I think this would be a really interesting read, not just for marriages:
INTRODUCTION
Robert, a handsome thirty-eight-year-old San Francisco entrepreneur, wanted to have sex last night. It had been a tough couple of weeks: A major investor in his company had bailed out, his marketing director had left to joining a rival start-up, and this afternoon, the supplier of his secret Balinese ingredient threatened to double its cost estimate.
Joanne, Robert’s wife, was not even remotely in the mood to have sex. She was beat. She’d spent the day on conference calls with grouchy New York traders, missed lunch, nearly rear-ended an Escalade racing to pick up her kids from soccer practice, and still had a stack of overdue bills to pay. She wanted to watch 24 reruns, eat a few Mallomars, and go to bed.
Should Joanne have had sex with Robert?
Robert would say yes. She’s his wife for Pete’s sake – that’s what she signed up for. Is it too much to ask his own wife to agree to fornicate with him on occasion, especially when he’s totally strung out and the last time they did it was three weeks ago? Doesn’t she realize he has needs?
Joanne’s girlfriends, if asked, would tell her no way – she doesn’t have to put out every time Robert comes knocking. She’s not some concubine in his harem. She needs to set boundaries, listen to what her own libido is telling her. Doesn’t he realize she’s had a rough day too?
But there’s a third answer to the question: the economist’s answer. The economist would advise Joanne to strip away all the simmering resentments and scorekeeping, the questions about who’s more tired and who’s less horny, and keep things simple with a basic cost-benefit analysis: Would the marginal cost of having sex with Robert – 9 minutes of sleep, a third Mallomar – outweigh the benefits – an orgasm, a happy husband, a peaceful home?
Welcome to Spousonomics: the art of using economics to minimize conflict and maximize returns on life’s biggest investment: your marriage.
