In Lehmann's Terms

The Tortious Nature of 'Mom' Haircuts

Joanna links to a lengthy discussion over at a site called Morphing Into Mama that examines the duties spouses ought owe one another to maintain a certain level of physical attractiveness. More specifically, as Ms. Robinson puts it:

if you are cute with long hair and a svelte body and then cut off the hair and gain 40 pounds over the course of your marriage, it’s false advertising and unfair to the Hubbidy Hub Hub.

Personally, I don't see how the claim of fraudulent inducement holds. Even were this a products case, argued under terms of strict liability, where is the evidence that establishes ex ante defect on the part of the manufacturer? With any tangible asset, you have to allow for ordinary wear-and-tear as a matter of course.

But, of course, it's not a products case, but rather, one of contract. Well, look to the habendum clause ("to have and to hold," indicating transfer of property.) The promissor entered into a contractual vow "to love and to cherish" the promissee under conditions that may be "for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health."

Certainly, a prima facie reading of that language would cover weight gains and unfortunate haircuts, would it not? (Though, to be fair, it is a MUTUALLY binding promise, so the husband would be equally entitled to bring a claim for breach should his wife renege on her loving/cherishing commitments in response to his growing a mullet or a paunch.)

Now, obviously, compelling specific performance isn't going to be terribly effective in such cases. But there is another clear strategy that either party (both the one who feels unloved and the one who objects to the partner's eating and/or grooming habits) may opt for as a fall-back strategy -- just withhold sex. It's a veritable surety bond right there between your legs.

But please do knock off this "false advertising" nonsense. There's been enough tortification of contract law as it is, and in case you hadn't noticed, claims of marital fraud are already spreading through Hollywood like a SoCal wildfire. First, there was Renee and Kenny. More recently, you had Chad and Sophia. This gross perversion of the basic law of contracts needs no further encouragement.

So, in short, no, this is absolutely not false advertising. This is what's called "not reading the fine print."

More Fodder for the Gender Wars

Tyler links to a paper by Michigan State's Jay Pil Choi that effectively demonstrates by way of game theory a point I have long argued by way of what seems to me perfectly common sense -- that there's no damned good reason it should be incumbent upon men to put the toilet seat down:

Imagine a situation in which the aggregate frequency of toilet usage is the same across genders, i.e., the probability that any visitor will be male is ½. With the down rule, each male visit is associated with lifting the toilet seat up before use and lowering it down after use, with the inconvenience costs being incurred twice. With the selfish rule, in contrast, the inconvenience costs are incurred once and only when the previous visitor is a member of different gender. The worst case under the selfish rule would occur when the sex of the toilet visitor strictly alternates in each usage. Even in this case, the total inconvenience costs would be the same as those under the down rule if the costs are symmetric. If there is any possibility that consecutive users are from the same gender, the selfish rule strictly dominates the down rule since it keeps the option value of not incurring any inconvenience costs in such an event.

Of course, in my solitary and hermetic bachelor existence, I can take advantage of the fact that there is a greater than 95% chance that a given toilet user will be male (and will, in fact, be me) to employ the selfish rule full-on. This also leverages another important fact of nature -- that Toilet Operation #1 (requiring an up seat) is roughly four or five times more frequent than Toilet Operation #2 (requiring a down seat.)

However, the grey lining of this silver cloud is that it underscores that the number of female visitors to my abode is small enough to be suboptimal in numerous other dimensions. Whether this is correlated with my failure to employ the down rule, I'll leave to others to determine.

ADDENDUM: Richard Harter offers one possible solution to the cohabitation problem may be to equalize the respective total costs borne by each party, but notes this "requires, however, that Marsha put the seat in the up position after performing a toilet operation some percentage of the time. No instance of this behaviour has ever been observed in recorded history; ergo this criterion can be ruled out."

He also contributes a few additional wrinkles to the puzzle that are worth pondering:

Remark 1: The toilet has an additional attachment called the toilet seat lid which can only be down if the toilet seat is down. When the lid is down the toilet is (or should be) non-functional for toilet operations. Some persons maintain the toilet seat lid in the down position when the toilet is not use. For these persons the analysis in this note is moot. Such persons pay a fixed cost in seat movement for all toilet operations.

Remark 2: Toilets are also used by domestic animals as a convenient source of drinking water unless the lid is down. (See remark 1)

Remark 3: Experimental evidence suggests that almost all bachelors optimize the seat transfer cost, the exception being those who put the seat up after performing a #2 operation.

