My post was intended to make a specific point, which does not relate to what you’re discussing.
The issue is whether applying economic language and concepts to relationships in and of itself implies that you view people as objects or possessions. This is independent of whether or not the specific position held by the OP is correct or not.
I’ve encountered a surprising number of men who try to figure out “what women want” and do that, without asking what the particular woman wants. I got really tired of being, for example, being dragged to “chick flicks” and rom-coms when what I really like is SF and action films. So yes, there are men who do things they wouldn’t otherwise do to develop a relationship with women, typically with hopes of sex involved.
Personally, I think it makes more sense to find things you have in common with the person you hope to romance and then have sexual intercourse with, but I’m weird.
Of course, in a long-term relationship there is some give and take - over 30 years of marriage I did at times do things that weren’t that interesting to me in order to support my spouse’s interests or even career… and he did likewise. But it was only a small part of what we did together, not a constant sacrifice on the part of one or both people.
Wow.
Do you have any idea how insulting you are to those of us who have been both wives and primary income earner in our families?
The only expensive hobby I ever had I paid for entirely out of my own pocket. In addition to supporting my spouse.
The 1950’s called, they’d like their gender stereotypes back…
I told my husband not to buy me ANY engagement or wedding rings - I told him to put that money into his business, because I’d take a successful business and steady income over a shiny rock any day.
Maybe the problem is the type of people you hang out with.
Your point and the points outlined in your link are trite:
<bolding mine>
So if you’re unlucky in love and in need of relationship advice, forget friends and family. Seek out an economist and they’ll draw you a graph.
And since you’re not addressing whether the OP has it right or wrong, what insight are you providing that isn’t blindingly obvious?
I am not going to participate in the idea of entertainment money as a lost investment in marriage or sexual access or whatever.
I will say that one year I ran up about $6000 in credit card debt entertaining a girlfriend because I wanted her to continue being my girlfriend.
She never really asked for money or gifts, her tastes just ran toward the expensive side. I wanted her to believe I could sustain that, but I was too young to think about the long-term financial impacts. Also she was quite attractive, she was phenomenal in bed, and I had no other girlfriend prospects. Furthermore she was a little unstable which led to a hot-and-cold cycle that hooked me even deeper.
$6000 in CC debt is a bitter pill to swallow, and it ballooned to $9000 over the 3 years after we broke up. I learned a hard lesson and I reckon I paid a fair enough price for it. The lesson was don’t outlay more than you can sustain, money can’t buy you love, and an inconstant lover is a foolish bet. Also, hotness tends to be more trouble than it’s worth.
Sure, but that’s a long way from assuming that he wouldn’t have gone to any movies/events at all, rather than possibly different ones - and in fact, he may have seen the same ones even if there wasn’t a girlfriend involved. My husband likes chick flicks and rom-coms but I don’t. And I didn’t actually want to attend a single one of the hockey games I went to. The OP just assumed that most likely he’s doing something that he otherwise wouldn’t have done and at the very least, that’s an overstatement.
Economists will economize any damn thing just for the fun of the thought exercise. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with that.
The problem is that a lot of this thought is cross-pollinating to misogynistic laymen who are forming their own amateur theories that are basically elaborate rationales for valuing women like chattel and treating them like shit.
Google on “sexual market value” to see what I’m talking about. It’s not a formal economic term, it’s just something that a bunch of online douchebags concocted to add a scientific veneer for crass pickup-artistry.
It’s not just “for the fun of the thought exercise”. This is how these things are studied by serious scholars. Here’s a random example of game theory as applied to human relationships. Or from the popular media 10 Lessons from an Economist on Love
This is all extremely common.
Very possible. But there’s very little that you can’t disqualify if use by a bunch of online douchbags qualifies.
My point was the mere use of concepts like wasting resources as applied to relationships doesn’t imply viewing people like property. The person who says that might or might not be an online douchbag, but you would need some other basis for declaring that so, beyond the mere fact that they say that you can “invest” in a relationship or the like.
That is so bizarre. I hold the door open for whoever happens to be coming up behind me and is close enough that I’m not standing there awkwardly (sometimes I admit that distance is a little hard to judge, and by then it’s too late to change your mind…so I continue to stand there awkwardly). Never once did a guy freak out on me for holding it. They’ll often come up and take it to hold it open for their families, but women do that too - it’s just polite to not assume someone wants to hold the door for your entire brood.
Just because you can quantify something and plot it on a graph, doesn’t make it good science.
Here’s a Nobel Prize winning economist on whether all Economics is Science.
There’s a clear difference between discussing such concepts in the context of academic inquiry into patterns of human behavior, and applying them in a non-academic setting in regards a specific person. I rather doubt any of the economists you cited choose to frame their most intimate relationships primarily as transactions, as the OP does, howsoever they might recognize such aspects in their own lives.