The authors of sexual economics theory (Baumeister & Twenge, 2002; Baumeister & Vohs, 2004) argue that sex is a female commodity that women exchange for men’s resources; therefore, women (not men) are responsible for the cultural suppression of sexuality, ostensibly to preserve the value of sex. In this article, I describe the central tenets of sexual economics theory and summarize a growing body of research contradicting them. I also explain the negative implications of the claims of sexual economics theory for gender equality and heterosexual relationships. Researchers, clinicians, and educators engaged in understanding human sexuality may use the arguments provided in this article to counteract gender myths. This article also serves as a case study of how feminist scholars can employ empirical evidence to weaken a popularized, patriarchal theory.
AckermanJ. M.GriskeviciusV.LiN. P. (2011). Let’s get serious: Communication commitment in romantic relationship formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 1079–1094. doi:10.1037/a0022412
AlexanderM. G.FisherT. D. (2003). Truth and consequences: Using the bogus pipeline to examine sex differences in self-reported sexuality. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 27–35. doi:10.1080/00224490309552164
4.
AllisonR.RismanB. J. (2013). A double standard for “hooking up”: How far have we come toward gender equality?Social Science Research, 42, 1191–1206. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.04.006
BaranowskiA. M.HechtH. (2015). Gender differences in and similarities in receptivity to casual sex invitations: Effects of location and risk perception. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 2257–2265. doi:10.1007/s10508-015-0520-6
8.
BarghJ. A.RaymondP.PryorJ. B.StrackF. (1995). Attractiveness of the underling: An automatic power → sex association and its consequences for sexual harassment and aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 768–781. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.68.5.768
9.
BasowS. A.MinieriA. (2011). “You owe me”: Effects of date cost, who pays, participant gender, and rape myth beliefs on perceptions of rape. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 479–497. doi:10.1177/0886260510363421
10.
BaumeisterR. F. (2010). Is there anything good about men? How cultures flourish by exploiting men. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
11.
BaumeisterR. F.CataneseK. R.VohsK. D. (2001). Is there a gender difference in strength of sex drive? Theoretical views, conceptual distinctions, and a review of relevant evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 242–273. doi:10.1.1.186.5369
12.
BaumeisterR. F.TwengeJ. M. (2002). Cultural suppression of female sexuality. Review of General Psychology, 6, 166–203. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.6.2.166
13.
BaumeisterR. F.VohsK. D. (2004). Sexual economics: Sex as female resource for social exchange in heterosexual interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 339–363. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_2
14.
BaumeisterR. F.VohsK. D. (2012). Sexual economics, culture, men, and modern sexual trends. Society, 49, 520–524. doi:10.1007/s12115-012-9596-y
15.
BirdS. R. (1996). Welcome to the men’s club: Homosociality and the maintenance of hegemonic masculinity. Gender & Society, 10, 120–132. doi:10.1177/089124396010002002
16.
BoswellA.SpadeJ. Z. (1996). Fraternities and collegiate rape culture. Why are some fraternities more dangerous places for women?Gender & Society, 10, 133–147. doi:10.1177/089124396010002003
17.
BrownmillerS. (1975). Against our will: Men, women, and rape. New York, NY: Bantam. doi:10.2307/582736
18.
BurtM. R. (1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 217–230.
19.
BurtM. R.EstepR. E. (1981). Apprehension and fear: Learning a sense of sexual vulnerability. Sex Roles, 7, 511–522. doi:10.1007/BF00288628
20.
BussD. M. (1995). Psychological sex differences: Origins through sexual selection. American Psychologist, 50, 164–168. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.50.3.164
21.
BussD. M.SchmittD. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204
22.
ClarkR. D.HatfieldE. (1989). Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 2, 39–45. doi:10.1300/J056v02n01_04
23.
ConleyT. D. (2011). Perceived proposer personality characteristics and gender differences in acceptance of casual sex offers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 309–329. doi:10.1037/a0022152
24.
