Will Wilkinson - Latest Comments in Rich in Love

Re: Rich in Love

Steve — Thu, 19 Aug 2004 23:37:15 -0000

Just a random comment, but I strongly suspect (without really caring enough to actually read *all* of the comments here, much less the original reference) that this debate confuses correlation with causation.

The classic example is that car theft statistics show a rise in correlation with ice cream sales statistics. Both statistics rise at the same time in the year - during the summer, when it's hot and people are out more. People being out more means more opportunities for car theft, and hot weather means that the simplest means of entering a locked car - bashing in a window - is less noticable (cops tend to look at you suspiciously if you're driving around in the winter with your window rolled all the way down to hide the fact that it's been bashed in).

People who have sex at least once a week are msot likely (except for outliers) in long-term, sexually active relationships. Of course they are likely to be happier. This is a correlation, not a causation.

Re: Rich in Love

Anon — Fri, 23 Jul 2004 20:16:03 -0000

yeah 973 times I agree. After 267 times she just doesn't get that look in her eyes anymore like she wants it - so the magic is gone!

Re: Rich in Love

Marnie — Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:13:51 -0000

Wow! I am so honored to be quoted-- I really am tickled. This is way better than being quoted in a newspaper or on tv AND I get to stay anonymous! Yay! and Thanks! Ok. Now I have to go back and finish reading your article.

Re: Rich in Love

Marie — Fri, 23 Jul 2004 09:51:49 -0000

Tom -- Send me a writing sample, and I'll let you know.

Re: Rich in Love

Tom — Fri, 23 Jul 2004 09:16:07 -0000

"How to rectify this? Well, we could just force people who like leisure to work and give the proceeds to the state, but that makes us sort of uncomfortable, as we're then caused to think a little too hard about what taxes really amount to."

Ah, here's a better solution, if you only force the 'leisure fans' to work more, then you don't maximize your value created per hour. Much better to require the leisure fans to, instead of work, provide the hard-workers with a few more of those weeklies..

So.. which one of you hippie gals likes tall, overworked men?

Re: Rich in Love

Attila Girl — Fri, 23 Jul 2004 06:02:15 -0000

No one here has discussed the basic inequality when it comes to men and women having sex: it's relatively simple to please a man, but pleasing a woman takes some thought and effort.

That is probably the primary reason women say "no" to so many opportunities for sex: the chances are low something will be in it for them.

It's not surprising that my interpretation of what was going on in that hammock was an inversion of what really was . . . (hint: I thought the graphic element being distorted was her nipple).

Re: Rich in Love

Marie — Fri, 23 Jul 2004 06:02:11 -0000

Will -- That'd be a good year, of course, but hardly unmanageable. It's actually quite a bit easier, IMO, than billing 2000 hours.

Re: Rich in Love

Luka Yovetich — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:28:46 -0000

One other thing. I'm going to guess that the closer one gets to having sex with the same person 973 times the more useful porn becomes to that relationship.

Just a guess.

Re: Rich in Love

Luka Yovetich — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:25:57 -0000

That's okay Marie. It's not that often that two Luca/Luka's post on the same English speaking site!

It's true. I have never even come close to having sex 973 times with the same person. (Haven't gotten a handle on the long-long-term relationships yet...)

But just so you know. It turns out that my porn comsumption doesn't go down too much when sex is happening in my life. A little. But not much...

Sex and porn can happily live together! What a wonderful world! :-)

Re: Rich in Love

Will Wilkinson — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 13:32:51 -0000

Marie, Isn't that, like, 486 times a year?

Re: Rich in Love

Marie — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 13:11:51 -0000

Oops! My mistake. Sorry Luka!

"All men like variety" is not at all the same, Will, as suggesting that the returns to sex fall to zero after any monogamous relationship's second year.

Re: Rich in Love

Will Wilkinson — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 13:03:22 -0000

Marie, You're confusing Luca for Luka. Luka professed to liking porn. Luca professes that all men like variety.

Re: Rich in Love

Marie — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 12:54:49 -0000

Luca - you shouldn't knock having sex with the same person 973 times until you've tried it. Based on your professed level of porn consumption, I suspect you haven't.