Remark 4: Folklore has it that Marsha performs more toilet operations than John, hypothetically because of a smaller bladder. John, however, drinks more beer. We shall not discuss his prostate problem.

Remark 5: “Readily seen” in this context means “It looks obvious but I don’t know how to prove it; you figure it out.”

Remark 6: The toilet lid solution is to put the toilet lid down after all toilet operations. This solution imposes a cost of 2C on each party and is accordingly more expensive. It is, however, more esthetic. It also eliminates the “doggy drinking” problem.

All worthy points, but I see a frame of reference problem in #6. It would count as a benefit the reduced "ick" factor enjoyed by Fido's owners, but fails to account for the pooch's lost utility in having diminished access to a cool drink of water.

Is a (516) just for the females?

Meanwhile, at Ted's personal site, he ponders the gender politics of "The Carjacker" -- the Polo Lounge's take on the Long Island Iced Tea that mixes vodka, gin, rum, tequila, triple sec, sour mix and fresh orange juice. Of the drink, named in honor of the movie Crash, he wonders:

is it still a girly drink if they add orange juice to a Long Island Iced Tea, and call it a Carjacker ? Actually sounds pretty tasty.

They seem to be not so much just ADDING the O.J. as substituting it for the Coke (or whatever other soda you have on hand.) In effect, they're making a modified Zombie with a few superfluous whites (vodka, gin) added in -- increasing the potency, but not markedly altering the taste.

When I tended bar, those ordering Long Islands would run about 60-40 in favor of women. But that's somewhat misleading. All mixed drinks run in favor of women, as my estimation is that nine out of 10 men reflexively order beer.

Among men who order mixed drinks, Long Islands were probably the second most popular. Jack and Coke was definitely number one, which I always thought probably had a lot to do with its more manly sounding name. The alcohol content of a Long Island is at least three times that of a bar-mixed Jack and Coke, so there's nothing else I can see that would objectively render the latter any less girly.

So though there are and always have been those who regard anything other than beer or shots as insufficiently "manly," I wouldn't mark a Long Island down as a true girly drink, the way a spritzer, a Malibu Bay Breeze, a glass of white Zinfandel or (God forbid) a Zima all clearly are.  If you can stomach sour mix (and, personally, I haven't been able to since around the time it became legal for me to drink) it's one of the few options in that family of drinks that really packs a punch. The discerning male drinker will get past the unfortunate name and sorority girl association to recognize that. 

Pick-up lines for economists

Tyler Cowen marks Valentine's Day with a brief examination of the economics of pick-up lines. Here are a few I think might be up his alley.

• I couldn't help but notice your monetary base. Do you let a guy get to M3 on a first date?
• You have a boyfriend? That's ok. The wife and I are into credit-swapping.
• I'm not like other guys. I'd never withdraw my deposits without at least offering a wraparound.
• Baby, that booty is a moral hazard!
• When it comes to you, my demand curve slopes upward.
• Do you have a job? Because I thought maybe we could enjoy some frictional unemployment together.
• I know there are competitive bidders, but ask any of the girls here, and they'll tell you my tongue has absolute advantage.
• Are you a Keynesian? Because you sure make my monetary policy inflate.
• You've got the loveliest supply curves I've ever seen.
• I know it's a Saturday, but do you think you'd be open for some direct deposits later?
• I think you and me would have great potential output.
• So, what kinds of permissable nonbank activites are you into?
• If you want to invite your friend, perhaps we could explore multilateralism.
• C'mon, it's getting late, and we both know I'm your lender of last resort.
• Let's blow this popsicle stand and see what happens when we let our indifference curves intersect.

Roberts the Jokester

So the latest imbroglio on SCOTUS nominee John Roberts concerns his apparent lack of sensitivity to women's rights issues while working in President Reagan's Office of Legal Counsel. As evidence for the charge, the WaPo and numerous other publications are drawing on this quote from a memo to then-director of public liaison Linda Chavez about her deputy, Linda Arey, and her efforts to encourage housewives to go to law school. Roberts says in a personal aside:

Some might question whether encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good, but I suppose that is for the judges to decide.

That quote is being read as patronizing or chauvinistic...but strangely, it is NOT being read as what it plainly (plain to me, at least) was meant to be:  a tongue-in-cheek swipe at lawyers!