Diversification in the Sexual Market Place

Diversification in the Sexual Market Place

Diversification has a mixed reputation in business. A company can damage its prospects by buying businesses it does not understand. Acquisitions may serve an executive’s bonus or personal interests more than the company’s needs. This is sometimes called "Deworsification".

The financial rationale is to reduce dependence on any single asset. A car dealership and a pawnshop might respond differently to an economic downturn: customers may postpone buying cars while demand for short-term cash rises. Owning both could make income less dependent on car sales, though neither business guarantees revenue in a slump.

Portfolio diversification works by combining assets whose returns do not move together perfectly. It can reduce exposure to particular companies, industries, or regions. It does not ensure that a portfolio will retain its value, especially when losses across assets become correlated.

Geographical diversification spreads investments across locations. Looking back over 30 years, the essay contrasts a concentrated investment in Detroit real estate with opportunities in Silicon Valley. That comparison illustrates the risk of dependence on one place; it also benefits from hindsight about which locations grew.

Industrial diversification spreads investments across industries. Owning coal companies and businesses that depend on coal may leave an investor exposed to the same underlying risks despite holding several companies.

The essay extends this analogy to dating, using the term "spinning plates" for keeping several nonexclusive relationships going at once. Its argument is that having other possibilities can reduce the pressure to preserve a particular relationship. The people involved have their own preferences and choices, so the comparison with owning assets has limits.

The abundance mindset

Someone who believes attractive potential partners are scarce may feel pressure to accept a poor match. The essay compares this with a starving person’s response to a Ritz cracker versus a well-fed person’s response to a 7-course meal. Its point is about perceived alternatives: feeling that there will never be another opportunity can distort a decision.

An abundance mindset, in this account, means recognizing that one person is not the only possible partner. That may make it easier to consider compatibility before making a long-term commitment. It need not mean dismissing a good relationship because someone else might be available.

The business analogy is an owner who accepts the first offer for a company because he sees no other buyer. More options can improve his position, but their value still depends on the quality of those options and what he wants.

Reducing dependence on one outcome

The essay favors dating several people before committing exclusively. It argues that the end of one connection may then feel less like the end of every romantic possibility. In the arrangement it describes, women are also free to date other men or leave for a committed relationship elsewhere. Nonexclusivity needs to be understood by the people involved; having alternatives does not by itself resolve conflicting expectations.

The proposed benefit is greater independence from a particular outcome. Someone who fears "If I don't make this relationship work I will be alone forever" may find it harder to speak honestly or decide whether the relationship suits him. Recognizing other possibilities can ease that pressure, although dating more people does not guarantee emotional independence.

Learning from experience

Dating different people can reveal preferences and incompatibilities that are hard to anticipate from other people’s stories. The essay argues for gaining this experience before committing to one partner. Its broader claims about women having more experience than men, or men reaching a predictable peak in desirability, are not supported by evidence in the supplied passage.

Increasing choice

The practical aim is to make a choice with some awareness of alternatives. Someone who sees one interested person as his only chance may ignore doubts he would otherwise take seriously. Someone who recognizes other possibilities may find it easier to evaluate the relationship on its merits.

The essay proposes a rotation of 3 - 10 women, including new dates, casual encounters, and longer nonexclusive relationships. That is its recommendation, not an established threshold for sound judgment. A larger dating pool can also require more time and make expectations harder to manage. The relevant question is whether the arrangement helps the people involved choose relationships they want.

Oneitis

The essay uses oneitis for an intense fixation on a romantic prospect, not a clinical disease. It links this fixation to a scarcity mindset and the "like me" bias (9): attention from someone can become a reason to overlook doubts about compatibility.

Its recurring example is a man who treats a woman as uniquely perfect, explains away problems, and becomes more committed as he invests time and effort. The argument is that idealization and sunk costs can reinforce each other. This is a possible pattern, rather than an inevitable route from attraction to marriage and divorce.

Contrast and the halo effect

The contrast effect can be illustrated with 3 bowls of water: one cool, one comfortably warm, and one lukewarm. After keeping one hand in each of the first two bowls for 1 minute, move both hands to the lukewarm bowl. The same water can feel warmer to one hand and cooler to the other because the preceding sensations differ.

In judging people, recent comparisons can likewise affect impressions. The halo effect is a different process: an overall favorable impression, such as finding someone attractive, spills into judgments about qualities such as intelligence or competence. The essay argues that these effects can combine, making someone seem unusually desirable and encouraging assumptions that have not been tested. (3)

Scarcity and selective perception

Perceived scarcity can create urgency. An auction with competing bidders may feel very different from shopping for an item that is readily available. The thought is "This object is rare, therefore if I do not get it now, I may never have another chance". Selective perception can then direct attention toward information that confirms the desired interpretation while contrary information gets overlooked. (3)

Applied to dating, the essay’s concern is that another person’s interest can be mistaken for evidence that a potential partner is uniquely right for oneself. The urge to secure the relationship may then crowd out the question of why it is wanted.

Consistency and similarity

People often want their actions to fit the commitments they have expressed. A request such as "You just told me how much you care about other people, would you be willing to donate money for relief aid in Africa?" uses that desire for consistency. It puts pressure on the listener, although declining the request need not mean abandoning the underlying value.

Similarity can also encourage liking. Shared interests may help people connect, but they do not establish compatibility in every other respect. In the essay’s example, someone who has already idealized a potential partner selectively notices similarities and treats them as further confirmation of the relationship’s promise.

Sunk costs and loss aversion

The sunk-cost fallacy is continuing an investment because of costs that cannot be recovered, rather than judging its future prospects. The thought "we have so much invested in this already." can make withdrawal feel wasteful. The essay uses Kodak’s attachment to its "rolls of film" business as an illustration, though that analogy alone does not explain the company’s decisions about digital photography.

Loss aversion means that a loss can weigh more heavily than an equivalent gain. The essay applies this to someone who fears losing a relationship, or even the possibility of one, more strongly than he considers whether it would make him happy. Time already spent and fear of rejection can both make a decision harder. More dating options may change those pressures, but they do not replace attention to compatibility and the choices of the other person.