>
 |
| Apparently, it’s only 15p! |
With Valentine’s day fast approaching, I thought I’d point you all to an interesting little set of online apps, courtesy of the fellows at NoMarriage.com: calculators that purport to tell dudes the true cost of sex — with wives, girlfriends, and what the kids today are calling “randoms.”
The assumptions behind each of these calculators are pretty revealing: they essentially assume that guys generally resent the women they’re involved with, and only spend time with them because it’s necessary to pretend to be interested in them in order to get sex. The calculators also assume that guys are more or less paying for everything.
I ran a few numbers, and the results are telling: for the guys for whom these calculators are basically designed — that is, guys who generally dislike spending non-sexy time with women, and who believe that “every kiss begins with Kay” — the cost can easily be hundreds of dollars for each and every time they and their special ladies manage to set aside their resentments long enough to engage in a grudging bout of the old in-and-out.
By contrast, for guys going out with independent (and perhaps even feminist) women they actually like and enjoy spending time with, who pay their own way, and who live nearby, the putative cost of sex can literally be pennies a pop. For married men who actually like their working wives, the cost of sex can actually be negative, because it’s cheaper to cohabit than to live alone.
In a nutshell: misogyny costs you, big time. But actually liking women? That makes sense — dollars and sense!
For dedicated Men Going Their Own Way, the calculators, with a little tweaking, can also be used to calculate the cost of NOT having sex. Using the girlfriend calculator, replace “How many hours do you spend having stupid conversations with your GF (per week)” with “How many hours do you spend having stupid conversations with other MGTOW (per week).” Ignore the rest of the questions until you get to the one about your hourly wage. Then, for the question asking how many times you have sex per week, ignore this wording and simply input “1.” Voila! You have calculated the (opportunity) cost per week of not having sex!
So, dear readers, what is YOUR cost of sex?
—
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.
>Cold, here's a radical idea: why not simply omit the quotes you can't verify? And if you have doubts about some quotes on a list, why don't you just, you know, not post that list?
>Back to the original topic of the post, though, I have to admit it's somewhat telling that while many of the female posters here have done the calculation for either themselves or on their boyfriend's/husband's behalf, none of the aforementioned male Significant Others have popped in to provide their own calculations. I have to wonder if the prices they'd give–if they could do so confidentially, of course– would be significantly higher than what many of the ladies here would prefer them to say it is. Now, before anyone asks–Me? I got 0 on all counts, since I don't have a girlfriend, am not looking for one, and don't need sex enough to "Game" a girl or find a hooker. Feels good man.
>…when a man starts insisting that dates be dutch as I started doing a few years ago, the quantity of dates they get sinks like AIG stock.…each time I have sex costs me $18.50. I'd say that's some pretty good bang for my buck……leeches……being a leech…Yeah, that's what I was talking about earlier, thanks.
>When a woman starts insisting that dates be dutch, the quantity of dates sink. The quality of the few men who were willing to defy gender roles and have an equitable relationship was well above average, but the fact remains that most men believe that empowered women are emasculating and I see no indication that MRA's are less likely to believe this while demonizing feminists and reinforcing the gender normative by calling feminist men "beta" males.
>Missdk, do you seriously expect people to believe a word of this story? A lot of men will insist on paying for dates because they have been brainwashed with outdated chivalry crap and think it is their manly duty, or because they think if a woman offers to pay her way it is actually a test of his chivalry and he has to insist on paying in order to pass, but if anything more than a tiny fringe of men had a serious problem with a woman even OFFERING to pay her own way, I think I would have heard about it at least once by now.So yeah, I think you're lying through your teeth, not that I expect anything less from feminists.It's also clear that you have done only the most cursory examination of MRAs since any kind of intellectually diligent examination would have informed you that our preferred term for feminist men is "manginas" and that we consider our own ranks to be mostly "beta" males mainly because true "alpha" males have it pretty good in our society and are unlikely to be motivated to join our fold.Also, the terms "alpha", "beta", and "omega" come from the scientific study of pack animals and are used analogously in human evolutionary psychology. It has nothing to do with any kind of "gender normative". On top of that, the growing trend among MRAs is to reject that hierarchy and classify ourselves as "zeta" males. Again, you would know that if you had actually done some real research into our movement.
>Yeah, that's what I was talking about earlier, thanks.I looked way back to see exactly what Shaenon was saying earlier, and noticed that she said this:Also, who buys a new car on a yearly basis? I will punch you if I find you.OMG David, do you see that? Shaenon made a direct, physical threat against anyone who is rich and buys a new car every year! Are you going to grab Shaenon's IP address and report it to the FBI, or at least make a post about this dangerous psychopath?Oh wait, you won't because Shaenon is a woman and therefore it's just a harmless joke when she talks about punching people.
>Cold.Grasping at straws aren't you? You are a great example of how mra's think..
>Point out obvious signs of intellectual laziness is grasping at straws now? Tell me more…
>According to cold: "for the vast majority of the population it costs more to eat at one than the value of the time they save by not having to perpare their own meal."So all the times your gf or wife prepares a meal, it saves *you* money.So that should go in your little calculator.