Re: Rich in Love

Luka Yovetich — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 11:29:45 -0000

For anyone that thinks Cherry is pretty and would like to see her having sex, look up the volumes of Ed Powers's Dirty Debutantes that she was in. She was in a bunch of them and she's very talented.

Re: Rich in Love

Luka Yovetich — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 11:26:00 -0000

Will,

I can explain how I know that that is Cherry Rain...I consume a lot of porn...

Re: Rich in Love

Luca Brasi — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 08:39:33 -0000

Why not make a lot of money and have a lot of sex. And then you can find yourself a new whore when you get tired of the first one. No man likes to screw the same woman 973 times. No man.

eros-dc.com

Re: Rich in Love

Will Wilkinson — Wed, 21 Jul 2004 21:44:44 -0000

Luka, You made me go back and look, and lo and behold, it IS Cherry Rain. Will you explain to me why you know so much about porn?

Gordon, I look nothing like that guy, other than being white, having dark hair, and being fully qualified to star in pornographic films.

I acquired the photo by searching google for sex + hammock. It's from review of the movie "Island Rain." The reviewer, "The Viking," asks

Who hasn’t dreamed of fucking under a waterfall or making love by the moonlight in a tropical bungalow. The sex scenes in this film had a romantic touch without losing the hardcore edge we all love in our porn. The scene I liked the most involved sex in a hammock. To all of you adventurers out there, you know how difficult sex in a hammock can be. That's why I have to give a hand to newcomer Cherry Rain, a small chested, red haired beauty, and Nikko Knight. The scene starts out with Cherry and Nikko laying side by side, Cherry leaning over and stuffing Nikko’s . . .

The review becomes rather more sordid, but is charmingly straightforward and earnest. Read the rest if you're in an adult entertainment-safe environment.

Re: Rich in Love

McClain — Wed, 21 Jul 2004 20:56:12 -0000

Don't gloat too loudly, dammit: those working stiffs'll get wise & then it's curtains for all us ne'er-do-well Huck Finn slacker parasites.

Re: Rich in Love

Anon — Wed, 21 Jul 2004 18:15:13 -0000

Bad joke but kind of relevant,

Q: Why do women watch pornos all the way to the end?

A: They keep hoping there will be a wedding.

Re: Rich in Love

Retief — Wed, 21 Jul 2004 15:50:30 -0000

And yes that lovely picture does look disturbingly like our intrepid blogger.

First he tells us blogging gets him laid, now he shows us.

Re: Rich in Love

Retief — Wed, 21 Jul 2004 15:48:18 -0000

"The point of the study is that other things being equal having more sex makes you happier (and makes you happier than having more money)."

Can other things ever be equal in a study like this one? They didn't take two largish random samples of people and force one to have sex once a week and the other to have sex once a month. Unless they did that, there is no way they can be certain that being happier doesn't get you more sex instead of the reverse, or that being happier and more frequent sex both arise from some other facor, like being on good terms with your significant other. So in this study, other things are not equal.

As for porn stars & prostitutes, aren't they having anti-sex, that is, going through the motions without enjoying it? Isn't that why somebody has to pay them to do it?

Re: Rich in Love

Luka Yovetich — Wed, 21 Jul 2004 14:18:01 -0000

Is that porn actress Cherry Rain in the picture? If it is, I'm so glad that one of my favorite blogs is using a porn pic to complement blog entry. If it isn't, I'm so glad that one of my favorite blogs is using a porn pic to complement blog entry.

Keep up the good work!

Re: Rich in Love

Rob — Wed, 21 Jul 2004 13:45:31 -0000

Hammock lovers: it isn't obvious the chick's giving the guy a left-hand shuffle.

The photo renders something a wee disturbing, as I was led to believe (at first glance) that it's depiction of our man Mr. Wilkison himself -- caught, uh, red-handed in salacious activity.

Re: Rich in Love

Will Wilkinson — Wed, 21 Jul 2004 12:39:19 -0000

Jo, I asssume it's just a warm-up.

Re: Rich in Love

Joanna — Wed, 21 Jul 2004 12:33:02 -0000

Will-
Meant to mention the picture and forgot--it is good. But it's not entirely relevant; regular hand jobs must only equal, like, $20K/yr tops.
Others-
Sure, the meaningfulness of a relationship contributes, but fucking in whatever context results in the biological benefits, right?