For Better Sex, You Probably Need More Than Correlation

I finally got around to viewing the PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) ad that NBC decided to ban from its Super Bowl coverage. I had imagined a rather sordid broccoli-loaded affair. But it turns out it was just like a Victoria’s Secret spot, only a bit more nutritious.

The point of the ad was that “Vegetarians have better sex.” Now that’s provocative — provocative enough to stimulate this confirmed omnivore to further research. Here’s what I learned.

PETA does not actually have direct evidence that vegetarians have better sex. Instead, it argues that:

Research has shown that vegetarians enjoy greater amounts of the nutrients that help boost sexual health and performance — such as vitamins A, C, and E and potassium — than meat-eaters do.

There’s a logical gap between PETA’s evidence and its conclusions. Any student of statistics knows the perils of mislabeling correlation as causation. But that’s not the problem here, as PETA is simply claiming a correlation between vegetarianism and better sex. But even if X (being vegetarian) is positively correlated with Y (ingesting vitamins A, C, and E), and Y (more vitamins) causes Z (better sex), we still don’t have enough information to conclude that X (being vegetarian) is positively correlated with Z (better sex).

Here’s a simple counter-example: when I get a cold, I take a multi-vitamin and I eat a few more veggies; you probably do something similar. But even as we both “enjoy greater amounts of the nutrients that help boost sexual health and performance,” I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t conclude that people with colds have better sex.

Interestingly, this is a case where a causal claim (become a vegetarian and you’ll have better sex) may be warranted, even if the asserted correlation (vegetarians have better sex) is wrong. That is, if vegetables are more loaded with the relevant nutrients than the alternative (which seems likely), and if those nutrients do improve sexual performance (as PETA asserts), then PETA would be on firm ground concluding that “vegetarianism causes better sex.” But causation isn’t correlation.

We can investigate the asserted correlation directly. Is vegetarianism correlated with better sex? The General Social Survey asks: “How often do you refuse to eat meat for moral and environmental reasons?” That sounds like it will isolate the folks PETA is talking about.

While there’s no data on the quality of sex, the frequency with which people had sex over the past year is measured, and so we can investigate the related question of whether vegetarians have more sex. It’s not quite the same as PETA’s claim, but if you believe that quality shifts demand curve up, then folks having better sex will also want more of it.

In the following chart, I divide the population according to their degrees of ethical vegetarianism. For each group (shown in each panel), the bars show a simple histogram — the proportions of that group reporting various degrees of sexual activity. Adding up the right-most three bars tells us the proportion of each group having sex at least weekly. Around 40 percent to 45 percent of people report having sex at least once per week, and there’s no real difference between ethical vegetarians and carnivores — a fact confirmed by a formal chi-squared test.


Unfortunately, it looks like there’s nothing here to support PETA’s purported vegetarian-sex link. I’m from a mixed household, and so my vegetarian partner is keen to remind me that quality and quantity are very different things. In fact, she finds my quantity evidence too weak to shift her beliefs, which remain firmly in the PETA camp.

Gabriel Wolf

Even if being a vegetarian did increase the quality of sex, your comparison would not prove or disprove anything as sex is generally (hopefully) consentual and if one partner is a vegetarian and one isn't then nothing can be proven.


Clever marketing by PETA. The claims are pure advocacy, not empirical research. Even if research showed the correlation went the other way, they would likely still make their claims because it fits their view of the world.

Anyway, if we weren't supposed to eat animals, why are they made of meat?


Can someone explain the graphs to me? I found them incomprehensible.

The beige titles (Always, Often, Sometimes, Never) seem to contradict the vertical categories (Not at all through 3+ per week.)

Maybe the top question (How often do you refuse to eat meat?) goes with the beige Always, Often... categories and the Sex Frequency question goes with the vertical (purple) percentages?

Ben D

An elementary interpretation of this chart would be that strict vegetarianism increases your chances of not getting any sex at all. Maybe there is a correlation with increased gassiness.


I think there might be a mistaken point of view here. I'm a meat-eater, and I eat plenty veggies. Is the correlation about an increased amount of veggies being eaten, or is it the absence of animal protein in the diet with improved sex health & performance?

I just think that the correlation of better sex life and vegetarianism could also be applied to meat eaters that enjoy plenty vegetables. Unless their point is eating meat hinders the ability to extract nutrients from vegetables. Does the improvement in sex health depend on the amount of veggies or where protein sources are from?

Caliban Darklock

It actually looks like your chances of "2-3 per week" go up pretty steadily across the spectrum. So if you want to have sex more than once a week, eat meat.

Some Random Economist

"Research has shown that vegetarians enjoy greater amounts of the nutrients that help boost sexual health and performance - such as vitamins A, C, and E and potassium - than meat-eaters do."

Did they compare vegetarians, who are usually careful with their diet, to meat-eaters who are similarly careful? Or did they compare vegetarians to the straw man that is the typical American meat-eater? If they did the later, which they probably did, their "research" is so flawed it's meaningless. I'm betting that what matters is that you eat plenty of nutrient-rich foods, which the average American meat-eater doesn't, not the avoidance of meat.


I'm with you, Lynn - If better sex from nutrients found in veggies is what we're after, then the message I want to hear is "eat more veggies".... not "don't eat meat."

PETA would be much better off if they stuck to guilt or gross-out arguments.

Michael Walshe

Thing is, this is all a stunt to get media attention from the banned superbowl ad.
The idea is to get the daily weekday shows talking about PETA so as to raise it's media profile.
They have run numerous campaigns like this with often paper-thin evidence just to get noticed.


Dumb ad should not be surprising. PETA are not known for sticking to the scientific method..


vegetarians are more liberal-artsy
liberal-artsy people are more promiscuous
ergo, vegetarians have better sex
QED (quiche, eggs, dairy)


It would be worth figuring out if vegetarians are less likely to have sex because people view them as a little stranger; this is particularly true if their vegetarianism comes along with other traits that often seem to appear in tandem with it.


Vegetarians lie in surveys.


Honestly, is there anyone capable of making correlation vs. causation analyses who takes PETA's yelling seriously?

Any "research" from people as heavily invested in animal rights as PETA should automatically be taken with a grain of salt.


Why try for a prescription for everybody? Different people are, ahem, different. Maybe vegetarian diet effects different people differently? Just like there are other, more obvious, physical differences between people?

I'm more interested in understanding what works well for me than in pretending there's one answer to every question that's right for everybody.


You find that PETA has a logical gap? I'm more concerned with the moral gap that PETA has.


Is it possible to be from a mixed household? The great philosopher Jules Winnfield once noted: "my girlfriend's a vegetarian, which pretty much makes me a vegetarian..."


If only PETA were actually P.E.T.A. My eyes are in the front of my head, not on the sides like PETA thinks they should be. The group reminds me of a flock of clowns.

the Gooch

People dressed up like Klan members at the Westminster Dog Show aren't rigorous statisticians?

There goes my faith in humanity...


And the scientific evidence of drinking light beer and being surrounded on the beach by buff young people in swimsuits has also been held up to this same standard?

It's a commercial, not an academic journal.