Saving Money Is Better Than Sex
Enterprising personal finance blogger J. Money analyzes a survey by two money-saving websites that finds most people would rather save $50 a week (57 percent) than drop down to the next lowest clothing size (31 percent) or have more sex (6 percent).
Money comments:
Wow. I wonder how often these pollsters were getting it to begin with? If you're already going at it 4 times a week, then yeah I'd be fine with 1 less jump in the bed for $50 each week. But If it meant going from 1-2 times a week to 1 or zero, then I'ma have to pass on that one. Money is great, but the female species is better. You wouldn't choose millions of dollars over the opposite sex on a deserted island would you?
The losing weight part I'm not as familiar with as I'm pretty damn skinny. I guess it's another variable that would be interesting to see among the respondents. If most were overweight I bet the answers would be more skewed.
The poll, by Allyou.com and Shortcuts.com, was far from scientific, surveying 5,250 females and only 627 males, and seemingly skewed toward people obsessed with saving money. So we'll conduct an totally scientific poll of our own in the comments: What would you rather do? Save $50 a week, have more sex or drop a clothing size? I gotta say I'd take the $50.
Saving Money Trumps Sex? [Budgets Are Sexy]
(Photo: Hesweptlime)
Post a comment
Comments:
Well, in theory, dropping a clothing size could result in the other two as one would be eating less and more attractive.
Yeah, not very accurate is right -- 8 females were asked for every 1 male? No wonder.
Though I have a problem with Money's comment that the "opposite sex on a deserted island" would somehow be better -- unless you're planning on forcing yourself upon this hypothetical woman, that situation would turn quickly sexless, too, regardless of how you look or act.
It depends if the having more sex is with other people or the person I'm currently with :)
Are they only surveying married people?
Well, seeing as #2 and #3 aren't happening recently or anytime soon, for that matter, sure, I'll take #1.
I would pretty much rather have sex than just about anything else in the universe.
It sounds more like people who aren't saving money very well are getting laid quite a bit already. Why would they need more?
Well considering I am single, and have not had sex in longer than I care to mention, then sure I am all about saving money as the finding a man dept is not going so well.
I think this means that people who spend $50 a week on sex are realizing they should save the money. No, wait . . .
Aren't Consumerist readers by definition interested in saving money?
I'd probably take the $50/week. $50 is $50, while not all sex is equal.
@sn1per:
It all depends on how you look at it, of course $50 today is worth more than $50 tomorrow, but the odds of me getting more action as I age?
Hmm...it is $1,300 for the whole year, but I'll take the chicks, er...my wife!
I also vote sex.
Can I spend the $50 on blackjack and hookers? In fact, forget the blackjack...
In a similar poll conducted by prostitutes, 100% of all those polled were willing to give up $50 in order to have sex one more time a week.
Kidding aside, you have to figure a poll conducted at a website whose visitors are predisposed toward wanting to save money will probably have data skewed toward that result.
I wouldn't trade the best sex in the world with my wife for any amount of money.
I'm content with the amount of sex that I get a week ... and with my body ... so I might take the $50. But, if I had to drop those two to get the extra $50, no way.
@pz: Nah, it's just a matter of how long it takes you to convince them that you are the only two surviving members of the human race, and it is your duty to repopulate the earth.
After several days without food and water it may be easy.
@sn1per: Considering any potential sexcapades in my near future will cost me about 150 bucks*, i have even more incentive to choose savings over sex. Now if I could get someone nice after a fancy date for 50 bucks... i would be up for it.
What would I rather do? Smack this Money writer upside his head. You have a "poll" and then mock what your readers tell you. That's good journalism for sure.
$50. Absolutely.
Personally I'd go for the extra hour, but since Consumerist didn't include that as an option I'd say $50. Yeah, it's $50 of your own money and I don't see any reason why you couldn't pick one of the other options and still find $50 to squirrel away on your own but I do like my size and as a 23yo female I can have sex however frequently I desire. $50 it is.
@MostlyHarmless: My vote is that Mrs.Guinevere is a Consumerist reader and someone is looking for brownie points.
