Capital erótico: El poder de fascinar a los demás

by Catherine Hakim, Jofre Homedes Beutnagel (Translator)

In 2010, pioneering sociologist Catherine Hakim shocked the world with a provocative new theory: In addition to the three recognized personal assets (economic, cultural, and social capital), each individual has a fourth asset--erotic capital--that he or she can, and should, use to advance within society.

In this bold and controversial book, Hakim explores the applications and significance of erotic capital, challenging the disapproval meted out to women and men who use sex appeal to get ahead in life. Social scientists have paid little serious attention to these modes of personal empowerment, despite overwhelming evidence of their importance. In "Erotic Capital," Hakim marshals a trove of research to show that rather than degrading those who employ it, erotic capital represents a powerful and potentially equalizing tool--one that we scorn only to our own detriment.

Genres: Nonfiction, Sociology, Feminism, Psychology, Business, Sexuality, Self Help

416 pages, Kindle Edition

First published April 1, 2011

Reviews

[Wendy White · Rating 1 out of 5]

Okay, short version: I had high hopes for this book. They were all completely unmet.

I went into it keen to hear what Hakim had to say. I left confused as to how this messy ramble got published.

What I expected: interesting psychological studies, insights into the role gender and attractiveness in general has in the workplace.

What I got: Sweeping generalisations that didn't actually cite research. (Check those footnotes - they don't lead to references, just more rambling). Statements out of the blue with no demonstrated supporting evidence.

I don't understand people who say she's included supporting evidence in the text when literally all her 'references' are just footnotes where she adds additional comments that sometimes even contradict what she'd just said. I felt like I was going crazy reading it - like, surely someone can't get away with saying "studies show that X" and not cite a single study.

On the plus side, now that I know that one doesn't actually have to apply the scientific method or cite evidence for their opinions in non-fiction pieces, I'm about to launch my successful new career as a materials engineer, publishing works like 'Iron ore is objectively uglier than other kinds of ore(1)' and 'Physicists prefer to walk while thinking(2)'.

References
1. I have spent a lot of time looking at iron ore, and I just don't like the colour of it.
2. I studied physics in highschool, and I enjoy a good walk. So does my friend Tim, who was in my class!

What you just read is basically my experience of the 'citations' in this book. If you want some concrete examples of the lack of actual academic research present, see what I wrote as my 'currently reading' update after Chapter Two:

==============================================================================

I'm still reading this, but I need to record some of my thoughts now while they are still fresh. I've just completed Chapter 2.

The opening of chapter one and the blurb got my hopes up. Then my heart plummeted when I saw my first "WTF CITATION NEEDED" piece of commentary that basically then repeated itself over and over with no supporting evidence. Someone else, I see, has written that Hakim has her own framework for how the world works and simply looks for ways to present information so that it seems valid. Sadly this seems spot-on.

The scientific method is entirely absent in the way she presents her interpretations of the _little_ data she has. Also, she herself points out how limited the research was she had to draw on, but instead of mentioning this in a "take with a grain of salt" fashion, she frames it as "heck yeah, I was able to write a supposedly non-fiction book with so little information!"

It's frustrating, because it is not as if I disagree with a large part of what she is saying! And I find it interesting! But I just keep thinking "How DUMB do you think I am? Do you expect me to read all these random theories and nod stupidly going 'Oh gee, thanks for explaining all that. I am just going to take everything you say at face value, surely all those footnotes support your claims.' But in reality nearly every footnote points not to an actual reference, but to another wild theory/opinion Hakim has, and on at least one occasion the footnote completely contradicted the point that uses it as a reference! What the?! Was an editor involved with this work at all?

She also wants to make it clear that just because she is recommending women make more use of their erotic power, that she is OMG NOT A FEMINIST. She makes sweeping statements about "what feminists think" (she just assumes you 'know' this is clearly true) in order to prove she is beyond them.

Quote: "Feminists claim that it is a myth that men have stronger libidos." <- A sweeping generalisation like that with no references would have had me docked 5% of my mark if it appeared in an essay in highschool, let alone in a tertiary institution. And it certainly doesn't gel with my own experience - feminists have a diverse range of opinions based on their own personal experiences with relationships and their knowledge of biology and psychology - they are not a homogenous grouping. The whole point is to allow women the choice to be what is in their nature - whether that is super-girly, traditional housewife, dentist or judge. Hakim talks about feminism as if it's a uniform creed, with the implication that this creed is anti-femininity.

Another quote on male versus female desire (pg48) "Feminists argue that the imbalance [in male/female sexual desire] was socially constructed, an ideal imposed by men, and would vanish once patriarchal restrictions on women's sexual lives and activities were eliminated."

Again, I don't disagree with the overall idea that, all things being equal, men desire sex more frequently than women. Although I wouldn't _support_ this idea without some actual, cited modern research. But back to the 'all things being equal' point, because it's an important factor: Hakim implies repeatedly that all things ARE equal now - that the sexual revolution of the 1960s and 70s, contraception and looser attitudes, have enabled women to embrace sexuality in the same way as men.

WHAT is she smoking? Yeah, being open about sex, and being more sexually active is easier for women nowadays in most anglo-saxon cultures. However, is she wants to imply that women are now in an identical position to men when it comes to sexual politics, censure, and risk, she needs to re-examine her position. The idea that women are no longer slut-shamed, and that the attitudes of previous generations are not still impacting on children born in the 90s is ludicrous. Yes, we are freer than previously. But NO, by NO MEANS are women in the same situation as men when it comes to their own sexuality.

I was raised by pretty open minded parents, who always answered my questions truthfully, and certainly wanted to support their daughter pursuing a career that mattered to her. They never, to my knowledge, discussed a difference in the value or activity of male and female sexuality. And yet I still grew up with strong notions about my own body's sexuality, the value of female virginity versus male virginity, and a bunch of other notions that according to Hakim no longer exist in my culture. And these social attitudes DO still impact on my own life and choices.

For a far better discussion of male versus female sexual desire, read this article: http://io9.com/5977668/do-men-really-...

Anyway, back to the book. Hakim also fails to provide sufficient detail on her visual supporting material, keeping it vague enough to make it difficult to know if the data truly supports or is non-significant when it comes to her framework. For example on Page 53 of the paperback she has a "Sex differences in auto eroticism" chart that ranks auto eroticism from 1 to 5, then shows percentage groups of men and women identifying themselves as being that, er, auto-erotic.

