So, I’ve stumbled upon an interesting debate regarding who is responsible for slut shaming women and encouraging them to have less sex - men or women? Baumeister et al. propose two theories. One is the Male Control Theory, and the second one is the Female Control Theory.
Male Control Theory
The Male Control Theory, according to Baumeister et al, posits that “men have conspired to set up a system that oppresses women so as to stifle female sexuality and that men benefit from that stifling” (170). They put forth many reasons why such a system might be set up, one of them being objectification which is a process whereby women are reduced to mere instruments or bodies that exists for the pleasure of others. Thus, female sexual suppression may be a means of preventing women from acting like active agents with their own desires.
As Baumeister et al suggest, it could be that “men do not want women to be autonomous creatures who make their own decisions and seek their own fulfilment, because such activities could potentially undermine male control” (168). This idea shares similar lines of reasoning with the hypothesis that the male control of woman’s autonomy is motivated by the unsubstantiated fear that female sexuality represents a potential threat to an orderly society.
Another reason proposed is insecurity. According to this hypothesis, males may be threatened by the lack of physical limitations present in female sexuality such as the absence of a refractory period or visible arousal, and thus, out of malice and envy, attempt to suppress it. A variation of this hypothesis states that men are instead insecure about the sexual prowess of other men and thus do not want female partners to have a basis for comparison.
In short, the Male Control Theory states that men have systemically suppressed women’s sexuality. The main reasons proposed for this encompass fear and envy of female sexuality, insecurity, and the fear that female sexuality could threaten the social order.
Female Control Theory
The Female Control Theory, as described by Baumeister et al, suggests that instead of men, it is women who are responsible for systemically suppressing their own sexuality.
Interestingly, they employ an economic viewpoint of human sexual relations to hypothesize that the Female Control Theory may be motivated by social exchange. In other words, if female sexuality is kept scarce, its value increases and thus becomes a more powerful bargaining asset for less abusive treatment from males, among other things. As Baumeister et al explain, “this idea assumes that men are willing to do whatever is necessary to obtain sex and will often do roughly the minimum amount that is required”. Hence: “The harder it is for men to obtain sex, the more they will be willing to offer women in return”.
As a consequence, “women will punish other women who make sex too freely available to men. These women are akin to the “rate-busters” in manufacturing: They end up lowering everyone’s price. One term people use to derogate such a promiscuous woman is that she is “cheap,” and, if taken literally, this term does invoke an exchange analysis: She is dispensing the female resource, sex, at a lower price than the going rate. When there are too many cheap products available, the purveyors of quality products feel pressure to give discounts as well. The other women will therefore put pressure on the so-called cheap woman to raise her price and demand more in exchange”.
The Debate
At the end of their research, Baumeister et al conclude that it is the Female Control Theory that holds true. They come to this conclusion for many reasons, including the fact that mothers and female peers are the “main source that teaches adolescent girls to refrain from sexual activity” (195). They also claim that “men do not appear to be important or effective sources of proximal influence toward the general restraint of female sexuality” (196). Importantly, they find that when men are in close proximity to women they have the opposite effect i.e. they attempt to influence women to be more sexually promiscuous.
Perhaps the greatest smoking gun that Baumeister et al bring up is that in societies where there are far more men than women, sex is less abundant. In contrast, in societies where there are far more women than men, the rates of sex increase steeply. There is only one conclusion to draw: “when men have the edge, sex is cheap and abundant. When women hold the advantage, sex is rare and expensive. Men prefer sex to be free and easy; women are better off when it is precious.” (175).
Importantly, Baumeister et al point out that attributing women’s sexual suppression to men would be to remove women’s historical agency.
They are forced to conclude that: “This evidence repeatedly favored the female control theory. Mothers and female peers, rather than fathers and male peers, are the main sources that teach adolescent girls to refrain from sexual activity. Boyfriends, one male source, do have some influence, but they push in the opposite direction (toward more sexual activity). Adult women feel more disapproval from female peers than from men over engaging in sexual activity beyond the current norms. Women support the double standard more than men; in other words, women are the main supporters of a moral system that condemns acts by women more severely than identical acts by men.”
Women take responsibility for their own slut-shaming? No way! What are the intense arguments against Baumeister et al? The data is wrong because it is sexist.
Rudman et al argue against Baumeister et al’s conclusions because “portraying women as using sex to barter for male resources dehumanizes women because it signifies that their bodies are the most precious resource they have to exchange in a close relationship” (1446).
