人人有本用

The Economics Of Prostitution Michael Noer   Tuesday, February 14, 2006 Wife or whore? 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 academiccircles a few years back when they published "A Theory of Prostitution"in the Journal of Political Economy. The paper was remarkable not onlyfor being accepted by a major journal but also because it consideredwives and whores as economic "goods" that can be substituted for eachother. Men buy, women sell. Economists have been equating money and marriage ever since NobelPrize-winning economist Gary Becker published his seminal paper "ATheory of Marriage" in two parts in 1973 and 1974--also, notcoincidentally, in the Journal of Political Economy. Becker used market analysis to tackle the questions of whom, when andwhy we marry. His conclusions? Mate selection is a market, andmarriages occur only if they are profitable for both parties involved. Becker allowed nonmonetary elements, like romantic love andcompanionship, to be entered into courtship's profit and lossstatement. And children, in particular, were important. "Sexualgratification, cleaning, feeding and other services can be purchased,but not children: Both the man and the woman are required to producetheir own children and perhaps to raise them," he wrote. But back to whores: Edlund and Korn admit that spouses andstreetwalkers aren't exactly alike. Wives, in truth, are superior towhores in the economist's sense of being a good whose consumptionincreases as income rises--like fine wine. This may explain whyprostitution is less common in wealthier countries. But the implicationremains that wives and whores are--if not exactly like Coke andPepsi--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, whores can not. To be fair, Edlund and Korn were merely building an admittedly grosslysimplified model of human behavior in an attempt to answer a naggingquestion: 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 andplaces, ranging from mid-15th-century France to Malaysia of the late1990s, prostitutes make more money--in some cases, a lot moremoney--than do working girls who, well, work for a living. This heldtrue even for places where prostitution is legal and relatively safe.In short, streetwalkers aren't necessarily being paid more for theirincreased 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 whore in the bedroom," onenormally cannot be both a wife and a whore. "Combine this with the factthat marriage can be an important source of income for women, and itfollows that prostitution must pay better than other jobs to compensatefor the opportunity cost of forgone-marriage market earnings," Edlundand Korn conclude. Ouch. Another zinger: "This begs the question of why married men go toprostitutes (rather than buying from their wives, who presumably willbe low-cost providers, considering that they can sell nonreproductivesex without compromising their marriage)." Guys, nothing says "HappyValentine's Day" more than "low-cost provider." Of course, it's easy to pour cold water on some of the assumptions madein Edlund and Korn's mathematical model. But these so-called "stylizedfacts" are supposed to predict human behavior; they don't necessarilypretend to mirror it. In particular, the assumption that there is no "third way" between wifeand whore is problematic, if not outright offensive: "The thirdalternative, working in a regular job but not marrying, can be ruledout, since we assume that the only downside of marriage for a woman isthe 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 mostWestern democracies, fertility rates have plummeted as wealth hasincreased. Empirically, men not only buy fewer whores as they getricher, 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 morebeautiful, charming and talented women tend to marry wealthier and moresuccessful men" wrote Becker. His answer: "A positive sorting ofnonmarket 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 GaryBecker proved it mathematically decades before The Donald marriedMelania.

I am single - and quite honestly as I keep earning more and more money - I wonder why I should get married when I can hire an escort every couple of weeks and get what I need - with no nagging and bitching... no heartbreak... When you have money and a full life - then the reasons to get married to a "prostitute"... because face it most women sell their sex for money... Well I just don't get it - not when you know there's an immediate payout of 50% of everything you have if it doesn't pan out.

Chilli probably has the best idea so far... An SP can be cheaper than a wife..

I can see why people think this way, but.... The whole thing revolves around four assumptions: 1. Women are only good for sex. 2. Men are only good as a source of $$. 3. Women desire only $$. 4. Men desire only sex. As much as I enjoy the services of an SP, it will never be the same as living in a healthy relationship. chiefwiggum is offline Add to chiefwiggum's Reputation       Reply With Quote

At the risk of sounding very jaded about "love" I can't but help to agree with the above comment 100%! I've been in a couple of very serious relationships that thankfully ended before the "I do's" and in hindsight cost me far less then what they could have. I've seen more than a few friends go down the Ward and June Cleaver path only to find its a living hell and end up bailing after the kidlets come along. IMO the real reality of marriage is more along the lines of "everyone loves raymond". Aside from being a shitty program (with the exception of the brother and the dad) it shows how the wife can be an absolute domineering cunt shrew. Watched about 15 minutes on a flight last month and it circled around how raymond was the bad guy because of his love of golf. The wife in that show is pure evil and another example over the double standards in what's acceptable for women and not men. For me its not even about the money......I just don't think men and women are genetically engineered to spend a lifetime together Don't know if I'd go that far. I love women (most of them anyways).....I just don't want to wake up beside the same one till I'm dead

All bets are off when you meet your dreamgirl and she feel the same about you.

