Is the price of sex too damn low?

I’m sorry this is so long. If you’re in a hurry, some of the funny parts are toward the end.

In an animated video rant against sexual liberation, Mark Regnerus gives the 10-minute version of an essay he published in the journal Society in 2012 (with a Slate companion piece) — using professional drawing hands and narrators. Since it has received more than 80,000 views, and some fawning in the conservative press, I wanted to comment a little.

The video asserts that in the market for sex, women sell and men buy.

On average, men initiate sex more than women, they’re more sexually permissive than women, and they connect sex to romance less often than women. No one’s saying this is the way it ought to be. It’s just the way it is! Women, on the other hand, are likely to have sex for reasons beyond just simple pleasure. Her motivations for sex often include expressing and receiving love, strengthening commitment, affirming desirability, and relationship security. So in an exchange relationship where men want sex more often than women do, who decides when it will happen? She does, of course. Sex is her resource.

Let me just stop here for a minute. If I grant you that, on average, contemporary American men want sex with women more than the reverse, does the size of this difference matter at all? In a response to Regnerus, Elaine Hatfield and colleagues remind us that difference within the genders are greater than the differences between them (which, in turn, are shrinking over time). If the difference between men’s and women’s attitudes toward sex were observable but tiny, would it still be true that the system is one in which women sell and men buy? Of course not. The difference has to be big enough to drive the whole system. No one can say how big it is, or needs to be, because the crackpots running this theory don’t care. They are just spinning out the why-pay-for-milk-when-the-cow-is-free analogy without regard to the specifics of the model.

Anyway, what is the “price” women charge for sex? It’s “a few drinks and compliments,” or “a month of dates and respectful attention,” or “a lifetime promise to share all of his affections, wealth and earnings with her exclusively.” So, which will it be? To explain why we have too much casual sex and not enough marriage nowadays, Regnerus turns to an inadvertently comical lesson on supply and demand, starting with this figure.


“When supplies are high, prices drop,” the narrator says, “since people won’t pay more for something that’s easy to find. But if it’s hard to find, people will pay a premium.” Cow, milk, etc. The reason this figure is funny (and how it differs from real supply/demand curves) is that it also shows that rising prices lead to lower supply. But whatever – the point is, feminism is bad.

To Regnerus, the falling marriage rate (the only fact offered as evidence for this) means the supply of sex has increased and its price has fallen. The narrator asks, “So how did we get here? How did the market value of sex decline so drastically?” Answer: the Pill, which “profoundly lower[ed] the cost of sex.” From there the video goes on to blame women for abandoning their centuries-old cartel, which restricted the supply of sex, thus propping up the price.  The video says:

In the past, it really wasn’t the patriarchy that policed women’s relational interests [because isn’t that what you thought patriarchy was all about?], it was women. But … this unspoken pact to set a high market value of sex has all but vanished. But in a brave new world where sex no longer means babies, and marriage has become optional, the solidarity women once felt toward each other in the mating market has dissolved. Women no longer have each other’s backs. On the contrary, they’re now each other’s competition. And when women compete for men, they tend to do so by appealing to what men want.

So, women have sold each other out. As a result, they’ve lost their leverage and men have an advantage they don’t deserve, given their randy minds. To conclude, the narrator declares:

Today the economics of contemporary sexual relationships clearly favor men and what they want. Even while what they are offering in the exchange has diminished. And it’s all thanks to supply, demand, and the long reach of a remarkable little pill.

In the article version, Regnerus writes:

I assert that if women were more in charge of how their romantic relationships transpired—more in charge of the ‘pricing’ negotiations around sex—we’d be seeing, on average, more impressive wooing efforts by men, fewer hook-ups, fewer premarital sexual partners, shorter cohabitations, and more marrying going on (and perhaps even at a slightly earlier age, too). In other words, the ‘price’ of sex would be higher: it would cost men more to access it.

Yes, that does contradict the point earlier about how women always decide when they will have sex, because it’s inherently their resource. But who cares, feminism is bad.


This is all tricky to reconcile with the common lyrical formulation, in which both men and women “give it” to each other (though not in the same song). So Tom Petty fits the theory, trying to lower the price to zero:

It’s alright if you love me / it’s alright if you don’t / I’m not afraid of you running away / honey I’ve got a feeling you won’t

There is no sense in pretending / your eyes give you away / something inside you is feeling like I do / and we’ve said all there is to say

Baby, breakdown, go ahead and give it to me…

But I think it’s more common for men to “give it” to women, too, as in Tanto Metro and Devonte or 50 Cent among many others.


