A Buyers' Market: Men Propose, Women Dispose

[Demon]

A few months ago, I began writing an article on approaching relationships as marketing investments, planning for and evaluating return on investment. As I wrote, I thought the article would be too far from traditional thinking about relationships to receive a proper response.

Interestingly, the 15 December 2007 issue of The Economist actually discusses relationships in terms of economics. For those who just want the bullet points:

• Women, like men, make decisions that further their biological interests.
• Status, wealth, and presentation are important factors in that decision-making process.
• Laws of supply and demand affect selectivity, or willingness to select or reject partners with or without satisfying all mating criteria.

From The Economist print edition:

Women often complain that dating is like a cattle market, and a paper just published in Biology Letters by Thomas Pollet and Daniel Nettle of Newcastle University, in England, suggests they are right. They have little cause for complaint, however, because the paper also suggests that in this particular market, it is women who are the buyers.

Mr. Pollet and Dr. Nettle were looking for evidence to support the contention that women choose men of high status and resources, as well as good looks. That may sound common sense, but it was often denied by social scientists until a group of researchers who called themselves evolutionary psychologists started investigating the matter two decades ago. Since then, a series of experiments in laboratories have supported the contention. But as all zoologists know, experiments can only tell you so much. Eventually, you have to look at natural populations.

And that is what Mr. Pollet and Dr. Nettle have done. They have examined data from the 1910 census of the United States of America and discovered that marriage is, indeed, a market. Moreover, as in any market, a scarcity of buyers means the sellers have to have particularly attractive goods on offer if they are to make the exchange.

The advantage of picking 1910 was that America had not yet settled down, demographically speaking. Though the long-colonised eastern states had a sex ratio of one man to one woman, or thereabouts, in the rest of the country the old adage "go west, young man" had resulted in a surplus of males. Mr. Pollet and Dr. Nettle were thus able to see just how picky women are, given the chance.

Rather than looking at the whole census, the two researchers relied on a sample of one person in 250. They then assigned the men in the sample a socioeconomic status score between zero and 96, on a scale drawn up in 1950 (which was as close to 1910 as they could get). They showed that in states where the sexes were equal in number, 56% of low status men were married by the age of 30, while 60% of high status men were. Even in this case, then, there are women who would prefer to remain single rather than marry a deadbeat. When there were 110 men for every 100 women (as, for example, in Arizona), the women got really choosy. In that case only 24% of low-status men were married by 30 compared with 46% of high-status men. As the men went west, then, so did their marriage opportunities.

 

[Naughtyboy]

Interesting article! But I don't agree with the women always being buyers observation

When the pool of men is high, the women can pick and choose

However the reverse is also true. In a place where women are in high number, the men get to pick and choose.....be the buyers in other words

 

[Demon]

But I don't agree with the women always being buyers observation

I was anticipating disagreement. Here's why women are always buyers and men are always sellers: society, particularly Western society, was engineered through legal reformation and psychological conditioning to ensure that women always have the freedom to willingly select a mate. This normally isn't a world where you can whack a woman over the head, drag her into the bedroom, marry her, beat your chest, and proclaim your dominance. The Stone Age is long gone.

Men sell. That's why you're here, to increase your value in the marketplace. That does not, however, make men less than women. Both buyers and sellers still have choices about with whom they partner. That men sell and women buy is simply about understanding the roles we play in the mating market.

I'm sure we can bring up women who beautify themselves as a counterpoint to the above rule. Yet, even in business, you can be attracted to a sexy prospective client, but you still have to sell yourself and she still has to buy into your charm.

If that's not convincing, let a woman handle your money and just watch what she does.

 

[dynamicallyidle]

Oh dear. Surely you can see the glaring problems with that Economist study's logic. There is no explanation of causality whatsoever.

The story those statistical results tell me is that rich men tend to be more ambitious in general, including with women. Also, many guys won't marry a woman unless he feels he has the resources to raise children. Thus it is no surprise that rich men end up with the scarce women in that particular data set.