Nowhere is this scale explained. IS this 1-5 rating something straightforward, like "Masturbates 1-5 times a day?" Or does the 1-5 mean something totally different like:
1 - I have never masturbated in my life
2 - I masturbate weekly
3 - I masturbate daily
4 - I masturbate 2 - 12 times a day
5 - I'm masturbating right now

What ages were tested? What sample size?

I don't expect Hakim to reproduce the detailed survey in her material, but at the very least she should explain the basic nature of the study and explain WTF the scale actually means. I kept handing this book to my mathematician partner to make sure I wasn't just being nutty about how useless these graphs and stats appeared.

Compare this to any of V. S. Ramachandran's works, where he is far clearer about the nature of the studies he references, and why they're statistically significant.

There's also some subtle points in her arguments referring to homosexual relationships where she implies that all homosexual male relationships are about sex, and all homosexual female relationships are about love. And that most lesbians do not care about their appearance, and most homosexual men spend ages on their looks.

"Good looks matter to some lesbians, but not to most." (no citation of course).

Well done; lesbians are a subset of humans.

"Most modern gay men have jobs, so that their investment in stylish good looks has to fit in with the demands of regular employment."

Oh my god. Gay dudes are a subset of humans too!!!

To me the "ugly lesbian" seems more like a cultural construct intended to cause shame and reinforce mainstream sexual behaviours, much like the "fat, ugly or slutty" sexism directed towards women in online gaming -> http://fatuglyorslutty.com

In a few places, inc pg 62, Hakim makes the statement that heterosexual men have sex 4 times as much as heterosexual women (excluding sex workers). I'd like some more numbers for this, because if heterosexual dudes are only sleeping with ladies... then does that mean (again, not with sex workers apparently) does that mean there's one nominated lady in each city who is the outlier that services all these dudes for free? Um, maybe, but... there's no info in Hakim's discussion of the study other than her inference that all these guys are having affairs. WITH WHO?! Again, het guys, so they aren't sleeping with each other! How can this occur without women being involved, therefore upping their sexual activity also?

Also, Hakim implies that because women self-report masturbating less frequently than men, that means their sexual desires are lower. Again, this is assuming women are in the same boat as men when it comes to bodies and attitudes. Anecdotal observation: it is a lot easier for guys to work out what to do with a dick than it is for girls, with no input, to work out what to do with a clitoris. Male masturbation was brought up in my co-ed promary school, but never female masturbation. It was the same in highschool: female masturbation was never brought up in our extensive health/sex-ed classes. I only learned what it was thanks to spanish SBS films in my mid-teens, and it took a long time to teach myself how to do it.

She even mentions that many women report never masturbating or having an orgasm in their life. Maybe if they knew how, they might try it? This is not considered at all in her approach to the subject. (If you struggle with this, check out the Sex Nerd Sandra podcast: everything you needed to know about sex, presented by friendly, open-minded, knowledgeable, funny people!)

Anyway, I'll now read the remainder of the book; apparently it gets better :P

====
(It didn't).

[bobbygw · Rating 1 out of 5]

Ah, the joys of women pandering to men's needs as a way of communicating in the workplace. What woman could say no?

Well, I hope every one of you who is a female and reading this will always say no. However, there seems to be an increasingly vocal minority of highly successful women who bizarrely believe that sex discrimination no longer occurs in the workplace or elsewhere, who are now advocating that you, as a woman, should go ahead and exploit your femininity and behave in a manner in the workplace - or wherever and however else you encounter men - that is essentially about pandering to their needs by you flirting and using “erotic capital".

Catherine Hakim, academic sociologist at the prestigious, world-renowned London School of Economics, is not only author of this questionable book, but also, it seems proud of her work in “criticising feminist assumptions about employment" - the quote is from her Wikipedia profile.

In Honey Money Hakim is effectively saying just use your ~erotic capital’ and voilà, you may find a rich man, but certainly life will become easier because men will treat you better. So THAT's how women can be successful in today's society?! Wow! Who thought it could be so utterly straightforward as that. All you need to do is “smile", flutter your eyelids, maybe wear high heels, dress in body-shape-enhancing clothes, use a certain appealing tone of voice and - oh! - please don't worry if you or others think you're not pretty; no, says Hakim, erotic capital is really all about your attitude. In other words: flirt away to any guy that has any power over you or if you think you want to influence him.

Is this representative of new thinking about women in society and their peer relationships with men and in the workplace? Does this sort of tripe even merit publication (and by respectable publishers, no less). No, and instead of radical, new thinking, this book represents a pre-80s-typically 1950s/60s/70s (and earlier) attitude towards and about women all over again. By the way, Hakim's advocacy of legalisation of prostitution and surrogacy have little credence given that they are contained within this book on erotic capital that makes a mockery of women and tells her that exploiting her 'femininity' is the path to success.

Frankly, her thesis perfectly echoes Ira Levin's 1972 bestselling satirical novel, The Stepford Wives, and at least the first (1975) film it inspired. In Levin's novel, the men's sexist attitudes have led to their desire for and then creation of ~the perfect woman’ in an equally perfect, secluded gated community. The robotic-type women are always smiling, the perfect hostess, submissive, forever wanting to please her man and doing so, at his bidding, and most of the time before it. I think this all sounds remarkably similar to what Hakim is advocating in her book and Odone endorses, though both may argue otherwise, namely: A woman should always please the men in their lives, whether co-worker, boss or husband, potential partner or just a guy serving you in a shop or wherever else. Give him a smile, be demure, flutter your eyelids. Paint your face. Massage his tense shoulders from being stressed at being a man in the modern age. Just glow with your erotic capital, m'dear, then all will be well in your world. I mean, this sort of nonsense is being spouted by a senior academic at one of the leading British universities.

As an academic, Hakim really has no excuses for publishing this sexist book. It seems, too, as I mentioned earlier, that Hakim questions “feminist assumptions about employment", and relating to gender pay disparity. Why, as a contemporary sociologist who has also specialised in women and employment-related issues, not know that discrimination against women in the workplace and in pay is rife and continues to be faced by the majority of women in the workplace across the globe, despite the backing of their rights in most if not all Western countries through legislation for equal pay, such as with the UK's 1970 Equal Pay Act. A google search alone on gender pay disparity will bring up a whole load of research, websites and reports. There's also the World Economic Forum's Global Corporate Gender Gap Report 2010 and, as one example into a specific, global major industry - financial services, and produced by the UK's Equality and Human Rights Commission - there's a 2009 published Sex Discrimination and Gender Pay Gap Report (on their website, you can find a press summary of the report, the report itself, as well as a fascinating 2011 report from the same organisation, on women being passed over for top jobs).

As anyone who is even half-awake about the realities of the world knows, sex discrimination is far from over and Hakim's Honey Money and Odone - far from celebrating women and helping to challenge sex discrimination, objectification of women and trivialisation of them by the appalling notion of “erotic capital" - reinforce such objectification, discrimination etc. (And you can just see the consequences of Honey Money thinking in the City/Wall Street/the financial services industry, or frankly any other male-dominated workplace. Such trivialisation will go down a treat with the guys in power/control, over women who work with or for them, as the women will be at the mercy of their being charged with using “erotic capital", when in fact the women are being harassed by the men.

Most people, I reckon, unfortunately, have enough to contend with: either being in crap jobs, if you're fortunate enough to have a job in the first place and, with women, they have the double-edged sword facing them unlike the majority of men, even now in the Noughties, given most still do all or most of the shopping/cleaning/cooking as well as be a co-wage-earner. Hakim and Odone point to such hardships and argue that was it worth it for feminists to win the fight to the right to work, rather than be pigeon-holed into stay-at-home-mums only. But surely one of the key points of feminism wa and is to make sure equal access to all industries and all jobs available, just as it is to make sure such access to education and equal pay, based on talent, qualifications and experience. Whereas Hakim seems to be saying that adopting a Honey Money attitude towards the men in your life will likely give you a far better chance at a better quality of life than the misery of modern work. Why golly gee - you could probably be lifted off your feet by a rich, dashing, non-gay Rock Hudson, and escape from the drudgery of common working life. But I think we can count such women on one hand, or perhaps one digit, unless you watch the rich women in Orange County and/or already happen to be rich.

As for Hakim - well, she doesn't have to be worry about having to use ‘erotic capital’ to get ahead: after all, she's an established academic at a top university; yet she seems to sneer at women's real rights in her book, while having her own delicious cake to eat. “Do as I say, not as I do", in other words.

Ultimately, Honey Money's credo, its advocacy of erotic capital, will be seen for what it is: a sexist revisionism of genuine women's rights and self-empowerment- the Empress's New Clothes, to paraphrase the cliché. It is intellectually dishonest, morally bankrupt thinking that wholeheartedly pejorative towards women; it is, therefore, explicitly anti-feminist, anti-women's rights in the workplace (to be treated as an equal to men, not to be slathered over because of flirting with them), and echoes back to a denigrating time, culture and thinking that is, at most, pre-1980s, and frankly smacks, as indicated earlier, of the 1950s and before. I'm reminded of an age-old sexist chant by men, typically drunk when they sing it, that would agree wholeheartedly with the essence of Hakim's argument, but I won't add it here; suffice it to say, that Honey Money does harm, I think, to the real issues and challenges women face in the modern-day workplace.

Hakim not only seem to disapprove of modern feminism, but worse, think there's no need for feminism or feminists anymore. Well, I for one don't approve of their characterisation of women as flirtatious, male-pandering Stepford Wives of this decade or any other. Talk about backwards, sexist thinking. Even shallow pop culture trivialisations of feminism for young women's consumption - by characterising women's rights as “Riot Grrrl" and, before that, “Girl Power", are genuinely more meaningful, in-depth and useful to women, young and old, than the nonsense of this sociologist; I believe she brings shame to the history of women's struggles, and to the women who have fought in every sense for their rights. There is nothing to celebrate in a supposedly bright woman celebrating as a way to get ahead an encouragement for women to focus on their appeal to men via their own looks/consideration of them/flirting with them/body language/tone of voice/femininity.

[Iris Gercov · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting perspective on using erotic capital as a domination instrument instead of a victim's feature. A little bit too pro cold and meaningless sex, but you just can't deny she is honest. Sad but true.

[Daniel Ballesteros-Sánchez · Rating 5 out of 5]

Capital erótico es el complemente perfecto de la obra de Bourdieu sobre los capitales de los seres humanos, el económico, el social y el cultural. Este cuarto capital es la profundización de un tema que, aún en una sociedad altamente globalizada que habla abiertamente sobre el sexo, se niega a reconcoer la importancia de la belleza, el rendimiento sexual y la condición de "atractivo" para acceder al mercado social y laboral. Un libro que nos muestra con estadísticas claras -aunque solamente anglosajonas, también evidentes para otras culturas- cómo el sistema patriarcal se ha dedicado a reducir hasta invisibilizar la discusión sobre lo erótico y lo atractivo para mantener bajo control el mercado del ocio sexual y las ventajas que tiene sobre las mujeres -quienes cultivan más el capital erótico- este capital para acceso al mercado laboral y social. Un libro sobre sexo, dinero y poder, hace una fuerte crítica sobre las olas feministas que ignoran el poder que tiene el capital erótico para lograr objetivos comunes. En fin, un libro muy recomendado para entender como, de la cuna al ataud, hay personas que genéticamente han sido favorecidas para triunfar en cualquier aspecto de su vida simplemente por contar con un capital erótico acorde con la construcción de lo erótico en determinadas sociedades.

[Kristine · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is hard going, since it's written like an essay with a whole lot of supporting data written in to the book itself. The first two chapters are the hardest, then after that it's much easier. A lot of people disagree with the ideas she's putting forth, but I personally think that some of it is valid. Things like women who are more attractive get paid more attention and therefore get luckier breaks and move up faster in the world - this is similar to a an attractive, tall man who gets a far bigger pay packet than a short, unattractive man, or even an average looking, average looking man. Who hasn't ever heard of "Short Man Syndrome", and laughed about it? Because it's true. Heartening to know though, that the "value" of beauty is the same as having a higher education...which means it only goes so far.

[Ebru · Rating 1 out of 5]

1.5 brudi schwierig

[M Johana Areiza · Rating 5 out of 5]

«Vivimos en un mundo tan cautivado por la belleza como incómodo con las ventajas que brinda».

