I will argue that sexuality is an economic choice rather than a biological given.I have argued previously for rct (rational choice theory) rat (rational action theory) Beckerian style analysis (economic approach) for things that seem clearly outside of the realm of rationality: gambling, suicide, crime and art.Here I will attempt to argue that one's sexuality is also a choice made rationally; taking costs and benefits under consideration, in relation to society, under imperfect information. Now that's a difficult one.Never the less, we will start with a brief history of sexual theory from moralists, to naturalists, to queer theory in which I will argue that we are moving towards an economic approach to sexuality. Next I will flesh out what it means to economically choose one's sexuality. Lastly, I will point out some obvious weaknesses.
Historical examples of explaining Sexuality:
The Christians
Back in the dark ages we got the evil Catholics. They mostly argue that god likes heteros and if you are not that then you chose to be a dick. Homosexuality comes “from a false education, from a lack of normal sexual development, from habit, from bad example, or from other similar causes, and is transitory or at least not incurable.” So you do have a choice. That's why all those weird homo conversion clinics. This is problematic for a couple of reasons; mainly because we are arguing with god-given morality, which might not be the most intellectual approach, to put it mildly. So, to hell with the theory, not with the homos.
The Sexologists
We break out from right and wrong with the sexologists. Most notably Alfred Kinsey, who did the first general survey on sexuality. He published his findings in Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953). He came to the conclusion that we are born with different sexual desires, and that they are normal. We find out that there are way more gays, lesbians, crossdressers, Polys, and Pedophiles, than initially thought. So we move away from good and bad, and towards biological inclination. This bears two problems:
1. Is every biological sexual tendency ok, if not which ones are? If they are biological (we are born with them) then are they always natural? One might argue yes; with consent. Kinsey got into a lot of trouble exploring research in Pedophilic sexual behavior. So some problems here…
2. If it is biological then why do we see so many generational and age changes of sexuality. By generational I mean that every generation lives sexuality differently. Think about how the ancient Greeks lived their sexuality very differently than us today. Or think about recent changes of a decline of Lesianism and move to Queerness (The Disappearing L: Erasure of Lesbian Spaces and Culture (Morris, 2017)) . Also within one's life, sexuality can change. So are we really born with a fixed biological sexuality?
Queer Theory:
A good starting point for Queer Theory is Gender Trouble (Butler, 1990). She argues that Gender, and subsequently sexuality, is a performance. We created a stereotypical male and female, that need to be heterosexual, for economic and reproductive reasons. Queer theory takes up that point and distances itself from the biological sexualities provided by the sexologists. Here the point is to see Sexuality as a performance, rather than an identity. No need for terms such as Hetero, Homo, Bi… It's really only the Q. While it might have been worth building institutions around LGBT, now is the time for free performative sexuality. People identify less as Lesbians, but rather Queer. Even Heteros can be Queer. Clyde Smith wrote “Straight with a Twist: Queer Theory and the Subject of Heterosexuality” (2000), in which he argues that there is a whole new type of queers that are straight: Straight Sissy boys, Social Justine Straight Queers, Elective straight Queers, Committed Straight Queers.
I would agree with that, considering my own experience. While I identify as straight male, I have my queer moments. I sometimes find myself in settings where I love to live out a femininity that was often observed by friends. In terms of sexuality I like different things at different times. Sometimes as a means of power, as a means of love, as a means of comfort, and sometimes even as a commitment device. For that I chose different people representing different things to live out my sexuality. While I only had sex with women, I have had intimate moments with men which in a sense can be categorized as sexual. In my experience these things are fluid.
We now went full circle: From Christians sending those who chose to live out their sexuality to hell, to the sexologists making all kinds of sexual behavior biological, thus normal, back to a fluid choice within Queerness. Question now arises when do people choose to live out which sexuality?
Economics of Sexuality
If sexuality is a behavior which we perform, who chooses which performance and when? Micro economics as the study of human behavior can help. I will attempt to explain sexuality by market dynamics. In this market I am the supplier of sex, as well as the consumer of sex. Thus we have a supply and a demand curve. (short note here: there is a so called “Sexual Economics” (Baumeister 2004). It defines “Sex as Female Resource for Social Exchange”. Here women provide sex and men buy it. Although their is some evidence on why this is the case in many scenarios, I disagree with this theory because economics makes no differences in gender or sexuality, everyone is an homo economicus and responds to incentives)
I can create sexuality. The more I will get for it (price: in emotional terms f.e.) the more I will engage in this sexuality. Vice versa with demand. If the price for a certain sexuality is high, i will consume less of it. The Equilibrium Price and Quantity for sexuality is where the two lines meet.
Now for different sexual behaviour I will have different supply and demand curves. Lets start with Supply
It might be harder for me to produce homosexual sexual behavior because I might incur societal costs, and searching and practice costs, since it would be my first time. What about living out my sexuality as a secondary in a 3 way relationship. I might also have a hard time doing so since I don't understand the boundaries and time commitment. If we assume that these things are hard for me to do, my supply curve shifts upwards
We can observe that even if the demand curve stays the same, my Quantity and Price of other sexualities (i.e.homosexual) interaction decreases.
So what might my homosexual demand curve look like? Here demanding (in the economic sense: lol) homosexual sex will be more expensive. Again not knowing how to consume it, societal costs, as well as cheap heterosexual alternative make this an expensive option
One can see that there is no meeting point for the two homo lines in this graph. The price of producing and consuming is too high, given other options. This might change. Societal factors might change, opportunities might change (moving to a city with a vibrant gay community) and so on.
This can also explain “The disappearing L '' where Lesbian institutions saw it as necessary to define themselves and life within lesbian culture, since benefits were high and costs were low. Now the benefits of female only institutions might have diminished since the 70s and the costs to strictly define oneself and live out a lesbian lifestyle versus queer might have shot up.
To summarize: Queer theory sees sexuality as a performance, costs and benefits define which performance is currently in theaters.
Critique
There are two obvious critiques that I could come up with to the economics of sexuality and its resulting emphasis on choice.
Anecdotally there are so many stories of the 11 yo boy who just felt attracted to boys, and finally after school came out. The economics of sexuality would suggest that the costs and benefits of the 11 yo made him attracted to boys. Now that's hard to believe. Costs are clearly high, and benefits are low, since his surroundings punished homosexuality and there was little availability. The counter argument is that he lived out his sexuality in accordance to costs and benefits: Had a gf in school, came out after, when costs were low and benefits high. But in my mind the economics of sexuality should also explain attraction, which in this case it might not. On the other hand I have talked to a friend of mine who I went to school with who explained to me that he didn't live a lie when he was straight in school. He really believed that he was straight and couldn't imagine actually sleeping with a guy. After school he went to NY and had a BF. So the verdict is still out there.
This first critique informs the second one, which is a question of definition. The sexuality of economics might only predict how a person defines one’s own sexuality, not his underlying fixed sexuality. Also fair point. I do still think that the actual underlying attraction can change depending on costs and benefits.
They say sex sells, but according to the economics of sexuality, it buys and sells to the laws of supply and demand.
Comments