right. In Blanchflower's sex --> happiness nexus, "sex" is a proxy for intimate social and emotional connection.
On 3/25/06, Doyle Saylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Greetings Economists, > On Mar 25, 2006, at 8:21 AM, Jim Devine wrote: > > > if the "social conservative" right gets its way, it would make > > "protection" illegal (especially after the fact), so that the second > > effect would be weakened. Thus, there would likely be a much stronger > > correlation between income, the frequency of sex, and the degree of > > happiness. > > What would be missing is the economics of what we choose to recognize > now as the marriage contract. Meaning a social connection. Women > tend to argue that emotional ties are what make marriages. That's a > way of saying the network structure is the main force in sex > relationships. Where sex is slam bang thank you ma'am then there is no > network structure. In that sense too, just being a commodity as sex > selling implies surely would have supplanted network structures if that > was all that mattered. > > The same could be said of having lunch together. People eat together > in families and use that as the network structure process, or one can > eat alone in a diner. In any case sex that is a monetary transaction > like eating in a diner is easily distinguished from a social network. > > Of course a social network is really emotion structure. If we confuse > the economic value of social networks versus providing sex for money we > can't really economically describe the value of emotion structure > production. It feels good to have sex, but then people have children > so sex is not just about the pleasure as anyone surely knows. (surely > gay relationships are not just about sex) > > The production of social ties while seeming like 'pleasure' in sex in > that we 'feel' the pleasure, emotion structure is really the production > of wholeness to social ties. In other words no matter what you are > always parent to children most parents would parrot. Which is just a > comment about wholeness not adoption meaning, a comment about making > social network structure not a mystification called 'parenthood'. > thanks, > Doyle Saylor > -- Jim Devine / "There can be no real individual freedom in the presence of economic insecurity." -- Chester Bowles
