Correlation obviously isn't causation. But any theories why this would be so?
"Nick Drydakis, a senior lecturer in economics at Anglia Ruskin University in Cambridge, England, found that those who have sex at least four times weekly made 5% more in wages than their counterparts who aren't as lucky.
On the other hand, those who don't have any sex at all earned 3% less than those who are sexually active."
Essentially, those having no sex make 8% less than those who have lots of sex. Not a lot of money in the big scheme of things, but I thought this was interesting. Thoughts?
In the beginning of the video it says: More sex= more money
and the only thing I can think is that it should be: more money=more sex
But, it kind of makes sense in a way to me, if you have sex you release a lot of your stress' and you are more able to deal with the bullshit monday's of your job lol. They also said that you are more confident which probably makes sense, more able to take risks like asking for a promotion and things like that.
Looking at it from the view of relationship counselling, I'd say it's definitely not average.
There was a large sex survey in Britain a few years ago (can't find it just now), and the average for younger married couples (I think under 30) was six times a month if I remember it correctly, and for couples over 45 twice a month.
I think the Durex study came to similar results, it was something like twice a week in longterm relationships of younger couples.
Above all, there's no "normal" anyway, and an average is just that (thank God, or I'd feel filthy )
I just skipped the video and looked at the study itself to avoid any confusion and misinterpretation of the study.
Their theory is that a lack of sex can lead to self esteem issues and feelings of loneliness, which in turn can affect work performance. That's not totally unreasonable I guess. But then I found this:
Sexual activity has the lowest positive impact on wage determination, but is still a statistically significant variable. The importance of the sexual activity variable can also be assessed by the fact that if we regress a single wage equation without the sexual activity variable, the R2 is 0.821, while if we consider the sexual activity variable, the R2 is 0.842
So what they are saying is that sexual activity explains the smallest part of the variability in wages of all the independent variables. To be precise, sexual activity explains 2,1% of the variation in wages, which is not very much.
So I guess we won't be seeing the "Sex Theory of Wage Determination" in our economics text books any time soon :tongue:
Looking at it from the view of relationship counselling, I'd say it's definitely not average.
There was a large sex survey in Britain a few years ago (can't find it just now), and the average for younger married couples (I think under 30) was six times a month if I remember it correctly, and for couples over 45 twice a month.
I think the Durex study came to similar results, it was something like twice a week in longterm relationships of younger couples.
Above all, there's no "normal" anyway, and an average is just that (thank God, or I'd feel filthy )
I don't know, every week there's a new study contradicting the one that came out last week. One week they say diet coke is bad for you, the other says it gives you cancer. I just don't trust these studies anymore.
The first study is small, brief and searches for a pattern at minimal expense. If they find a pattern, they search for grants for a much larger and better quality study. If that study is positive, they continue to find causation and not just correlation. The results may change because of the controls or faults. They may need to keep running the studies repeatedly until they have an accurate picture of the situation and proven or disporven whatever it is they were looking at. The studies aren't 'conflicting' so much as looking for answers.
Correlation obviously isn't causation. But any theories why this would be so?
"Nick Drydakis, a senior lecturer in economics at Anglia Ruskin University in Cambridge, England, found that those who have sex at least four times weekly made 5% more in wages than their counterparts who aren't as lucky.
On the other hand, those who don't have any sex at all earned 3% less than those who are sexually active."
Essentially, those having no sex make 8% less than those who have lots of sex. Not a lot of money in the big scheme of things, but I thought this was interesting. Thoughts?
I think you are seeing the combination of two different factors. Married people tend to make more money than unmarried people. And married people have more sex then the average person their age. The Barney Stinson/Charlier Hopper (Sheen) life style isn't as common or as successful as people think!
So, in that way, that way, all those studies tend to make sense together.
Mooty study. Don't buy it. What if you happen to be in one of these growing country like China? How exactly do you know how many times per day or per week that people have sex ?
Whyyyy does the silly study exists?
Waste of time !
In such countries, your wealth will be increasing regardless anyway just because your economy is growing.
Sometimes the academia researches on the most mundane things. Why not spend time on the value adding ones ?
I think it's because sex can improve someone's mood that dramatically that it could create a flux in how much someone earns, especially if their good outlook and behavior in general correlates together, then yes I could see why.
I'm inclined to agree, but there's also the problem that human trafficking and forced prostitution exists in the pornography industry, and even the film and fashion industry. In fact--I'm trying to remember the actresses name now--crime syndicates like 14K (Triad) and Brother's Circle (russian mafia) are notorious for using B-list actresses in China and Russia, give them a modicum of celebrity and pimp them out on the side. I think this is more a problem that stems from a lack of resources and probably incentive for law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute the people who peddle flesh.
I would hate to think that this is simply an ugly institution in the world that we have to deal with, but for every solution that comes up another problem is presented.
I made an effort to read the Drydakis study now (I struggled tbh and fell half asleep). Reeks of confirmation bias, even the falsification tests are a bit far-fetched in my opinion. Never mind.
If anything, I'd also say that the correlation is rather "more money - more sex" than "more sex - more money" - IF you relate "more money" to any of those: More confidence, higher assertiveness, higher happiness-levels. Some people do, many don't.
I just wonder what most people in my line of work would say. They usually earn feck all. Maybe they would implode (or explode) if they earned more money - could quite possibly lead to marathon shagging sessions 24/7.
Correlation obviously isn't causation. But any theories why this would be so?
"Nick Drydakis, a senior lecturer in economics at Anglia Ruskin University in Cambridge, England, found that those who have sex at least four times weekly made 5% more in wages than their counterparts who aren't as lucky.
On the other hand, those who don't have any sex at all earned 3% less than those who are sexually active."
Essentially, those having no sex make 8% less than those who have lots of sex. Not a lot of money in the big scheme of things, but I thought this was interesting. Thoughts?
As many have alluded, the causation is mostly the other way, ie the more money you make the more sex you have.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Personality Cafe
10.9M posts
165.7K members
Since 2008
A forum community dedicated to all ranges of personality types and people. Come join the discussion about health, behavior, care, testing, personality types, and more!