Last June, I had the huge privilege to speak at ideacity in Toronto. You can see that talk, along with dozens of other wonder speakers, on the ideacity website here.
Photo Credit: Gene Driskell
When you start a new relationship, do you care if your new love has slept with 1, 10, 100 people in the past? If the answer to that question is “yes”, then how about this: When deciding today whether or not to have a casual sexual relationship, do you weigh the benefits of that relationship against the costs in terms how it might affect any future, committed, relationships?
A few weeks ago I had the pleasure of presenting at the ideacity conference on my favorite topic – the economic markets for sex and love (that talk can be found here, if you are interested in hearing the whole spiel). During that presentation I shared my belief that access to the internet is, perhaps counter-intuitively, good for marriage; the benefits of being able to search for love on a significantly larger market outweighs the costs in terms of martial infidelity.
Can slut shaming be explained in an economic model? A recent article by Andrea Cassillo in The Ümlaut argues that it can; and I agree. The article raises many good points. But it seems to me that an economic explanation for slut-shaming that is entirely dependent on the assumption that women are, by nature, less sexual than men is (with all due respect) entirely the wrong way to approach the economic story.
Recently, it has become popular to apply basic understanding of supply and demand to the markets for sex and love but much of that analysis is just plain wrong. If you are interested in reading why, you should check out my latest article at Buzzfeed.
Right behind Christmas and Valentine’s Day, Mother’s Day is one of the biggest spending holidays in North America – a trend that is increasing over time. According surveys conducted by National Retail Federation (NRF), the amount consumers expect to spend on their mothers on the second weekend in May has increased from an average of $97.37 in 2003 to $152.52 in 2013; even after controlling for inflation, that is a 20% spending increase in just ten years.
No one was more surprised than I when my German publisher announced that the title of that version of my book would be Warum man weniger lernen sollte, um mehr Sex zu haben, which, translated into English, is the title of this post. Apparently, if you are German this title is amusing – as evidenced by the two little books doing it “doggy style” on the cover – but I have to admit that it is not a topic that I have ever explored, until today.
Someone, please tell me when @MargaretWente's last day is @globeandmail. I think we all need something to look forward to at this point.