The Orgasms of Faking Economics
I see that Steven Landsburg's latest "Everyday Economics" column is about "The Economics of Faking Orgasm."
Now, perhaps you are wondering, "How can someone meaningfully relate faking orgasm to economics?" I read the article, and I'm still wondering.
Consider the following passage from Landsburg's piece:
The obvious reason to fake is to please your partner. But what about a woman who doesn't particularly care about her partner? Might she still fake? Mialon concocts a scenario--though a contrived one--where the answer is yes. Suppose Adam is very insecure and always suspects Eve of faking. Suppose the one thing Eve really hates is having a partner who's always wrong. Then since Adam always thinks she's faking, she has to fake to make him right. Eve's fakery reinforces Adam's skepticism and Adam's skepticism reinforces Eve's fakery, so we have what economists call equilibrium.On the other hand, the equilibrium only holds up if Adam has a good reason to be insecure in the first place�
I can see how we, as economists, can say with confidence that a woman fakes orgasm because she prefers doing so to other alternatives. And if she and her partner are voluntarily engaged in sexual activity, we can see how this achieves a temporary "equilibrium" between them, for as long as they are engaged in that particular act.
But what on earth does that have to do with what Landsburg is telling us? Apparently, sometimes a woman might have weird psychological motivations, such as those he describes, for faking it. But, unless we're psychologists, sexologists, or her partner, so what?
Same for Adam. Who cares if he has a "good reason" to be insecure? If he's there, and accepting her faking, we have "equilibrium" inasmuch as we can ever have it. From the perspective of an economist, what more is there to say?
Of course this sort of mixing of psychology with the language of economics is typical, especially now that so-called "behavioral economics" has come into vogue. Mainstream economists and legal scholars like the University of Chicago's Cass Sunstein love this sort of thing, because it gives them an excuse to second guess the market at every turn, and impose the more "rational" choices of government planners where people are supposedly acting "irrationally."
Mises, of course, understood that economics and psychology were related, because all human action has psychological motivations. But the particular motivations (e.g., What "Eve really hates is having a partner who's always wrong") aren't of interest to the economist.
"[Praxeology's] scope is human action as such," Mises wrote in Human Action, "irrespective of all environmental, accidental, and individual circumstances of the concrete acts. Its cognition is purely formal and general without reference to the material content and the particular features of the actual case." As far as the economist is concerned, "Human action is necessarily rational."
Silly exercises like Landsburg's are, I suppose, more benign than those of the "behavioral economists" who would like the opportunity to overrule our "irrational," freely chosen decisions. Inasmuch as a piece like his on orgasms is a reductio ad absurdum of the mixing of economics and psychology, perhaps it will discredit this practice in the eyes of casual readers who can see its ridiculousness and uselessness.
Comments (6)
The solution is obvious. The government needs to step in and criminalize fake orgasms. This is obviously a case of a market failure.
Furthermore, because faking orgasms produces a negative externality, lesser instances of faked orgasms must be taxed.
Finally, oral sex should also be taxed at a progressive rate depending on one's "sexual wealth"; e.g., for every 10 instances of oral sex, The State (e.g., Bill Clinton) must obtain one instance as a tax.
Published: March 25, 2004 10:34 AM
So let's see. If you claim on your 1040 that you only had economy (what David said), in other words if you claim that you didn't, well, you know, would the IRS then have to produce a dress with a "you know what" to prove that you did in fact, well, you know, so as to tax you at the higher rate?
Perhaps you could just make out the appropriate 1099 form whenever you, well, you know...
Published: March 25, 2004 12:27 PM
"But what about a woman who doesn't particularly care about her partner? Might she still fake?"
Yes, if it is uncomfortable or if she is incredibly bored with his performance.
What is wrong with some people that I can answer in 11 words what it takes them 2 paragraphs of navel gazing to not even get close to?
Published: March 25, 2004 1:17 PM
I read the paper the Texas undergrad wrote a couple months ago, when it was posted by Tyler Cowen on www.marginalrevolution.com . Its not too bad. Its part of this student's "3 papers" option some PhD students take as opposed to one thesis.
Not that Landsburg hasn't written anything for Slate since he posted two articles on the theory that parents tend to divorce less if they have a son, as opposed to a daughter. Wonder if he got burned by that one back in October.
--Aaron
Published: March 26, 2004 12:39 AM
That story originates at MSN, why am i not surprised? Sex is a tool to sell advertising. Perhaps the folks at MSN could care less about the feable connection of economics to this persons research, as long as it had a word like "orgasm" to draw in the 'click' of your mouse. Look at what is happening to television ratings. They are tumbling. This gives rise to shock boobs at Superbowl. Shock 911 same effect, a false flag to sell 'terrorism'.
Mises better get used to this: The growth in internet discussions regarding efficient use of wealth, and sex drive (or fear of its lack) is like bees(advertisers) to honey(your money).
Published: March 27, 2004 6:52 PM
To assure myself that there is no logical flow to Landsburg's article, I focused on this statement: "Mialon's key point is that you can't analyze the Fifth Amendment without considering the fact that defendants sometimes lie." This statement is, in itself, a lie. Take a quick look at the abstract and conclusion of Mialon’s paper. Nothing about a defendant lying, right? Now try slogging your way through the body.
Done yet?
You got it. Not only is Landsburg’s “key point� not a key point; it’s not even a thought raised in the Mialon paper. In no place does “Fifth� engage in a game-theory discussion of the deception factor in trials. Rather, in Mialon’s model, the defendant and lawyer always tell the truth -- “in the U.S.,� Mialon writes, “lawyers are disbarred if they are found to have presented false evidence or to have knowingly allowed their clients to commit perjury.� (I’d point out the logical flaw and total lack of common sense here, but Mialon’s not the one on trial.)
It’s understandable that Landsburg would look for, and try to explain, a common theme running through Mialon’s work. But the “link� he attempts to establish -- the orgasm paper is (in part) about deciding when it’s worth lying to your partner; ergo, the Fifth paper must be (in part) about deciding when it’s worth lying to a jury – is shallow and obviously wrong. Why did he bother to fake it?
Published: July 9, 2004 4:24 PM