Skip to main content
Log in

Why Most (but not all) Churches Hate Sex

  • Note
  • Published:
Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Churches have the power to decide what is a sin, and are empowered to pardon sinners. This is sufficient to explain why many common sexual practices, like the use of prostitution, are serious sins.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barros, Pedro P. and Nuno Garoupa (2002) “An Economic Theory of Church Strictness”, Economic Journal 112: 559–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, Samuel (2002) The Economics of Sin, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cassone, Alberto and Carla Marchese (1999) “The Economics of Religious Indulgencies”, Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 127: 129–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, Audrey B. and Robert Ekelund (1997) “The Medieval Church and Rents from Marriage Market Regulations”, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 32: 215–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, Richard (1976) The Selfish Gene, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Azeglio, Massimo (1966; original of 1867) Things I remember, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edlund, Lena and Evelyn Korn (2002) “A theory of Prostitution”, Journal of Political Economy 110: 181–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekelund, Robert B., Robert F. Hebert and Robert D. Tollison (1996) Sacred Trust: The Medieval Church as an Economic Firm, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekelund, Robert B., Robert F. Hebert and Robert D. Tollison (1992) “The Economics of Sin and Redemption: Purgatory as a Market-pull Innovation”, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 19: 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engels, Friedrich (1884) Der Ursprung der Familie, des Privateigentums und des Staat, Zurich: Hottingen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frazer, James G. (1922) The Golden Bough (abridged edition), London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gruber, Jonathan H. (2005) “Religious Market Structure, Religious Participation and Outcomes: Is Religion Good for You?”, Advances in Economic Analysis and Policy, Berkeley Electronic Press 5: 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, Marvin (1978) Cannibals and Kings, London: Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hull, Brooks B. and Frederick Bold (1998) “Product Variety in Religious Markets”, Review of Social Economy 56: 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hornby, Albert S. (1974) Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sugden, Robert (1984) The Economics of Rights, Cooperation and Welfare, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tan, Jonathan H. W. and Claudia A. Vogel (2005) Religion and Trust: An Experimental Study, Paper presented to the 2005 annual congress of the IAREP, Prague.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trivers, Robert L. (1972) “Parental Investment and Sexual Selection”, In: Bernard Campbell (ed.), Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man, 1871–197, Chicago: Aldine: 136–179.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guido Ortona.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ortona, G. Why Most (but not all) Churches Hate Sex. Evolut Inst Econ Rev 3, 261–273 (2007). https://doi.org/10.14441/eier.3.261

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.14441/eier.3.261

Keywords

JEL

Navigation