Sex and Economics

Via The Lady R we get the latest installment of the Zoe Margolis story.

Essentially, writing enthusiastically about her highly enthusiastic sex life has left her bereft of what she actually wants now, an enthusiastic but rather more emotionally connected sex life:

However, I\’m at a point where I now accept I have a need to be fulfilled emotionally as well as physically with someone; I feel ready to be with someone special for the long-term. I\’m just not confident that is possible for me to achieve in the UK now; too much of my personal life has been on display and the English attitude towards sex is reflected in how men view and relate to me: awkwardly.

OK, great, good luck to her, but what the hell\’s this got to do with economics?

Well, Gary Becker said something decades ago about prostitution (no, I am most emphatically not comparing Zoe to a prostitute). That the biggest cost in the long run was that a woman who worked as a prostitute almost inevitably cremated her chances of marrying in the community where she had worked as one. Thus the observation that women who do work as such tend to work as such outside of the community they come from. This helps to explain quite a lot of the way in which tarts tend not to come from the areas they service….yes, there\’s some economic migration due to poverty and yes, there is also a small amount of slavery and imposed trafficking, but one major driver (which part is the most important is up to you) is that is is indeed possible to go somewhere else, be a prostitute, and then come back home with the money but without that destruction of reputation and life choices.

And this is the only way in which there is a connection with Zoe:

Refreshingly, most of the men I\’ve met there have never heard of my blog or book, so getting to know one of them on a more personal level offers up an equal starting point from which to learn about the other person – which makes for far more romantic possibilities down the line.

Quite, which was rather Becker\’s point.

Now whether Zoe\’s enjoyment of and retelling of her enthusiastic sex life ought to make men react that way, a way in which they don\’t when they haven\’t heard the stories, is another matter, entirely so, but that they do seems obvious….and sadly, the universe isn\’t quite constructed the way we\’d like it to be on all and every matter.

Amazing what economists can tell you about, isn\’t it? Why a writer might move continents to revitalise their love life?

 

4 thoughts on “Sex and Economics”

  1. Yeah, it’s really odd isn’t it? For some reason men seem wary about dating a woman who will use every intimate detail of their sex life as material for her next column. Truly inexplicable.

  2. but one major driver (which part is the most important is up to you) is that is is indeed possible to go somewhere else, be a prostitute, and then come back home with the money but without that destruction of reputation and life choices.

    I think the girls from Central Asia and Russia used to believe this when they went over to Dubai to ply their trade. I am pretty well informed that when they returned, everybody from the auth0rities downwards knew what they’d been up to. I guess it is because few of them were very bright, and thus unable to come up with a convincing story about what they were doing abroad for 2 years and how they were able to afford designer gear if they were only a waitress. Plus each trip home during their time away was usually financed by and in the company of a rather bewildered foreigner, again something I know a little bit about.

  3. Not just men, and not just English men. Few women are likely to want to marry someone who’s had sex with half the neignborhood either, and the idea that even a casual experience might become blog fodder would put the rest off.

  4. So Much For Subtlety

    “Amazing what economists can tell you about, isn’t it? Why a writer might move continents to revitalise their love life?”

    Ummm, are you sure? Where is the economics? The implication here is that having too much sex with too many men is a bad thing and other men will not like it. I’d have thought that economics had precisely *nothing* whatsoever to say about the hows or whys of this. Evolutionary biology would surely explain that it is obvious. But an economist? Who says that women devalue each time they have sex? Shall we ask LadyR about that one then? You could argue that the more women learn about the subject, the more that they are willing to do, the more appealling they ought to be. But it does not seem to be the case. The cheaper they are, the more they ought to be “consumed” or at least “consumable”. And yet women seem to be an exception to the rule – the cheaper they are by the hour, I expect, the less people want them by the year. There is a link between Darwinian biology and economics but the basic assumptions are not the same.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *