...the economists compared the levels of happiness produced by a vigorous sex life with other activities whose economic values had been calculated in prior research, allowing them to impute, in dollars, how much happiness sex was worth. They also estimated that increasing the frequency of sexual intercourse from once a month to at least once a week provided as much happiness as putting $50,000 in the bank.
New York Times Week in Review: Sex May Be Happiness, But Wealth Isn't Sexiness
5 comments:
Wow, I never thought I'd see you put the word "economists" along side relationship satisfaction, being the attachment junkie that you are. :)
Economics is a social science. :-)
Agreed, although I don't think it meshes well with an attachment view of love, i.e. a cost-benefit etc. view of a relationship is no longer about a bond, but about what am I getting, and what am I giving...
I disagree with you that attachment & economics don't mesh. Attachment (in my opinion, of course) informs, to varying degrees, anything with emotional, survival, & inter-/intrapersonal content. I can think of few things that are more laden than the moolah.
Ah I love blog conversations. :) I didn't say they don't mesh, only that they don't mesh well. Economic theory for relationships is, imho, a very cold way to look at things. It makes me anxious, even. Hey! There you go--economics and attachment do mesh for me, because when I apply economic theory to adult attachment my ABS is totally activated.
Moolah can certainly be related to attachment. Almost anything can, in a relationship, I suppose.
Post a Comment