The economics of gender relations

adam-smithCertain fields within the social sciences are rapidly becoming comical in their “research” and the mountains of bias that enter into their research. Luckily, economics is still regarded as a valid field, despite including such things as “Marxist economics”. The economic analysis of relationships between persons and groups can be viewed as a lens without the normal emotional aspects one would normally include in an analysis of a relationship. There is an argument that analysis of a relationship tend to take on phenomenological and qualitative methods rather than being subjected to positivism and quantitative methods. (Read more on research methods here)

Despite this, it is fairly easy to calculate the value a person brings into your life in terms of dollars and cents. If your girlfriend/wife/FWB cooks for you, and does so well (which is rare with modern western women) that could be seen as an alternative to eating out, or cooking yourself.

Sex could be calculated in terms of the cost of hiring a professional, cleaning the same. This is the first post in a series that I’ve entitled “Gendernomics” that deals with how each gender approaches the sexual market place.

Value theory

There are two main value theories in economics, subjective and objective. Despite my general dislike of the subjective in many cases, this is one where I think the subjective choice is the correct one. Subjective value theory states that the value put on something is unique to the person, this is what makes a deal work, because what I have is more valuable to the other person than what they have and vice versa.

This is also how a “10” can be different from man to man.

Objective value theory states that all objects have a single value, this can be from the cost of production, raw materials and many other factors.

This is how a male “10” is a 10 to all women.

In short, the subjective value theory of men, makes a group of men less likely to all be attracted to one female. While objective value for women makes a group of women more likely to be attracted to the same male.

This comes from that women are valued on their beauty and aspects that signal fertility. Out of those, you have 1 subjective variable (beauty) and one objective variable (fertility).

For men, the 3 major categories are often protection, provision and good genetics. All 3 are objective variables that can be measured.

The effect of these different perceptions, impact the market of dick and pussy. It means that men as a gender has a bigger market, since they are attracted to more females. It also means that a sub-group of top ranking men enjoy a very big market because they are attractive to the largest group of females.

It means that women as a gender have a smaller market of males, because there are fewer males they are attracted to, and also means that the competition for those males is much more intense.

Hypergamy in 1 picture borrowed from

Hypergamy in 1 picture borrowed from

For men, seeing as men are more subjective in their valuations of females, they can play in a much larger market. Thus they can pick the market where they are the most likely to find success.

Supply and Demand

I remember reading a quote a long time ago, that went something akin to “Eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap” this alludes to the fact that a woman has a finite amount of eggs, whereas any man (provided not sterile or otherwise impaired) can produce plenty of sperm to procreate. The theory here would be that you will always have a situation where there is always too few eggs to “absorb” all the sperm, so it becomes a case of perpetual oversupply.

We can take this up on a higher level, and we can say that “Dick is plentiful, pussy is rare” but this is not the case. Seen statistically, there are actually more women living on this planet than men, thus it follows that pussy is more plentiful. The correct way to make the statement is “Dick is cheap, pussy is expensive” which stems from the built-in sexual strategies.

Men have the Alpha strategy of fathering a lot of offspring with different women, and investing little in each. There is also the Beta strategy of fathering fewer offspring with a single female, and investing heavily in each.

Women only have the Beta strategy of fewer offspring but heavy investment.

To draw a picture, when our species lived among lions, several hundred thousand (and probably more) years ago. The risk of sex for a man, can be summarized as:

  • In danger during sex.
  • Social consequences.

The risk for a woman, was not only being vulnerable during the act, but a pregnancy means she is less mobile, and less able to fend for herself for 9 months, plus the risk of death while giving birth. Social consequences could also be added here.

This means that from an evolutionary standpoint, it makes sense that women would be more prone to wanting to secure a male that will take care of- and protect them during those 9 months.

So, the supply of dick was high, the supply of pussy was low, therefore pussy became a very expensive commodity.

Enter female contraceptives. Once the pill entered the market, women suddenly were able to enjoy sex with minimal risk of pregnancy. These days, between the pill, morning after pill and abortion pretty much available at a drive-through, there is no risk left for women engaging in sex.

