Money Doesn't Buy Sex...No Really

Yeah you read that right, in a study by some...ahem...economists, specifically David Blanchflower of Dartmouth University and Andrew Oswald of Britain's Warwick University, they've found that, "Money, it seems, does not buy more sexual partners."

I bet that's news to all the prostitutes out there.

I find it funny when economists come up with "scientific" research, they often seem to forget to include the bloody obvious.

The researchers, who based the report on a survey of 16,000 Americans, said the effort was part of an "emerging branch of economics" aimed at determining "the empirical determinants of happiness."

Wow "empirical determinants" sorta like measuring happiness units. I wonder how many units you'd get for sex anyway?

But then you'd have to consider different kinds of sex right? I mean, what if your parnter is all rough and grabby and you don't like that kind of thing? I guess that would mean less units.

Or what if you're about to go all the way and you partner stops and asks if you love him/her...does that subtract happiness units? I guess it would, if the love ain't there, and you have to lie. But would the other person, getting a lie, but not knowing, get more happiness units? And would you get more happiness units for having lied, because then you get to go all the way, and get even more happiness units? Whew! Complicated.

Then again, according to the study, if you're homosexual you're outta luck.

It also found that 2.5 percent in the survey claimed to be homosexual, and concluded that "homosexuality has no statistically significant effects on happiness."

Darn, I guess "gay" just doesn't really apply. Bummer.

One thing I want to know though. How the hell do dumbasses like the authors of this toilet paper masquerading as a scientific study even get hired by a university, let alone be able to publish crap like this?

PS: If you really really want to, click here for a link to the news article about the study.