Since time immemorial and all over the world, men have wanted more sex than they could get for free. So what inevitably emerges is a supply of women who, for the right price, are willing to satisfy this demand.
– Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner
I first heard of Freakonomics and its sequel several years ago, but because my stack of reading material is always much too high I never took the time to pick up a copy of either. My interest began to ramp up two years ago when Satoshi Kanazawa mentioned SuperFreakonomics in the column which served to introduce us when I replied to it; his follow-up column which discussed our correspondence sent an absolutely tremendous amount of traffic my way (I still get hits from it every week), so I became much more interested in the books and would probably have eventually bought them myself had Ted not sent them to me the following November. Being a stickler for doing things the right way, I read Freakonomics first and reviewed it one year ago today; the fact that it has taken me this long to get around to reviewing the sequel is due in part to my reading many other books in the interim, in part to not having nearly as much time to read as I might like, and in part to my just finally catching up from the holiday backlog.
The books were written by economist Steven D. Levitt (of the University of Chicago) and journalist Stephen J. Dubner (formerly of The New York Times); Levitt is interested in economics in its larger sense, the study of how human beings react to incentives, and Dubner makes Levitt’s investigations interesting to read. As in the first book, they covered a number of subjects: the chapters are entitled, “How is a Street Prostitute Like a Department-Store Santa?”, “Why Should Suicide Bombers Buy Life Insurance?”, “Unbelievable Stories About Apathy and Altruism”, “The Fix is In – and It’s Cheap and Simple”, and “What Do Al Gore and Mount Pinatubo Have in Common?” There is also an epilogue named “Monkeys are People Too”, which I’ve already discussed in a previous column. And though chapters two through five are fascinating, enlightening and well worth the time of anyone who’s interested in psychology, sociology, criminology and/or global warming, the first chapter provides so much material that I’m going to dedicate the rest of this column to it.
For some reason I’ve never been able to adequately fathom, economists tend to be remarkably stupid about prostitution, often abandoning skepticism and proper data-gathering to embrace ludicrous claims they would never accept about any other economic activity. Furthermore, virtually all books written about prostitution by sympathetic outsiders have a mixture of correct and incorrect information, and this one is no exception; however, I’m pleased to say that they got more right than they did wrong, and that none of the errors are due to buying into moronic prohibitionist myths. In fact, the chapter serves as a thorough refutation of the most damaging and pervasive sex work myth of our times: the notion that most whores are (or ever have been) coerced. Though the book was published in 2009 the words “sex trafficking” do not appear anywhere in it, and prohibitionist laws are correctly framed as a product of the social purity era: “The white slavery problem turned out to be a wild exaggeration. The reality was perhaps scarier: rather than being forced into prostitution, women were choosing it for themselves.” They demonstrate that about 2% of American women in the 1910s were prostitutes (already considerably lower than the 19th century average of 5.5%) and that the average Chicago whore of the period made almost twelve times as much as a factory worker. Furthermore, they clearly understand a principle I’ve pointed out before: the reason there are far fewer whores now, and the reason we make relatively less than we used to, is that so many women are giving it away now that the market simply won’t bear the prices and volume it used to a century ago.
Unlike his more credulous colleagues, Levitt recognizes harlotry as an economic activity like any other, governed by the same laws and responding to the same pressures. In order to demonstrate this, he and Dubner look at two types of sex worker: opportunistic (and sometimes seasonal) street workers on Chicago’s south side, and a high-end escort named Allie in a different part of the same city. But while the information on escorting is sound because it was provided by Allie herself (who contacted Levitt upon hearing he was interested in writing about the subject), the information about streetwalkers was collected by a man I’ve written about before: Sudhir Venkatesh, the Columbia sociologist known for his incredible credulity, his sloppy scholarship and his ethics violations. Some of the conclusions the authors draw from Venkatesh’s data seem reasonable, such as the claim that many streetwalkers prefer to work with pimps because they bring in better clients (resulting in higher income even after the pimp’s 25% cut). Others seem highly doubtful, such as the declaration that going without a condom only costs $2 more on average; in New York, he claimed it was typically 25% more (and as I pointed out then it’s difficult to fix a “usual” price on desperation). But since there’s absolutely no way to tell the good data from the bad, nor to determine whether Venkatesh’s numbers are merely distorted or outright lies on his part (or that of the women he surveyed), this section of the chapter is absolutely worthless, and that includes the credible and highly-publicized “finding” that 3% of all tricks were freebies given to cops to avoid arrest.
