Jim Devine wrote: > > > >``What is the connection between income and frequency of sex? It is > zero for both men and women,'' the paper says. < > > as often in economics, there are two conflicting forces at work. The > richer one is, the easier it is to buy sex (directly or indirectly, > with the latter being exemplified by the "trophy wife"). On the other > hand, if both partners are poor, sex is a "natural," as they say, > because it has little monetary cost (if "protection" is used).
There's a poem by Robert Burns which (very roughly remembered) goes something like "What can a poor man do? Mou mou mou [fuck]." Carrol
