One might simply say that cultural ideals of love and romance are incompatible with exchange analyses, hence the reluctance, but that response fails to indicate why cultural ideals should favor high-flown concepts of romantic love over practical and concrete discussions of sexual exchange. However, incompatibility might arise because antagonistic exchange relationships are divisive whereas sexual relationships are often sought as positive, even communal bonds.

Explicit acknowledgment of exchange processes in sexuality would certainly raise a set of difficulties that could well make people reticent. Few couples will exactly match the average going rate for sexual exchange, and one or the other of them is getting a poor deal. To acknowledge that would reveal the man and woman as having an essentially antagonistic relationship at precisely the moment when they are presumably trying to form a united partnership, and so downplaying the exchange process would be valuable for avoiding the divisive recognition of exchange.

A too-precise negotiation of how much the man should contribute might also force the woman to acknowledge that she will charge one man more than another, more attractive man, thereby striking a blow to his ego. Her prestige could also be at stake, especially if to make explicit negotiations she came under pressure (comparable to the disclosures required of housesellers) to reveal what she was offering in terms of willingness to perform various acts, actual physical traits undisguised by clothing and makeup, and extent of prior sexual activity. In any case, however, the reluctance to acknowledge sexual exchange is itself an intriguing challenge for further research.

Click to expand...

STR8UP said:

The fact that sex IS an economic exchange is an unpleasant truth for some people.

Click to expand...

rocco said:

Then why do guys pay for sex, and women rarely as often?

Click to expand...