Rich in Love
A friend (who may or may not want to be named) points to this WebMD article summarizing the economic value of sexual activity. It turns out that extra money doesn’t make us that much happier, but sex makes us quite a lot happier, so if we’re putting a money value on units of happiness, sex is worth a lot of money.
After analyzing data on the self-reported levels of sexual activity and happiness of 16,000 people, Dartmouth College economist David Blachflower and Andrew Oswald of the University of Warwick in England report that sex “enters so strongly (and) positively in happiness equations” that they estimate increasing intercourse from once a month to once a week is equivalent to the amount of happiness generated by getting an additional $50,000 in income for the average American.
My first reaction to this is that prostitutes are undercharging. My second reaction is pretty much the same as my correspondent, who writes:
There should be a tax on all that undeclared income! — after all, all those people are getting the benefit of that money, isn’t that the same as actually having the money? How can that $50,000-equivalent benefit be redistributed so that everyone can benefit ‘equally’?
It seems like a good joke, but it really is more than a joke from the perspective of distributive justice. Take a similar case. Those of us who prefer leisure over money, once we’ve passed a fairly low threshold of money, gain all the benefits of society without paying much in through taxes.
Suppose that after $15,000 annual, the marginal value of a dollar for me plummets sharply, while the value of an hour of leisure remains very high. If I could be working 40 hours a week, and making sixty big a year, but I’d rather have the leisure after working only 10 a week, then those extra hours are worth at least forty five grand to me. So I buy a lot of leisure for the price of my opporunity cost. But, unlike the guy who likes owning a Cris Craft and a high-end stereo more than reading library books, taking long walks, and writing poetry, the value of my leisure can’t be taxed. But this seems patently unfair. People who happen to have leisurely preferences just luck out.
How to rectify this? Well, we could just force people who like leisure to work and give the proceeds to the state, but that makes us sort of uncomfortable, as we’re then caused to think a little too hard about what taxes really amount to.
Well, I guess it turns out that getting a weekly rather than a monthly is worth about $50G. And it also turns out that having more money doesn’t get you more laid. So, suppose I like leisure, as above, AND I like sex as much as most people do. (Suppose.) If I manage to fit a weekly into my fairly relaxed schedule, then I’m looking at the equivalent of close to $100G in non-taxable income. This is clearly the way to go! People who work sixty hours a week to make $100G taxable, and as a consequence of all that time working and all that stress, only manage a monthly… well, those people are suckas! They’re paying like 30-ish% of their income, and while I’m not literally rollin’ in the Benjamins, I’m rolling in the endorphins, which is just as good.
This isn’t fair! Maybe I have some control over my preference for leisure. Maybe I cultivated it by reading Marcus Aurelius or something. But my ability to swing a weekly? Well. Suppose (counterfactually, of course) that I’m ruddy and good looking, and the ladies are just irresistably drawn to my animal charisma. Well, I didn’t do anything to deserve my mojo. By babe magneticity turns out simply to be an unredistributable resource. Nice for me! But hardly fair.
Maybe because I won’t be so depressed, which we also find (also, that ladies ought to consider that OrthoTri-cyclen is cheaper than Prozac and condoms), it’ll turn out that I contribute to the surplus of social cooperation by means of my sunny attitude. Everyone likes a guy with a spring in his step. But really, the folks paying for all those public goods, which I happily enjoy, with their labor and their lousy sex lives are certainly getting a raw deal. Notice that if they state provides things like health insurance, and so forth, then I’m really kicking it, and things have gotten even more unfair.
Seriously though, what do egalitarians think about this? Should we legalize prostitution and give people vouchers? Should we have mandatory national sexual service? Or can we just ignore certain deep kinds of inequality if the detection and enforcement costs are too high? That would be interesting.
I’m sure I’ve gotten ahead of myself here, but, you know, good times.
44 Comments so far
Leave a reply
These studies cycle around about every year just like studies of women who (gasp!) continue show their preference for bailing for home rather than taking high-level jobs and studies that prove exercising is good for you. We all know that more sex means a happier, healthier life. So why aren’t people having more sex given the evidence? Clearly they do not value it the same way they value more income. So those of us who do will naturally benefit more from it; I find no unfairness in acting on information that is available to everyone (frequently) when others are capable of making that choice as well. And some of us can make $50,000+ AND have copulate copiously. The happiness never ends!
Correction- “AND copulate copiously” (omit ‘have’)
Does that mean mean Mormons are the happiest people in the world?
This state of affairs has already been predicted by science fiction writers. In the future women who refuse sex to any man will be considered antisocial. The stigma of being so selfish as to want to own your own body will act to automatically even out the inequalities in sexual activity so that everyone can have that basic human right in quantities equal to their desire for such.
I think this is a much less pervasive misunderstanding than you imagine! Before we conclude that those who could obtain additional sex but work hard instead foolishly choose money over sex, we should take account of important qualitative issues with respect to sex (the good touch/bad touch distinction).
Women commonly have less sex than they might. Is it economic or biological ignorance? I don’t think so. Prudishness? Frequently not. Rather, people decline sex when they can’t see being made happier with the sex that is presently on offer — a perfectly rational decision.
