
Premarital sex: An economic model of its rise and de-stigmatisation - daniel-cussen
http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/4649
======
nazgulnarsil
sex being more freely available is negative for females hoping to trade their
sexuality for financial security. when supply increases and demand stays the
same price must decrease. in chaste victorian times a woman could expect to
"buy" herself a decent husband with her virginity. (I realize its more complex
than this)

~~~
noarchy
Status and money can still be very important for a man, in terms of getting
sex. It's just that these days, you're not necessarily buying marriage.

~~~
nazgulnarsil
which makes sense, because marriage was something of a guarantee in times when
divorce was extremely stigmatized. it isn't really anything of the sort now,
though I suppose there is alimony and child support.

~~~
dbz
You clearly aren't religious =p . In a very very large part of the world (a
large amount of non-first-world-countries [if not all]) divorce is _not_ ever
going to happen. Arranged marriages happen. If a woman is raped, she will have
to marry that man because religion may dictate it.

These views aren't worldly at all. We should keep that in mind.

------
daniel-cussen
> For example, 69% of all criminal cases in New Haven between 1710 and 1750
> were for premarital sex.

Once upon a time, making love to a woman meant spinning the pregnancy wheel.
In this metaphor, you get a 10% chance of a baby if you have sex with a maiden
fair (it can go as high as 1 in 3 if both parties are very fertile, i.e.
teenagers), times the 70% failure rate, times her chances of establishing you
were the father (depends on her status, your status, and if your looks are
distinctive; call it %50), times 50% because you are only giving it half of
its genes. So, overall, you are getting a ~1.75% increase in presence _just by
having sex._ You stood an equal chance of ruining her life, of course.

Right now we are probably going to see people like sex less and less as time
goes on, because the payout in pleasure does not match the new equation, which
takes abortions, contraceptives (but also DNA tests), into account. Now it
looks more like this:

\- odds she can become pregnant (10%)

\- odds she can prove you're the dad (0-100%, 0 if she's married and in on the
con, 100% if she has the means and determination for a DNA test. Depends on
the situation, but can be determined beforehand.)

\- odds the pregnancy fails or is prevented (70-100%, again depends on whether
protection is used, she is pro-life, or pro-choice, or whatever. Possible to
determine beforehand.)

\- genetic contribution (50%)

We get to 0-5%, but the main difference is that now a lot of factors can be
determined beforehand. An affair with a married woman gets you a %5 increase
in presence a time, topping out at 50% per child who, again, you won't be
responsible for. We're essentially talking free points here. On the other
hand, a college student you met at an abortion rally is probably not going
have that baby.

Over time, the first scenario is going to be more desirable than the second,
but this will become harder with time as married men demand DNA tests of their
children. Eventually, sex will become about cuddling and intimacy, rather than
the sufficient condition for reproduction for men.

~~~
theBobMcCormick
I'm not sure I'm following the tortured logic here. Are you saying people will
"like sex less and less as time goes on" because they're less likely to have
an unintentional pregnancy? That makes no sense at all!

It seems to me that the article linked to in the post makes a fairly
compelling economic case that sexual promiscuity will continue to _increase_
in the future. IMHO, that's a good thing. :-)

~~~
daniel-cussen
_Are you saying people will "like sex less and less as time goes on" because
they're less likely to have an unintentional pregnancy?_

Yes. It's the Red Queen effect here; your mind works with incentives that one
must not be able to permanently conquer. If happiness is too easily attained
with fake thrills, you end up with contented humans who don't reproduce as
much as the ones who find it harder to be happy and therefore work harder to
make more babies.

I agree the free love thing is great, and it will remain vestigially for a
long time, but it isn't going to be driving reproduction like it was before
the twentieth century.

I agree the logic is a little tortured, but that's evolutionary biology for
you.

~~~
Eliezer
But evolution doesn't know its being cheated. There has to be some way for
people who _like sex less_ to end up with _more children_.

~~~
orangecat
_There has to be some way for people who like sex less to end up with more
children._

It's somewhat plausible. Individuals and couples who like sex more than
average may be more likely to forgo having children to avoid negatively
impacting their sex lives.

------
johnl
Reliable female birth control started in the 60s so the green graph should be
normalize for that fact and you might get a better correlation.

------
zokier
The article seems to ignore completely steady couples that have chosen not to
get married for some reason, but still have babies.

~~~
petercooper
Related to that (and I can't believe Marie Claire is the best citation I can
quickly finding), the head of a British "relationship charity" claims: _"In a
new analysis using census data, I found that 60% of families remain intact
until their children are 15. Of these, 97% are married."_

Source: [http://www.marieclaire.co.uk/news/439351/marriage-holds-
the-...](http://www.marieclaire.co.uk/news/439351/marriage-holds-the-key-to-
keeping-families-together.html)

------
nazgulnarsil
Anyone else find figure 2 shocking? the basic conclusion seems to be that
availablity of somewhat effective contraceptives lulls people into a false
sense of security.

