I found this book absolutely fascinating. Running in the conservative Christian circle I do, I am regularly blown away by the number of intelligent, attractive women in church (or in the workplace) who want to get married but their equally accomplished (single) male counterparts seem not to exist. By exploring sex through an economic lens, this book helps to explain phenomena like this. The author’s thesis is that the remarkable economic, educational, and sexual advances by women have opened up

“meant more than an increased capability of limiting pregnancy….it signaled a deep transition in personal life…sexuality became malleable, open to being shaped in diverse ways, and a potential “property” of the individual. Sexuality came into being as part of a progressive differentiation of sex from the exigencies of reproduction…sexuality is at last fully autonomous.”



• Expectations of paired sexual activity early in relationships

• Sexual exclusivity is no longer assumed but rather the subject of negotiation

• Shorter-term relationships (with perceptions of commitment “phobia”)

• Plastic sexuality (interests are shaped and remodeled)

• The flourishing of non-heterosexual identities and expressions

• Obsession with (increasingly illusive) romance



I found this book absolutely fascinating. Running in the conservative Christian circle I do, I am regularly blown away by the number of intelligent, attractive women in church (or in the workplace) who want to get married but their equally accomplished (single) male counterparts seem not to exist. By exploring sex through an economic lens, this book helps to explain phenomena like this. The author’s thesis is that the remarkable economic, educational, and sexual advances by women have opened up opportunities in their professional life, but with unintended consequences in their relationships. Women’s success has removed the principal thing that men offered (commitment and economic security) in exchange for sexual access. Sex has become comparatively “cheaper” or less expensive economically (i.e. fewer expensive commitments like marriage and childrearing). In other words, the supply has increased dramatically while the cost has diminished and this has fundamentally shifted the relative power and economic calculus men and women use in the mating market. Highly recommended.What follows are my notes on the book:In the 2014survey, sex before the relationship begins was the modal (most common) point at which Americans report having first had sex in their current relationship. In interviews throughout the book, women repeatedly state that sex “just happens” though their ideal (even for non-religious women) is almost completely different: start slower, become friends, then get romantic, followed by engagement and marriage. The relationship patterns revealed in their interviews were increasingly predictable: Sex very early (before expressions of love), underdeveloped interest in sacrificing for others, overlapping sexual partners, much drama, and in the end nothing but mixed memories and expired time (5).This book is not an elegy for a lost era, but an explanation of the present; an account of how young Americans relate today and his best efforts to explain why. He draws on several large, population-based surveys as well as research interviews with 100 individuals in different metropolitan areas. Despite greater personal and relational freedoms and technologies that seem to boost equality and simplify how people meet and evaluate each other, they have not spelled notably greater happiness in relationship contentment. In fact, the harm and dissatisfaction is palpable. Young people appear to be having more sexual experiences, more partners, and more time to “try them on,” but seem less stable in, and less content with, the relationship in front of them. Why? The author’s thesis is that we have failed to recognize how the underlying market forces surrounding coupled sexual behavior have shifted (6).British social theorist Anthony Gidden’s 1992 book, offered some prescient predictions on shifting sexual norms. In it he argued the wide uptake in contraceptionFully autonomous not only in its separation from baby-making, but even from being embedded in relationships. Indeed, achievement of reciprocal sexual pleasure has become a key element in whether a relationship is sustained or dissolved (7).All these achievements have been sealed in language (i.e. it has penetrated the imagination and altered the very frameworks of how we think about sex and relationships, thereby shifting perception of everyday reality. What has emerged is not simply different norms or values among subgroups but new (restructured) realities around the intimate life of the vast majority of Westerners (9). In a time when childbearing can be avoided, making possible an extensive and diverse sexual life, Giddens claims have materialized 25 years later:In tandem with these transformations in intimacy, sexual acts themselves can be said to have become comparatively “cheaper." Coupled sexual activity is widely accessible at lower “cost” (i.e. men have to do less wooing and make fewer expensive commitments (marriage and childrearing)). In other words, the supply has increased dramatically while the cost has diminished. This is the result of three technological developments: 1) synthetic hormonal contraception (“the Pill”), 2) High quality, mass-produced porn, and 3) the evolution of online dating. All three are price suppressors that have altered market dynamics (a slowdown in committed relationships, especially marriage, put fertility of women at risk, and taken a toll on men’s economic productivity) (11). This was a slow sea-change that is impossible (and undesirable for many) to reverse.Drawing upon the interviewees’ own words as well as those of evolutionary psychologist and gender theorists, he asserts the modern mating market favors men’s interest at the expense of women’s. Virtually no one is happy with the state of maleness today, yet male behavior is a rational, if short-sighted, response to their circumstances (15). Men are not afraid to commit, they simply no longer have to. On average, men want sex more than women. Women possess something of considerable value to men, something that conceivably “costs” men to access. Historically, men have had to give up something in exchange (economic and relational commitment). So economically speaking, there is demand (interested men) and supply (women). This may sound utilitarian, unromantic, and objectifying but it need not be. It simply recognizes constraints in the mating market that enable and organize