I would say biology plays a large part of it and economical issues are the driving force behind changing viewpoints ( almost to the point of being dependent on them).
I'd add, biological "economics" has to do with the situation arising in the first place. Females invest significantly more into developing offspring than males. In humans, males make (and waste) lots of sperm, while females take 9 months to create an offspring). So from a male perspective there is not much cost in having sex with any available female- while for females there is significant cost in having sex with a sub-standard male (especially if he then does not invest time in raising the offspring).
Looked at from this perspective, it is surprising that males are not even more willing to take up any offers of sex.
Also from a biological and a "battle of the sexes" perspective, the investment between males and females is different in different contexts. In sea-horses for example, the male bears the young (though doesn't provide nutrients). Eggs for animals generally require a wet environment to survive - so in animals which are land based, this can only be provided in the female. In animals which are sea/river based, eggs can be simply pumped into the sea/river around them (as with fish) - in this context, the investment between males and females would be quite comparable.
EDIT:
Worth reading is Matt Ridley's book "the Red Queen" - or even googling the term "Red Queen hypothesis". There are a number of interesting aspects around human reproduction - e.g. while our DNA is derived from a large number of early females, it is derived from a far smaller number of early males. The reason is that males are much less likely to reproduce than females, however those that do reproduce, reproduce with larger numbers of females.
In many species (including humans), a trigger for females for determining how attractive a male is, is to see how attractive to other females he is. (Similar to how the google algorithm works).