I agree with ChiefWiggum completely. The underlying assumptions are false. Our society has this really unhealthy idea that a woman is either a slut or a saint (the Virgin Mary or Mary Magdalene??), and there is no middle ground. The article also completely ignored the issue of gay/male prostitutes. It *is* interesting to look at this from an economic perspective, which Engels did many years ago, but to base your work on gender stereotypes is ridiculous.

The writers do not address the issue of either partner being denied sex within the marriage and being forced to buy it from an outside source.

Why not "Husband or John?"

No support for marriage on a hooker review board - what a surprise.

Well actually most husbands are "johns" - ask any man and most will tell you we pay for sex in relationships. We pay for the first date in order to have the "pleasure" of a womans company??? Since when is she the "prize" and I'm not? Most women I date I have done more in my life and I make alot more money - In terms of contribution to society and production I am worth more. When you first meet a woman they will run a series of tests on you - does he open the door, is he taller than me, does he drive a nice car, have a job, then they will ask you questions to "trap" you - the "list" is literally 10 pages long. Then the mental anguish of dealing with the rollercoaster ride of a womans emotions - up and down - nevermind who likes to be the boss and tell you what to do and how things should be, what you can or can't do, - or else forget getting sex - or deal with her emotional drama that comes with not getting her way. So we pay for the dates, we pay for the emotional drama of being with a woman, the vacations, the cars, the kids, the house, and what do we get? Either we become pussies - yes dear... because we know no - means a week of hell. Women run relationships pure and simple and either they can be nice to us or not - and most are not. I honestly think women bring on mens committment issues themselves - I mean who would want to commit to 95% of the women of today. Yes 5% are not like the way I have portrayed - but my experiences with true gems have been few and far between. Being a player for a man and moving from woman to the next makes so much more sense than settling down. Someone above mentioned meeting your dream girl as changing all of that - well again I have news for you - women can be very very nice to you if they want something from you. I get that alot from women. But deviate one iota off their little plan for you... and Most women I know can go from soft femine and cooing to bitch in about 5 secs flat. Women will never be independant of men - they like our money, status and power to much - hence why most of them are all "whores".

Ya know, and far be it from me to judge - since by all accounts I am a prick....but there sure does seem to be a whole big double standard here from some of the customers - labelling the ladies whore's etc. saying all women want is the money..... Now again, just a thought but I submit that if you use someone's services, you are on the same moral footing as the person supplying the service.....or does that make it hard for some people to look in the mirror??

What's a hoar?

maybe a hoar is like a wild boar? A carzy "wild hoar" fucked me in half last night?

some of the comments in this thread are a bit 'over-the-top'! however, for me, I have to say that I am seriously happy being single and enjoying the FANTASTIC women who I have met in this business! and while there are some aspects of a 'relationship' that I do miss, there is a lot that I really don't miss either. I certainly don't understand how a woman's mind works when it comes to relationships, but trading my sanity, self-respect, and space for some sex is not worth it anymore. If I want my ass-kicked i'll call Veronica and have it done professionally ... __________________

I have to put this up somewhere - I honestly couldn't have put it any better myself. Thank you.

One has to take into consideration the raising of children. That first and foremost should probably be the primary reason for marriage. If there are no children involved one has to question what function marriage serves other than for companionship. I won't go so far as to say free sex as nothing in this world is free..and for most marriages the cost of sex becomes exorbitant based on a frequency point of view. I also know that a lot of men on here share the view that a definition of a woman is a life support system for a cunt. Having said all of that, I truly believe that it is possible and there are many examples of great and lasting friendships between a man and a woman that often includes sex. If the couple feels more secure having it wrapped up in the form of a marriage, then so much the better for them. If you are equating love with sex, marriage is certainly not a needed factor.

I still believe the perfect wife is one who fucks for a living. From her perspective, she is much more knowledgeable and aware of the intricacies and complexities of keeping a man's equipment satisfied. And he's far more likely to be satisfied in the long run when the said equipment is regularly attended to. Oh yeah, so what's a "hoar" anyway? *looks up dictionary.com* hoar adj : showing characteristics of age, especially having gray or white hair; "whose beard with age is hoar" Coleridge: "nodded his hoary head"

This is very true. Many-a-well-intentioned lover has exchanged vows with the single minded perpose of a "full life" only to become mortal enemies some time later. That happens with such regularity that it can not be ignored in a discussion like this.

Actually I've never thought that, I've got some amazing female friends. But more and more women are getting spoiled, lazy, bitchy, money hungry, miss princess and in my mind it's getting worse - most women have lost their way and now want to be "chicks with dicks." You see it on TV everyday - "I don't need a man!" and the funny thing is the most messed up chicks are the ones saying it - what they really mean is I am wounded/broken/(insert word here) and unable to have a genuine relationship with a man. I used to have alot of respect for women - used to - now that I have seen most for what they really are - which is pretty nasty - well it just makes me want to be real nasty back - and the funny thing is - the more money I make - the more I'm able to do that.

I don't think of women in those terms.. honestly. I refuse to associate with any that act in such a distasteful fashion... and I have no problem turning my back one someone that begins to act like that. As far as I'm concerned, a healthy relationship is quite possible when both sides are willing to work towards it and satisfy the needs of the other... or at least make a genuine attempt to.

