We thought that the phenomenon of economists ignoring pressing issues pertaining to the economy in order to study random shit like "happiness" and crap was relatively recent. Then a reader sent us a story from Slate on "The Economics of Faking Orgasm" that was so batshit we had to tell you about it three years late. It involves "game theory" — and crazy people.

The obvious reason to fake is to please your partner. But what about a woman who doesn't particularly care about her partner? Might she still fake? Mialon concocts a scenario—though a contrived one—where the answer is yes. Suppose Adam is very insecure and always suspects Eve of faking. Suppose the one thing Eve really hates is having a partner who's always wrong. Then since Adam always thinks she's faking, she has to fake to make him right. Eve's fakery reinforces Adam's skepticism and Adam's skepticism reinforces Eve's fakery, so we have what economists call equilibrium.

So what economists call "equilibrium" = a Sartre play?

Seriously, who exactly fakes it with a dude because nothing is a bigger bonerkiller than a man who is wrong about suspecting that you are faking it, and so would rather fake it, then kick the dude out of the bed and masturbate for awhile on the idea of how rightfully insecure he was about his fake inability to get her off, than get off for real and spend a few weeks rolling her eyes at his insecurities until, you know, over time, he got over them? Oh wait: I think I know: someone like Elisa Kwon.


The Economics Of Faking Orgasm [Slate]