>Actually my girfriend isn't a very good cook so I do all the cooking. Apparently you didn't get the message that men are also able to cook and have never heard of Gordon Ramsay, Bobby Flay, or Hidekazu Tojo.
>Men and women both cook. Women still do more cooking at home, though. Range of minutes spent cooking per day, based on the American Time Use Survey 2003-2004:Unemployed women: 65-51Employed women: 46-38 Unemployed men: 43-31Employed men: 33-21http://www.docstoc.com/docs/10266102/Whos-cooking-Time-spent-preparing-food-by-gender-income-and-household-compositionI'm not married to Bobby Flay or Nigella Lawson so the gender proportion of professional cooks/chefs isn't really relevant.
>So, Cold, you should make sure your girlfriend factors all of the meals you cook into *her* cost-benefit analysis of y'all's relationship.
>Just make sure you count her contributions at your hourly rate and vice versa, because that's what she's saving you (and you're saving her).
>I'm absolutely shocked that cold blithely ignored my correction of his anecdotal and flawed understanding of labor markets and decision making in the market.
>@Cold: "I don't detest anyone for simply being female and claiming that I do without proof is libel. If my opinion truly didn't matter to you then you wouldn't respond to it, would you?"Oh, is it now? When did you learn all that jurisprudence, in all of your three hours of jury duty, at the end of which you were unanimously disqualified for your super-inflated ego, Everest-sized bias and obvious lack of impartiality? Anyway, hints at litigation won't work on me, pal. I know this is apparently MRA modus operandi, but you are barking up the wrong tree here. If you believe you've been libeled, go ahead, sue me. Make the necessary motion to get my identity disclosed and go from there. After all, any moron with a filing fee and a map to the courthouse can file whatever he wants. I can't wait to send you discovery demands and take your depo. Then I'll make a thorough search of your writings on the Internet, and we'll let the judge decide whether or not you hate women. And of course, after I get your case dismissed, I'll countersue for malicious prosecution. That should be a fun exercise. @Hide-and-Seek: "So, Cold, you should make sure your girlfriend factors all of the meals you cook into *her* cost-benefit analysis of y'all's relationship."Don't forget the wear-and-tear of furniture and household fixtures, as well as apportioning the rent and utilities to the extent only Cold uses them.
>I never said I was going to sue you, you paranoid twit. Making false statements about me that are damaging to my reputation, even if it's just the reputation of an online persona, meets the definition of libel regardless of whether or not I sue you or am able to sue you. I'm calling you on your blatant intellectual dishonesty and drawing attention to the fact that you have no qualms about engaging in libel against me and other MRAs, not threatening you with a pointless lawsuit that would require me to disclose my actual identity. And people wonder why I have so little respect for lawyers…
>I'm absolutely shocked that cold blithely ignored my correction of his anecdotal and flawed understanding of labor markets and decision making in the market.I'm absolutely shocked that David ignored Shaenon's direct, physical threat against rich people who buy at least one new car every year.Meanwhile, I had no reason to think that your post was directed at me since it doesn't address any actual argument that I made. Well, ok, I suppose from context it can be concluded that I was the most likely addressee, but why would I bother responding to a rebuttal to an argument that I never made? I never said that people ever acted 100% rationally(anyone who has worked even a day in retail knows that's not true) and I never said that business never exploits systematic iniquities. However, IF a business is going to exploit such an iniquity, it will manifest in ONLY women(or some other supposedly disadvantaged group) being hired for a certain kind of job. It doesn't even touch my point, which is that it is against the economic interest of an employer to pay extra money to some employees doing the same job with the same hours and proficiency simply for being male when they could instead simply pay them the same as the women and replace them with women if they leave on account of being paid less than the minimum for which they are going to work. Really, if a complete strawman argument is the best you can do against my point then you have nothing.
>Men and women both cook. Women still do more cooking at home, though. Range of minutes spent cooking per day, based on the American Time Use Survey 2003-2004: Unemployed women: 65-51 Employed women: 46-38 Unemployed men: 43-31 Employed men: 33-21How do you know that's not simply because men are more efficient cooks than women on average, or that employed people are more efficient than the unemployed, perhaps on account of having to quickly make breakfast and then head off to work?When I talk about cooking with my fellow employed men, a lot of the conversation revolves around how to get the job done faster. To that end we spend a lot of time talking about efficient techniques for chopping vegetables and about which time-saving tools are worth buying.When I see women cooking, I notice that they tend to enjoy the task more and don't feel like there is any need to hurry, which is fine. One doesn't need to hurry at a task they enjoy doing, but it's dishonest to use the fact that they took longer to conclude that they must be cooking more. It may still be true, but you need to come up with something better than time figures.
>That's probably it, Cold. Employed Men are obviously twice as efficient in their vegetable chopping than Unemployed Women. They can also boil water in seconds using only the power of their minds.
>I think you missed the word "hint" in her reply Cold.She was saying that if you want to hint at it, she is ready to tear you a new one.
>we spend a lot of time talking about efficient techniques for chopping vegetablesHmm. This might be good for a t-shirt.
>Insert "to do more than" in my last comment. Dang trying to talk and type about two different subjects at the same time.