On the other side, “deadbeat dad” laws, the lack of male reproductive rights, divorce laws, “Yes means yes” laws, and a range of other legal changes have made it much more risky for men to engage in sex. Knowing that you can sleep with someone today, and 12 years from now she can file for back-child support and you can end up it jail is a real deterrent.

This has the effect of making dick more expensive and pussy cheaper, as the supply of dick decreases and the supply of pussy increases in the market.

Production costs

As I stated earlier the value of a man is based on his ability to protect, to provide and genetics. Out of these, he can influence protection and provision.

He can improve his ability to protect by lifting weights, learning a martial art, learning the fine art of diplomacy or Machiavellian thinking and many more. He can improve his ability to provide by getting an education, a good job, running businesses and many others.

A man who is aware of red pill philosophy sees that he has everything to gain from engaging in these self-betterment behaviors, as it will put him in the top 20% of males who have access to 80% of the female market.

One could argue that “high value males” are made not born, and in producing themselves, high value men show off genetics for many traits, such as deferred gratification, strength of will, intelligence, ingenuity and many others.

Females on the other hand are valued based on their beauty and their fertility, only one of which they can influence. Furthermore, while beauty can be influenced by clothing, make-up, training and plastic surgery. The barriers to entry for 3 out of 4 are very low, meaning that all women could engage in them. Plastic surgery on the other hand due to risks and costs have very high barriers to entry.

Furthermore, in viewing the marketplace for “good males” females should wonder whether an arms race is healthy as it would risk devaluing pussy on a macro level, in order to realize gains for a few suppliers on a micro level. Therefore, groups on the female side adopt an approach to lower the expectations of men when it comes to female performance, resulting in lower investment costs.


This approach insulates the female from risks, as she is trains her market to expect sub-par performance until the sub-par becomes the par. This is why you see complaints against porn for presenting an unrealistic image of sex, or females with normal body fat percentages as “Anorexic” and get a size 90 on the cover of Sports Illustrated.


To expand on investment costs. A high value male, is a high value male because of the investment he has made into himself combined with his genetics and his mindset. Any male will have a strategy to get laid, generally it is somewhere on the Alpha-Beta axis. They both carry the same investment cost, but it is invested differently.

Where the Alpha male invests in his own needs and adopts a mindset and a strategy that permits this, such as the Dark Triad traits. The Beta male on the other hand invests in the female, expecting a return. The Alpha strategy can be argued as a diversified strategy, where the alpha invests in himself, and invests little in each female is he approaching. Thus lowering overall risk of his portfolio. Since the Alphas main investment is in himself and his needs, he also secures that regardless of the outcome he has increased his principal.

The Beta on the other hand is a highly concentrated strategy, that is illustrated by the idiom “Do not put all of your eggs in one basket” The beta invests heavily in a single female, in the hope that the investment will pay out equal to the Alpha over the long run. This strategy is somewhat absurd in that it is both risk averse and extremely high risk. It is risk averse in that it is scared of diversification, but it is high risk in that the Beta risks not only his investment but also his principal.

The Beta investment is also so larger in a single female, that he incurs a much higher opportunity cost than the Alpha strategy. As the Alpha is spreading his (smaller) investments around in different females, the opportunity cost incurred in each investment is smaller.


I’ve explained 4 basic principles of economics.

  • Supply & demand,
  • Value theory
  • Production costs
  • Investment theory

These all interact with each other. For instance, social beauty norms can influence the value theory and supply and demand variables. The production costs can influence the supply and demand variables. Investment theory impacts the market as a whole depending on in what proportion a group of males select either the Alpha or Beta strategies.

What attracted me to economics as a field many years ago, is that everything is interconnected and I look forward to exploring the SMP and how economic theory within it works.

One comment on “The economics of gender relations

  1. […] my gendernomics series, I reference supply and demand theory a lot, and will continue to do so in future posts, as it is […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.