The Venkatesh streetwalker study is definitely the weakest part of the book, though as I stated above it’s impossible to tell how wrong his numbers are. My only other quibble is a minor but important one; it represents a flaw in Dubner’s thinking which is common even among sex workers, but which must be dispelled if there’s ever to be any progress. Though Allie recognizes that she is no less a whore than any streetwalker, Dubner writes “she has less in common with that kind of woman than she does with a trophy wife…she isn’t really selling sex, or at least not sex alone…” The error, of course, is that sex is purely a physical activity; Allie is very much selling sex, she’s just selling a richer sexual and sensual experience than the streetwalker is. We wouldn’t claim that a dinner theater was fundamentally different from a hot-dog stand merely because the food is better and it comes with a lot of extras; the trophy wife is a whore as well, and though it’s true that a high-end escort is closer to her than to the streetwalker, it doesn’t change the fact that all of them are whores, and that no bright, clear line can be drawn at any point on that spectrum.
I haven’t had a chance to read either of the books in this series. I have read the 2007 research paper on Chicago street workers by Levitt and Venkatesh, which I believe informs their chapter; it seems generally well done, but I’m weary of citing it myself after last year’s credibility issues arose.
Please read both books as they are well done despite an flaws they may have, and come closer to the truth than too much other literature.
Maggie, what do you think of Ezra Klein’s absolute skewering of Super Freakonomics?
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/10/the_shoddy_statistics_of_super.html
LMAO! I would like to punch Ezra Klein in the nose for a lot of other things he’s written and done … but his “review” made me laugh out loud!!
Well, it IS safer to drive home drunk than walk home drunk (if it’s far enough you’d drive, anyway), but that says rather more about the latter than the former. Is anyone reading this book going to be confused by this to the extent that they get themselves killed over it?
And the comments are interesting, too.
This is long, but I believe useful. I think another problem may be is that Americans these days have a greater tendency than in the past to get too involved in other people’s sex lives when they should not get involved in other people’s sex lives especially if they are customer men of prostitutes and the prostitutes themselves; and the laws plus social norms along with the enforcement of these reflect this tendency. Who wants a permanent record chasing him(her) the rest of his(her) life? No one does. Just think about it. You could theoretically commit a felony such as homicide(e.g. murder, manslaughter) or theft and after 10 years from the conviction and/or end of punishment, almost no one has a right to ask you about your prior life, arrests and convictions. However, if you are a sex offender then you chased for the rest of your life and must administratively register every place you live and work. You are barred from living too close to certain places. This happens even if you were consenting adults being a john or whore. Prostitution with consenting adults is a vice and not a true crime such as homicide, assault, battery, sexual assault, rape, theft etc. because in true crime someone gets harmed or threatened to be harmed whereas in vice legislatively made into crime no one is harmed. A man is also more ridiculed and reviled here in the USA in the present day for being a customer to prostitutes than in many other countries and it’s worse to be a whore here than in other countries too.
When I lived n South Korea for most of the decade between 1996 and 2006, prostitution was much more open and widely available than in the USA as well as a hell of a lot easier to find. A higher percentage of women acted like they were virgins and potential wife plus mother material (either it was the real deal or they were better at faking it) in 1996 than in 2006. Prostitution under the pressure from the U.S. government on the South Korean government was more persecuted by the South Korean government in 2006 than in 1996. It seems prostitution is a necessary moral evil which must be allowed under Christian morality as postulated under Saint Augustine of Hippo and Saint Thomas Aquinas under the concept of HARM REDUCTION(allowing an evil in order to allow a greater good) for example as they knew many men would attempt to seduce anyone including women they shouldn’t such as other men’s wives without prostitution e.g. the Ashley Madison website. How is it ok to seduce another man’s wife for sex and not legally restricted, but prostitution is strictly forbidden? It seems we Americans(not me personally on this one) have a deeply perverse sense of morality. Shouldn’t adultry be more forbidden and punished than prostitution as I truly believe it should socially(not necessarily legally)? Both of these saintly men thought lust would overthrow society without prostitution. In my opinion, to a large extant, it has. A higher percentage of men in the USA these days are trying to seduce(GAME) women for sex and then move on to the next woman without exchanging wealth or any kind of commitment for short term such as prostitution or long term such as marriage. There is a an exploding set of literature etc. for teaching men how to GAME women. An increasing percentage of men(and women) aren’t married and don’t want to be. Actually, the percentage of men who never married and don’t want to marry has risen above women for many reasons such as the divorce “rape” industry against men etc. You may consider that the GAME industry of literature, videos etc. is snake oil or the greatest set of literature ever, but it has exploded over the past two decades especially over the past decade as men search for a way to seduce women for sex. The reason for this is prostitution is socially and legally cut off from them to an alarming degree and marriage is a bad bet in the USA. This GAME industry would not exist nearly as much as it does if there wasn’t misandry(hatred or bigotry against men) for example the divorce laws and enforcement against men, the increasing promiscuity of most women, the increasing perception that many if not most American women aren’t worthy to be anyone’s wife or mother, and also let us also not forget PROSTITUTION PROHIBITION. My opinion is that few women can psychologically handle being promiscuous sluts or prostitutes and be mentally healthy enough to not harm themselves or others around them such as their husbands, children, friends, other family members etc. Consider that many but not all of the men who try to GAME women are often trying to invest as little as possible in women, get sex and discard them. Actually, in my opinion an increasing percentage of men have been trying to do this even before the GAME literatures, videos etc. came out. I don’t think this bodes well for women in the future. It doesn’t for men either, but men have been suffering more and more for the past 50 years, and soon enough women will catch up in the suffering and probably suffer more. Ladies, it’s not a good thing when men don’t want to provide or protect you especially if they only want to use you for sex and discard you by being a PLAYER. An increasing percentage of men want to be PLAYERS in my opinion. If you need proof, then why all the GAME literature etc. in which little of it is focused on getting and maintaining a long term relationship such as a marriage and most of it is focused on PUMP and DUMP relationships. GAME is nothing more than a response to NEO-FEMINISM, and it has been long delayed due to out-dated chivalrous norms as well as the main stream media propaganda etc., but the internet is starting to do away with all that.