[Cecilia Welch · Rating 3 out of 5]

I actually DID like this book, even though I only rated it a three star. This is how it all makes sense:

Catherine Hakim's extensive and thorough research into erotic capital is impressive. She dares to bring up a subject that is extremely important in today's society, and she backs it up with numerous studies in both sociology and psychology. Hakim asks just the right questions. I don't agree with everything said, since I find some of the answers way too easy of an explanation. None the less I am intrigued to study the subject even further, by myself and through other books by Hakim.

I particularly liked the comparison between men and women, and the discussion on Feminism: "Feminism has become part of the reason why women fail to ask for what they want and fail to get what they think is fair, [...]."

However, I did get a little tired and lost about a third into the book and it took me a while to get through those pages. Therefore the three stars, since she almost lost my interest completely there for a while...

[Helene · Rating 4 out of 5]

I can understand the controversy surrounding this book, but I read it in light of the author indicating the presence of 'erotic capital', and using scientific findings to back this up. The idea that attractive babies already receive more loving attention and that during their lifetime the small benefits of being considered more attractive add up to eventually receiving higher pay is, in my opinion, quite logical. The author does not attach judgment to it, but merely points out that this is the way the world works. Certain parts I didn't agree with, and I would prefer the author to indicate more how you can use your 'erotic capital' in more concrete situatuions. I still would recommend for women to read this and reflect on it.

[Liz Ely · Rating 1 out of 5]

I read this because,even though I knew I would probably disagree with it,i thought it would challenge my perspective on the issues mentioned-what with it being written by someone from lse. Alas it just felt like I was trolling myself-there are so many holes in her argument,alot that is just wrong-and massive side helpings of fatphobia,homophobic,misogyny and wilfull misrepresentations of feminism. Complete nonsense.

[Nathan · Rating 2 out of 5]

I found some interesting facts but the overall thesis was poorly justified. Basically, Hakim has a framework and wants to fit the world into this framework. Naturally, her framework explains everything while predicting nothing new. Gave up early, so if the book got good then I apologize for not being patient enough to find the good.

[Stephen Cranney · Rating 2 out of 5]

Her lack of citations was really annoying, especially when she was making controversial claims.

[VEL – The Contemporary Heretic · Rating 3 out of 5]

Catherine Hakim—proudly displaying her own erotic capital in a photograph on the dust jacket of the hardcover edition—introduces her concept of ‘erotic capital’ in this work, variously titled ‘Money Honey: The Power of Erotic Capital’ or ‘Erotic Capital: the Power of Attraction in the Boardroom and the Bedroom’.

The concept seems to be mere social science jargon for sex appeal.

She makes two key claims:

1) Women have more erotic capital than men;

2) “There is a systematic and apparently universal male sex deficit: men generally want a lot more sex than they get” (p39).

However, the two claims are basically the same. Women have more sex appeal precisely because men want more sex. As Hakim admits:

“It is impossible to separate women’s erotic capital, which provokes men's desire... from male desire itself” (p97).

Neither are these claims as original as she claims.

Evolutionary psychologists have long recognised the greater male desire for promiscuous sex. They have also provided something conspicuously absent from Hakim’s own exposition, namely an explanation for this difference.

According to Bateman’s Principle, men evolved a greater desire for promiscuity, because sex with multiple partners enables men to father additional offspring, whereas women, constrained by pregnancy and lactation, can bear usually only one offspring at a time (Bateman 1948; Trivers 1972).

Hakim mentions evolutionary psychology only in passing (p88; p320). Yet much of her book merely retreads ground the latter trod decades ago.

Thus, Hakim treats male homosexual promiscuity as a window onto the nature of male sexuality when it is freed from the constraints imposed by women (p69-71; p95-6). This was an approach pioneered by Donald Symons in The Evolution of Human Sexuality in 1979!

Ditto regarding her discussion of the relative markets for pornography among men and women (p71).

Suppression of Female Sexuality
Hakim claims men have suppressed women’s exploitation of their erotic capital because they are jealous of the fact that women have more of it. This, she claims, explains both sexual double-standards and puritanical attitudes towards sex.

She claims that men began control female sexuality so as to assure themselves of the paternity of offspring and traces male efforts to control female sexuality to the supposed discovery of the role of sex in reproduction in 3000BC (p78-9).

Yet analogous acts of mate guarding occur in other species.

Even without awareness of the role of sex in reproduction, non-human males have evolved act to ensure that their parental investment is not misdirected towards offspring carrying another male’s genes. Early hominids probably did likewise.

Hakim claims the stigmatization of sex work stems from men’s envy of women’s erotic capital and desire to stop women exploiting it.

Yet women are generally more censorious of female promiscuity than men. Men, in contrast, for obvious reasons, enjoy the company of promiscuous women.

Hakim admits:

“If women... object to the commercial sex industry more strongly than men, this seems to destroy my argument that the stigmatisation and criminalization of prostitution is promoted by patriarchal men” (p76)

However, she insists:

“Over time women have come to accept and actively support ideologies that constrain them” (p77)

But this reduces women to mindless puppets without agency.

It also fails to explain how men persuaded women to be even more puritanical than those supposedly doing the persuading.

A Male Sex Right?
Hakim claims that sexual morality reflects a “Male Sex Right” (p82).

Thus, the stigma attached to golddiggers and prostitutes reflects the assumption that:

“Men should not have to pay women for sexual favours and erotic entertainments... [but rather] should get what they want for free" (p98).

Three facts falsify this claim:

1) Promiscuity is stigmatised even when it does not involve payment;

2) Marriage is not condemned but held up as a moral ideal despite the fact that, as Hakim agrees, it involves a trade of sexual access for economic support; and

3) Far from advocating that men get sex for free, Christian moralists promoted celibacy.

In short, what is condemned is promiscuity itself, not the demand for payment.

If there were truly a “Male Sex Right”, then rape would presumably be, not a crime, but a human right!

Puritanism and Prudery as Price-fixing Among Prostitutes
A better explanation for the stigmatisation of sex work is economic. What is stigmatized is not the sale of sex, but its availability at too cheap a price, driving down prices.

Thus, if men can get sex outside of marriage or committed relationships, they will have no need to pursue such relationships and women will lose the economic security that such relationships provide.

