Thoughts on Catherine Hakim's notion of erotic capital

[assman93]

While in-fields are fine, I think theory is also important for an aspiring pick-up artist. In what follows, I provide some thoughts on the book Honey Money: the power of erotic capital by Catherine Hakim. This book published in 2011 might be interesting for guys in the community.

In the book, Hakim seeks to posit “erotic capital” as a fourth form of human capital alongside the more commonly acknowledged forms of human capital (e.g. economic, cultural, social). A combination of sociability and sex appeal, “erotic capital” is generally more developed in women than men, although men in the gay community have also been known to optimize their erotic capital. In the book, Hakim regrets how self-confident feminine sexuality has been suppressed both by religious conservatives and feminists of the bra burner variety and encourages women to harness their erotic capital to their socio-economic advantage in various ways.

One thing I found interesting about Hakim’s book was her discussion of cultural attitudes about sexuality from a comparative perspective. While you don’t think about it, we have a somewhat lame attitude about sexuality in Anglosphere countries like the U.S. and Canada, with antecedents in the protestant ethic and English-language literature. Contrastingly, countries like Italy and Brazil have a joyous attitude towards sexuality, or France, where seduction skills are valued.

I only mention this as it’s worth recognizing that what we’re doing as pick-up artists is somewhat subversive. Amidst a culture that is anti-sex, or at least has anti-sex undercurrents, the decision to actively develop your erotic capital is somewhat to break the mold. It’s a simple point, but I think accepting learning seduction is a non-mainstream passion might help guys to get on with things and potentially accelerate their learning curve.

In another lay social science book Labor of Love, author Moira Weigel argues the gay community pioneered dating practices later practiced by straight people, e.g. TGI Fridays. While the seduction community is qualitatively different from the gay community, I would similarly regard us as a frontier dating subculture. Heterosexual men would do well to follow the example of women and gays in more acutely developing their erotic capital. While long-term relationships often amount to exchange based on a guy’s resources, it is hard to imagine optimizing on erotic capital would not help in all spheres of mating but especially short-term mating, the sphere pick-up artists are generally seeking to optimize on.

 

[Michael Chief]

While long-term relationships often amount to exchange based on a guy’s resources

I was with you until I got to this part. This "redpill" view of relationships isn't exactly conducive to a healthy, loving one. Even if we speak in that context, though, you could say that developing erotic capital in spite of a lack of resources could open the gates to a successful long-term relationship that transcends the standards of either one.

So, even though I'm not entirely down with the whole David M Buss type of view on human mating strategies, one could say that either access to resources or erotic capital gets your foot in the door, after which neither will be a necessary condition for the survival of that relationship when real love and connection are established.

Your main points all seem valid.

 

[assman93]

@Michael Chief I think my point op was merely to suggest that in terms of sizing up mates for long-term relationships erotic capital is a more important criterion for men than it is for women. I think this is objectively true.

 

[Teevster]

This thread caught my interest asap.

While in-fields are fine, I think theory is also important for an aspiring pick-up artist. In what follows, I provide some thoughts on the book Honey Money: the power of erotic capital by Catherine Hakim. This book published in 2011 might be interesting for guys in the community.

I have myself read the book. I used it as a reference in papers years ago (linked to sexuality). I think the overall theory is correct, although with limitations. Sure, her theory explains the underlying exchange in many male-to-female interaction, it oftentimes becomes overly narrow. This is OK though - all studies have their limitations. However, methodologically, good sociology should involve some mentions of potential limitations to the theory, either by framing it as a clear limitation or mention potential alternative hypotheses and theories that could explain alternative causes. The "social" is ALWAYS multivariate which her book seems to fail to grasp.

There is also too little mention of theories that seem to catch the outliers - the exceptions.

That said, her theory does involve some truth, and the book, although repetitive (as hell) does contain a lot of Data. This is the strength of this book. Her theory, although simply understood and perhaps overly superficial, is also laid out well, with different examples and fields of application.

There is however a lack of social-theory behind her hypotheses. I believe that it lacks an explanation(s) behind her thesis of "trading beauty for goods".

Fortunately the works of Baumeister et al. do a better job at this (although providing less data) in his works on sexual economics.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_2

And

Competing for love: Applying sexual economics theory to mati

Sexual economics theory analyzes the onset of heterosexual sex as a marketplace deal in which the woman is the seller and the man is the buyer, with the price paid in nonsexual resources. We extend th

ideas.repec.org

One thing I found interesting about Hakim’s book was her discussion of cultural attitudes about sexuality from a comparative perspective. While you don’t think about it, we have a somewhat lame attitude about sexuality in Anglosphere countries like the U.S. and Canada, with antecedents in the protestant ethic and English-language literature. Contrastingly, countries like Italy and Brazil have a joyous attitude towards sexuality, or France, where seduction skills are valued.

​

Check out:

Reich. W. (1971), The Invasion of Compulsory Sex-Morality

https://www.amazon.com/Invasion-Compulsory-Sex-Morality-Wilhelm-Reich/dp/0374509395

This one covers that phenomenon well, linking to anthropology and discussing matriarchy in older societies (hunter-gatherer) and how patriarchy came with capitalism. And for instance, his definition of both the matriarchy and patriarchy is different than the current mainstream, which honestly is a perversion of the term. He uses the right definitions of the terms from the social sciences.