Marie-
I think ignorance and prudishness ARE major factors in the sex lives of women. We don’t teach each other as women about what it means to have a healthy sex life–physically and psychologically. You’re right about denying what’s on offer–women generally have a harder time enjoying random sexual experiences and want more of an emotional commitment or understanding. We are also more concerned about how it relates to self. That is perfectly rational. But taking a step back from that, I strongly believe we’d be a lot better off if we helped each other (through being more open about it and framing it in terms of femaleness) develop our sexual identities apart from specific attachments to men. Then we could make better decisions about relationships and our bodies and sex would have a higher happiness return.
Which is better? Good touch or bad touch.
Women having less sex than they might isn’t ignorance of any kind, really. It’s psycho-biological risk aversion. Given birth control, women’s disposition to withhold except in the presence of a guy with a high male parental investment score, or a sexy sumbitch who will make pretty babies, no longer serves the original function. Way back, y’all couldn’t afford to get knocked up by just anybody. There’s no longer the same kind of threat, but we can’t just rewrite our psychological software. I do, however, believe that recognizing that one’s source of trepidation may be an arational biological impulse, rather than a indicator of one’s likelihood to take pleasure from sex, might do something to weaken the hesitation. I hope.
Joanna, I don’t doubt that many women still suffer from significant sociologically driven “hang ups.” I just don’t think that is (any longer) the main reason women turn down sex.
Will, women’s biologically-driven preferences with respect to good sex share an evolutionary origin with the enjoyment of sex in the first place. They are of a piece, so presumably one is as mutable as the other. Of course, I’m all for obtaining more enjoyment out of life! Note, however, that urging people to become more accomodating with respect to their sexual preferences (for example, learning to be attracted to the millions of otherwise eligible men who write badly) is as logical as encouraging people to learn to love investment banking. No more, no less.
I would never urge anyone to be attracted to men who write badly! I think I was suggesting that women, especially very attractive women, might find their happiness enhanced if they opened themselves up to men who do write well, or at least men who are identical to me, but to whom they may be otherwise unattracted. This is different from encouraging a love of investment banking. Investment banking is full of bad touch.
I’m sure I’ve gotten ahead of myself here . . .
{ahem} Well, EXC-YOOOOOSE ME, but this phrase insinuates something entirely different given the subject matter, Will.
What?
Point granted that women are programmed to be the choosy ones. I have no problem with that at all. We just need to have informed choosiness. I still encounter many women who withhold for more reasons than just a respectable idontwanna. And amen to those uninfluenceable preferences–if it’s not there, it’s not there.
Because no one has mentioned it, I just want to point out the topical awesomeness of my picture of a guy getting a handjob in a hammock.
I think the whole discussion is being put on an animalistic level. Missing are the intellectual and emotional aspects of the connection between two people which are quite necessary for any kind of real happiness instead of just cheap thrills. Come on, we know porn stars (at least most of them) can’t be among the happiest people. Men may be less sensitive than women in general, but most are not that callous. Maybe the majority of people in the survey are happier because they have genuine relationships with other people that happen to result in having more sex and the less happy people who spend more time making money are so because they are simply more isolated.
“Does that mean mean Mormons are the happiest people in the world?”
Maybe it explains why they suffer that tithe…
” Maybe the majority of people in the survey are happier because they have genuine relationships with other people that happen to result in having more sex and the less happy people who spend more time making money are so because they are simply more isolated.”
Bingo.
Anon, Did you see that semen has anti-depressent properties! So we’re talking psycho-chemical-, not animal-, level here.
I think everyone recognizes the importance of intellectual and emotional connections. The point of the study is that other things being equal having more sex makes you happier (and makes you happier than having more money). Other things are far from equal for porn stars.
Will-
Meant to mention the picture and forgot–it is good. But it’s not entirely relevant; regular hand jobs must only equal, like, $20K/yr tops.
Others-
Sure, the meaningfulness of a relationship contributes, but fucking in whatever context results in the biological benefits, right?
Jo, I asssume it’s just a warm-up.
Hammock lovers: it isn’t obvious the chick’s giving the guy a left-hand shuffle.
The photo renders something a wee disturbing, as I was led to believe (at first glance) that it’s depiction of our man Mr. Wilkison himself — caught, uh, red-handed in salacious activity.
Is that porn actress Cherry Rain in the picture? If it is, I’m so glad that one of my favorite blogs is using a porn pic to complement blog entry. If it isn’t, I’m so glad that one of my favorite blogs is using a porn pic to complement blog entry.
Keep up the good work!
“The point of the study is that other things being equal having more sex makes you happier (and makes you happier than having more money).”
Can other things ever be equal in a study like this one? They didn’t take two largish random samples of people and force one to have sex once a week and the other to have sex once a month. Unless they did that, there is no way they can be certain that being happier doesn’t get you more sex instead of the reverse, or that being happier and more frequent sex both arise from some other facor, like being on good terms with your significant other. So in this study, other things are not equal.