Anyway, a few thoughts on this big ball of wrong.

First, what about actual economics? If women sell sex and men buy it, and women set the price by how slutty they act, there is still the issue of the value of what men have to offer — to women. Like Hana Rosin, who bemoans the cardboardness of today’s man — unable to respond to changing times — Regnerus assumes unchanging men. When it comes to sex, that’s presumably because it comes from God, evolution, or (in Regnerus’s Catholic view) God acting through evolution. But even if all they care about is sex, the value of what they have to offer for it — relative to what women have and need — has surely changed a lot. So, as the relative value of the men’s lifetime promise of wealth and earnings falls toward the value of a couple drinks and compliments, it’s only natural that women will be less and less able to distinguish the two.

As Paula England notes in her (disappointingly mild) critique of Regnerus, his theory has a problem explaining why marriage has declined so much more for the less-than-college-educated population. Among those men and women, the male/female ratio has grown markedly as women flee for higher ground. So, with the relative shortage of women, they should be in command — so they could demand marriage.

But if women insist on marrying a man with a job, as I just showed recently, they actually face a shortage of men. In the video’s terms, they’re back in this situation:


But that’s only because women insist on a man with a job. In other words, the value of what men have to offer (relative to what women need) matters. (England argues against this “it’s the economy, stupid” perspective, for reasons I don’t find convincing.) So why doesn’t Regnerus talk about actual economics?

In the Society version of this video Regnerus says he gets this sexual economics theory from Baumeister and Vohs (and the video resource guide links to several of Baumeister’s papers), including the basic story that sex is something women sell and men buy, and the thing about how feminism dissolved female solidarity.

Interestingly, however, Baumeister and his several co-authors are much more keyed in to the economics questions that Regnerus all but ignores. While Regnerus focuses on the Pill, they write in the 2004 paper he relies on that one of the “preconditions of market exchange” in sex is that, “In general, men have resources women want.” It’s not just the Pill that has changed things, in other words, it’s also the end of men: “Once women had been granted wide opportunities for education and wealth, they no longer had to hold sex hostage.”

Regnerus really does the theory a disservice by leaving all this out. In another recent article, Baumeister and Mendoza reiterate:

According to sexual economics theory, when women lack direct or easy access to resources such as political influence, health care, money, education, and jobs, then sex becomes a crucial means by which women can gain access to a good life, and so it is vital to female self-interest to keep the price of sex high.

The real problem now, according to the intellectual godfather of Regnerus’s version of this theory, is gender equality, but Regnerus doesn’t want to say that. Baumesiter and Mendoza write: “when women have direct economic clout, they do not need to use sex to bargain for other resources, and so they can make sex more freely available.” Thus, they show that casual sex is positively associated with a measure of gender equality across 37 countries. I’ve made a figure from their findings. This is the percentage of people in an international online sex survey who say they ever had sex with someone just once (on the y-axis), by the level of gender equality according to the World Economic Forum (on the x-axis):


The logic here is approaching random. Get this: When women were poor, they needed to withhold sex to get money. Now that they have more money — and are less dependent on men — they don’t need to withhold it, so they give it away. Wait, what? If they don’t need to sell it anymore, and we already know they don’t want to “have” it (that is, do it), then why don’t those Scandinavian women just keep it, for f#cks’ sake? (Amanda Marcotte made a similar argument about Baumeister)

It seems likely the differences between Regnerus and Baumeister are of emphasis rather than principle. Believe it or not, Regnerus’s explanation, focusing only on sex and the Pill, would be stronger if he latched on to this crazy economics argument. But I reckon he stays away from that because taking a stand against women’s equality is a political and cultural nonstarter, and Regnerus’s ambition is social influence.

You asked for it

If you’ve read this far, you deserve some insanely sexist quotes. Because Baumeister has no such qualms about offending women. Besides representing what I think Regnerus really thinks, Baumeister and Vohs are also much more entertaining than Regnerus (in this piece, anyway). In their response to Regnerus, they blame women’s sexual permissiveness for just about everything. That’s because, “Giving young men easy access to abundant sexual satisfaction deprives society of one of its ways to motivate them to contribute valuable achievements to the culture.”