This view has been developed by Baumeister and colleagues:

“The so-called ‘cheap’ woman (the common use of this economic term does not strike us as accidental), who dispenses sexual favors more freely than the going rate, undermines the bargaining position of all other women in the community, and they become faced with the dilemma of either lowering their own expectations of what men will give them in exchange for sex or running the risk that their male suitors will abandon them in favor of other women who offer a better deal” (Baumeister & Vohs 2006: p358).

Thus, women's efforts to prevent other women from selling sex too cheaply is analogous to “other rational economic strategies, such as OPEC's efforts to drive up the world price of oil by inducing member nations to restrict their production” (Ibid: p357).

Hakim acknowledges this alternative theory only in her endnotes, summarily dismissing the idea, on the first occasion giving no reason (p273), and on the second because “of course... marital relations are not comparable with casual relations” (p283).

But, for men, both relations may serve the same end—i.e. access to sex. Paying a prostitute may be a cheaper substitute for the time and expense of conventional courtship.

This is a topic I enlarge on in my blog post—The Sex Cartel: Puritanism and Prudery as Price-fixing Among Prostitutes.

What’s that got to do with the Price of Prostitutes?
Particularly naïve is Hakim’s claim that:

“[With] the complete decriminalisation of the sex industry... men would probably find they have to pay more than they are used to” (p98).

Decriminalizing the sale of a commodity, including sex, usually reduces its price (see p165; p187).

Hakim writes:

“Women offering sexual services can earn anywhere between twice and fifty times what they could earn in ordinary jobs. This is something men would prefer women not know” (p229)

But men would benefit if women did know—because more women would then enter the industry and prices would be driven down by increased competition. Also, fewer women would compete with men for jobs in other industries.

Discrimination, Disadvantage & Double-Standards
Hakim argues:

“The patriarchal nature of... stereotypes [regarding female prostitutes] is exposed by quite different attitudes towards men who sell sex: attitudes here are ambivalent, conflicted, unsure” (p76).

Yet, in long-term relationships, double-standards are reversed.

Thus, housewives are also providing sexual services for in return for financial support, yet this is a respectable occupation for women.

Yet attitudes towards househusbands are, to use Hakim’s own words, “ambivalent, conflicted, unsure”, while men who are financially dependent on their partners and whose partners happen to work in the sex industry (i.e. pimps) are actually criminalized for their supposedly exploitative lifestyle.

Yet the lifestyle of a pimp is analogous to that of a housewife—both live off the earnings of their partner, and both spend an inordinate amount of this money on frivolous items such as clothing and jewellery!

Women’s Sexual Power—Innate or Earned?
Hakim argues that exploitation of sex appeal for financial gain is morally acceptable, claiming in a anecdotal ad hominem that disapproval of such behaviour:

“Almost invariably comes from people who are remarkably unattractive” (p246).

She protests:

“Apparently is fine for men to exploit any advantage they have in wealth or status, but rules are invented to prevent women exploiting their advantage in erotic capital” (p149).

But men’s earnings result from men working longer hours, for a greater proportion of their lives, in more dangerous and unpleasant working conditions.

In contrast, women’s greater sex appeal reflects merely the fortune in being born female.

Hakim denies erotic capital is “entirely inherited”, claiming “all aspects of erotic capital can be developed” through “time and effort” (p134), even claiming “women generally have higher erotic capital than men [only] because they work harder at it” (p244).

Yet no amount of make-up, however skilfully applied, can disguise excessively irregular features and even expensive plastic surgery and silicone enhancements are usually inferior to the real thing.

Moreover, even Hakim cannot deny that the advantage in being born female is “entirely inherited”.

Discrimination
Since erotic capital can be enhanced through time and effort, Hakim denies that the advantages accruing to attractive people are unfair. Neither does she regard the advantages accruing to women (e.g. hypergamy or earning high salaries in the sex industry) as unfair.

Yet, when the advantage seemingly accrues to men, Hakim does invoke discrimination, claiming:

“[In] the entertainment industry... there is an unfair bias against women… In Hollywood, male stars earn more than female stars, even though female stars do the same work, but going ‘backwards in high heels’” (p231).

But in Hollywood’s neighbour, the porn industry, female performers earn more, the disparity is bigger and affects all performers, not just A-list stars.

Hakim asserts that the greater wage premium associated with physical attractiveness for men as compared to women in the workplace is a form of “hidden sex discrimination” (p194):

“Attractive men receive a larger ‘beauty premium than… women. This is clear evidence of sex discrimination… as all studies show women score higher than men on attractiveness” (p246).

A better explanation is that more attractive women reduce their efforts at work because their looks open other means of advancement, such as marriage.

In short, why work for money when you can marry it instead?

Thus, several studies suggest that more attractive women marry wealthier men (Elder 1969; Hamermesh & Biddle 1994; Udry & Eckland 1984).

Yet ‘marrying up’ is not an option for even the handsomest men since:

“Even highly educated women with good salaries seek affluent and successful partners and refuse to contemplate marrying down” (p141).

The Wealth of Women
Hakim claims the importance of erotic capital has been ignored due to patriarchal bias in social science. I would argue that it is feminist bias which accounts for this neglect, because, once women’s sexual power is admitted, it undermines the whole basis of feminism.

Thus Hakim reports:

“There are more female than male millionaires in Britain… [many of them] wealthy widows or divorcees who have married well. The marriage market remains an avenue for upward social mobility long after the equal opportunities revolution opened up the labour market to women. All the evidence suggests that both routes can be equally important paths to wealth for women” (p142).

This suggests that it is men who should be campaigning for equal opportunity, because, while traditionally male careers are now open to both sexes, marrying up is an option only for women, as are most careers in the sex industry.

Men are not only denied these means of enrichment but are also driven by the male sex deficit to spend a large portion of what wealth they do acquire buying the affections of women. As a consequence, despite working fewer hours, for a lesser proportion of their adult lives in safer and more pleasant working environments, women control the vast majority of consumer spending.

Moreover, men are, Hakim claims, condemned to a “semi-permanent state of sexual desire and frustration”:

“Suppressed and unfulfilled desires permeate all of men's interactions with women” (p228)

This is an exaggeration. Hakim seems to think men walk around with permanent erections.

