Better to have a significant other
Jun. 3rd, 2012 12:00 amAn interesting discussion on the economics of sex, or of getting sex. Is it better for a man to be a night club casanova, or is it better to have a steady partner? Of course, this is for men who can get partners.
_ _ _
On the one hand having a girlfriend can be expensive for a man, especially if he is the type of man who likes to take care of the woman he is dating – buying her meals, gifts, taking her on trips, et cetera. Those expenses could potentially add up quickly over several months of a relationship.
But being single, or more to the point being a single man who is hoping to have sex, can also be very expensive. Not only is hanging out at nightclubs and bars or going on many first dates pricey, but men who hope to attract female attention also have to shell out for expensive clothes, shoes, grooming services and products and more.
In regard to this last point, modern men are finally starting to understand how expensive it is for women to attract a mate in a world in which many people make these decisions based on personal appearance alone.
I don’t have the answer to this question about which is cheaper, but I think that what it comes down to is frequency of sex. All the data I have seen suggests that the men who have sex the least frequently, after men who have no sex at all, are those who report having more than one sexual partner in the previous three months. The men who have sex the most frequently, for example more than 20 times a month, are almost exclusively men who have only one sexual partner.
So even though it may appear to costs less to head out to the clubs on the weekend than it does to wine and dine a girlfriend, given that the outcome of that outing is uncertain it is probably still the most expensive option.
There are helpful websites that will calculate for men how much they are paying for sex with their girlfriend. Some will even go so far as to compare that cost to having sex with prostitutes over the same period to see if there has been any net savings from having a girlfriend. But that is a seriously flawed methodology.
From the perspective of an economist, the opportunity cost of having a girlfriend has to take into consideration the cost of that man’s activities had he remained single and, for the vast majority of men, that is not prowling the streets looking for a sex worker.
The “buy the cow” expression is offensive for obvious reasons, but any good economist would tell you that you are never really getting the milk for free. And besides, marriage/cohabitation is economically efficient when it comes to the provision of sexual services and that is one of the reasons so many people think it is worth the initial investment.
-- Marina Adshade, "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?" at BigThink.com
_ _ _
Of course, the best answer is probably darker: it's best to have a steady partner and to cheat on the side. Since you already have a partner, you do not have to be desperate in scoring with other chicks. You can just throw out a casual line here and there, and if you get a bite, then great! If not, you are still not reduced to Internet porn.
_ _ _
On the one hand having a girlfriend can be expensive for a man, especially if he is the type of man who likes to take care of the woman he is dating – buying her meals, gifts, taking her on trips, et cetera. Those expenses could potentially add up quickly over several months of a relationship.
But being single, or more to the point being a single man who is hoping to have sex, can also be very expensive. Not only is hanging out at nightclubs and bars or going on many first dates pricey, but men who hope to attract female attention also have to shell out for expensive clothes, shoes, grooming services and products and more.
In regard to this last point, modern men are finally starting to understand how expensive it is for women to attract a mate in a world in which many people make these decisions based on personal appearance alone.
I don’t have the answer to this question about which is cheaper, but I think that what it comes down to is frequency of sex. All the data I have seen suggests that the men who have sex the least frequently, after men who have no sex at all, are those who report having more than one sexual partner in the previous three months. The men who have sex the most frequently, for example more than 20 times a month, are almost exclusively men who have only one sexual partner.
So even though it may appear to costs less to head out to the clubs on the weekend than it does to wine and dine a girlfriend, given that the outcome of that outing is uncertain it is probably still the most expensive option.
There are helpful websites that will calculate for men how much they are paying for sex with their girlfriend. Some will even go so far as to compare that cost to having sex with prostitutes over the same period to see if there has been any net savings from having a girlfriend. But that is a seriously flawed methodology.
From the perspective of an economist, the opportunity cost of having a girlfriend has to take into consideration the cost of that man’s activities had he remained single and, for the vast majority of men, that is not prowling the streets looking for a sex worker.
The “buy the cow” expression is offensive for obvious reasons, but any good economist would tell you that you are never really getting the milk for free. And besides, marriage/cohabitation is economically efficient when it comes to the provision of sexual services and that is one of the reasons so many people think it is worth the initial investment.
-- Marina Adshade, "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?" at BigThink.com
_ _ _
Of course, the best answer is probably darker: it's best to have a steady partner and to cheat on the side. Since you already have a partner, you do not have to be desperate in scoring with other chicks. You can just throw out a casual line here and there, and if you get a bite, then great! If not, you are still not reduced to Internet porn.