In “Erotic Capital,” Catherine Hakim, one of the most inventive social scientists of our time, introduces a new concept that will transform our understanding of economic life. Hakim explains how sexual attractiveness, charm, liveliness and skillful self-presentation — all of the ways we make ourselves desirable to others — add up to a personal asset she calls erotic capital.
Most of us are familiar with the concept of human capital, which refers to the skills, work experience and credentials that individuals collect over a lifetime. No one disputes that human capital is essential to productivity and upward mobility in an advanced economy, which is why education is considered so important. And more recently, we’ve come to understand the value of social capital, the network of relationships we draw on to achieve various economic and personal goals. This, in turn, has led to an appreciation of the importance of maintaining a large and diverse social circle, and introducing children from disadvantaged backgrounds to the social practices of the better-off. Yet very little scholarly attention has been devoted to the many ways in which heightening one’s attractiveness can contribute to economic outcomes.
Hakim convincingly argues that women are more richly endowed with erotic capital then men, due in large part to what she calls the “male sex deficit.” Basically, the sexual appetite of men starts quite high and dwindles slowly, if at all. That of women, in contrast, starts at a lower level and tends to drop off steeply after age 30, thus creating a large and growing imbalance over the life cycle. To oversimplify, most men badly want what women have, and this creates an enormous economic opportunity for women.
For most of human history, however, the cultural dominance of men has led us to undervalue women’s erotic capital, and to put in place social codes devoted to restraining and even stigmatizing its use. Consider Kanye West’s 2005 hit single “Gold Digger,” in which he recounts the efforts of an attractive young woman to achieve economic security by entering sexual partnerships with successful men. She is portrayed in a mostly negative light in the song, and indeed the figure of the “gold digger” is, with rare exceptions, looked down upon in our culture. Rather, we celebrate women, and also men, who strive for economic independence.
But why should we devalue the effort and energy it takes to make ourselves as sexually desirable as possible while celebrating Warren Buffett for being a savvy investor? A cynic would suggest that this double standard represents a conspiracy on the part of the undesirable to contain the otherwise overwhelming power of the hottest among us. In practice, we allow less-attractive men to use every advantage at their disposal to build wealth while using shame to prevent more-attractive women from doing the same.
One reason the concept of erotic capital might make us uncomfortable is that it is very obvious that some people are born with it while others are not. Some people are born stunningly beautiful, and it takes less effort to cultivate and amplify natural beauty than to turn an ugly duckling into a swan. It is also true, however, that Bill Gates was born with prosperous, loving parents who indulged his knack for computer programming.
A better understanding of erotic capital can help us understand a number of inequalities, including racial inequalities. In a 2008 paper in the Review of Economics and Statistics, a team of economists and social psychologists conducted a speed-dating experiment with graduate students at Columbia University. They found that men were essentially indifferent to the race of the women with whom they interacted, paying far more attention to attractiveness. Women, on the other hand, were far more likely to express interest in partners of the same race, holding attractiveness constant.
When we think of how we might combat racial inequality, we tend to think of large-scale, society-wide interventions, like tough anti-discrimination laws and affirmative action programs. But strong same-race preferences arguably have much larger implications, as they present a social barrier to members of racial minorities that anti-discrimination laws can’t overcome. Only by marrying into dominant social groups can members of minority groups gain access to the most privileged and powerful social networks. Racial preferences devalue the erotic capital of some while enhancing that of others. If we come to believe that erotic capital really matters, we might come to see this phenomenon as a grave injustice.
More broadly, as the economic power of women increases, and as male dominance slowly erodes, one can imagine that men will be forced to devote more effort to investing in their erotic capital. In America’s big cities, we’ve already seen an explosion of spending on men’s fashion and grooming as men reach this conclusion. Men who aren’t accustomed to being judged primarily on the basis of their looks will have to get used to it.
Most of us are familiar with the concept of human capital, which refers to the skills, work experience and credentials that individuals collect over a lifetime. No one disputes that human capital is essential to productivity and upward mobility in an advanced economy, which is why education is considered so important. And more recently, we’ve come to understand the value of social capital, the network of relationships we draw on to achieve various economic and personal goals. This, in turn, has led to an appreciation of the importance of maintaining a large and diverse social circle, and introducing children from disadvantaged backgrounds to the social practices of the better-off. Yet very little scholarly attention has been devoted to the many ways in which heightening one’s attractiveness can contribute to economic outcomes.
Hakim convincingly argues that women are more richly endowed with erotic capital then men, due in large part to what she calls the “male sex deficit.” Basically, the sexual appetite of men starts quite high and dwindles slowly, if at all. That of women, in contrast, starts at a lower level and tends to drop off steeply after age 30, thus creating a large and growing imbalance over the life cycle. To oversimplify, most men badly want what women have, and this creates an enormous economic opportunity for women.
For most of human history, however, the cultural dominance of men has led us to undervalue women’s erotic capital, and to put in place social codes devoted to restraining and even stigmatizing its use. Consider Kanye West’s 2005 hit single “Gold Digger,” in which he recounts the efforts of an attractive young woman to achieve economic security by entering sexual partnerships with successful men. She is portrayed in a mostly negative light in the song, and indeed the figure of the “gold digger” is, with rare exceptions, looked down upon in our culture. Rather, we celebrate women, and also men, who strive for economic independence.
But why should we devalue the effort and energy it takes to make ourselves as sexually desirable as possible while celebrating Warren Buffett for being a savvy investor? A cynic would suggest that this double standard represents a conspiracy on the part of the undesirable to contain the otherwise overwhelming power of the hottest among us. In practice, we allow less-attractive men to use every advantage at their disposal to build wealth while using shame to prevent more-attractive women from doing the same.
One reason the concept of erotic capital might make us uncomfortable is that it is very obvious that some people are born with it while others are not. Some people are born stunningly beautiful, and it takes less effort to cultivate and amplify natural beauty than to turn an ugly duckling into a swan. It is also true, however, that Bill Gates was born with prosperous, loving parents who indulged his knack for computer programming.
A better understanding of erotic capital can help us understand a number of inequalities, including racial inequalities. In a 2008 paper in the Review of Economics and Statistics, a team of economists and social psychologists conducted a speed-dating experiment with graduate students at Columbia University. They found that men were essentially indifferent to the race of the women with whom they interacted, paying far more attention to attractiveness. Women, on the other hand, were far more likely to express interest in partners of the same race, holding attractiveness constant.
When we think of how we might combat racial inequality, we tend to think of large-scale, society-wide interventions, like tough anti-discrimination laws and affirmative action programs. But strong same-race preferences arguably have much larger implications, as they present a social barrier to members of racial minorities that anti-discrimination laws can’t overcome. Only by marrying into dominant social groups can members of minority groups gain access to the most privileged and powerful social networks. Racial preferences devalue the erotic capital of some while enhancing that of others. If we come to believe that erotic capital really matters, we might come to see this phenomenon as a grave injustice.
More broadly, as the economic power of women increases, and as male dominance slowly erodes, one can imagine that men will be forced to devote more effort to investing in their erotic capital. In America’s big cities, we’ve already seen an explosion of spending on men’s fashion and grooming as men reach this conclusion. Men who aren’t accustomed to being judged primarily on the basis of their looks will have to get used to it.