Did you get that? Women giving away sex is literally ruining the culture. If I knew my classics I’m sure I’d know the analogy here. I’m thinking of the early Christian adaptation of the Greek sirens, which sometime before A.D. 700 changed them from magical creatures to vile humans, “prostitutes who led travelers down to poverty and were said to impose shipwreck on them.” If that seems overdramatic, it’s just because you haven’t read the whole essay.

In the feminist era Baumeister and Vohs describe, rather than just marriage in exchange for sex, women have upped their demands: “Women, meanwhile, want not only marriage but also access to careers and preferential treatment in the workplace.” (I’m not sure how this fits with the idea that women have lowered the “price of sex,” but logic isn’t the point here, hating feminism is.)

Here are some key snippets:

The giant trade thus essentially involved men giving women not only easy access but even preferential treatment in the huge institutions that make up society, which men created. Today most schools, universities, corporations, scientific organizations, governments, and many other institutions have explicit policies to protect and promote women. It is standard practice to hire or promote a woman ahead of an equally qualified man. Most large organizations have policies and watchdogs that safeguard women’s interests and ensure that women gain preferential treatment over men. … Nobody looks out for men, and so the structural changes favoring women and disadvantaging men have accelerated.

All of this is a bit ironic, in historical context. The large institutions have almost all been created by men. … Even today, the women’s movement has been a story of women demanding places and preferential treatment in the organizational and institutional structures that men create, rather than women creating organizations and institutions themselves. … All over the world and throughout history (and prehistory), the contribution of large groups of women to cultural progress has been vanishingly small. …

Indeed, the world of work is a daunting place for a young man today. Feminists quickly point to the continued dominance of men at the top of most organizations, but this is misleading if not outright disingenuous. Men create most organizations and work hard to succeed in them. Indeed, an open-minded scholar can search through history mostly in vain to find large organizations created and run by women that have contributed anything beyond complaining about men and demanding a bigger share of the male pie.

Warning, the excerpts grow more and more offensive from here on…

Why have men acquiesced so much in giving women the upper hand in society’s institutions? It falls to men to create society (because women almost never create large organizations or cultural systems). It seems foolish and self-defeating for men then to meekly surrender advantageous treatment in all these institutions to women. … Because of women’s lesser motivation and ambition, they will likely never equal men in achievement, and their lesser attainment is politically taken as evidence of the need to continue and possibly increase preferential treatment for them.

But this pattern of male behavior makes more sense if we keep in mind that getting sex is a high priority for men, especially young men. Being at a permanent disadvantage in employment and promotion prospects, as a result of affirmative action policies favoring women, is certainly a cost to young men, but perhaps not a highly salient one. What is salient is that sex is quite readily available. As Regnerus reports, even a man with dismal career prospects (e.g., having dropped out of high school) can find a nice assortment of young women to share his bed.

The male who beds multiple women is enjoying life quite a bit, and so he may not notice or mind the fact that his educational and occupational advancement is vaguely hampered by all the laws and policies that push women ahead of him. After all, one key reason he wanted that advancement was to get sex, and he already has that. Climbing the corporate ladder for its own sake may still hold some appeal, but undoubtedly it was more compelling when it was vital for obtaining sex. Success isn’t as important as it once was, when it was a prerequisite for sex.

(Did I mention I’m not making this up? I’m sorry to just keep excerpting, but this stuff just writes itself.)

Unfortunately for society, women taking over the economy has a real downside:

Still, replacing male with female workers may bring some changes, insofar as the two genders approach work differently. Compared to men, women have higher rates of absenteeism, seek social rewards more than financial ones, are less ambitious, work fewer hours overall, are more prone to take extended career interruptions, and identify less with the organizations they work for. They are more risk averse, resulting in fewer entrepreneurs and inventions. … Women are less interested in science and technology fields. They create less wealth.

And finally, “the implications of the recent social changes for marriage could fill a book.” (Really, a whole book?) In that book (which we’re really quite happy to wait for), casual sex is also ruining marriage because it’s increasing the crushing depression that naturally follows from female-dominated marriage:

The female contribution of sex to the marriage is evanescent: As women age, they lose their sexual appeal much faster than men lose their status and resources, and some alarming evidence even indicates that wives rather quickly lose their desire for sex. To sustain a marriage across multiple decades, many husbands must accommodate to the reality of having to contribute work and other resources to a wife whose contribution of sex dwindles sharply in both quantity and quality—and who also may disapprove sharply of him seeking satisfaction in alternative outlets such as prostitution, pornography, and extramarital dalliance.