Thus, Hakim claims, by virtue of the Principle of Least Interest, women usually have the upper-hand in interactions with men:

“At the national level, men collectively have more power than women as a group… [but] this does not automatically translate into men having more power at the personal level, within intimate relationships and households” (p245).

I am reminded of Schopenhauer’s observation that:

“Man strives in everything for a direct domination over things, either by comprehending or by subduing them... Woman is everywhere and always relegated to a merely indirect domination, which is achieved by means of man, who is consequently the only thing she has to dominate directly”

As Aristotle wrote of the Spartans:

“What does it matter if women rule or the rulers are ruled by women?”

A full (i.e. vastly overlong) version of this review is available here.

References
Bateman 1948 Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila, Heredity 2(3):349-368
Baumeister & Vohs 2004 Sexual Economics: Sex as Female Resource for Social Exchange in Heterosexual Interactions, Personality and Social Psychology Review 8(4):339-363
Elder 1969 Appearance and education in marriage mobility. American Sociological Review, 34, 519-533
Hamermesh & Biddle 1984 Beauty and the labor market. American Economic Review 84:1174-1194
Trivers 1972 Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell Ed. Sexual Selection And The Descent Of Man 1871 1971 pp 136-179
Udry & Eckland 1984 Benefits of being attractive: Differential payoffs for men and women. Psychological Reports 54:47-56

[Jose Barreiro · Rating 1 out of 5]

La lectura del ensayo de Hakim me ha parecido interesante en relación a la importancia de lo erótico como forma de poder explicar y entender mejor nuestra sociedad actual, basada en principios de consumo y competitividad extrema. La autora presenta los conceptos de capital erótico y el déficit sexual masculino, definido este último como el deseo irrefrenable e inherente de los hombres por tener sexo a lo largo de sus vidas, en contraste con el deseo sexual femenino, una “explicación” un tanto simplista, bajo criterios económicos de oferta-demanda. Sobre la base de este concepto, la autora justifica barbaridades como la prostitución, la cual tilda de “sexo comercial” y también el uso de vientres de alquiler. En mi opinión, el problema de observar la realidad tras el prisma de lo económico conlleva a la deshumanización de las personas, tratándolas como meros objetos que compiten entre sí para poder sobrevivir en un sistema que no los ampara y los utiliza como mercancía. La autora, de corte capitalista, en ningún momento va a exponer las fallas de la superestructura que menciona, es más, las únicas desigualdades que señala están relacionadas con su particular visión de empoderamiento femenino basado en la cosificación de los cuerpos de las mujeres para poder, no solo salir de situaciones precarias, sino alzarse dentro de la burguesía a través de casamientos o ascensos laborales, entre otras formas. Se observa demasiada frivolidad al hablar del sometimiento del cuerpo de las mujeres, no solo para poder encajar en los cánones de belleza que imperan para encajar y ascender socialmente, sino también en relación a la venta de sus cuerpos. En este sentido, da igual la jerarquía del tipo de prostitución, en cualquier caso, en un sistema donde se garantizase la dignidad laboral, las mujeres no se verían abocadas hacia dichas “elecciones”. En cuanto al déficit sexual masculino, se obvia conscientemente cualquier explicación posible y se les atribuye dicho deseo a razones puramente biológicas para poder justificar la diacrónica existencia de la prostitución a través de la historia, y su evidente relación con el patriarcado en sus diferentes contextos donde lo femenino queda sumido a complemento y servicio de lo masculino. En otras palabras, el deseo masculino aun con base biológica, es también resultado de la cultura dominante, algo que se ignora a conveniencia para poder encajar las piezas conceptuales que engloban al capital erótico.

En resumen, este ensayo me ha resultado interesante como mapa del pensamiento capitalista, sobre todo los primeros capítulos donde explica la importancia de lo erótico y sexual en nuestra actualidad basada, queramos o no, en las apariencias, así como la relevancia de lo atractivo desde el nacimiento hasta la incorporación al mundo laboral. La belleza, entonces, es otro indicativo más de que la meritocracia es un mito. Aunque la autora nos desvela que el capital erótico no se conforma exclusivamente de atractivo sexual, sino que también influyen factores como la vestimenta, el desparpajo, o el cuidado del cuerpo, algo que sí podemos controlar, pero claro, ¿a qué precio?

[Caden Mccann · Rating 4 out of 5]

In this book, Catherine Hakim argues for “erotic capital” as a fourth asset alongside more traditionally acknowledged forms of human capital. Partly because men are visually driven, women generally have higher erotic capital than men, and the book is largely female-focused. I agree with Hakim that self-confident feminine sexuality has often been marginalized, whether that be by puritans or feminists of the bra-burner variety. I also thought Hakim’s discussion of certain countries with a more sex-positive culture was interesting, striking a contrast with the Anglosphere with its puritan mores. However, at times Hakim seems a bit coldly libertarian, for example her endorsement of prostitution (while acknowledging the variety of ways one can conduct one's life, I don’t think being reduced to a sex vending machine for anonymous men is generally a great outcome for a human being, sorry).

[Jess Flores · Rating 1 out of 5]

A pesar de que plantea un par de ideas interesantes, eso no le quita lo gordofóbico, capacitista, clasista, misógino, homofóbico y machista.

[Elián Ohanjanyan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Un ensayo sociológico muy interesante.

[PeterBlackCoach · Rating 4 out of 5]

A somewhat controversial book when released, because of the title, subject and the perception it could damage the significant advances made by women in achieving success in the corporate world, I found this book quite useful in thinking about how BOTH men and women can use a combination of attributes, not just beauty, to advance their cause. That it has been written by a prominent sociologist at the London School of Economics with significant experience in this area enhances its credibility. It's worth a read provided you get over the sniggering and possible initial aversion to reading something with "erotic" in the title.

[Madmedea · Rating 1 out of 5]

Terrible quality of writing, presents contradictory evidence without any comment, and basically is a non-theory. Oh dear... but she's certainly achieved her aims by using her erotic capital (google image her for before and after pics) so maybe its a circular way of proving her point!

[Antonia Yancheva · Rating 5 out of 5]

A must read for every feminist!