ConleyT. D.ZieglerA.MoorsA. C. (2013). Backlash in the bedroom: Stigma mediates gender differences in acceptance of casual sex offers. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37, 392–407. doi:10.1177/0361684312467169
25.
CrandallC. S.EshelmanA.O’BrienL. (2002). Social norms and the expression and suppression of prejudice: The struggle for internalization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 359–378. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.82.3.359
26.
CurryT. J. (1991). Fraternal bonding in the locker room: A profeminist analysis of talk about competition and women. Sociology of Sport Journal, 8, 119–135. doi:10.1123/ssj.8.2.119
DoschA.BelayachiS.Van der LindenM. (2016). Implicit and explicit sexual attitudes: How are they related to sexual desire and sexual satisfaction in men and women?The Journal of Sex Research, 53, 251–264. doi:10.1080/00224499.2014.1003361
29.
Du Bois-ReymondM.RaveslootJ. (1996). The roles of parents and peers in the sexual and relational socialization of adolescents. In HurrelmannK.HamiltonS. (Eds.), Social problems and social contexts in adolescence (pp. 175–197). New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
30.
EaglyA. H.WoodW. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54, 408–423. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.54.6.408
31.
EastwickP. W.EaglyA. H.FinkelE. J.JohnsonS. E. (2011). Implicit and explicit preferences for physical attractiveness in a romantic partner: A double dissociation in predictive validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 993–1011. doi:10.1037/a0024061
32.
Emmers-SommerT. A.FarrellJ.GentryA.StevensS.EcksteinJ.BattoclettiJ.GardenerC. (2010). First date sexual expectations: The effects of who asked, who paid, date location, and gender. Communication Studies, 61, 339–355. doi:10.1080/10510971003752676
33.
EngelsF. (1902). The origin of the family, private property, and the state. Chicago, IL: Kerr. (Original work published 1884)
34.
ErchullM. J.LissM.AxelsonS. J.StaebellS. E.AskariS. F. (2011). Well…she wants it more: Perceptions of social norms about desires for marriage and children and anticipated chore participation. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 34, 253–260. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2010.01566.x
FairchildK.RudmanL. A. (2008). Everyday stranger harassment and women’s objectification. Social Justice Research, 21, 338–357. doi:10.1007/s11211-008-0073-0
37.
FeinE.SchneiderS. (1995). The rules: Time-tested secrets for capturing the heart of Mr. Right. New York, NY: Warner Books.
38.
FerraroK. (1996). Women’s fear of victimization: Shadow of sexual assault?Social Forces, 75, 667–690. Retrieved fromhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2580418
39.
FetterolfJ. C.RudmanL. A. (2017). Exposure to sexual economics theory promotes a hostile view of heterosexual relationships. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 41, 77–88. doi:10.1177/0361684316669697
40.
FisherT. D. (2009). The impact of socially conveyed norms on the reporting of sexual behavior and attitudes by men and women. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 567–572. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.02.007
41.
FisherB. S.SloanJ. J. (2003). Unraveling the fear of victimization among college women: Is the “shadow of sexual assault hypothesis” supported?Justice Quarterly, 20, 633–659. doi:10.1080/07418820300095641
42.
ForbesG. B.Adams-CurtisL. E.WhiteK. B. (2004). First- and second-generation measures of sexism, rape myths and related beliefs, and hostility toward women. Violence Against Women, 10, 236–261. doi:10.1177/1077801203256002
GilmoreS. M. (1996). Behind closed doors: Men’s conquest sex talk (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Dissertation Abstracts International (56, 3372A).
45.
GlickP.DieboldJ.Bailey-WernerB.ZhuL. (1997). The two faces of Adam: Ambivalent sexism and polarized attitudes toward women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1323–1334. doi:10.1177/01461672972312009
46.
GlickP.FiskeS. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491
47.
GlickP.FiskeS. T. (2001). Ambivalent sexism. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 115–188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Academic Press.
48.
GlickP.FiskeS. T.MladinicA.SaizJ.AbramsD.MasserB.…LópezW. L. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 763–775. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.79.5.763
49.
