciation and male virgin shaming / stud appreciation, retroactive jealousy, involuntary male childlessness, that even women who already have resources want a man with money - They state: "[…] both feminist theory and SET agree on female vulnerability. If women are in a vulnerable situation, they are more at risk of being exploited by others in every possible aspect, including sexual economics. To avoid this, women should try hard to not be in a vulnerable position and be fully aware that their sexuality is exploitable. Instead, both feminists and sexual economics theorists would prefer that women reach a satisfactory level of personal resources and rights to avoid exploitation." On the other hand, they earlier note: "In the case of sexual economics, in a free market, women wield considerable power to exploit men. For instance, attractive young women can exploit men to make them do favors for her, buy her gifts, promote her, hire her, acquit her from criminal charges, and so on." As much as it is true that women are vulnerable, I would argue that men are also vulnerable in their own unique ways and that this is not seen because of the cognitive bias that makes us more likely to see men as perpetrators and women as victims.

Really interested in hearing your thoughts on this one!