I know I shouldn't give the NY Post the time of day, because it's a right wing, misogynist rag that has very little interest in boring old journalistic ideas like "facts", but I'm going to go ahead and address this article decrying modern women for being "cheap", and not holding out for sex until men provide a higher "price". The reason is I've seen a variation of this article in practically every newspaper under the sun. There are a lot of dudes out there not getting laid as much as they think they deserve, and this theory of sexual markets is so appealing to them that they're willing to shove aside all critical thinking to believe that "science" has explained their problems. See, the eternal complaint of the Nice Guy® is that a) women give it away to guys who don't deserve it but b) women's affections aren't loose enough to be applied to them. (Not all Nice Guys® are obsessed with "sluts" even as they work hard the idea that if a woman would guy X, she's required to date guy Y, and if she finds Y unattractive, she's "shallow". As long as they're not raving about sluts, I think there's potential for redemption for Nice Guys®.) The problem with the theory of Nice Guys® is that it's internally contradictory: they both believe women's standards to sleep with a guy are too low (which is why she sleeps with him) and too high (she's shallow for not sleeping with me). There's mental tricks they play to ease the cognitive dissonance---for instance, by suggesting that if a guy's hotness impresses you that makes your standards too low, but if you don't like someone who spends 40 hours a week playing table games, you're shallow---but evo psych has come up with a theory that satisfies many of their desires. It's the "market theory" of sex. NY Post, as is their habit, reduces a misogynist theory that's painted in more subtle terms elsewhere in the blunt terms that make it oh-so-accessible.
