Harry and Megan: Love As A Capitalist Commodity?
Millions of viewers recently tuned in to see Prince Harry marry Megan Markle, a commoner. What they failed to see is that both William and Harry married rich women, one the daughter of a millionaire and the other a film star.
Of course, we are all familiar with the Cinderella myth: the rich, elegant prince falls in love with the orphaned servant girl, and brings her into his palace. We may all claim to be realists, but the myth that love conquers all is deeply embedded in our subconscious. We all want to believe that we live in classless societies. Social scientists, however, point out that the chances of marrying outside of one’s social class is almost zero. We all may dream of “marrying up”, but in reality, love spurns the poorest and rewards the wealthy. And while you may think that you are searching for True Love, in reality, the dating game means seeking affirmation in our class system.
The 21st century has seen a rise in computerized online dating. In an age of instant gratification, sex, love and romance are commodities. The commodification of desire means that your desires are a new form of capital dependent on your attractiveness as a potential mate, including your monetary resources. “Elite” dating services and sites like “beautiful people” reinforce this notion, and even the free sites have “extras” for paid customers. Paying for sex may be illegal in many parts of the world, but these sites come very close to legalized prostitution.
Keep in mind that these sites exist to take your money, and keep you frustrated. Therefore, the parade of eye candy is supplemented by fake profiles.
And in an age of commodified and monetized sex, it is not in the best interests of capitalism for us to form strong, nurturing bonds with each other. Rather, it is the conditioned need and unrequited desire which keeps the beauty-industrial complex alive, not to mention fashion, pornography, self-help books and magazines, cosmetic surgery, Viagra and hormone pills and the accoutrements necessary to offer hope to the hopeless that they can, somehow, become desirable.
Fitness centers, fashion and beauty mega-corporations and the cosmetic surgery industry would go out of business if we happily paired off to live in connubial bliss. Similarly, the multi-million dollar singles dating industry, along with the equally lucrative cat-fishing industry, are dependent on the semi-fictive nature of the heavily photo-shopped and disingenuous profile.
Monogamy is a threat to these industries. Capitalism is intent on each person owning as much useless crap as possible. Lonely singles are good for the economy: each needs a small army of seldom-used appliances, his own car, and his own big-screen TV and DVD player for pornographic images of luscious, happy couples making love. If all of the lonely singles paired off, these industries would lose profits.
Divorce has also become a lucrative industry, and with the rise of gay marriage, we can expect a windfall for the gay marriage and divorce industry, with lawyer’s firms raking in millions.
The incels who complain loudly about lack of love and affection, including the two infamous men who became murderers out of frustration, are adamant about whose affection they want: rich, white, snobbish “cheerleaders”. Poor women and women of color are not even considered. White male privilege means that the bodies of “elite” women “ought” to be made available, and they are expected to permit their bodies to be of service. Poor women are often never even asked for permission– they are simply raped. In a classist society, poor women’s bodies are communal property. This is why rape is an occupational hazard for homeless women and poor women, especially women of color and immigrants. The rapists, if rich, will get light sentences: after all, what else did she expect?
A woman’s worth is based on her ability to create and consume goods, and her usefulness to men. Poor women are expected to be willing participants in their own commodification, submitting to beauty routines, and accepting men’s advances, especially those above them in the class system. In our “sexually liberated” society, poor women who lack money are encouraged to try stripping, prostitution or selling their eggs (so rich women can have babies). Poor women don’t even own their own bodies, and the debate on abortion rights is carried out by the rich and elite, without input from the women who are affected. Being poor means that other people can judge your body, and your rights to your own body, and what you do with it.
A small cottage industry of Thai and Russian mail-order brides (including some catfish scammers) exists so that rich men in the US and Europe can live out their sugar daddy fantasies. Why are poor women from their own countries not to be considered? Would it hit too close to home?
Perhaps in a fair society, people could love without encumbrance, embracing each other based on commonalities, instead of financial concerns. But then we would have to remove financial incentives to love, marriage and divorce. We would have to have a society in which your family, nationality, gender and color play no role in education, jobs, or status. I hope for such a world, but we will probably not live to see it. Just in case, however, Cinderella dresses can be bought for a good price on Amazon– for those who can afford them.