And in response to the thread title, no one particular gender represents the buyers in this game: High-status people are the buyers, regardless of gender.

 

[Demon]

Also, many guys won't marry a woman unless he feels he has the resources to raise children.

Since when is marriage necessary for procreation? I'm also pretty certain there are plenty of people below the poverty line that had children anyway. Nevermind the existence of child welfare programs that serve strong needs.

Thus it is no surprise that rich men end up with the scarce women in that particular data set.

Status, wealth, and presentation are relative. A woman with a mediocre physique looks stunningly slender among the impressively grotesque. You're applying a narrow definition to draw a shaky conclusion.

 

[Dongfu]

Um, have you noticed that many of my posts relate to a book I wrote on this very subject.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Interesting article! But I don't agree with the women always being buyers observation

When the pool of men is high, the women can pick and choose

However the reverse is also true. In a place where women are in high number, the men get to pick and choose.....be the buyers in other words

I don't think that it has anything to do with quantity. What seems to be a buyer's market for women is that women are just more selective, men are not as choosy. Women can be selective because the average man is willing to stand in a lineup waiting for their name to be called. Add to that the fact that guys in comparison seldom send the woman away after they are selected; guys are typically happy just not being the last one picked to play the game.

 

[Obsidian]

The Economist is caught up in the hor matrix. Their description of women as "buyers" and men as "sellers" is totally illogical. The terms imply that there is some distinction in the type of goods traded. The main difference between a buyer and a seller is 1) there are more buyers and 2) buyers give up money, whereas sellers give up goods.

In reality, there are equal numbers of guys and girls, for the most part, and if anyone is trading with cash, it's NOT the women!

A more proper analogy would be to compare men to ignorant buyers and men to foxes who are selling used cars. The men give up their hard-earned cash for something that looks good but betrays them a few years down the road.


But when I said men, of course, I was talking about ordinary males -- not Don Juans.

 

[Dongfu]

The Economist is caught up in the hor matrix. Their description of women as "buyers" and men as "sellers" is totally illogical. The terms imply that there is some distinction in the type of goods traded. The main difference between a buyer and a seller is 1) there are more buyers and 2) buyers give up money, whereas sellers give up goods.

In reality, there are equal numbers of guys and girls, for the most part, and if anyone is trading with cash, it's NOT the women!

A more proper analogy would be to compare men to ignorant buyers and men to foxes who are selling used cars. The men give up their hard-earned cash for something that looks good but betrays them a few years down the road.


But when I said men, of course, I was talking about ordinary males -- not Don Juans.

Your not really understanding the point.

Women are paying with pvssy. You are selling yourself. That's what gaming women is, selling yourself. Every time you are trying to get something from someone you have to sell them on the idea.

The ideal situation, and supposedly the ultimate goal of a DJ is to flip the scrips and have women trying to sell themselves to you, and you being the buyer saying, "No, next, this ones okay, I'll take those two, next."

This of coarse is a rare

In reality, when two people are equally attracted to eachother, the buyer is the one with more control over their sex drive. This is usually the woman.

 

[Answers]

• Women, like men, make decisions that further their biological interests.

• 
  If that was the case the nerds would get all the women! lol Women make decisions based on emotions and feelings.

 

[Answers]

Your not really understanding the point.

Women are paying with pvssy. You are selling yourself. That's what gaming women is, selling yourself. Every time you are trying to get something from someone you have to sell them on the idea.

Isn't that an AFC way of looking at things?? The women are also selling themselves. They spend more time making themselves look good etc. DJ's attract women because they are the prize.

It all comes down to value/power - who has the highest/most. Women usually do most of the time because most men are AFCs and thats why the article got the results it got.

 

[gruby]

boooooring! so much over thinking i would be surprised if any of you can get any ass.

 

[Squiggly Sponge]

I actually have that Economist...

It's an interesting article. But how will this help my successes? It's my job to initiate, and the ladies job to reciprocate (or not!). I want to know where you were going with your comparisons of the dating game to marketing.

