tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post109847323486386769..comments2024-01-28T00:20:40.933-08:00Comments on Agoraphilia: Optimal Sex FrequencyUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-85248188190859271162011-07-13T12:36:58.729-07:002011-07-13T12:36:58.729-07:00Micro-economics is soooooooo hot.
I believe the a...Micro-economics is soooooooo hot.<br /><br />I believe the average optimal frequency that's been arrived at during clinical studies of the whole (mostly sexually starved American population) is like 1.5 time per week. But that is highly dependent on the individual and relates to serotonin levels versus dopamine levels trading off in various quantities and at varying speeds. A "crash" is likely an indication you're having sex too frequently or you have an underlying chemical imbalance that requires SSRIs to compensate for. If no sex for at least a week or (better yet) a month produces the same effect without SSRIs, then you probably need anti-depressants. Otherwise, sex frequency can be adjusted to compensate as needed. Like econ productivity and labor hiring for a firm, you really won't know until you've gone over. So if post-coital mood is still groov'n, you can try slightly more frequently if that’s possible. Other medications, exercise, and a variety of other health/wellness factors all seem to contribute. So this can be variable for the same person depending on time of day, season of the year, amount of (other) physical activity, diet, and on and on. If you want to dump/divorce someone right after sex when they weren't even "bad" (bad bad not baaaaad), then take a few days off from each other and see if you start the long'n again.Reticulihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12451030411629126268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-58200341709056207492008-02-25T08:46:00.000-08:002008-02-25T08:46:00.000-08:00The economy of sex? Clever, but sad. Here DMU is n...The economy of sex? Clever, but sad. Here DMU is not the measure of satisfaction but just the expression of a total lack of understanding what sex really is.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-12655347286549917822007-06-03T20:41:00.000-07:002007-06-03T20:41:00.000-07:00Key assumption sex formula is in base 2. On base ...Key assumption sex formula is in base 2. On base 3 derivative your conclusion is reverseAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-1138169100594488302006-01-24T22:05:00.000-08:002006-01-24T22:05:00.000-08:00"But DMU is often described loosely as the satisfa..."But DMU is often described loosely as the satisfaction attributable to the very last unit of quantity -- e.g., the satisfaction you get from eating your third slice of pizza."<BR/><BR/>Loosely and inaccurately. Your point about sex is the normal case of diminishing marginal utility, not something special.<BR/><BR/>Consider oranges. The marginal utility isn't the pleasure from eating an eighth orange this week. It's the difference between the pleasure of eating eight oranges a week and the pleasure of eating seven. If you think in terms of rates, it should be obvious that there is nothing special about the eighth orange--no reason why it should give you less utility than the seventh. But there is a reason why you get less pleasure per orange the more oranges a week you are eating.David Friedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06543763515095867595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-1123716930747421042005-08-10T16:35:00.000-07:002005-08-10T16:35:00.000-07:00My man has diabetes, so I never get satisfied.My man has diabetes, so I never get satisfied.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-1098595239929080642004-10-23T22:20:00.000-07:002004-10-23T22:20:00.000-07:00I don't think I need to assume perfectly identical...I don't think I need to assume perfectly identical acts of sex, any more than the standard consumption model needs to assume perfectly identical apples, slices of pizza, etc. There is some tolerance for difference even in a class treated as homogeneous for analytical purposes. But more importantly, among goods that are relatively close substitutes, having some of one good can diminish the marginal utility of a unit of another good. For instance, if I already have some butter, that reduces the added value I get from a unit of margarine. So even if sex acts may differ substantially, DMU or something like it will still hold as long as the sex acts are close enough substitutes for each other -- e.g., this position is a reasonable substitute for that position.<br /><br />It's true, of course, that costs I haven't mentioned (like condoms, clean-up, etc.) would tend to reduce the optimal frequency of sex, even for the person with increasing marginal utility. But what my analysis shows is that even if sex had none of these costs, it would still be optimal for a person with DMU to limit the frequency of sex.Glen Whitmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01425907466575991113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-1098570641819696962004-10-23T15:30:00.000-07:002004-10-23T15:30:00.000-07:00Of course, Glen is assuming ceterus paribus--every...Of course, Glen is assuming ceterus paribus--every sex act, from the level of arousal to the partner to the lighting to the position to the amount of time spent, is exactly the same. That makes sense because it most certainly gets less interesting. Even if you change positions during a single act or change locations or change partners, the marginal utility is probably decreasing (though decreasing at a lesser rate).<br /><br />But we don't live in that world and I doubt that Steve is having ceterus paribus sex. Each act of sex, therefore, should be considered a different good, unless you're one of the boring types that never change your sexual habits, in which case, there are stores for you. <br /><br />Most people, I think, face the situacion that Steve faces: increasing marginal utility. But Glen's solution that we (and I count myself among these people) should have as much sex as we can doesn't hold water. First, because we need a partner, we face genuine uncertainty. We can have bad sex (and yes, there is such a thing as that, even for guys). Or maybe it's just not as good as we'd like. And that doesn't include the costs--condoms, STD risks, pregancy risks, time and energy, etc. The last two are of particular importance; between the act itself, clean up, (hopefully) foreplay, listening to her talk after its over (kidding, I love that part) there's a lot else that could be done. And there's still risk of heart attack.<br /><br />What we CAN do is rank sex. We get little by ranking each hour of sex because we have to go through the first hour to get to the second, but we rank sexual states all the time. We prefer this position over that one, this person over that one, this number of people over that one, this surface over that one and so one. <br /><br />Getting all this information requires research. Because I'm assuming that people face increasing marginal utility and they have reasonably active imaginations about this (and we are good at guessing what we like), the more research you do, the better your ranking is. If you have sex in position A your whole life, then you can't include a ranking of your taste of position B. However, people who try lots of things will discover some mind blowing combination and put that on the top of their rank. So the poll I want to see answers which group has the longer list of rankings (and thus the more varied, and theoretically more satisfying, sex life).Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14364155797420903461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-1098496374507984172004-10-22T18:52:00.000-07:002004-10-22T18:52:00.000-07:00Heh. I love it. Now I'm a sexual corner solution...Heh. I love it. Now I'm a sexual corner solution. I think I've always known that about myself, now I have Science on my side. ;)Steven Horwitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00470758334242360804noreply@blogger.com