Law of Diminishing Orgasms

Nothing in marriage demonstrates the law of diminishing returns more than sex. Back when you were single and you weren’t getting any, you really wanted it–and so when you did get it, boy were you happy. You probably worked pretty hard to get it again the next night, didn’t you?

Then you met the love of your life. You had a honeymoon period, during which you had sex all the time.

Eventually, you got married and could (ostensibly) have it any time you wanted it. Yet you no longer wanted it quite so much. Sad.

This is what economists call the law of diminishing returns: the more you have of something, the less it’s worth to you. We call it the plague of diminishing orgasms.

Posted in sex

3 Responses to Law of Diminishing Orgasms

  1. st4rbux says:

    Perhaps you mean Diminishing Marginal Utility, if you value each additional orgasm less.

    Diminishing Marginal Returns would imply you get fewer orgasms (output) out of the same amount of sex (input); or that it requires more sex to get the same number of orgasms. And even that’s not true to the law, since there are multiple inputs to production (labor and capital) and “diminishing returns” applies if all other inputs remain the same; also it could be avoided if you increase both labor and capital (I’ll leave “capital improvements” in this scenario to your imagination).

    Unless the quality of sex is diminishing (which you didn’t propose), I think “lack of sex today because it’s available tomorrow” is a demonstration of Opportunity Cost.

    • Paula says:

      Hmm. You might be right here, though I do think returns could still apply if you talk about the quality of the orgasms vs. the quantity. But the way I present it, utility might be more appropriate.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>