GustafsonP. E. (1998). Gender differences in risk perception: Theoretical and methodological perspectives. Risk Analysis, 18, 805–811. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1998.tb01123.x
HarrisonD. A.KravitzD. A.MayerD. M.LeslieL. M.Lev-AreyD. (2006). Understanding attitudes toward affirmative action programs in employment: Summary and meta-analysis of 35 years of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1013–1036. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1013
52.
HatfieldE.TraupmannJ. (1981). Intimate relationships: A perspective from equity theory. In DuckS.GilmourR. (Eds.), Personal relationships 1: Studying personal relationships (pp. 165–178). London, England: Academic Press.
HillM. S.FischerA. R. (2001). Does entitlement mediate the link between masculinity and rape-related variables?Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48, 39–50. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.48.1.39
55.
JonasonP. K. (2007). A mediation hypothesis to account for sex differences in reported number of sexual partners: An intrasexual competition approach. International Journal of Sexual Health, 19, 41–49. doi:10.1300/J514v19n04_05
56.
JonasonP. K.FisherT. D. (2009). The power of prestige: Why young men report having more sex partners than young women. Sex Roles, 60, 151–159. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9506-3
57.
KatzJ.FarrowS. (2000). Discrepant self-views and young women’s sexual and emotional adjustment. Sex Roles, 42, 781–805. doi:10.1023/A:1007051131544
58.
KimJ. L.SorsoliC. L.CollinsK.ZylbergoldB. A.SchoolerD.TolmanD. L. (2007). From sex to sexuality: Exposing the heterosexual script on primetime network television. The Journal of Sex Research, 44, 145–157. doi:10.1080/00224490701263660
59.
KochA. J.D’MelloS. D.SackettP. R. (2015). A meta-analysis of gender stereotypes and bias in experimental simulations of employment decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 128–161. doi:10.1037/a0036734
LippaR. A.PrestonK.PennerJ. (2014). Women’s representation in 60 occupations from 1972 to 2010: More women in high-status jobs, few women in things-oriented jobs. PloS One, 9, e95960. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0095960
62.
LonswayK. A.FitzgeraldL. F. (1995). Attitudinal antecedents of rape myth acceptance: A theoretical and empirical reexamination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 704–711. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.68.4.704
63.
LosurdoD. (2016). Class struggle: A political and philosophical history. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave MacMillan.
64.
McGrawA. P.DavisD. F.ScottS. E.TetlockP. E. (2016). Paying to not put a price on love. Judgment and Decision Making, 11, 40–47. ISSN: 19302975
MestonC. M.BussD. M. (2007). Why humans have sex. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36, 477–507. doi:10.1007/s10508-007-9175-2
67.
MontoyaR. M.HortonR. S.KirchnerJ. (2008). Is actual similarity necessary for attraction? A meta-analysis of actual and perceived similarity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 889–922. doi:10.1177/0265407508096700
68.
MorganE. M.ThorneA.ZurbriggenE. L. (2010). A longitudinal study of conversations with parents about sex and dating during college. Developmental Psychology, 46, 139–150. doi:10.1037/a0016931
69.
MorrM. C.MongeauP. A. (2004). First-date expectations: The impact of sex of initiator, alcohol consumption, and relationship type. Communication Research, 31, 3–35. doi:10.1177/0093650203260202
70.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). Digest of education statistics. (Table 318.30: Bachelor’s, master’s, and doctor’s degrees conferred by postsecondary institutions, by sex of student and discipline division: 2013–2014). Retrieved fromhttps://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d15/tables/dt15_318.30.asp?current=yes
71.
OliverM. B.HydeJ. S. (1993). Gender differences in sexuality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 29–51. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.114.1.29
72.
PenskeL.AsendorpfJ. B. (2008). Beyond global sociosexual orientations: A more differentiated look at sociosexuality and its effects on courtship and romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1113–1135. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.95.5.1113
73.
PetersonJ. L.HydeJ. S. (2010). A meta-analytic review of research on gender differences in sexuality, 1993-2007. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 21–138. doi:10.1037/a0017504
74.