Baumeister et al seem to predict such rebuttals, as he states that people might be unwilling to “admit” that sexual economics influence women because it is an unromantic view of heterosexual relationships. In other words, the blackpill is too bitter for most to swallow.
Male Control Theory
The Male Control Theory, according to Baumeister et al, posits that “men have conspired to set up a system that oppresses women so as to stifle female sexuality and that men benefit from that stifling” (170). They put forth many reasons why such a system might be set up, one of them being objectification which is a process whereby women are reduced to mere instruments or bodies that exists for the pleasure of others. Thus, female sexual suppression may be a means of preventing women from acting like active agents with their own desires.
As Baumeister et al suggest, it could be that “men do not want women to be autonomous creatures who make their own decisions and seek their own fulfilment, because such activities could potentially undermine male control” (168). This idea shares similar lines of reasoning with the hypothesis that the male control of woman’s autonomy is motivated by the unsubstantiated fear that female sexuality represents a potential threat to an orderly society.
Another reason proposed is insecurity. According to this hypothesis, males may be threatened by the lack of physical limitations present in female sexuality such as the absence of a refractory period or visible arousal, and thus, out of malice and envy, attempt to suppress it. A variation of this hypothesis states that men are instead insecure about the sexual prowess of other men and thus do not want female partners to have a basis for comparison.
In short, the Male Control Theory states that men have systemically suppressed women’s sexuality. The main reasons proposed for this encompass fear and envy of female sexuality, insecurity, and the fear that female sexuality could threaten the social order.
Female Control Theory
The Female Control Theory, as described by Baumeister et al, suggests that instead of men, it is women who are responsible for systemically suppressing their own sexuality.
Interestingly, they employ an economic viewpoint of human sexual relations to hypothesize that the Female Control Theory may be motivated by social exchange. In other words, if female sexuality is kept scarce, its value increases and thus becomes a more powerful bargaining asset for less abusive treatment from males, among other things. As Baumeister et al explain, “this idea assumes that men are willing to do whatever is necessary to obtain sex and will often do roughly the minimum amount that is required”. Hence: “The harder it is for men to obtain sex, the more they will be willing to offer women in return”.
As a consequence, “women will punish other women who make sex too freely available to men. These women are akin to the “rate-busters” in manufacturing: They end up lowering everyone’s price. One term people use to derogate such a promiscuous woman is that she is “cheap,” and, if taken literally, this term does invoke an exchange analysis: She is dispensing the female resource, sex, at a lower price than the going rate. When there are too many cheap products available, the purveyors of quality products feel pressure to give discounts as well. The other women will therefore put pressure on the so-called cheap woman to raise her price and demand more in exchange”.
The Debate
At the end of their research, Baumeister et al conclude that it is the Female Control Theory that holds true. They come to this conclusion for many reasons, including the fact that mothers and female peers are the “main source that teaches adolescent girls to refrain from sexual activity” (195). They also claim that “men do not appear to be important or effective sources of proximal influence toward the general restraint of female sexuality” (196). Importantly, they find that when men are in close proximity to women they have the opposite effect i.e. they attempt to influence women to be more sexually promiscuous.
Perhaps the greatest smoking gun that Baumeister et al bring up is that in societies where there are far more men than women, sex is less abundant. In contrast, in societies where there are far more women than men, the rates of sex increase steeply. There is only one conclusion to draw: “when men have the edge, sex is cheap and abundant. When women hold the advantage, sex is rare and expensive. Men prefer sex to be free and easy; women are better off when it is precious.” (175).
Importantly, Baumeister et al point out that attributing women’s sexual suppression to men would be to remove women’s historical agency.
They are forced to conclude that: “This evidence repeatedly favored the female control theory. Mothers and female peers, rather than fathers and male peers, are the main sources that teach adolescent girls to refrain from sexual activity. Boyfriends, one male source, do have some influence, but they push in the opposite direction (toward more sexual activity). Adult women feel more disapproval from female peers than from men over engaging in sexual activity beyond the current norms. Women support the double standard more than men; in other words, women are the main supporters of a moral system that condemns acts by women more severely than identical acts by men.”
Women take responsibility for their own slut-shaming? No way! What are the intense arguments against Baumeister et al? The data is wrong because it is sexist.
Rudman et al argue against Baumeister et al’s conclusions because “portraying women as using sex to barter for male resources dehumanizes women because it signifies that their bodies are the most precious resource they have to exchange in a close relationship” (1446).
Baumeister et al seem to predict such rebuttals, as he states that people might be unwilling to “admit” that sexual economics influence women because it is an unromantic view of heterosexual relationships. In other words, the blackpill is too bitter for most to swallow.
