She is even correct that the male sex deficit cannot be ignored or dismissed.
She is also correct that women and men should cultivate and use this trait in the same way we encourage people to be educated or become wealthy.
I find the notion of "erotic capital" interesting and compelling, but I find the evidence to support this claim to be lacking.
Very rarely does Hakim cite the origination of her evidence.
As Hakim acknowledges "it is impossible to separate women's erotic capital, which provokes men's desire... Yet there is a curious omission in Hakim's otherwise comprehensive review of the literature, one that deprives her exposition of its claims to originality.
Save for two passing references (at p88 and in an endnote at p320), she omits any mention of a theoretical approach in behavioural science which has, for thirty years, not only focused on sexual attractiveness and recognised what Hakim refers to as 'the universal male sex deficit' (albeit not by name), but also provided a compelling theoretical explanation for this phenomenon, something notably absent from her own exposition – namely, evolutionary psychology.
Sex Differences in Erotic Capital Besides introducing the concept of erotic capital, Hakim’s book is centred around two key insights:1) Women have greater erotic capital than men; and2) Because men have a greater sex drive than women, there is, "a systematic and apparently universal male sex deficit" (p39), whereby men want more sex than they are able to get.