1) I didn't say all women are like that - I said MOST. 2) I'm right and you guys know it. Mick Jagger is one of the ugliest guys on the planet - but because he's a "rock star" he can get any woman on the planet. (and has) Hugh Hefner (who is old, old, old) has a young wife and 2 girlfriends (30-40 yrs younger than him) - you can't tell me their with him for his sparkling personality. In fact Hugh sleeps with almost every playmate. Yah that must be a real turn on for the women.... NOT. Should I go on? Do you guys really live in fantasy land? Brad Pitt when he first started out in Hollywood he was the guy on the street corner walking around dressed as a hot dog promoting one of those fast food places. Are you going to honestly tell me that Angelina Jolie and Jennifer Aniston would have dated him much less married him and bore children with him while he was working as a hot dog on a street corner? I'm sorry no they wouldn't and most of today's women wouldn't. You know I'm right - and it pisses you off. I understand you guys would like things to be different - we all would - the fact of the matter is we use escorts and they charge us money for sex - most guys - if roles were reversed would provide sex for a woman for free. Why do you guys have such a problem admitting reality?

I agree with everything Chilli said about the sexes (though I would have said it without all the spite). Things are fucked up today between the sexes, even more so than 20-30 yrs. ago. I speak from experience as a vast majority of the women I know and dated are spiteful, selfish spoiled little girls with a "princess complex".

um, this is PERB ... reality don't count for nothing here! ps: i hope your sentiments are more frustration than anger but maybe stepping back from the 'dating scene' and talking to someone about the source of your feelings might help, because you don't want to go through another 20 years of this and wake up one day and go 'oh, it was me after all!' but i also have to agree that women can be confusing ... i have a great female friend who tells me one thing then goes and does the exact opposite and then justifies it by blaming the guy and then whines that there are no 'nice guys' out there but then those she meets are boring and ...

Recently a "Husband Store" opened where women could go to choose a husband from among many men. It was laid out in five floors. The only rule was, once you opened the door to any floor, you HAD to choose a man from that floor; if you went up a floor, you couldn't go back down except to leave the place, never to return. A couple of girlfriends went to the shopping center to find some husbands... First floor The door had a sign saying, "These men have jobs and love kids." The women read the sign and said, "Well, that's better than not having a job or not loving kids, but I wonder what's further up?" So up they went. Second floor The sign read, "These men have high paying jobs, love kids, and are extremely good looking." "Hmmm," said the ladies, "But, I wonder what's further up?" Third floor This sign read, "These men have high paying jobs, are extremely good looking, love kids and help with the housework." "Wow," said the women, "Very tempting." But there was another floor, so further up they went. Fourth floor This door had a sign saying "These men have high paying jobs, love kids, are extremely good looking, help with the housework and have a strong romantic streak." "Oh, mercy me," they cried, "Just think what must be awaiting us further on! So up to the fifth floor they went. Fifth floor The sign on that door said, "This floor is empty and exists only to prove that women are impossible to please. The exit is to your left."

The inverse is true as well... and if the joke was reversed where the attributes of the women to be chosen in the "wife store" improved from floor to floor what man would be satisfied to settle on level two if he was lead to believe the women to be found on level three were better... my point is, it's not a gender issue. it's a human issue.

That's a stupid joke and proves no point at all, except the women who stop before the 4th floor (ie settle) would be selling themselves short of what they deserve. Are you pissed that no one's settling for you? I don't know, as a woman I feel more qualified than you guys to comment on what drives women. There are golddiggers- they are full-time SPs. They are a small (but high-profile) cross-section of women. Most women just want to grow old with a best friend who they find sexually attractive. What constitutes the sexually attractive part varies...I usually end up dating relatively poor guys because I like 'em laid back. Some girls find power sexy, and like to be dominated. So they go for the type-A control freak types, who are usually either rich, abusive, or both. Hence the stereotype of 'bad boys'. You get what you put out. If all you meet are bitches, that's probably all you deserve.

respectfully disagree: i have been the quintessential 'nice guy' and have had lots of women cry-on-my-shoulder when my 'bad boy' friends dump them ... have had lots of 'transition' girl-friends coming out of one bad relationship into another but with a stop-over to bitch'n'moan at me for a couple months until they are ready for the next bad-boy. and the thing is, as long as i was the 'nice guy' i got a lot of shit from women angry at men but who wouldn't voice that anger at the guy who hurt them because they were all hoping that the bad-boy would one day realize his mistake and come crawling back. yeesh. and i just can't do the bad-boy routine at all ... so, its single or shit-on. and I don't doubt that there are some really, really, really nice women out there ... they're just in relationships with someone else.

No- that's being a 'nice guy'. Most guys who think they're nice guys are actually insecure whiny pussies. There's a big difference. Most guys that think they're nice guys aren't.

I gave 3 solid examples of 3 men who couldn't get laid without money, status or power - the simple SAD truth is women can be bought and purchased. Mick Jagger ugly as hell. Hugh Heffner old as hell. Brad Pitt broke as hell. I rest my case.