>Perhaps the most interesting question to emerge from the review process for this article was why, if the economic analysis is correct, people are reluctant to

>Perhaps the most interesting question to emerge from the review process for this article was why, if the economic analysis is correct, people are reluctant to acknowledge the exchange processes overtly? This reluctance extends from the refusal of dating partners to talk specifically about how much the man should spend to have how much sex, to the low prestige accorded prostitutes (who explicitly trade sex for money) in nearly all cultures, and even to any widespread reluctance to entertain the theory and analysis we have proposed. Even the most obvious examples are concealed: For example, these days most single people are aware of a supposed obligation that a wedding engagement should be marked by the man giving the woman a ring costing 2 months’ worth of his salary, with no corresponding gift from her to him. Believers in gender equality are rightly offended by this practice, but in our view it simply indicates tacit acceptance that underlying all the fancy rhetoric about liberation and equality, the man is still essentially paying for sexual access. No one wants to acknowledge this, however. Of course not. If this is how relationships were commonly portrayed (specially in mass media), what would the consequences be? How many more men would be demotivated, and quit? How many construction workers and so many other insanely important and usually dangerous professions are occupied almost entirely by men desperate to financially support their family? I like electricity and running water, I don't challenge the status quo unless I have a reasonable alternative.