“The fresh exchange model try rooted in secure insights throughout the men-women variations which are not socially created and will not decrease” (44). Quite simply, it doesn’t apply at same-sex sex (come across less than). “The new exchange model can also be neither end up being corrected nor announced inactive” (45). He pretends so you can feet this toward science (biology), but it is most a spiritual acceptance, representing brand new abuse of science of the Catholic philosophy, the brand new management of which are determined to help you incorporate terms and conditions for example “natural” and “science” if you’re towering the preordained view of information to them, especially with regard to sex (this is why it frame their resistance so you’re able to matrimony equality). Not only will it not be reversed otherwise stated lifeless, nonetheless 
it “will get flex it won’t split,” and it “could be traditional however it is not wrong” (45).
However it is actually just ranging from individuals, heterosexually, what he calls “the production out of gender therefore the way to obtain information” (46)
For the design in order to falter, the guy directories several purportedly-impossible points that will have to occurs: “Guys create pine to keep at home longer the help of its kids. Females carry out enjoy dream recreations. Most of the unlikely situations” (45). Yet not, in 2011, 21% off fathers were the primary caretakers due to their kindergarten-old pupils, definition it given longer of look after them than just about any other individual otherwise arrangement ( Ladies are 31% out-of dream recreations players ( ).
Does “sexual economics” affect homosexuality? He’s a whole part about any of it, stating yes but reacting no. Within his have a look at, homosexuality is actually a behavioural description that will not transform people’s God-offered “relational passion.” There isn’t any intimate change into the exact same-gender relationships.
The definition of “cheap sex” try males delivering sex to own less expensive: “guys want to do shorter wooing (a lot fewer dates, economical evidence out of commitment, etcetera.) to availability real sex. And that, sex is actually smaller” (11). It is far from clear why genital stimulation (even though that have pornography) is even inexpensive intercourse. How is actually porno and you may masturbation “the most affordable types of gender” (107) once they try not to cover girls buying and selling anything having men? If the men masturbates alone, how is actually the guy bringing sex from a female? What’s the definition of intercourse, to which a cost is generally attached, if it’s not getting bought regarding some body? E.g., the guy relates to the increase when you look at the pornography since the a rise in the new “supply” out of sex (11), completely against their own definition. It’s just not clear exactly how, lower than their concept, self pleasure and you can porn consumption try intercourse.
“Women has actually a lot of service, chance, and you may achievements … Women can also be openly go after sex for the individual benefit for the a great trends entirely foreign on their higher-grannies. They are able to is the latest request region of the formula. Obviously, they are going to achieve their perform” (26), by which the guy form people commonly happily have sex together, because they are sluts. Precisely what does “try the fresh new consult top” mean, no matter if? He only told you (24) “lady never ever pay boys to possess intercourse.” Which caveat appears like a recognition that his principle try incorrect, but he cannot make use of it dramatically.
This new “intimate economics strategy issues the fresh new unique relational interests of men and you will lady, whether they is gay otherwise straight” (54)
The guy prices Baumeister and you will Vohs: “Immediately following girls was supplied broad opportunities to have education and you can riches, it no more needed to keep gender hostage.” Even in the event Regnerus claims “hostage” is actually an exaggeration, he endorses brand new story (46-47). Nevertheless the economics here’s incoherent. When ladies didn’t come with wealth otherwise fuel, they completely regulated use of intercourse, and you may kept it “hostage” to obtain wedding. Since he has everything they want instead of a man, they give you gender aside to have absolutely nothing. He says: “If females no more need men’s room information … after that intercourse simply will get reduced consequential, better to get or give away” (51). The guy yields to that: “Practical question to ask is why lady demand very little of men in exchange for giving men what they want – what they’re ready to give up much having. And the response is monetary: simply because of numerous do not require just what guys can offer” (67). Actually, of course, terrible people seem to “demand” wedding below rich of them perform, so this seems incorrect. However, subsequent, what business economics functions similar to this? Sure, whenever buyers do not have currency sellers lower the speed, but in this case why don’t they just ensure that is stays? If they obtain the currency they require from their perform, and you will guys aren’t going for love or protection in any event, so why do they “have” (give) gender 100% free? Really the only answer is he’s dumb, and you may sluts.