Basically I'm still on the first 'marketing step'...

1. Improve yourself (i.e. make yourself more marketable to improve your chances)

Where do I go after this? (Well, except towards the ladies of course!)

 

[Mad Manic]

It's not a buyers market etc because men outnumber women, although that would make things even worse. It is how it is because society is set-up so that women have the sexual and social power over men and thus men have to pursue whilst women sit on their fat asves and choose as they please. That's why all pretty girls have bfs but there are loads of single men in clubs desperate for sex. A small number of men get a large number of women as women have the power to have sex with the top ones and refuse those on their level.

MM

 

[Dongfu]

Isn't that an AFC way of looking at things?? The women are also selling themselves. They spend more time making themselves look good etc. DJ's attract women because they are the prize.

It all comes down to value/power - who has the highest/most. Women usually do most of the time because most men are AFCs and thats why the article got the results it got.

No one knows you are the prise until you initiate an action. That is the first step to a sale, being pro-active.

If anyone honestly thinks that he is so much the prise that he doesn't have to say or do anything, then I invite you to go to a club, or wherever, sit by yourself and dont look or talk to anyone. See how many women come around and throw themselves at you. Come on

Women only know that you are the prize when you demonstrate it. I can make eye contact with a woman in a way that she understands who's the shyt between me and her, but that is still being pro-active.

 

[Obsidian]

The article is entirely meaningless because a market with equal numbers of buyers and sellers will give equal bargaining power to both producers and consumers.

Just improve yourself the Pookish way, and thereby increase your monopoly/monopsony power.

And I still say that men are the ones paying for sex -- although it's nothing to brag about.

 

[Dongfu]

^^^ What if there is an equal amount of buyers and sellers, but the buyers are less eager to buy than the sellers are to sell? Wouldnt that tip the balance in favor of the buyers?

I'm not defending the article (I havent read it) or arguing with your point. Just pointing something out

 

[Demon]

I want to know where you were going with your comparisons of the dating game to marketing.

I was actually thinking more along the lines of marketing ROI. The point of determining your ROI is to find the point at which you are realizing the most bang for the buck. (Pun not intended.) Furthermore, you would also keep your costs down and quite possibly change how you make decisions about your life.

You might be wondering, "But how can I assign monetary value to, say, sex?" Basically, you have to figure out your breakeven point, or the amount of resources (not just money) that you have to spend to recoup your expenses. Define your goals and objectives for being successful in the mating market, and look at that definition of success in relation to your breakeven point. Assign a monetary value to success to make determining your ROI easier.

Breaking the MROI formula down:

• MROI = Return / Investment
• MROI = Gross Margin - Investment / Investment
• MROI = (Revenue - Cost of Goods Sold) - Investment / Investment

Look at all the following in terms of seduction, relationships, self-improvement, etc. (Get a copy of Jim Lenskold's book "Marketing ROI" for a deeper explanation.)

Gross Margin = (Revenue - Cost of Goods Sold - Direct Sales Expenses)
- Incremental Customer Expenses
+ Incremental Savings
+ Gross Margin of Referrals

• Revenue: Initial sale, repeat sales, recurring revenue
• Cost of Goods Sold: Product/service cost, returns, uncollected revenue
• Direct Sales Expenses: Special offers, order processing and fulfillment costs, post-sale customer service, incremental staff costs
• Incremental Customer Expenses: Any service costs not included in the cost of goods sold figure above
• Incremental Savings: Any cost reductions that result from the marketing investment
• Gross Margin of Referrals: Referrals can be generated from customers or third-party influencers reached by the marketing initiative

Investment = Net Present Value of all at-risk marketing expenses

Investment = (Upfront Development Costs + Variable Expenses)
+ Long-Term Expense Commitments
+ Staff Resources
+ Allocations of Multicampaign Investments

• Upfront Development Costs: Creative, systems, channel preparation
• Variable Expenses: Mass media, direct to consumer, sales support material
• Long-Term Expense Commitments: Loyalty programs, for example. Include expected return from these expected future expenses in ROI calculation.
• Staff Resources: Required for development and implementation (sales, marketing, advertising, research, customer contact channels)
• Allocations of Multicampaign Investments: (Not to be included in projections for planning, strictly for post-implementation analysis.)

