economic models of love and sexuality

[big_cane_sugar]

Just some random thoughts I want to throw out there and see what people have to say.

It seems to me that in most discussions of romantic relationships in Anglo-American culture for the past 20ish years, the underlying model has been trade. I agree to give you this much, you agree to give me that much, we each get some of what we need, if we're happy with the exchange then it happens. So basically love is a deal made between rational actors seeking their own self-interest.

The value of this is that it helps us argue against exploitative relationships. You can't give and give and give and get nothing in return. That's a bad deal.

But it seems to miss a really big part of normal human psychology. It seems to assume we only give because we have to. Just as people don't ordinarily volunteer to pay more for a widget than the price tag demands. But I suspect our behavior in buying/selling situations is not a good model for love. To take the most obvious example, a parent/child relationship is definitely not like a buyer/seller relationship. The main thing a parent gets out of being a good parent is the joy of seeing their child flourish. But isn't something like this a part of romantic and sexual relationships too? Isn't one of the greatest joys of sex the knowledge that you've pleased your partner? Especially if it's someone you love? I have been in more than one sexual relationship where we had fun arguments about whose turn it was to go down on the other one because we both enjoyed giving pleasure. Also, when someone does something like go down on you, isn't part of the fun letting them know how good it feels? If the relationship is good, then offering a suggestion about something that would feel good could actually be a nice thing to do rather than a demand because the partner wants to know how to please you.

So I suspect we have a "need to give" as well as a need to receive. We want to be with partners who value what we can offer, not only because we consciously expect fair value in return but because we want to feel good about offering.

When you find yourself in a relationship where people need to keep track of who is giving how much because someone is not pulling their weight, something is missing, and the best word for the missing element might even be "love." Or perhaps "care."

One way this economic focus shows up might be on our emphasis on "equality" rather than something like "respect" or "care." The Enlightenment thinkers who gave us this emphasis on equality must have been good businesspeople, figuring out how to quantify everything in terms of some common currency like the gold standard. But I wonder what equality could mean when we know we're talking about something that can't be quantified. Like childish lovers saying "I love you more" and "no, I love you more" and so on: even know they're being silly. I don't know how to say whether my wife and I are equal because I don't know how to quantify us. But I know we care for each other, respect each other, love each other, and we enjoy doing those things for each other, and so (so far) we have a happy marriage.

One last random thing. Perhaps this is part of the glamour of "hand-made" and "home-made" goods. Someone cared about it; they did it better than they had to do because they had actual pride, they felt good hoping that someone would appreciate and enjoy their work, and it feels good to let them know, yes, I do appreciate it actually. I think of a blanket that my mom made me. Maybe it's not our best blanket in a utilitarian sense, wouldn't fetch the most at a yard-sale, but it has added value to me because she made it for me.

Enough examples. I obviously don't know how to put these ideas clearly, I wonder if any of the confusion in our discussions here sometimes stems from applying economic models of trade between rationally selfish actors to matters of the very irrational and often very generous human heart.

 

[TheRedChamber]

There was a thread, elsewhere, on the Internet asking about people's least favourite episodes from the classic period of the Simpsons. I was surprised at how many, presumably fairly young, people had issues with the one where Homer and Marge have marital difficulties and he wins her back by announcing that the thing he can give her is 'total and utter dependency.' I hadn't really thought about it that way at the time, but I guess it's not great, although it was probably a better way of resolving that episode than trying to pretend Homer is low-key a worthy husband.

I think what you are describing is normal and fine. There is less pressure on people to actually get married these days, and you can have a great relationship without tying the knot. People do pause a bit and think about what they are actually going to get out of formalising things. And it's not even a modern thing. Jane Austen's characters were all very concerned with how many hundred a year various suitors made. Sense always needed to balance with sensibility.

It's nice if a relationship just works, with both partners wanting to do exactly the same thing at exactly the same time and that does sometimes happen at least for a little while. But sooner or later you do need to do at least some of the arithmetic of give and take over at least certain issues.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

I do think people emphasize the wrong things in marriage these days. Although I suspect it goes back much further than the last 20 years.
When you see a relationship as purely transactional, yet there are no agreed upon prices, then things can't ever be equal. One of my friends had issues with a now ex-gf that he lived with because she would cook these huge elaborate meals. Dirty just about every pot and pan in the house and she loved doing it. It was her passion.
Then she'd expect him to clean up, because that was only "fair", after all, she cooked, he should clean.
But he hated washing dishes by hand. He'd be more than happy to load and unload the dishwasher, but she objected because of course that's not the "right way" to do it. Bad for the pots and all...

Point being it was a "fair trade" in her mind.
From his perspective they were trading 2 hours of her doing something she loved, for 2 hours of him doing something he hated. That isn't a fair trade at all.

 

[big_cane_sugar]

Certain pets also come to mind. Not the useful ones, the useless ones. Useless except as something to care for. To meet our need to care for something that needs care.

 

[big_cane_sugar]

I do think people emphasize the wrong things in marriage these days. Although I suspect it goes back much further than the last 20 years.
When you see a relationship as purely transactional, yet there are no agreed upon prices, then things can't ever be equal. One of my friends had issues with a now ex-gf that he lived with because she would cook these huge elaborate meals. Dirty just about every pot and pan in the house and she loved doing it. It was her passion.
Then she'd expect him to clean up, because that was only "fair", after all, she cooked, he should clean.
But he hated washing dishes by hand. He'd be more than happy to load and unload the dishwasher, but she objected because of course that's not the "right way" to do it. Bad for the pots and all...

Point being it was a "fair trade" in her mind.
From his perspective they were trading 2 hours of her doing something she loved, for 2 hours of him doing something he hated. That isn't a fair trade at all.

Definitely something to negotiate lol.... Had I been him, I might've offered to cook for myself. We could each cook and clean our own food. See how that goes for a while.

But then that relationship probably would've broken down pretty quickly lol

Myself, for a good meal, I'll do the dishes, clean the kitchen, take out the trash, and still say thank you.