RapaportK.BurkhartB. R. (1984). Personality and attitudinal characteristics of sexually coercive males. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 93, 216–221.
75.
ReissI. L. (1960). Premarital sexual standards in America. New York, NY: The Free Press.
76.
ReissI. L. (1964). The scaling of premarital sexual permissiveness. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 26, 188–198. doi:10.2307/349726
77.
RudmanL. A.BorgidaE. (1995). The afterglow of construct accessibility: The behavioral consequences of priming men to view women as sexual objects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 493–517. doi:10.1006/jesp.1995.1022
78.
RudmanL. A.FetterolfJ. C. (2014). Gender and sexual economics: Do women view sex as a female commodity?Psychological Science, 25, 1438–1447. doi:10.1177/0956797614533123
79.
RudmanL. A.FetterolfJ. C. (2015). Why sexual economics theory is patriarchal: Reply to Vohs and Baumeister’s comment on Rudman and Fetterolf (2014). Psychological Science, 26, 1524–1525. doi:10.1177/0956797615595018
80.
RudmanL. A.FetterolfJ. C.SanchezD. T. (2013). What motivates the sexual double standard? More support for male versus female control theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 251–263. doi:10.1177/0146167212472375
81.
RudmanL. A.GlickP. (2008). The social psychology of gender: How power and intimacy shape gender relations. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
82.
RudmanL. A.MescherK. (2012). Of animals and objects: Men’s implicit dehumanization of women and male sexual aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 734–746. doi:10.1177/0146167212436401
83.
RudmanL. A.Moss-RacusinC. A.GlickP.PhelanJ. E. (2012). Reactions to vanguards: Advances in backlash theory. In DevineP. G.PlantE. A. (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 45, pp. 167–227). New York, NY: Academic Press.
84.
RudmanL. A.PhelanJ. E. (2007). The interpersonal power of feminism: Is feminism good for relationships?Sex Roles, 57, 787–799. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9319-9
SuarezE.GadallaT. (2010). Stop blaming the victim: A meta-analysis on rape myths. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 2010–2035. doi:10.1177/0886260509354503
87.
SwimJ. K.BeckerJ.PruittE. R.LeeE. (2010). Sexism reloaded: Worldwide evidence for its endorsement, expression, and emergence in multiple contexts. In LandrineH.RussoN. F. (Eds.), Handbook of diversity in feminist psychology (pp. 137–171). New York, NY: Springer.
88.
TetlockP. E. (2003). Thinking the unthinkable: Sacred values and taboo cognitions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 320–324.
VaesJ.PaladinoP.PuviaE. (2011). Are sexualized female complete human beings? Why males and female dehumanize sexually objectified women. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 774–785. doi:10.1002/ejsp.824
91.
VohsK. D.BaumeisterR. F. (2015). Correcting some misrepresentations about gender and sexual economics theory: Comment on Rudman and Fetteroff (2014). Psychological Science, 26, 1522–1523. doi:10.1177/0956797615581492
92.
WardC. (1988). The attitudes toward rape victims scale: Construction, validation, and cross cultural applicability. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 12, 127–146.
93.
WardL. M. (2003). Understanding the role of entertainment media in the sexual socialization of American youth: A review of empirical research. Developmental Review, 23, 347–388. doi:10.1016/S0273-2297(03)00013-3
WilsonE. K.KooH. P. (2010). Mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters: Gender differences in factors associated with parent-child communication about sexual topics. Reproductive Health, 7, 1–9. doi:10.1186/1742-4755-7-31
97.
WilsonE. K.DalberthB. T.KooH. P. (2010). “We’re the heroes!”: Fathers’ perspectives on their role in protecting their preteenage children from sexual risk. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 42, 117–124. doi:10.1363/4211710
98.
ZurbriggenE. L.MorganE. M. (2006). Who wants to marry a millionaire? Reality dating television programs, attitudes toward sex, and sexual behaviors. Sex Roles, 54, 1–17. doi:10.1007/s11199-005-8865-2
