Sex at Least 4 Times a Week

The next time you consider using the headache excuse to avoid getting busy, think about this: It pays to have more sex. Literally, new research finds.

People who have sex four times or more a week earn higher wages than their less-sexually active colleagues at a statistically significant level, according to a discussion paper from Nick Drydakis, a fellow at the Institute for the Study of Labor, a private, independent organization focused on labor market research.

No wonder I’m fucking wealthy.

Erry body better get busy. Gotta help the economy right

No wonder I am broke…

Why?

Is it because people who are stressed out over their careers and finances are less likely to be in the mood?

Is it because people with lower wage jobs need to work more to make ends meet, thus leaving them with little energy or opportunity to sleep around?

Is it because money is the ultimate aphrodisiac on the dating scene?

Was the sample a bunch of prostitutes?

For prostitutes, I can see how this would be true. Mo’ clients, mo’ money. Duh.

How much higher wages? At a certain point you are rich enough not to work. And when my wife and I are not working and in the same location…

A more accurate conclusion would be people who earn more money have more time for vacation and leisure, therefore they can have more sex.

[quote]nebil12 wrote:
A more accurate conclusion would be people who earn more money have more time for vacation and leisure, therefore they can have more sex.
[/quote]

Not all ppl that have money work less…just saying.

Loled at the prostitues. Very true

People with higher energy levels would also be likely to both work more aggressively and pursue sex more aggressively.

Also, isn’t marriage correlated with both more sex and higher wages?

[quote]theBeth wrote:
For prostitutes, I can see how this would be true. Mo’ clients, mo’ money. Duh.[/quote]

I need a strong no nonsense pimp. In return I will give you 35%. You could clear $70 easily in a month.

4x/week is not enough.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[quote]anonym wrote:
Why?

Is it because people who are stressed out over their careers and finances are less likely to be in the mood?

Is it because people with lower wage jobs need to work more to make ends meet, thus leaving them with little energy or opportunity to sleep around?

Is it because money is the ultimate aphrodisiac on the dating scene?

Was the sample a bunch of prostitutes?[/quote]

I think it’s because people who are good at prioritizing prioritize sex over nonproductive things like TV and they prioritize things professionally that lead to higher income. Basically they are smarter people who know how to prioritize the important things in life.

[quote]nebil12 wrote:
The next time you consider using the headache excuse to avoid getting busy, think about this: It pays to have more sex. Literally, new research finds.

People who have sex four times or more a week earn higher wages than their less-sexually active colleagues at a statistically significant level, according to a discussion paper from Nick Drydakis, a fellow at the Institute for the Study of Labor, a private, independent organization focused on labor market research.

[/quote]

lol muffingtonpost.

Women fake headaches with their men for one reason.

They dont want sex with them anymore. If a new man comes along all of a sudden she will be interested again.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]StevenF wrote:
4x/week is not enough. [/quote]

Not even close.[/quote]

/\ this. x3

Can someone with a stats background please explain the problem with this study (correlation v causation)? I’m having trouble articulating it but can’t this study be seen two ways? Maybe more money leads to more sex rather than more sex leading to more money?

I’m always confused by these correlation studies. I cant for the life of me understand what purpose they serve (other than helping men convince their wives that sex will help pay off the mortgage.)

[quote]setto222 wrote:
Can someone with a stats background please explain the problem with this study (correlation v causation)? I’m having trouble articulating it but can’t this study be seen two ways? Maybe more money leads to more sex rather than more sex leading to more money?

I’m always confused by these correlation studies. I cant for the life of me understand what purpose they serve (other than helping men convince their wives that sex will help pay off the mortgage.)[/quote]

They are useful in ruling out a hypothesis, or in directing future study to explore possible causation.