[H. · Rating 1 out of 5]

sencillamente espantoso. es un libro infumable e insostenible, repleto de estereotipos, ideas rancias y desfasadas, biologicismo, homofobia, esencialismo y, sobre todo, ignorancia. la autora realiza afirmaciones categóricas sin realmente sustentarlas con estudios y, las que sustenta, lo hace con estudios incompletos e incomprensibles, de los que difíclmente se puede extraer las conclusiones que plantea. es un texto bastante engañoso porque, por la descripción, tiene el aspecto de ser un libro feminista que está a punto de realizar un análisis muy concienzudo acerca de la feminidad, los roles de género, las zonas grises y errores del feminismo. de hecho, durante las primeras veinte páginas, se plantean cuestiones que verdaderamente son importantes y podrían responder a algunos de los problemas de hoy en día. no obstante, en tanto que se avanza con los capítulos y las secciones, hay una barbaridad detrás de otra.

podría pasarme el día poniendo ejemplos, pero voy a limitarme a un par de ellos para prevenir a futuras despistadas que, como yo, no han venido a esta plataforma a cotejar que el libro no es un montón de mierda misógina disfrazada de otra cosa:

(i) la autora parte de la base de que un noventa y nueve por ciento de la población es heterosexual. defiende que las personas homosexuales (no hablemos de bisexualidad, ni de personas trans porque esa es una tesitura que sencillamente no resulta aceptable) son un colectivo en minoría, llena de personas afeminadas, promiscuas y enfermas. defiende estereotipos rancios y trata al colectivo como un grupo homogéneo. menudo error llamarte a ti misma investigadora y cometer errores básicos como poner por normal de lo que más se habla o publicita.

(ii) la autora romantiza la precariedad defendiendo que las mujeres trabajen en la prostitución, como escorts, operarias de líneas eróticas, entre otras para pagarse los estudios. evidentemente estos trabajos son tan buenos como cualquier otro, pero nadie, NADIE debería verse en la tesitura de tener que trabajar para pagarse los estudios. la educación es un derecho básico. y defender que las mujeres se dediquen a la prostitución, el sexo o derivados porque es empoderante y es explotar el capital erótico es muy retorcido, degradante y misógino por parte de la autora.

(iii) la autora culpabiliza TODO EL TIEMPO al movimiento feminista por la posición desventajosa de las mujeres. defiende que las mujeres hemos de volver al hogar, a la cocina y que debemos invertir todo nuestro tiempo en ser guapas y aceptables, incluso si eso significa dejar nuestros estudios o no perseguir nuestras pasiones. defiende que el feminismo ha hecho que nuestra calidad de vida empeore y que los hombres que no son corresponsables ganan más dinero (a costa de la precarización de sus parejas, de sus dobles jornadas y demás).

(iv) la autora es INCREÍBLEMENTE gordófoba. las pocas veces que habla de las personas gordas en el libro lo hace para despreciarlas. defiende que les vaya peor y echa tierra encima del movimiento feminista por defender el movimiento de salud en todas las tallas y de aceptación. difícilmente he leído algo tan cruel, ruin y desconsiderado hacia las personas gordas.

podría poner más ejemplos de la bazofia que este libro que apenas me he podido terminar. un consejo: no os lo leáis. el número de tonterías ofensivas/crueles/irrespetuosas que se dice en un libro debería estar reducido a cero. la rabia que me da que haya personas validísimas que no tienen sus tesis publicadas o sus obras en el mercado literario sólo porque esta aburrida retrógrada y misógina quiere publicar un libro cimientado en faltarle el respeto a todo el mundo menos a los hombres. porque para otro día hablar de la forma en que legitima la cultura de la violación y termina por culpar a las mujeres (y su baja libido que viene de base, según todos los estudios que ella ha hecho e interpretado) de las violencias que sufren. muy mal. qué vergüenza que a esta la hayan publicado.

[Ben · Rating 3 out of 5]

The core idea is convincing to me – and not really surprising. That a person's combo of looks, sex appeal, style, social skills, charisma add up to a definable economic entity – their 'Erotic Capital'. This has value in a similar way to other, long-recognised forms of capital e.g. money, work skills/job experience, family/social networks. The author convincingly claims that this Erotic Capital has a considerable impact on social interactions, and thus on an individual's trajectory through work, life and social networks.

Where the author goes further is to claim that women can, and should, gain power and agency by using their erotic capital in a strategic way. This is in contrast to the thinking of many feminists, who claim that, through the 'male gaze', a woman's erotic value is always something that is exploited by the patriarchy.

(The author makes clear that men can also use their erotic capital; however, the focus throughout the book is primarily on the erotic capital of women, since the author claims – somewhat handwavingly – that this is "greater" than that of men.)

The author is very pragmatic and 'capitalist' in her outlook. She acknowledges that in an economy nothing comes for free, but everything has its value. Thus, she advocates for an 'exchange of goods': men get to enjoy a woman's good looks/social charm, and in return the woman gets to advance her career. But is this true empowerment of women? Or is it oppression on a new level; the male gaze but one level further up? I suspect many feminists would argue for the latter. In any case, it makes for a very provocative debate.

The book presents lots of interesting discussion of where and how erotic capital impacts individuals' lives. However, my big issue with the book is that, in many more complex situations, it is extremely hard to show the degree to which it is erotic capital – versus other forms of capital (or plain old serendipity) – that impacts an individual's trajectory. It's obviously very difficult to design studies that will tease out these different factors. A recurring phrase in the book, "all else being equal...", does a lot of heavy-lifting.

Stylewise, the book is a strange blend. On the one hand, it purports to be an academic analysis, citing various sociological studies and introducing key ideas from sociology and cultural theory. On the other hand, the book feels a bit self-helpy, or even a bit tabloidy, in style – especially where the author makes sweeping generalisations without firm evidence. In these parts the cultural references and even the register of the language read a bit like a Daily Mail opinion column.

In summary, a convincing and interesting central idea and a provocative challenge to traditional feminist thinking. But, in practical terms, a concept whose true impact in complex social situations may be very hard to determine versus other factors.

