>
 |
| 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.
>That's something that's struck me about a lot of the stuff on this blog, both in David's posts and in the comments from MRA/MGTOW guys: this insistence on seeing human relationships as financial transactions.Sticking your head in the sand and pretending that the financial aspect of relationships doesn't exist won't make it go away.
>"Sticking your head in the sand and pretending that the financial aspect of relationships doesn't exist won't make it go away."If the money really matters to you more than the relationship, then you probably shouldn't be in a relationship.As the kids say these days: 'Ur doing it wrong.'
>"financial aspect" is completely different than what was quoted in cold's comment. Then he said, "financial aspect". There is a "financial aspect" of going to the toilet. TYPICAL MRA DISHONESTY in argumentation. I'll give an example, even though I've already won this one. Substitute parent/child. 'They talk of their parenting as if it were a financial transaction.'And then someone says, well, you can't ignore the financial aspect of parenting. RIGHT. It's hard for me not to hurl insults when people argue like this. MRAs in particular seem to show a huge hostility to arguing points that were actually MADE, dealing with feminism that actually exists, etc. My man would give me every penny he had if I asked him because he's happy. If you don't like women, stay away from them.
>Cold: When I go out with my friend we don't always split the check. Sometimes I pay and sometimes he pays depending on our overall financial and emotional situations. The dollar amount is not even, we do not calculate how much we spend on each other down the the penny or even to the meal. But it *feels* fair and there is a built in mechanism to avoid resentment: If I feel like I have been paying for too many meals, I ask for the check to be split. If I feel like I have been getting too many things free, I take out my money. If we are also sharing an activity, I say Thanks for dinner, I'll pay for the movie or go-carts or whatever. And he does the same thing. What he doesn't do is keep mechanically paying for things until he slowly grows to hate me, because we all have to take care of our own shit and manage our own feelings.
>Did you post that to the right thread?
>Hide and Seek:I also asked my friends how often they see the woman pay for the entire date cost of the meal or for both tickets, and every single one of them answered that they had either never seen it happen, or it happened maybe once in a month.
>Good to know.My point was not that other people make the same choices my friend and I do, it doesn't really matter to our relationship whether they do or not. My point was there is another way to structure relationships, one which recognizes and takes into accounts the things that bother us, such as men feeling like ATMs. There is a cultural script about how relationships are supposed to work and it's almost completely bullshit, but the good things is, *no one is actually enforcing it.* We get to do whatever we want and arrange our interactions however we agree to. Isn't that nice?
>Yeah, no police are actually enforcing the idea that men pay for dates, but 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. The quality of the few women who were willing to pay their own way on dates was well above average, but the fact remains that most women believe they are entitled to have their way paid and I see no indication that feminists are less likely to believe this.
>Actually, I'm not ashamed to admit that my boyfriend pays for all our dates. Because the allowance he gets from his parents is greater than what I make at my shitty job; and most of what I make goes to my bills and interest payments on the loans that I took out to pay for my education. Loans which he never had to consider taking because his parents pay for his schooling. So, yeah, my boyfriend pays for our dates. In fact, he offers to pay for as much as possible. And it's entirely fair that way.
>My sister is in a similar situation. Her boyfriend's father started a company so that he could have the job he always dreamed of having; while she's in school with a lousy job to pay for student loans. I bring this up because the fact that there is a wage gap between what men earn and what women earn determines who has more disposable income. That is, income that can be disposed of on things like dates.
>Thanks for illustrating how feminist justify being leeches in their relationships. Now, for bonus points, let's hear you name one employer that pays men more than women for doing the same job at the same proficiency with the same hours and seriority.
>That's interesting, that working for my money makes me a "leech". Tell me more.
>Wow, what fine reading comprehension you have, completely missing the words "in their relationships" that follow the word "leeches". Obviously I wasn't saying anything about how you derive your own income.
>Dates are only one part of a relationship.
>So what do you provide to your boyfriend that makes up for him paying on dates?Genuinely not trolling, I'm just wondering what sort of answer you'd give.
>LOL, in your own words:So, yeah, my boyfriend pays for our dates. In fact, he offers to pay for as much as possible. And it's entirely fair that way.So, assuming that your story is true, you already admitted that he pays for more than just dates, thus making your point moot. You also consider this to be "entirely fair" because he is a fortunate son with generous parents and no debt while you racked up a bunch getting what was apparently a very poor education which didn't get you any further than a "shitty job" in a call center.How many call centers expect their employees to have degrees? It would seem that you failed to obtain employment in your field and believe that you are entitled to have a fortunate son financially compensate you for your personal failures, and that this is why you feel that you shouldn't have to pay your own way. You aren't the first feminist to tell such a story in an effort to justify being a leech in a relationship, and I'm sure you won't be the last.
>Cold, I was once in a long-distance relationship with a woman who earned more than me. She paid for most of our dates, she paid half of the airline tickets when I went to see her, while I paid none of her cost when she came to see me. Given that she earned more than me, and could afford it, I think this arrangement made perfect sense.Are you now going to get outraged and say that this is how men justify being leeches in their relationships?Of course, in almost all the relationships I've been in, and on almost all of the dates I've been on, we've both paid for stuff equally.
>Incidentally, I took that calculator for a spin and apparently each time I have sex costs me $18.50. I'd say that's some pretty good bang for my buck, pun intended, but then again I'm skewing the results by maliciously exploiting my girlfriend. See, even though I make about twice as much per hour as she does(for working a completely different job) I allow her to pay her way on dates. How horrifically unfair of me.
>Now, for bonus points, let's hear you name one employer that pays men more than women for doing the same job at the same proficiency with the same hours and seriority.Goodyear. That's what the Lilly Ledbetter case, and subsequently law, were about. Now, the law has been changed to count each unfairly lower paycheck as an instance of discrimination, so that the statute of limitations isn't onerous. But yes, Goodyear spent 30 years underpaying Lilly Ledbetter due to her sex.
>> See, even though I make about twice as much per hour as she does(for working a completely different job) I allow her to pay her way on dates. How horrifically unfair of me.Did anyone say that was unfair? If that's what you two want to do, then more power to you.See this comment upthread:> We get to do whatever we want and arrange our interactions however we agree to. Isn't that nice?
>Most dates isn't the same as all dates; you're saying you still paid something but that it wasn't 50/50. The more pertinent questions are would you have broken things off with her if she had insisted that you pay half, and would she have had a hard time finding any other man who would tolerate her only paying for her own half of relationship costs.
>Goodyear. That's what the Lilly Ledbetter case, and subsequently law, were about. Now, the law has been changed to count each unfairly lower paycheck as an instance of discrimination, so that the statute of limitations isn't onerous. But yes, Goodyear spent 30 years underpaying Lilly Ledbetter due to her sex.LOL, according to the case details:Ledbetter was paid $3,727 per month; the lowest paid male area manager received $4,286 per month, the highest paid, $5,236.Let's see, that means she was paid $559 less than the lowest-paid male manager, and that he was paid a whopping $950 less than the highest-paid male manager. So, woman paid $559 less than man = victim, but man paid $950 less than other man = yawn. Never mind that managers often have their salary adjusted based on performance and that she may have simply been the worst-performing manager, or that $3,727 per month is a decent income even in today's dollars.
>The lowest paid male manager was worst then she was per performance reviews.
>Is it just me or do comments keep disappearing here? A minute ago it said this entry had 49, now it has 48. Or am I seeing things?
>I deleted two comments from Cold that were gratuitous personal attacks.