Yes, in their zeal to describe the sexual disaster of modern marriage, they forgot to even nod to the ideal wife’s housework and child rearing contributions.

We speculate that today’s young men may be exceptionally ill prepared for a lifetime of sexual starvation that is the lot of many modern husbands. The traditional view that a wife should sexually satisfy her husband regardless of her own lack of desire has been eroded if not demolished by feminist ideology that has encouraged wives to expect husbands to wait patiently until the wife actually desires sex, with the result that marriage is a prolonged episode of sexual starvation for the husband. … Today’s young men spend their young adulthood having abundant sex with multiple partners, and that seems to us to be an exceptionally poor preparation for a lifetime of sexual starvation.

Yes, that was a third “sexual starvation” reference in one paragraph. (I am completely above making a joke about this, but The Onion isn’t.)

Regnerus cites this guy Baumeister up and down. If all Muslims have to personally disavow Bin Laden, I think it’s only fair that we expect Regnerus to comment on this.

What about lesbians?

Oh, that. When Regnerus wrote his post in Slate, Belle Waring wrote a nice piece about it, which included this:

Please note also that under the economic model, lesbians can’t exist, since they have nothing of value to exchange for sex, except for…um…sex? And since women only use sex as a means to an end, and exchange it with men; and since further, sex has been explicitly devalued to something cheap, well, hm. I submit that if you propose a model of human sexual behavior, and it positively forbids the existence of a whole class of people who nonetheless actually exist, then maybe there’s a problem with the theory? Just a thought.

I promise I’ll stop now, but Regnerus actually has talked about lesbians recently — though not to explain how they have sex without a buyer. This from a speech just last month at Franciscan University of Steubenville, at which he implied homosexuality emerged partly because of the Pill, too, based on his reading of Anthony Giddens’ Transformation of Intimacy. He said: “Giddens draws an arrow from contraception to sexual malleability to the expansion of homosexuality.”

So, if he thinks lesbians are an unnatural creation of modern sexual plasticity, then I guess it’s not surprising that he also believes (at about 9:10) that lesbians produce asexual children:

Despite comprising a mere 1.3 percent of the population, respondents in the NFSS [New Family Structures Survey] who said that their mothers have had a same-sex sexual relationship made up 15 [50?] percent of all the asexual identifiers in the NFSS. So, 15 [50?] percent of them come from 1.3 percent of the population.*

The hatefulness of this is what’s most important (you have to see the smirk when he jokes to the Franciscans that asexuality might be “convenient” for people pursuing celebacy). But for what it’s worth, I also interpret this as further evidence that his data is garbagey. When a substantial number of respondents answer questions at random or incorrectly — as was the case in the Regnerus/Wilcox NFSS data (see p. 333 here) — then highly skewed items will be unreasonably correlated (e.g., if 3 percent fill it out the question at random, and the actual asexual population is 1 percent, then most of the people counted as asexual will be random; and if the same happens for mothers’ sexual history, then the two variables will have a surprisingly large overlap.)


It would be tempting (and more enjoyable) to simply ignore Mark Regnerus forever. His record of scientific manipulation and dishonesty in the service of the movement to deny equal rights to gays and lesbians is well documented, and social scientists of good will won’t trust him again unless he comes clean. I wish that he and the people of good will could just agree never to interact again. But he’s young and ambitious, and it’s likely that he’ll be back. So we should keep an eye on him.

* On listening to this again, it’s hard to tell, but I think he says 15%, not 50%, as I first transcribed it.

35 thoughts on “Is the price of sex too damn low?

  1. Wow…I now understand why Regnerus (and Allen even more so – he supposedly has a new study expanding on his “lesbians ruin their sons” theory but hasn’t found a journal shady enough to publish it yet – per his deposition) paints Lesbian Mothers as the villains in NFSS. Between the cracks about lesbians and his fixation on gay male anal sex, he really does fit a certain cliche of a right wing homophobic man…and that story usually ends in a bathroom stall or a trip abroad with a “baggage handler” cum masseur. Wait, its deja vu – who was the last prominent “gays turn their kids into queers” expert witness that comes to mind who was making similar claims about gay parents in a Florida case? And the similarities don’t end there – this now disgraced expert witness also had a JV 3rd stringer for backup by the name of Walter Schumm, who has made a mini career out of making outrageous and unsupported claims about gay parenting under oath for hire. And what do you know Schumm is such a good team player that even after he was humiliated by a judge in her written opinion where she basically called him a fraud, he pops up in SSR to defend Regnerus last year working that voodoo that he don’t do so well.
    I predict we have another addition to the this site soon:


  2. Baumeister: “Giving young men easy access to abundant sexual satisfaction deprives society of one of its ways to motivate them to contribute valuable achievements to the culture.”
    Freud: “culture. . . obtains a great part of the mental energy it needs by subtracting it from sexuality.” Civilization and Its Discontents. (And boy, some people are really discontented.) The Freudian argument is that by tying sex up with all sorts of restrictions and imbuing it with economic and social status meaning, we turn an abundant resource into a scarce one and thereby euchre men into working hard for it.
    If Baumeister and Freud are right, then starvation should motivate men to work even harder. If you don’t work, you don’t eat. That’s why pleasure — pure pleasure unhitched from any economic or utilitarian meaning — is so threatening to those in the rear guard trying to defend the Maginot line of the Protestant Ethic.


    1. First, did you really use euchre as a verb? Nice!

      Second, OK, Baumeister says, “Climbing the corporate ladder for its own sake may still hold some appeal, but undoubtedly it was more compelling when it was vital for obtaining sex.” Really? So, how do we explain all the sex that poor, unsuccessful men have gotten over all these millenniums? Even if it’s true that successful men have more sex than poor men, success is hardly “vital” for obtaining sex. I don’t get it.


      1. At my age, any comments about “sex” have to be prefaced with, “if memory serves…”, but when I was in college I worked at the U.S. Post Office part-time alongside men who would be working-class their entire lives. I was too socially awkward to even try to date back then, so I had no personal experience. But I was struck by how the positive correlation between having money and getting laid was so much a part of the conversations of my single co-workers (about 50% white and 50% black). I think American society is much more socially stratified today, a couple of generations of assortative mating later. REF:

        Click to access ggksPandP-December2013.pdf

        The public policy wonks I find myself dealing with in Washington uniformly seem to have never even *met* a member of the working class, other than to answer his/her question, “Would you like fries with that?”

        Anyway, back when I graduated, I went to work in the then-new information technology industry and moved into what would be characterized as a “yuppie” neighborhood. I was shocked by my experience. All I needed to do is show up in public with the body I had then, and some fetching young lady would take me home with her. (At a pool party, I was once mistaken for a member of a “Big Six” ballet company.) Nothing in my Roman Catholic, working-class upbringing had prepared me for that. In the 1970s, at least, young women seemed indifferent to my career success (which was a good thing back then…).

        I was also stunned by how much more females can enjoy sex than any of us poor males could possibly comprehend. If your own experience does not confirm this, just find a gay man who has been waylaid by a woman. The ones I have spoken to were ballroom dance instructors and they were obviously shocked by those experiences. (I have no idea how they could have functioned that well with a sex they were not attracted to, but their descriptions of their experiences jibed with mine.)

        I truly don’t know where men like Regnerus get the idea that men like sex more then women do. In other cultures, that women are infinitely more lustful is the conventional wisdom. REF:

        What I can say to the Islamofascists based on my personal experience is, “Be Very, Very Afraid.”

        Returning to the topic of money and sexual success, now that I am old, I can tell you from first-hand experience that when my age-peers see me out with a model-beautiful lady three or even four decades my junior, they all assume that I am wealthy. They are right, of course, even if the rest of their assumptions about what kind of couple they are seeing are incorrect.

        So, generalizing, while one *might* be able to get laid without having a hot body when young or money when old, at my age, having money certainly affects the desirability of the woman one can keep company with. I would assume that this correlates with sexual success if a man is seeking that…


  3. Is there any chance that we could stop calling Baumeister’s theory “Sexual Economics”? Niether Baumeister, or any of his co-authors, are economists and, frankly, it is insulting to the whole profession to use our theories this way.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I agree that Baumeister et al. get the economics wrong. But what you’re seeing in Baumeister and Regenerus etc is the eventual development of mathematical sociobiology which is built on the same mathematics that economics is. There’s nothing wrong with that mathematics or way of thinking about behavior — the problem is their starting assumptions about women’s and men’s preferences for sex. Moreover, economists are not opposed to this line of research:


      1. I disagree that the only thing that is wrong is their starting assumptions about men and women’s preferences for sex. Even if those assumptions were correct the economics would be wrong. The market for sex is, essentially, a perfectly competitive industry with a large number of buyers and sellers. In that type of market collusion is not possible, even with enforcement.