I wonder what the percentage of women are prostitutes in other countries where it is legal or de facto tolerated if not legal and how much of are percentage of men are customers of prostitutes as well as the frequency with which they visit prostitutes. I also wonder how promiscuity or lack thereof among women of these different countries affect prostitution. There’s percentage of men who visit prostitutes, the frequency with which these men visit, the price of sexual acts regarding prostitution, the number of prostitutes as well as how much prostitutes get paid among other things to consider. Maybe there will be another book like “Superfreakanomics” to explain this. I hope you found the above insightful as I believe it is.
I really don’t think you need to worry about the long term wrt men and women.
I just finished reading an article on the Cyprus bailout and … the Eurozone Chief is now essentially saying this …
Not a direct quote – that’s a news headline but it’s really exactly what he said only in more politically correct terms.
The Eurozone “Chief” is too damn stupid to realize that he just cut his own damned throat – and the throat of the Eurozone. If a depositor can’t have confidence and faith in his banking institutions – then he’s better off pulling his money out and taking it home so he can “play” with it.
This is the beginning of the end … where it ends, is with complete incapacitation for governments to do anything for anyone without actual force.
And the same socio-economic dynamics that have drawn men to women (and vice versa) since the dawn of mankind will once again be visited upon us. When that happens – you will see people removing their faith from government and putting it into each other again.
I agree with you. Your posts are becoming better, and most of them were always good. It will self correct, but how much pain will be involved and how long in time it will take to do so is the only question which needs to be answered. We’ll see who what, where, why, how and when this all plays out.
I’ve always had a problem with the “study” sample size.
Go to http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm and play with the numbers a bit. It doesn’t take much to get a good sample size with a 95% confidence level and a 5% confidence interval.
If the sample is unbiased random… That’s the hard part.
True… that’s why you got the “Dewey Defeats Truman” photograph.
Coincidentally, “Mrs Toffee” has just returned my copy of Bonk by Mary Roach, which she’s been very slowly reading for the past year. It’s described as containing “everything about the science of sex but were too afraid to ask”. It’s really very entertaining, and if you haven’t read it, it’s very worth while — if only for the description of Ms Roach and her long-suffering husband having sex in the MRI scanner, when he’s told “you may now ejaculate”.
http://www.amazon.com/Bonk-Curious-Coupling-Science-Sex/dp/0393334791/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1364318083&sr=1-1&keywords=bonk
From St. Martin’s Press…
“Of course you don’t have enough bookshelf space. No one has enough bookshelf space. If you have enough bookshelf space, you’re probably not worth talking to.”
I suspect the prostitute data has a bit of selection bias… they might not be aware of the “classes” of prostitutes.
OT: Here’s an article “What Kind of Men Go to Prostitutes” I just found on Yahoo:
http://news.yahoo.com/kind-men-prostitutes-170308448.html
I kind of thought that was a pretty honest article. I’ve never really thought that MOST men pay (overtly) for sex. I don’t think any of my three brothers ever have … but they weren’t in the military either (as I was). I believe that most men are scared shitless of paying for sex because they hear all the horrible things that will happen to them (like incurable STD’s) if they do.
I suspect that the conclusion summarized in the last sentence of the article’s abstract is noteworthy, even if the research likely suffers from some significant methodological limitations which probably led the authors to underestimate the real numbers of men partaking. The authors state that:
“There is no evidence of a peculiar quality that differentiates customers in general from men who have not paid for sex.”
There are many problems with the way the study was conducted however, that probably led them to underestimate to number of participants. I would be interested to hear Maggie’s take on this study.
