Hello Friend,

If this is your first visit to SoSuave, I would advise you to START HERE.

It will be the most efficient use of your time.

And you will learn everything you need to know to become a huge success with women.

Thank you for visiting and have a great day!

A theory on prostitution

Hooligan Harry

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
503
Reaction score
45
This is quite an old paper now but it does pose some interesting questions. Its not that long a read either

http://the-idea-shop.com/papers/prostitution.pdf

This is an article from Forbes on it...

Wife or *****?

The choice is that simple. At least according to economists Lena Edlund and Evelyn Korn, it is.

The two well-respected economists created a minor stir in academic circles a few years back when they published "A Theory of Prostitution" in the Journal of Political Economy. The paper was remarkable not only for being accepted by a major journal but also because it considered wives and *****s as economic "goods" that can be substituted for each other. Men buy, women sell.

Economists have been equating money and marriage ever since Nobel Prize-winning economist Gary Becker published his seminal paper "A Theory of Marriage" in two parts in 1973 and 1974--also, not coincidentally, in the Journal of Political Economy.

Becker used market analysis to tackle the questions of whom, when and why we marry. His conclusions? Mate selection is a market, and marriages occur only if they are profitable for both parties involved.

Becker allowed nonmonetary elements, like romantic love and companionship, to be entered into courtship's profit and loss statement. And children, in particular, were important. "Sexual gratification, cleaning, feeding and other services can be purchased, but not children: Both the man and the woman are required to produce their own children and perhaps to raise them," he wrote.

But back to *****s: Edlund and Korn admit that spouses and streetwalkers aren't exactly alike. Wives, in truth, are superior to *****s in the economist's sense of being a good whose consumption increases as income rises--like fine wine. This may explain why prostitution is less common in wealthier countries. But the implication remains that wives and *****s are--if not exactly like Coke and Pepsi--something akin to champagne and beer. The same sort of thing.

As with Becker, a key differentiator in Edlund and Korn's model is reproductive sex. Wives can offer it, *****s can not.

To be fair, Edlund and Korn were merely building an admittedly grossly simplified model of human behavior in an attempt to answer a nagging question: Why do hookers make so much money? Prostitution is, seemingly, a low-skill but high-pay profession with few upfront costs, micro-miniskirts and stiletto heels aside.

Yet according to data assembled from a wide variety of times and places, ranging from mid-15th-century France to Malaysia of the late 1990s, prostitutes make more money--in some cases, a lot more money--than do working girls who, well, work for a living. This held true even for places where prostitution is legal and relatively safe. In short, streetwalkers aren't necessarily being paid more for their increased risk of going to jail or the hospital.

Notwithstanding Jerry Hall's quip when she was married to Mick Jagger, about being "a maid in the living room and a ***** in the bedroom," one normally cannot be both a wife and a *****. "Combine this with the fact that marriage can be an important source of income for women, and it follows that prostitution must pay better than other jobs to compensate for the opportunity cost of forgone-marriage market earnings," Edlund and Korn conclude.

Ouch.

Another zinger: "This begs the question of why married men go to prostitutes (rather than buying from their wives, who presumably will be low-cost providers, considering that they can sell nonreproductive sex without compromising their marriage)." Guys, nothing says "Happy Valentine's Day" more than "low-cost provider."

Of course, it's easy to pour cold water on some of the assumptions made in Edlund and Korn's mathematical model. But these so-called "stylized facts" are supposed to predict human behavior; they don't necessarily pretend to mirror it.

In particular, the assumption that there is no "third way" between wife and ***** is problematic, if not outright offensive: "The third alternative, working in a regular job but not marrying, can be ruled out, since we assume that the only downside of marriage for a woman is the forgone opportunity for prostitution."

Be sure to let all your married friends know what they're missing.

Also, the emphasis on the utility of children is puzzling. In most Western democracies, fertility rates have plummeted as wealth has increased. Empirically, men not only buy fewer *****s as they get richer, but they have fewer children.