behavior (25). Women have more agency, opportunity, and success than ever before. What women are less in control of, is their relational and emotional destinies. What men typically offer to women in return for sexual access has profoundly diminished (27). Men mostly welcome the fact that women are more sexually available. What neither tend to apprehend are the unintended consequences of cheap sex.The Pill impacted all women, including those who never used it. It split what once was a relatively unified mating pool in two overlapping (but distinctive) markets: one for sex and one for marriage. This large pool of single men and women looking for company of some sort no longer functions in quite the same way it once did (34). Prior to this, a woman counted on evidence of commitment before sex and the mating market was populated by men and women whose bargaining positions were roughly comparable and predictable. Now that market is split with one side looking for sex with no strings attached and the other side interested in commitments (with a large gray area in between) (35).It is a basic economic idea that relative scarcity or abundance affects human behavior on lots of important ways. Sex is no different (though we treat it as such because of our liberal or conservative narratives) (36). The sex-ratio hypothesis holds that an oversupply of unmarried women in a community gives men considerably more power in romantic and sexual relationships, which translates into lower levels of commitment, less favorable treatment of women, and a permissive environment where women receive less in exchange for sex. Power within relationships is not just determined by attractiveness or social status, but also by surrounding market realities, like the availability of sex from other sources (37).The split in the mating market, with prominent sex-ratio disparities in what men and women are looking for, is a game-changing reality. Women are empowered, have greater bargaining ability, and can be more selective on the sex side of the market (a single female post to AshleyMadison.com receives hundreds of contacts instantly). However there are fewer women shopping for sex since most prefer sex in stable, committed relationships. The abundance of women in the marriage corner of the market however, allows men to be more selective, fickle, cautious, and insist on extensive sexual experience before committing. To plenty of women, it appears men have a fear of commitment. But men, on average, are not afraid of commitment, they are just in the driver’s seat in the marriage market and are optimally positioned to navigate it in a way that privileges their (sexual) interests and preferences (39).He offers some qualifications: 1) Many women don’t mind the new mating market and its dynamics. 2) Men eventually do pay a much higher price for sexual access than they need to, confirming that the pricing is hardly a straightforward supply and demand function. Why? Because men are more than just consumers of sex who objectify women. They fall in love have or have family aspirations too. But the data suggests that the transition away from consumptive mentality is more difficult for men than it is for women. Cheap sex is poorly adept at generating love. Premature “entanglements” are apt to lead to ambiguity, frustration, anxiety, and power plays—not exactly fertile soil for commitment to emerge. All of this suggests that men are considered safer marital bets as they age. Men interviewed express interest in marriage and kids…just not yet. At some point, as their own attractiveness declines, their autonomy becomes less valuable to them, or (ironically) ideal spouses grow less numerous men’s calculus changes.The route to marriage, something the vast majority still hold as a goal, is more fraught with years and failed relationships than in the past. Once familiar structures, narratives, and rituals about romance and marriage have largely collapsed,(43).With online dating, the modern mating market feels more nakedly economic. What we call the “triumph” of romantic love consisted first and foremost in dis-embedding of individual romantic choices from the moral and social fabric of the group and in the emergence of a self-regulated market of encounters (46). For all the talk of patriarchy, 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 (47). Sexual choices have not been entirely deregulated. Rather, the guiding morality of one’s group or community has been replaced by consumer culture, the sources of modern centralized ethics and commodification of sex and sexuality (47).The author’s fellow sociologists repeatedly explain this situation (where women’s freedoms have resulted in contradictory consequences in the realm of sex and relationships) as a paradox. The only paradox is the unrealistic expectation that securing ample resources independently of men should have no consequences (or at least only positive consequences). It is not surprising that women would expect it. The emotional energy bred by success should seem transferable. But what we uncover is that the straightforward economic reality that sex and even marriage are, at bottom, exchanges. If women no longer need men’s resources (which they exchange for sexual access), then relationships become more difficult to navigate because strong commitments and emotional validation are slower to emerge from men (51). Women’s remarkable advances did not simply collide with, but rather helped create the newfound power men hold in the marriage corner of the mating market (52).Colleges and employers are trying to respond with more explicit consent laws. But presuming the sex act is malleable by fiat and subject to bureaucratic oversight is hubris. To imagine a pressure-free, sex-positive, egalitarian utopia is to ignore the real world of men and women with all their brokenness. We want men to act better, but are unwilling to admit that men are more apt to do the right thing when they are socially constrained, not just individually challenged. Since women’s freedom to choose (sexual encounters) will not be questioned, we seek to alter how those encounters transpire which is a fool’s errand.The author writes of the dynamics in homosexual mating market (which I omitted from my notes due to 20K character space constraints). He also argues, based on growing evidence for the plasticity (malleability) of sexuality, that some women may respond to mating market pressures by experimenting with same-sex relationships.Many feminists fear that the gender revolution was only partly successful, having stumbled not in the boardroom but in the bedroom. They suggest