Yeah, Christine sent me that earlier. But unfortunately, it’s a case of “Garbage In, Garbage Out”; the assumption that only 15% of men have ever paid for sex is patent nonsense based in negative social attitudes about paying for sex. About 20% of men pay for it occasionally, and the fraction who’ve done it at least once is far higher. Researchers who buy that are just not crunching the numbers; 15% doing it only once in a blue moon wouldn’t support the income of 450,000 women. Do the math yourself and you’ll see what I mean.
Here’s some really back-of-the-napkin figuring, but it’s enough to demonstrate: The average whore sees 10-20 clients a week. For simplicity let’s call that 10. There are about 450,000 of us in the US, which means 4.5 million transactions per week. That’s 3% of the men in the country EVERY WEEK. So either you believe that those 15% are seeing gals once per month on average, and NO OTHER MAN sees any, or you have to admit that 15% is far too low. I think it’s obvious which one is true.
I almost can’t believe you ever had sex with clients – you’re simply too fascinating. I think it’s safe to say you were blessed in the looks department, you no doubt were in teh brains department – your husband is a lucky guy.
Well, I must admit that I sometimes had to remind them the clock was ticking and we really needed to get to bed if we were going to at all. 😉
I hit Send too soon but the point you made about all of them being whores is just so spot on. Go to any popular nightclub or happy hour, and in the first case, just about every guy there is paying for sex (a pedant might say “pay for the opportunity to have sex” and paying a premium to have the odd’s stacked in your favor) – the only ones that aren’t are the guys who didn’t want to go and are just their for their buddies/designated drivers. Princess Diana for instance, gets all this love and admiration whereas street walkers get the scorn of many of the same folks – but she wasn’t banging Prince Charles or Dodi b/c of their senses of humor and great personalities. Dodi might have had some game and been able to score without having a rich dad, but Princess Di wasn’t going around with any broke guys. A dweeb/douchebag with a lot of money is still just a dweeb, but he’s going to have much better prospects than the same dweeb that’s broke. I guess technically speaking there’s probably more single rich guys (with absolutely no game at all) than there are broke guys with charm/looks who are single but there’s no doubt a lot of guys only have the wives/girlfriends they do b/c of their bank accounts. There’s a term (gold-digger) for girls who date/marry only b/c of money, there’s no equivalent for girls who only date attractive/charming broke guys.
Maggie McNeill
Before I forget to say this, you had a great book review. I read the book a long time back, maybe 3 years ago or so. I had forgotten a lot. But your review reminded me of it’s strengths and weaknesses. Overall, it’s a good book especially about prostitution, but like the National Geographic Channel’s program “Taboo” episode about prostitution, there was at least some token support of the official party line against prostitution and maybe more than that.
Dear Ms McNeill:
First, congratulations on your recent aviation journey. It shows terrific courage, but I hope you’ll manage to use other transport in the future.
Secondly, I’ve been on a few university campuses, but I’ve yet to see a row of Bentleys and Rolls parked behind the economics faculty. Does their study of economics really lead to higher earnings than other “professionals”? I get the overwhelming impression that until the last fifteen years or so many of the economists’ assumptions and premises were based on faulty understanding of people’s actual spending and choices. An example would be the notion that the consumer has the time and tools to make truly valid comparisons among a multitude of products and services. It’s as if these guys have never seen an automobile commercial on TV (all image, no stats) or tried to find from a salesman the true cost of a new car.
The study of their “discipline” seems to degrade their ability to see and hear what’s really going on around them. They seem to despise history and seem to have no idea that this “quantitative easing” gag, as an example, has been tried in various guises many times before, seldom with happy results.
There are very rich people who need economics professors to say their immoral behavior is good for the economy.
Every market finds its price. And you can see it parked out back.
As if!
No, really, that’s the official position. When it’s pointed out to economists that most people don’t have the math skills to do the things economists say that people are doing, the economists answer that people behave “as if” they had such skills.
This is just one reason I take anything coming from an economist with a fairly large ration of salt.
I dunno. I think I would say there is a fundamental difference between a hot dog stand and a dinner theater. I mean, there’s a fundamental difference between a movie theater and a television, right?
They are both places at which to buy food; everything else is extras.
Isn’t Levitt the guy who isn’t good at math? Considering that economists who ARE good at math can’t even agree on the economy, why should I take this guy’s word on everything else? I’m sure that Dubner is an engaging writer, but an engaging writer can make all sorts of things look reasonable (just ask Dan Brown).
[…] is an apparent “hit” with many in the Manosphere, and since its author just so happens to have reviewed SuperFreakonomics herself, I have decided to contact Ms. Maggie McNeill, who runs the blog The Honest Courtesan, and have […]