Still, the economic analysis of marriage explains one age-old phenomenon: gold digging.

"In particular, does our analysis justify the popular belief that more beautiful, charming and talented women tend to marry wealthier and more successful men?" wrote Becker. His answer: "A positive sorting of nonmarket traits with nonhuman wealth always, and with earnings power, usually, maximizes commodity output over all marriages."

In other words, yes, supermodels do prefer aging billionaires. And Gary Becker proved it mathematically decades before The Donald married Melania.
http://www.forbes.com/2006/02/11/economics-prostitution-marriage_cx_mn_money06_0214prostitution.html

It poses a lot of questions, but I could not help but smirk while reading through bits of this paper. The economics behind the mating game have been put down so coldly an AFC would cry themselves to sleep having to read this. Or reject the possibility that certain aspects of the paper may indeed be true outright.

One thing it does really hammer home though is that marriage is in itself a business contract at the end of the day and there are expectations going into it. The biggest one is not so much male fidelity, BUT FEMALE. That comes purely from the point that the man needs confirmation that his children are indeed his. He essentially gains her fidelity the insurance that those children are his and he is not using his resources to raise children fathered by other men. I cant help but think we have managed to forget this.

In exchange for this, she is on the receiving end of an agreement so profitable most average women would have to resort to hooking to match it.

From her point of view, she needs to ensure a certain amount of "non reproductive" sex is provided to ensure that resources are not whittled away on the short term transactions prostitutes would normally provide.

The point I am trying to make here is that it only proves what a raw deal men are getting in marriage these days. Some studies in Britain show that 20% of fathers are raising kids that are not their own without even knowing it. If the biggest security marriage provided for men was that the children he was raising were his, and that has been taken away by a cultural shift and family courts, WHAT EXACTLY DOES MARRIAGE REALLY HAVE TO OFFER MEN? Taking away the soft stuff, when you get down to the pure business behind the whole thing, modern day marriage has gone beyond a risky deal for men. We knew this, but this only goes to show the extent of it.

If you consider that the paper looks at this from an international perspective, it pervades culture. Which means that in essence, regardless of what stage civil liberties may be at or what the people themselves think of marriage, the one common denominator is that men always married to ensure female fidelity for children and women married to ensure access to his resources. Cold, hard fact that seems to hold no boundaries. Ironically, the countries which have the highest rates of divorce happen to be the countries where people no longer marry for that explicit reason anymore. They marry because Ross really loves Rachel, and it turns out the slut finally realised she was almost over the hill and needed to start making babies already. Likewise, countries with high levels of prostitution have lower levels of divorce too. Maybe thats because the wives actually have some real competition and up their game a little? Maybe men are straying with women who are not competing for his whole bank account too and there is no need for him to risk chatting up the receptionist at work because his wife stopped blowing him.

Thoughts?
 

jonwon

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jun 8, 2006
Messages
1,440
Reaction score
51
Young women, here is some advice:

Don’t throw your hot, youthful selves away on young, financially unproven men. They may never become successes, and if they do, they’ll probably just chuck you for younger models when you’re too old to successfully compete again in the marriage marketplace.

Instead, marry rich guys while you’re still taut enough to snag them. They may dump you, too, but at least you’ll have nice, fat divorce settlements with which to pursue true love, or the pool guy, whoever comes first.

Notice I didn’t say it was good advice.

But that is the gist of a new book, “Smart Girls Marry Money: How Women Have Been Duped Into the Romantic Dream — and How They’re Paying for It,” by Elizabeth Ford and Daniela Drake.

“Rather than pursuing love, we suggest pursuing a lifestyle with a man you like, or admire and enjoy,” they write. “But in any case, he should be a man with resources.”

- http://articles.moneycentral.msn.co...ney/do-smart-women-marry-money.aspx?gt1=33009
--

You may have a point.
 

Nutz

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jul 22, 2008
Messages
1,589
Reaction score
72
Wow, that second link is Gold Digger 101. What's the world coming to???
 
Top