As for porn stars & prostitutes, aren’t they having anti-sex, that is, going through the motions without enjoying it? Isn’t that why somebody has to pay them to do it?
And yes that lovely picture does look disturbingly like our intrepid blogger.
First he tells us blogging gets him laid, now he shows us.
Bad joke but kind of relevant,
Q: Why do women watch pornos all the way to the end?
A: They keep hoping there will be a wedding.
Don’t gloat too loudly, dammit: those working stiffs’ll get wise & then it’s curtains for all us ne’er-do-well Huck Finn slacker parasites.
Luka, You made me go back and look, and lo and behold, it IS Cherry Rain. Will you explain to me why you know so much about porn?
Gordon, I look nothing like that guy, other than being white, having dark hair, and being fully qualified to star in pornographic films.
I acquired the photo by searching google for sex + hammock. It’s from review of the movie “Island Rain.” The reviewer, “The Viking,” asks
The review becomes rather more sordid, but is charmingly straightforward and earnest. Read the rest if you’re in an adult entertainment-safe environment.
Lunchtime Links
1) Krispy Kreme corners the market on donuts for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy patients. 2) This is probably best when viewed…
Why not make a lot of money and have a lot of sex. And then you can find yourself a new whore when you get tired of the first one. No man likes to screw the same woman 973 times. No man.
eros-dc.com
Will,
I can explain how I know that that is Cherry Rain…I consume a lot of porn…
PS
For anyone that thinks Cherry is pretty and would like to see her having sex, look up the volumes of Ed Powers’s Dirty Debutantes that she was in. She was in a bunch of them and she’s very talented.
Luca - you shouldn’t knock having sex with the same person 973 times until you’ve tried it. Based on your professed level of porn consumption, I suspect you haven’t.
Marie, You’re confusing Luca for Luka. Luka professed to liking porn. Luca professes that all men like variety.
Oops! My mistake. Sorry Luka!
“All men like variety” is not at all the same, Will, as suggesting that the returns to sex fall to zero after any monogamous relationship’s second year.
Marie, Isn’t that, like, 486 times a year?
That’s okay Marie. It’s not that often that two Luca/Luka’s post on the same English speaking site!
It’s true. I have never even come close to having sex 973 times with the same person. (Haven’t gotten a handle on the long-long-term relationships yet…)
But just so you know. It turns out that my porn comsumption doesn’t go down too much when sex is happening in my life. A little. But not much…
Sex and porn can happily live together! What a wonderful world!
One other thing. I’m going to guess that the closer one gets to having sex with the same person 973 times the more useful porn becomes to that relationship.
Just a guess.
Will — That’d be a good year, of course, but hardly unmanageable. It’s actually quite a bit easier, IMO, than billing 2000 hours.
No one here has discussed the basic inequality when it comes to men and women having sex: it’s relatively simple to please a man, but pleasing a woman takes some thought and effort.
That is probably the primary reason women say “no” to so many opportunities for sex: the chances are low something will be in it for them.
It’s not surprising that my interpretation of what was going on in that hammock was an inversion of what really was . . . (hint: I thought the graphic element being distorted was her nipple).
“How to rectify this? Well, we could just force people who like leisure to work and give the proceeds to the state, but that makes us sort of uncomfortable, as we’re then caused to think a little too hard about what taxes really amount to.”
Ah, here’s a better solution, if you only force the ‘leisure fans’ to work more, then you don’t maximize your value created per hour. Much better to require the leisure fans to, instead of work, provide the hard-workers with a few more of those weeklies..
So.. which one of you hippie gals likes tall, overworked men?
Tom — Send me a writing sample, and I’ll let you know.
Wow! I am so honored to be quoted– I really am tickled. This is way better than being quoted in a newspaper or on tv AND I get to stay anonymous! Yay! and Thanks! Ok. Now I have to go back and finish reading your article.
yeah 973 times I agree. After 267 times she just doesn’t get that look in her eyes anymore like she wants it - so the magic is gone!
Just a random comment, but I strongly suspect (without really caring enough to actually read *all* of the comments here, much less the original reference) that this debate confuses correlation with causation.
The classic example is that car theft statistics show a rise in correlation with ice cream sales statistics. Both statistics rise at the same time in the year - during the summer, when it’s hot and people are out more. People being out more means more opportunities for car theft, and hot weather means that the simplest means of entering a locked car - bashing in a window - is less noticable (cops tend to look at you suspiciously if you’re driving around in the winter with your window rolled all the way down to hide the fact that it’s been bashed in).
People who have sex at least once a week are msot likely (except for outliers) in long-term, sexually active relationships. Of course they are likely to be happier. This is a correlation, not a causation.
Catholic church outsources prayers to India!
With Roman Catholic clergy in short supply in the United States, Indian priests are picking up some of their work, saying Mass for special intentions, in a sacred if unusual version of outsourcing….
This puts a whole new perspective on the recent revelations (possibly apocryphal?) that the Danish government provides prostitutes for the disabled. We’ve quantified what it does for your happiness to go from monthly to weekly, but a figure for what it does to go from sub-yearly to monthly might reveal this to be a remarkably cost-effective piece of legislation.