And I just wanted to say to you ladies, that you have remarkable insight into some of these oftentimes very misrepresented issues in the sex industry and after reading this I was both impressed and comforted. It is nice to know that there are other women outside of this type of work who are emotionally and intellectually evolved enough to understand so much and have the compassion (and humor) that you do. Thank you.

Trying to draw some solid line between prostitutes and other women is not entirely proper. Women who voluntarily consent to sex are gaining utility from the act (sexual pleasure, maybe strengthening a relationship that contributes to emotional or financial security, etc) just as prostitutes do, it just happens that prostitutes gets the most concrete form of utility (money). It isn't demeaning to women observe that they might be having sex because they feel it makes them better off.

Economics can certainly be accused of translating things into very sterile language, but that doesn't make it incorrect. I read Superfreakonomics and I think what this blog post does is a blatant misrepresentation of the chapter. The post is basically blaming an economic analysis for failing to be a sociological analysis.

I am very glad, though, they decided to write and market a second popular press book. One can only hope for the soul of this nation that the backlash against their particular style of horseshit will be sufficient to smear the reputation of that earlier book. Go back and read it, if you can, and consider the subtext of nearly every chapter. Much of it comes from a white libertarian perspective.... abortion is racist genocide perpetrated by Planned Parenthood (abortion leads to lower crime rates) black people undermine their own success (why name a kid Roshanda?) government is stupid (car seats kill people), rich people have smart kids (no need to read to them). All of this served up with a heaping helping of smirking fatuousness that would make most adults want to barf. I didn't just think the first book was not to my liking, it was a waste of a tree. A better use would have been toilet paper. But, hey, there is a huge market for watered down conservative smirk. Kudos to the dipshit twins for tapping it.

Trusting economists is every bit as stupid as all these big companies being run by the bean counters. Accountants should be moved back to the basement with the leaky pipes where they belong. Short term thinking makes for good quarterly profit today but total failure tomorrow. American companies need to plan and act for the long term.

I disagree. I'd say the "geniuses" who produced "Freakonomics" represent the very pinnacle of the "science" of economics. Which is why that "science" has been completely, utterly blindsided by the real-world events of the last few years.

"Who poses the greatest competition to a prostitute? Simple: any woman who is willing to have sex with a man for free."

Sorry Dubnerlevitt: Don't use the words "have sex" when what you really mean is "bring a guys cock to orgasm". Because that's what you're really talking about.

Let's see how the substitution works here:

"Certainly, prostitution isn’t for every woman. You have to like (bringing a guys cock to orgasm) enough, and be willing to make some sacrifices."

Because the original use of the word "sex" seems to imply that any woman who enjoys sexual intimacy with someone they know and love shouldn't have a problem pleasuring a strange man until they cum in exchange for cash.

Indeed, why doesn't Dubnerlevitt just suck cock for a living? What, do they just not like sex enough?

Great blog post and dialogue.