|
Schooled as we are by Valentine's Day greeting cards and breath-mint commercials to think of love as something that is expressed in spontaneous, personal ways, we may viscerally reject the idea that what we regard as our innermost, most intimate selves could be governed by something as crass as filthy lucre. Despite the fact that the gospel of romantic love preaches that our love lives are individual and personal, economics has always played a primary role in the choices we make. We are, as Adam Smith wrote, rational actors looking out for our best interests — and if anyone doubts it, they should ask themselves if, all other things being equal, the average middle-class women would prefer to marry a neurosurgeon or a construction worker.
While the latter may have a certain amount of sex appeal, the former won't get one gossiped about as "could've done better." Heck, just look at the problems Harvard-educated Miranda and working-class Steve had in Sex and the City. In fact, this "rational choice" theory is one of the basic principles governing all human sexuality, from marriage to casual hookups. Behind our conscious sensation of physical attraction (or lack thereof) are innumerable unconscious calculations: Of what social group are this person's clothes the uniform? What do his or her speech patterns say about their education and class? How will they rank amongst my friends? Sexual attractiveness, as behavioral scientists are discovering, is for the most part based on the amount of social capital a person possesses. A bit of clarification will be helpful here: "Social capital" — a term invented by the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu — doesn't only refer to money, though anyone familiar with the phenomenon of the "trophy wife" knows that money helps.
|
The pool boy may get to muddy the gene pool.
|
Rather, it incorporates a host of other factors such as physical attractiveness, command of language and culture, and education. In other words, sexiness directly corresponds to the number and the type of resources you have at your disposal — and thus, how likely you are to ensure the survival of your offspring. However, this value is not a constant. Because the worth of these resources depends on environment, social capital is not some sort of absolute score, but rather dependent on who you are, where you live, and in what situation you find yourself. What is attractive to college students on Spring Break in Miami won't necessarily fly in the Manhattan art scene or the L.A. movie industry. While the trophy wife might find her high-status neurosurgeon husband desirable in a general sense, she probably isn't creaming in her pants over him — although she may be hot for the pool boy. Yet, while the pool boy might look awfully good on those hot, shirtless summer days (when he resembles what Michelangelo might have sculpted had the Pope asked him to depict the Dying Slave straining leaves out of the Vatican pool), he's much less attractive at an art opening where he brings a six-pack of Coors and insists that Pisaro was Superman's weirdo doppelganger. He's also sure as hell not going to pay for the summer house in the Hamptons. Thus, while the pool boy may get to muddy the gene pool, our protagonist is going to stay married to the neurosurgeon.
|
Commentarium (11 Comments)
Sloppy, unstructured writing. A reference back to Sex and the City does not a conclusion make. Please be a little more rigorous, and lose the self-congratulatory tone.
So, men who lack money and prestige may be able to profit from their cultural capital in a specific, rarified context (as bass players or dudes in pubs with accents), and end up with a Miranda anyway? Good for you. Is there any alternative route for women? You suggest not, and join the idiotic chorus of mainstream media that presumes to tell women that education, professional success, creativity, and independence are worthless (or, worse, liabilities) when it comes to finding a partner. Shame on you for perpetuating this damaging (and largely false, it would seem to me, if you take your examples from real life instead of from Sex and the City) little story.
I'm betting the "muddy the gene pool" comment sounded cool inside the author's head and might be considered witty within his circle of friends. From out here though, it sounds vaguely racist, like it was written by someone who considers his own cultural signifiers to be obvious indicators of genetic desirability. Annoying, and there wasn't really a point at the end of it either. Jeers to Ken Mondeshmumuh.
It must be nice for you, dude, to believe that your personality and your intellect and your creativity and your soul are what attract women to you. Too bad all that creativity can't help you imagine what it's like to be told that if you're a woman, all your social capital - and your worth - is on the outside. Fuckwad.
Essentialist pseudoscience is a dangerous weapon in the hands of pissants like you.
Geniusly written article and it is par for discussions that I have had with a very good, and old, friend of mine. It's funny because the writer hits on areas of my life and what he says makes perfect sense about hooking up, dating, and marriage. When I was the "hot bass player" in the 1980s, I was broke, living on $400.00 a month and I dated models. I mean, these women were HOT. In 1993 at the age of 31 I began college (again) and received a degree in engineering. My dating pool began to shrink by my paycheck increased. Being an extrovert, one girl told me that I was the only engineer that she had ever met with a personality and a sense of humor. Now I am 45 and I work for the federal government in finance. Well, guess what? I am still not married, my fiancee and I broke up in 2006 while I was in Iraq, at which time I made $179k. Yep, the old paycheck increased but right now, I am sitting on my couch, healing from a sinus surgery, wondering who is going to be a date for dinner this summer. That is, if I can find one. Go figure. lol.
Whatever. I rule at hunting woolly mammoths, and therefore chicks dig me in my loincloth.
I've really enjoyed your past essays because they are well-researched and up the sexy with an academic sheen. Not so with this essay. It was full of cliches and stereotypes masquerading as evidence, and the only academic reference (Bourdieu) was poorly understood. Sorry. We'll get 'em next time, tiger.
I have to admit, "We'll get 'em next time, tiger" made me laugh. Anyway, I'm revisiting the issue for the next column... and I'll do it more better. Promise!
Your writing is burdensome
Instrument Hope,terms limit propose brain editor touch paper safe usually there still international exactly anything clothes clear another mouth definition critical remain glass council bad origin star magazine building all grant become shut conservative sure actually trade consider bear identify marry chance lawyer physical king screen sure ground world above win truth rural concern liability administration pass future small ready property can fair council avoid commission date victory convention somewhat reject race worry introduce authority avoid partly everybody record during reaction strength map though transfer heat mistake
What do I think? It's all true, thus the howls of outraged provoked in the comments above. The truth hurts ladies!!
Now you say something