@GuinevereRucker:
Kudos to you, though, for figuring out the secret to happiness. (Triple kudos and a "do you have a brother?" follow- up if that was actually genuine :oD)
For me, it depends on the week. Some weeks I get lots of sex and others I get it once or zero times.
It is a simple supply and demand concept. If the sex is plentiful then I want the $50. If not then I am more likely to sacrifice the $50 for the sex.
Lastly, I have the metabolism of a rabid squirrel so I could care less about the clothing size thing at least for the time being.
@tawni_now in olive oil flavor: Yeah, cause lemme tell you, its SO HARD to find a male willing to have a relationship with a woman. I feel so bad for you.
@TinkishDelight: You females have it waaay too easy.
Except for the high heels part.
And the diabolical clothing part
And having to rip your hair out
And the whole coloring your hair business
And the PMS part
And the periods
And the not having periods when you expect to
And the labor
And the menopause
And this: [thisisindexed.com]
And this: [xkcd.com]
Ya know, if I'm with a nympho whose father owns a liquor store, I don't think saving fifty bucks would ever cross my mind.
@MichaelBrazell: If you're not dead after several days with no water you're probably not in any shape to be having sex.
The one in the pic is a really small plate of it. Oh and as the article notes, its the Indian cultural equivalent of Pizza.
I love pizza, but I find enough of it here. Decent Pav Bhaji on the other hand is very difficult to find in US.
For $200 a week I could buy some bigger clothes. I dunno how much that $200 translates into in terms of carnal delights though.
But If it meant going from 1-2 times a week to 1 or zero...
That's not what they asked. They didn't say you had to give up some of one to get the other, they said which would you rather have more of instead of the other. You're not having less sex in order to get the 50 dollars, you're just not getting more sex.
The writer didn't assume that you'd also have to live on a 23 hour day and gain weight so I don't get why he thought he'd have to give up sex.
Like TinkishDelight, I'd rather have the extra hour if it were an option. I guess I'd pick the money because of the way the size option is worded. They didn't say "lose X lbs of fat" or "lose X inches". They said come down a dress size. Dress sizes in women's clothing are pretty much useless.
why can't i have all three... its not that hard really.
"thats what she said!" -Michael Scott
@Radi0logy: its not hard to find a guy, its about finding the guy that you want. I am not choosy, I'm single and loving it, more variety.
@Radi0logy: Well I'd imagine it's probably hard to find one up to reasonable standards. Y'know, not acting completely desperate, decent looking, and otherwise not a complete douchebag.
Now that I'm saying that, I wonder how the hell I ever managed to end up married.
When you consider they asked 1 male for every 8 women they polled, this makes perfect sense. Women can get sex from almost any male out there, its not as valuable as finding $50/week.
I want a pony.
One clothing size is not all that much. I'm a 12/14. A 10/12 is not that far away (and I fluctuate between the two depending on time of year (Holidays cough) anyway)), so yeah, $50 is.
But sex? Pffft. I've wasted much more money than $50 just to get laid (long distance relationships/booze/food/toys/condoms).
this is insane, and tells me a ton of people aren't having proper sex.
@LostAtoll: Or, looking on the bright side, that people are more sexually satisfied than you might think.
Right where I am now, I'd prefer to drop the clothing size. Having lost a few pounds, I'm right on the cusp between the plus sizes and the normal clothes. If I could fall securely into the normal range and be able to buy clothes in any shop as opposed to having to stick with the ones that have plus sizes, I'd probably save a lot of money and get more sex as well.
Sounds sort of leading. I mean, "more" implies more of the same, which may not sound that exciting. I doubt that if it were phrased as "anytime" or "anyone" that the saving would still win.
Wait, "next lowest" size or "next lower" size?
Well, I'm happy with my size, and when it comes to sex I think quality is more important than quantity. But if saving $50 a week means getting $50 less stuff, that doesn't sound too appealing either. Can I have none of the above?
Interesting because I just read a recently-published article saying that a full night of sleep is better than sex.
[www.aolhealth.com]
Jeeze, guess I have some bad news to share with my lady today.