that men are resistant to evolving (64). We have removed all the social and community pressures and essentially want men to behave “just because.” The only paradox here are the unrealistic expectations of how economic and educational equality should influence the market dynamics in the mating market. There is no puzzle here. The double standard is no mystery. It is not something to which one “subscribes” or a structure we can reject at will with no repercussions. It is about deep seated distinctions between the sexes that may be malleable but are not simply socially constructed (64). The question to ask is why women demand so little of men in return for what they want. And the answer is economic, they no longer need what men historically offered & that is not going to change (67).Online dating is more a Cheap Sex delivery system than a marriage market. It encourages throwing potential relationships away and starting a new one. Online dating has reversed historical obstacles to a male short-term strategy for sex (sexual variety was hard to get, identifying which women were sexually accessible was difficult, minimizing commitment and investment was a challenge). Online dating advertises as a way of finding a mate but their business model is contingent on you remaining in the market, not getting married and off the market (71).The data suggests that 20 percent of the men account for all sexual partnerships with women, suggesting cheap sex is not a reality for the majority of men (86). However, due to multiple overlapping sexual partners, a few prolific men are not able to monopolize the market. People who report 20 or more sexual partners are:• Twice as likely to have been divorced• 3x as likely to have cheated• Substantially less happy with life• More likely to be on medication for depression or anxiety• 3x more likely to have a STD• More likely to have a tragic sexual history (rape, assault)(89)The author assesses that the premarital virginity rate is at most just 6 percent of the population (though up to 12% may have had a previous sexual partner but waited until marriage in a subsequent relationship) (99). Those who wait until marriage tend to be more religious, conservative, report higher level of happiness, hold more restrictive attitudes about sex, and have married parents (100).Pornography and masturbation are nothing if not the cheapest sex. Porn creates competition and lowers the price of sex among gatekeepers (women). Interviews with college students reveal that women feel pressured to offer what porn does or risk losing a guy (109). Women still overwhelmingly object to porn, but are largely forced to tolerate it because it is now a universal cost of doing business with men (111). Even some liberal feminist (Naomi Wolf) question whether “the relationship between the multi-billion dollar porn industry, compulsiveness, and sexual appetite has become like the relationship between agribusiness, processed foods, supersized portions, and obesity?” Just like with food, the appetite has always been there, but technological breakthroughs have led to increased access and gorging (112). Some men may consider it satisfying enough that relationships with real women are not worth the cost. This further exacerbates the sex-ratio in the market boosting the power of remaining men navigating the market (128). The author estimates that between 9-15% of men are so frequent users they have effectively exited the market.Westerners are increasingly privileging the idea of marrying, if at all, after peak fertility has begun to wane (or just embraced the child-free life). Women will sleep with men, but increasingly find fewer of them unfit for marriage. Women have responded to the call of the labor market, screaming out “you need more education”, and men just are not responding to price signals. This is a huge conundrum in need of an explanation (149). Might cheap sex be responsible for men’s failure to adapt? A large number of men age 25-54 have simply exited the labor market in pursuit of immediate gratification (150). Sigmund Freud once observed that “civilization is built largely on erotic energy that has been blocked, concentrated, accumulated, and redirected.” Sex is obviously not the only motivator of men, but the author argues it is the most underestimated one in explaining men’s exit from their adult responsibilities (153). Women make “bad deals” when marrying due to their lower bargaining power, are forced to build a hedge of protection against the collapse of their relationship before it even begins. American parents (ironically) tacitly encourage this pattern. They prefer a higher age of marriage for their children and diminish marriage as a life goal. They want their daughters to marry eventually but don’t ever want them to “need” marriage.Birth control coupled with women’s economic success has led to a collapse in the “cartel” by which women historically policed (subtly or bluntly) each other’s publicly discernable sexual behavior. Cheaper sex by their peers threatened their own ability to command (and receive) a higher price (commitment) for sex (170). That there are successful marriages out there leads many women to assume their inability to marry is their own fault, not a systemic problem with society (171).Most of the interviewees want to marry someday, but expect to fall into it. They do not think of it as a pathway requiring their time, discipline, sacrifice, and self-control not only by themselves but their peers. They do not discern that “wasted sex” on flings contributes to the socially discernable cost in the marriage market. Women hope for a man who will love them and not cheat, while teaching them that such things are not required in order to be with them (177). It’s a classic free rider problem. They want a good man but without contributing to the normative behavior that makes such men possible. Organized religion is the last institutional supporter of marriage (1 in 3 married adults reports weekly religious attendance). Cohabitation directly leads to reduced religiosity.The author offers 8 predictions:1) Sex will get even cheaper2) Age of consent laws will only be enforced in egregious cases3) Age at first marriage will peak but unmarried Americans will continue trend toward cohabitation4) After initial burst of demand, same sax marriage will recede (as marriage overall recedes)5) Men’s, not just women’s, sexuality becomes even more malleable6) Polygamy will not make a comeback but polyamory may emerge as a minority norm7) Christianity will not stem the retreat from marriage8) Efforts to de-gender society and relationships will fall short