Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2017 13:37:39 GMT -5
shamwow, Econ in college would not have been nearly as boring if you had been the professor.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2017 13:42:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by shamwow on Jul 21, 2017 14:03:09 GMT -5
I'm with you as far as wicked goes...
|
|
|
Post by shamwow on Jul 21, 2017 14:13:12 GMT -5
shamwow , Econ in college would not have been nearly as boring if you had been the professor. Oh, I haven't even gotten into sunk costs as it pertains to marriage. Or the concept of diminishing marginal utility in a marriage, or the shape and steepness of the sexual cost curve in a marriage. Don't even get me started on the opportunity costs of marriage. Of course, those are macro economics. Don't get me started on prostitution (kind of the opposite of monopoly). I'm a Libertarian politically, so I don't see anything wrong with a girl (or guy) earning a living that way if it's what they choose for themselves. I think my lectures would make it to maybe the second class before the dean pulled me out with the proverbial long hook from the side of the stage.
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Jul 22, 2017 12:28:03 GMT -5
I'm with you as far as wicked goes... I'll cop to that much, myself...
|
|
cavu
New Member
Posts: 16
|
Post by cavu on Jul 29, 2017 11:20:35 GMT -5
"It's easy to intuit the feeling of a loss of control as a supply/demand dynamic in which Partner 2 keeps the value of sex high for Partner 1, but I'd say it's more that the sex doesn't have an objective intrinsic value. The problem the couple faces - and they both face it - is that Partner 2 doesn't desire Partner 1 sexually. Whether or not Partner 2 enacts the sex that Partner 1 values, it doesn't change the value of that sex to Partner 2. It likely emphasizes Partner 2's aversion and disgust. It's simply not what Partner 2 wants to do with Partner 1."
Well said!!!
|
|