        I am obviously not opposed to this line of research, in any way shape or form. In fact I encourage it. But not by people know don’t understand how markets operate.


    1. (That was a reply to Marina. Obviously tongue-in-cheek. Though Baumeister is actually a social psychologist, so I guess it’d be sort of second-order revenge. Anyhow.)


  4. FYI, one of the best analyses I’ve seen of this issue is Randall Collin’s “A Conflict Theory of Sex Stratification,” in which he argues that when women gain direct access to economic resources and political power (as they are able to do in modern “market” societies), they no longer need to convert sex into a scarce resource to be traded for other social goods.

    All in all, an excellent conversation…


  5. Content of the argument aside, your post is generally written with the tone of “can you believe this? O.M.G. Isn’t the other side stupid?” Which means you’re not trying to make yourself be heard by anyone who initially found the Regnerus piece in Slate plausible. It comes off as rah-rah-ing for the sake of people who already agree with you.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Otherwise known as making effective arguments with the occasional humorous aside. I think Phillip’s style is great because he tales his opponent’s seriously but doesn’t hold back in some sort of forced “everybody is a little bit correct” wishy washy centrism. You, however, exhibit all the signs of a classic concern troll…


      1. “Three Things Conservatives Wrote This Week That Everyone Should Read” – the link is broken. Of course, you can always google.


  6. I can see Tim’s point. It’s not that I’m sympathetic to the Wilcox/Regnerus crew. I’m not. Politically or academically. But Phil’s posts often seem to veer away from “Here’s all the empirical reasons that these guys are wrong and we shouldn’t listen to their policy suggestions” (which I love), and into “These guys are not only wrong, but they’re evil and stupid.” It comes off as super-partisan and, I think, potentially marginalizes Phil (and his work) as being totally biased in favor of all-things-liberal and against anything that smacks of something a conservative might think, rather than an honest and professional scholar who critiques ideas rather than the motives or character of the people he disagrees with. Again, I don’t back Regnerus/Wilcox as an academic and I agree with 90% of what Phil argues. But the packaging sometimes puts me off.


    1. I must have missed this one and glad I caught it in the end of year round up. I will bring your attention to Regnerus’ speaking engagements in the last year, year and a half, then you tell me if Dr Cohen is wrong in not only questioning Regnerus’s science but his motivations as well.
      -As noted in the article the Franscicans speech
      -A Mormon Conference
      -Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission(ERLC) of the Southern Baptist Conference a big conference in the spring, on I forget what exactly, maybe it was Family or Religious Liberty. Dr. Russell Moor executive Director of the ERLC in his introduction of Regnerus stated “He is the MOST IMPORTANT SOCIOLOGIST IN AMERICA TODAY”
      -A conference at the United Nations put on by the World Congress of Families (You can look them up on Google)
      – And not really an appearance but a work product. Regnerus made the videos for the Pope’s Humanum Conference. Now this was a HUGE HUGE interdenominational conference the Pope put on where a real who-is-who in various religions appeared & talked. The Pope himself at the Humanum Conference said we should fight against the evil of “Gender Idolatry.”

      Regnerus tried denying he made the videos (A leading Baptist thanked Regnerus in his blog for making the videos), sending an e-mail to John Becker a blogger for the Bilrico Project denying it. However when Becker e-mailed him back and asked about his interview in early September on Catholic Radio about how he (Regnerus) had said on Catholic radio that he had just returned from filming in Mexico, Nigeria, Lebanon & Paris and those were the locations in the Pope’s videos, Regnerus never replied back. I think this is what is known as a “Gotcha,” and “Oops I had forgotten about that interview.”

      In my memory over the last 12/18 months I do not recall one single public appearance that Regnerus made to a secular audience. Maybe he did and I just missed it, but I remember these other ones. He signs onto the Amicus Briefs in the Court Cases opposing Civil Marriage for Sexual Minorities, it is all there publicly available. I don’t believe that Regnerus has earned professional deference, he has pitched his tent in a camp that resoundingly fights civil rights for sexual minorities based on religion, no need for anyone to be coy about that.


    2. Because how can you take them seriously? People who fall for this kind of argument already want to believe them as well. I don’t think there’s much place for meeting halfway, when there’s political agenda (and quite often an economic one.) Sometimes, i feel that Economic Theory is like dark magic: it may be powerful and fascinating and even useful, but if you approach it with arrogance and an agenda, you end up Voldemort.


Comments welcome (may be moderated)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s