[Fernando · Rating 4 out of 5]

Es una tesis controvertida, apoyada en diferentes estudios pero sobre todo en el sentido común, y a veces el sentido común puede ser tan iluminador y con menos esfuerzo que las ciencias sociales. Finalmente es una tesis aún débil y Hakim lo admite, las diferencias en el deseo sexual no ha sido rigurosamente estudiado a niveles nacionales, y el concepto de capital erótico contiene dimensiones complicadas de evaluar y sujetas a discrecionalidad de los entrevistadores o de los propios entrevistados en los estudios sobre atractivo, actividad sexual, aptitudes sociales, etc, por ello la autora recurre a estos viejos estudios y películas, autobiografías, biografias de celebridades y anécdotas para dar mayor apoyo a sus argumentos, aunque más que apoyar le resta seriedad al libro.
Por otra parte resulta llamativo la defensa de la autora del comercio sexual y la despenalización de todo tipo de transacciones que involucren los cuerpos, nuevamente lo hace desde una mirada eurocentrista y al parecer escogiendo cuidadosamente casos ad-hoc sobre como ciertas jóvenes pueden costear sus estudios con la prostitución transitoria o el vientre de alquiler como forma de tener un sueldo digno, etc.
Lo que más rescato del libro es la critica de Hakim respecto al enorme cinismo que existe en las sociedades ricas y meritocraticas que exige, por un lado capital humano y por otro capital erótico (atractivo físico, habilidades sociales, atractivo sexual, juventudad), aunque este último no se exija abiertamente como motor de movilidad social aun cuando tenga una enorme influencia para ocupar puestos de trabajo, encontrar pareja de determinado estatus, pertenercer a ciertas organizaciones sociales etc
Hakim es innovadora, y ha tocado un tema que las ciencias sociales se resisten a considerarlo como relevante. El capiral erotico tiene tanto peso como el capital económico, cultural y social.

[Iulia · Rating 4 out of 5]

O carte care provoacă tabu-uri. Scrisă științific, cu multiple referințe către alte studii, prezintă o perspectiva open-minded asupra frumuseții fizice, senzualității (personalitate arhetipală, feminitate sau masculinitate), sociabilității (Charisma), poftei de viața (sănătate fizică, energie socială, jovialitate), stilului de prezentare personală (vestimentație, accesorii) și sexualității, elemente care, în opinia autoarei, compun al patrulea capital uman, capitalul erotic (celelalte 3 fiind capitalul economic, cultural și social).
De la analiza capitalului erotic, ca și concept, a politicii dorinței și a motivațiilor istorice de reprimare a capitalului erotic (sunt trecute în revistă și feminismul și ideologii limitative patriarhale, religioase sau laice), până la prezentarea piețelor frumuseții, a diversității culturale față de capitalul erotic și a aplicabilității conceptului în realitatea relațiilor interpersonale actuale, autoarea lansează invitații la a înțelege și a depăși unele din cele mai vechi tabu-uri umane: cele conexe sexualității.

[alex zamora · Rating 1 out of 5]

Entré esperando que se hablara de cómo se usa el capital erótico en un ambiente de género, ya que está escrito por una mujer, sin embargo, parece una carta anti-feminista y de amor al hombre. Todo el tiempo se habla de cómo “las feministas” no están dispuestas a encontrar amor por la feminidad y usar su cuerpo para escalar porque los hombres son “débiles” y tienen un “déficit sexual” más alto, entre otras generalizaciones más. Justo cuando pasas por alto las estas generalidades con un grandísimo sesgo y piensas que estás leyendo una investigación de campo (con notas a pie de página que no especifican dónde están sus referencias) bien realizada, llega una conclusión que nada que ver y una vez más, no iba al caso. Un ataque más a una mujer.

De verdad tenía muchas expectativas sobre este libro por ser de una sociólogA y más sobre un tema que es tan relevante, sin embargo, no lo recomiendo ni por las risas.

[Lee Kofman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Reading this book was refreshing. It's such a great antidote to much of the prudishness and wholesomeness I find in the dominant feminist strands. I wasn’t surprised to find out Honey Money was deemed ‘controversial’ by some critics. Its main controversy, in my view, is that Hakim doesn’t see the world as it should be but as it is. I love her main suggestion that women shouldn’t be ashamed using their erotic power. But I was somewhat disturbed by her tendency to generalise about levels of female and male libidos, as if these were so fixed. I suspect there are many exceptions to men with high libidos and women with low ones. Because of this point mainly I found her conclusion a little tenuous. However, this is minor stuff. Overall this is a wise, wry book, and Hakim’s writing style is lively, also an antidote to most of the books I read written by academics.

[Edlene Ferreira · Rating 5 out of 5]

Livro mais útil lido neste ano (O livro que TODA mulher deve ler)

Incrivelmente bem fundamentados em pesquisa científica. Quando peguei esse livro para ler não imaginei como seu conteúdo teria aspectos científicos, mas o que mais me surpreendeu é que são ignorados e até escondidos de propósito! Fiquei até meio sem jeito quando terminei o livro. Esse é o tipo de livro que TODA mulher deve ler. Vai te tirar da sua zona de conforto, principalmente sobre sua posição política predominante de se enxergar as relações sociais. E melhor ainda, saber lidar com seu valor graciosamente feminino que mãe natureza deu a nós, exclusivamente mulheres, sobre os homens. ;)

[Amar]

Spoke to her personally. She told me that Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking incidents were the victim's fault because "they had a choice." She also told me how all the studies indicated that even if a 14 year old girl (her example, mind you) was coerced and raped, she "still had a choice"; following up with her stating all research indicates (paraphrasing), "a lack of maturity and not being able to consent is a myth. People, in the end, still make a choice whether or not they want to be raped."
This is pure ideology.

[Nicholas Galinaitis · Rating 3 out of 5]

Insightful, as to how women (and gay men) use sex appeal to get what they want. The world is a tough place. I say, why not take advantage? The only problem I had with it was the fat shaming. Yes being overweight is bad for you, but she claims there is no appeal in being fat. She doesnt know the hot gay guys that go after chubbies! Anyways an insightful if not a little controversial read that references late 2000s pop culture.

[Federico Sosa Machó · Rating 3 out of 5]

El planteo de la autora es interesante, y parece respaldado por una abundante documentación en materia de estudios de diferentes disciplinas. No obstante, algunos pilares de su teoría son cuestionables, como lo que llama el "déficit sexual masculino" que sugiere un mayor interés en el erotismo en hombres que en mujeres. Por momentos se alarga innecesariamente al reiterar ideas de forma innecesaria, pero es una buen insumo para el debate.