Income and Sex
August 4th, 2011 at 8:07 am by David FarrarRachel Browne at Stuff writes:
A survey by Relationships Australia has revealed that people’s sex lives improve along with their income – and that the magic number for satisfaction starts at about A$80,000.
Only 44 per cent of people with a household income under A$60,000 a year are sexually active, compared with 81 per cent of people with a household income of more than A$80,000 a year.
Maybe this is why Labour is determined to tax higher earners more? 
August 4th, 2011 at 8:12 am
Australian men are also famous for the subtlety of their verbal foreplay e.g. “Brace yourself, Sheila !”
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 8:15 am
“Only 44 per cent of people with a household income under A$60,000 a year are sexually active, ”
Aha – that explains why Labour supporters usually look as if they’re sucking an onion.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 8:49 am
Hmmm. Maybe those who have lower incomes are overwhelmingly:
– the young (students) who aren’t in a stable relationship (i.e. a good proportion of them are single and sexless at any point in time)
– the old, who I arbitrarily declare to have less sex
– single parent families, who I declare to be too busy looking after kids to go out looking for sex
In other words, correlation is not causation!! As always.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 8:53 am
Well the solo Mum struggling on her benefit who lives across the road in Upper Hutt has obviously had sex eight times.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 9:05 am
PaulL- I don’t know which University you went to, but when I was at Otago most students were bonking their brains out….even the Mingers!
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 9:27 am
Doesn’t it mean that once over $80k you can finally afford to keep a mistress?
Course a lot of the people that are inactive are probably pensioners and well, I just don’t want to think about what they might be getting up to…
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 9:28 am
Wealth is an aphrodisiac.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 9:49 am
“Only 44 per cent of people with a household income under A$60,000 a year are sexually active”
That’s only true if you define ‘sexually active’ as requiring more than one participant.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 10:08 am
As far as I can tell the no income (save for state support) are constantly at with no protection…
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 11:13 am
So these Aussies have cameras in all the bedrooms around Australia and are counting all the bonking. Well good on them, seems very important research as it tells us, what. Nothing. Just more gullible people believing everything they read.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 11:29 am
Jimbob
People on higher incomes might be more likely to lie about sex. Or people who think they have more sex might also claim to have higher incomes. Or people of lower incomes might be confused about the question. Or people who have lots of sex are to busy to estimate their incomes correctly. Or, this survey might be a really valuable piece of social science research.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 11:36 am
This is a very dumb survey.
Vote:Its household income so obviously households with two adults in them are likely to be in the over A$80,000 a year category. Therefore this survey simply says “Households with 2 adults in them are more likely to be sexual active”. Super stuff!
Apologies to anyone above who may have already pointed this out, didnt have time to read the comments.
August 4th, 2011 at 12:23 pm
It counts those on the pension amongst those under $60,000 (and as noted also those living alone), it should really sample better – categorising people carefully before then comparing income levels.
This should be under “poor poll sampling”.
I am however surprised that people working to earn the money and enjoying their free time would be wasting it answering this poll survey.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 6:37 pm
On sex and income, is the 666 (000) alleged fraudster Jonathan Richard Kirkpatrick, ex dean of the Dunedin cathedral and poster pin-up boy for long-lasting stable gay relationships (with his partner then Lab. Mp Timmy Barnett) – who together graced pulp magazines up and down this country as glowing examples of the same – still in a, well, stable long-lasting gay relationship?
And at 666,000, was the nookie good? Or, like Helen Clark, is his ex-Lab. MP ‘permanent stable long-lasting partner’ in a separate country? Liberal modernity, it’s so confusing.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 6:37 pm
Brian Smaller @ 8.53
‘Well the solo Mum struggling on her benefit who lives across the road in Upper Hutt has obviously had sex eight times.’
No twins either. All the kids have the same name (Hey you) She calls them individually by their surnames
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 7:54 pm
Paula Bennett today. Talking about the unemployment rate. “more people over the age of 65 have jobs than before’,
apparently this is because National have doen some wonderous thing.
Not so Paula, Lots more of us have had birthdays that make us 65 and now we are having to supplement our miserly pension if we want to continue to have a sex life.
The magic number for satisfaction starts at about A$80,000.
Could you please arrange an urgent upgrade to our pension so we can once again enjoy our sex lives.
Thanking you in anticipation.
Vote:Coalition for Super Sex for Grannies.
August 4th, 2011 at 7:59 pm
Jeezes V2 don’t forget that due to the patent running out old farts like us can get a hard on for only one third of what it cost last month. Show your bloody gratitude man. Use a half instead of a quarter of a tablet and let the good times roll!
Vote: