Romantic Predators
Last summer a New York Times article worried that having more women on college campuses gave men more bargaining power in dates:
"When there were fewer men, the environment was not as safe for women," said Joyce Bylander, associate provost. "When men were so highly prized that they could get away with things, some of them become sexual predators. It was an unhealthy atmosphere for women."
Relationships are about give and take, but the person in more demand can give less while taking more. If men tend to more want sex, and women tend to more want romantic devotion, then when men are scarce men should tend to get more sex while giving less romantic devotion.
But when women are scarce, women should tend to get more romantic devotion while giving less sex. So why don’t we hear similar complaints about "an unhealthy atmosphere for men" due to "romantic predators"? Just as we seem more worried about women and children being hurt in war than men, this seems another example where males complain less because they get less sympathy.
I just started reading this blog, and maybe I am not getting something, but every entry seems to be filled with unqualified bias. Take this one. Aside from the usual economist frame (relationships are games of exchange of sex for romantic commitment,) where is this idea that men look for more sex and women for romantic relationships come from? Sheesh, talk about simple minded acceptance of conventional "wisdom!" Please set me straight if I am off the mark, but I don't see anything about overcoming bias here...
Dog of Justice, what about children who are raised not-so-well as a result of unstable romantic relationships? If Yan Li is right, placing a slightly lesser value on relationships vs. sex may well improve efficiency by encouraging clear-cut separation of those people who are most interested in a stable, long-term relationship.