You can get more complex than this, but you're probably thinking "wtf?" already. Don't give up yet though. Look at each item and see how you can interpret them in a Don Juan context. Here're some examples:

• "referrals" are men or women who want to introduce you to someone else;
• long-term expenditures are such expenses as additional insurance or ongoing payments for her diamond ring;
• upfront development costs are cologne, club clothing, etc.;
• incremental savings could be the amount of money she shares with you to pay the bills;
• and direct sales expenses can include dining, live shows, or even income lost due to time spent arguing or screwing around.

Of course, this might be too much work (and thinking) for someone flipping burgers at a fast-food joint. But if you want to be more financially responsible and maximize your MROI where relationships are concerned, then this might be something to look into.

 

[Obsidian]

What if there is an equal amount of buyers and sellers, but the buyers are less eager to buy than the sellers are to sell? Wouldnt that tip the balance in favor of the buyers?

That's actually kind of a contradiction. If buyers are less likely to buy, fewer of them will buy. Then that means there will be less buyers than sellers. If the number of potential buyers drops, then the sellers will lower their prices until all of them wind up selling their goods.

But your comparison (girls to unwilling buyers) assumes that girls are less interesting in coupling than guys, which I don't think is really the case.

The reason guys have trouble is because girls want MEN, and very few males are actually men these days. We have probably an even number of obese people among both genders, but among the healthy individuals, the women still maintain their sexuality while the men give it up. The sexes are designed in different ways: Women can stop being feminine (and become hors) while still remaining sexually attractive, but men lose most of their attractiveness once they lose their masculinity.

So the problem has nothing to do with uneven numbers of buyers and sellers or different goals between men and women; it just has to do with the fact that most men aren't men at all.

 

[Mad Manic]

That's actually kind of a contradiction. If buyers are less likely to buy, fewer of them will buy. Then that means there will be less buyers than sellers. If the number of potential buyers drops, then the sellers will lower their prices until all of them wind up selling their goods.

But your comparison (girls to unwilling buyers) assumes that girls are less interesting in coupling than guys, which I don't think is really the case.

The reason guys have trouble is because girls want MEN, and very few males are actually men these days. We have probably an even number of obese people among both genders, but among the healthy individuals, the women still maintain their sexuality while the men give it up. The sexes are designed in different ways: Women can stop being feminine (and become hors) while still remaining sexually attractive, but men lose most of their attractiveness once they lose their masculinity.

So the problem has nothing to do with uneven numbers of buyers and sellers or different goals between men and women; it just has to do with the fact that most men aren't men at all.

Well women are less likely to buy than men are to sell, most men will do anything to sex a decent girl but women are very picky and basically will at times reject all or all barring one of the men that want them even if the male's selling price is MORE than what she is worth. The main thing we can take away from this is that women are over-pursued, over worshipped and overpriced. So men as good as her typically won't get her.

I agree and disagree that guys have a tough time because they aren't men. Partly why the dynamic got worse in the first place is because men gave over more power to women and would do even more for sex. But even if men improved and became men, it makes things worse. It makes things more competitive. As long as women sit there with the power to choose/reject men that want to sex them, they will always have an advantage in rejecting men good enough for them. In other words, today's DJ becomes tomorrow's AFC. It's all relative.

As for the other guy's economics post, I agree but I think it can be simplified. If you have 'woman's looks' on the y-axis (cut off to a level like HB9 so it's realistic) and 'what I will offer for her' on the x-axis (again cut off to be realistic) and then plot points of how much you'll put on the line for a given level (yes it can be zero too). Then plot the curve and see what function it represents best. Then find the point at which your gradient dy/dx is greatest as this signifies the greatest return for your input. That's then the best way to get laid for your input.

MM