In another lay social science book Labor of Love, author Moira Weigel argues the gay community pioneered dating practices later practiced by straight people, e.g.

Interesting. Gotta check this one out.

While the seduction community is qualitatively different from the gay community, I would similarly regard us as a frontier dating subculture. Heterosexual men would do well to follow the example of women and gays in more acutely developing their erotic capital.

I have learned so much from gay-people. A lot of my game has been influenced by gay-people and frequenting their community (a lot over the years). It of courses works as well within the gay-community (hitting on girls there), as outside (normal venues). I fully agree with this point.

While long-term relationships often amount to exchange based on a guy’s resources, it is hard to imagine optimizing on erotic capital would not help in all spheres of mating but especially short-term mating, the sphere pick-up artists are generally seeking to optimize on.

This is basically the premise for my sexualized game - exchanging sex for sex ( a point I have emphasized a lot in my posts, but also in my gambits that I use in field).

Have you read some of my older articles where I cared more about social theory?
This one for instance

They are inspired by some of the authors discussed here, including Hakim.

I did not add references in my articles, mostly because I am lazy and this site is not an academic publication site.

Best,
Teev

​

 

[assman93]

Hi @Teevster, thanks for the considered response. If I remember correctly, Hakim briefly acknowledges that previous thinkers (maybe Bourdieu?) have argued social capital could encompass erotic capital but your criticisms are largely well-taken.

Thanks for the resources you have provided here. The Reich book seems potentially interesting. I have read Girl’s Chase content here and there over the years but given your older articles were informed by Hakim I am keen to re-visit them now.

 

[Surveyor]

I only mention this as it’s worth recognizing that what we’re doing as pick-up artists is somewhat subversive. Amidst a culture that is anti-sex, or at least has anti-sex undercurrents, the decision to actively develop your erotic capital is somewhat to break the mold. It’s a simple point, but I think accepting learning seduction is a non-mainstream passion might help guys to get on with things and potentially accelerate their learning curve.

I would similarly regard us as a frontier dating subculture. Heterosexual men would do well to follow the example of women and gays in more acutely developing their erotic capital. While long-term relationships often amount to exchange based on a guy’s resources, it is hard to imagine optimizing on erotic capital would not help in all spheres of mating but especially short-term mating, the sphere pick-up artists are generally seeking to optimize on.

Definitely interesting stuff but…

I’m not convinced that it would be a good idea for *everyone* to be practicing game.

Up until very recently, almost everyone was meeting their mate (or even their flings and hookups) mostly through SC. This is why one-itis is so common among human males; in a sufficiently small and static dating pool calibrated persistence can be a pretty strong strategy. Our sociocultural and perhaps biological systems haven’t yet caught up with megacities and social media. Even today, SC remains the standard and only 10% of girls are on apps (probably less in many areas).

Also, while the lover vs. provider dichotomy is a useful model in game, real life is more complicated and shaded. For one thing, the sexual marketplace doesn’t exist in a vacuum, but as part of a holistic system with perhaps trillions of moving parts. Besides, sexual selection is often (but not always ) at odds with natural selection, and excessive competition can impact reproductive fitness.

Coming back to the thesis shared in the post, while it might be an enriching perspective, it sounds an awful lot like a case of ideology shaping praxis excessively.

There’s a tendency in this community to assume that assertions and models that are helpful for a person actively working on game will hold when applied to general observation of society. Often they don’t.

So yes, I agree that it’s helpful to own that we aren’t a mainstream group. But PUA going mainstream probably isn’t the solution to the flaws in the current sexual marketplace.

 

[assman93]

Hi @Surveyor , thanks for the interest. Yeah, I don’t think I ever argued for honing erotic capital independent of social groups as a blanket strategy for guys. I acknowledged erotic capital is not the way guys are primarily assessed in one of my previous posts.

The heterosexual mating market operates according to different rules to the gay mating market, for example, a market consisting of men (more wired for short-term sexual behavior) optimizing on physicality.

My point though is with the sex that there is to go around you will obviously do better if you optimize your look. Heck, even if it’s not the primary factor motivating women’s selection for long term relationships, your wives and girlfriends will appreciate you being better looking.

Having said this, I agree and even like your more holistic perspective.

 

[ulrich]

There’s a tendency in this community to assume that assertions and models that are helpful for a person actively working on game will hold when applied to general observation of society. Often they don’t.

So yes, I agree that it’s helpful to own that we aren’t a mainstream group. But PUA going mainstream probably isn’t the solution to the flaws in the current sexual marketplace.

Wholeheartedly agree.
Many PUA ideologies and techniques rely on capitalizing advantages that come from inherent contradictions of the sociosexual status quo.

In that sense, a society with a much higher percentage of PUA will see such advantages disappear.

Not to mention that it would probably not be a sustainable society… we can’t all be “winners” in the world if everyone is competing with each other.

 

[Surveyor]

At the same time, the sexual marketplace is “supposed” to be a clearinghouse for people to pair up and weave the fabric of society or whatnot. I do think virtualization is a serious threat to the efficiency of that clearinghouse. The rest of the highly developed world could totally be collectively in danger of turning into today’s South Korea on steroids, looking forward a few decades.