>
 |
| 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.
>BeeI would say that 95% of the time servers place the bill with me, the other 5% they place it between us. Because we are married and our household funds accounts are joint, unless I'm in the washroom I use my (meaning joint) card. What bothers me about this particular mra stance is the first women willing and wanting to pay for a date would be? Feminists. Those dam feminists ruining everything… but my perfect submissive love slave should act like a feminist when the cheque comes.
>All MRA arguments boil down to, "I believe all women are whores, and resent women for being whores, but of course will never actually deal with women as if they weren't whores, for fear of discovering that not all women treat sex like a profession."
>Hey, Amanda! I was considering recommending your post on the financial benefits of racism to white entrepreneurs, but figured that it would just sail over Cold's head. Anyway, that one was really good!(http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/hiding_behind_the_free_market_is_just_cowardly/)
>My love and I have biweekly paydays on opposite weeks. Who ever gets paid this week pays for groceries, going out etc. We take turns. I earn slightly more than he does but we both are satisfied with our work. There are times when I have given him cash to carry before we arrive at a place. As noted before, many servers just assume the man is paying and it can be more efficient if he just takes care of the transaction. We both know its silly. So should you. Any way things aren't always as they seem ,so be careful when you generalize. also dont go out with people you feel used by.
>see, this is what happens when they don't teach enough Behavioral Economics in Microeconomics 101."rational actors" in economics doesn't mean people act 100% rationally, it means that they tend to in predictable ways to achieve whatever goals they have.This does not exclude subconscious discrimination.It also does not exclude taking advantage of social norms and pressures to lower operation costs, for example the way the Chaebol hired only women because South Korean culture made young women so much easier to control and severely underpay.And lastly, when your choice is to be underpaid or not paid at all, a "rational actor" will be underpaid, because the alternative is a sudden lack of access to basic necessities.Result: pay-discrimination for historically disadvantaged groups.
>oh, and I've also experienced having my debit card returned to my boyfriend in restaurants.and before I was in this relationship, I generally tried to split the check or pay for the meal, but I sure as fuck wasn't going to argue about it. I've seen people do that, all the way up to slapping their credit cards out of each other, and quite frankly, I'm not willing to participate in that sort of slapstick. If I offer to pay and he refuses, he doesn't get to complain that I didn't pay.
>huh. my boyfriend costs me somewhere around $200 a fuck. that's what I get for buying him expensive espresso machines…
>Sigh. It's funny to me how conservatives "link" people with the overt and obvious hope that people don't click the links and read what is actually said. Eri, your strategy of forcing people to copy/paste in hopes they don't click the link and see that you're describing my argument in bad faith couldn't be more obvious. No HTML in 2011? You're easier to read than a creepy dude whining that women don't want to date "nice guys" like him.For those who actually care about honesty, here's the article. What you'll immediately realize is that Eri, by objecting to my post, is arguing that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 shouldn't have been passed, because it's "racist", and that segregation is apparently the best way to stop racism. Fascinating argument, largely rejected by thinking people.
>@Amanda: Eri linked to your post to illustrate how wrong Cold was earlier to say that the free market solves discrimination problems without legislation. Cold was arguing that it didn't make sense for Goodyear to underpay Lilly Ledbetter, because it would cause her to go work for another company, and that companies are always gender/race/religion blind. Eri linked him to your article to show him he was wrong.
>@AllIt's ERL. Sorry about the confusion.@Amanda:As girlscientist noted, I actually approved of your post. The tone of my point was fanboyish glee, not sarcasm. I hadn't been aware of some of the mechanisms by which discrimination opened up opportunities for economic advantages, and you helped me to understand them.I don't that you read my shit skills with an href tag as evidence that I'm opposed to the Civil Rights act. I am and always have been in favor of the act, civil rights, and government action to protect those rights. I'm frankly at a loss to see how you read my original post as a criticism of you in any way. It wasn't, and I'm sorry that it somehow conveyed that misunderstanding.
>All MRA arguments boil down to, "I believe all women are whores, and resent women for being whores, but of course will never actually deal with women as if they weren't whores, for fear of discovering that not all women treat sex like a profession."LOL Amanda, it never ceases to amuse me how you pretend to be a rational skeptic but then make crazy universal statements like that one which aren't even remotely true. When I'm considering whether a skeptic event is worth attending, the first thing I do is make sure that you are NOT on the list of speakers.
>Mr. Cold that is a libertarian assumption about the behavior of humans. People do things for all sorts of reasons that have little to no bearing on their finances.For instance, it has been shown in a study to have a baby in your twenties is a bad economic decision. Yet women still have children in their twenties. In fact a now MIA poster in another blog post was going to insist on his wife bearing children in her twenties.I was clearly speaking about the behavior of BUSINESS, not humans. Businesses are run by humans, but the kind of decisions a human makes for a business are not identical to the decisions they make for themselves. Otherwise, there would be almost no restaurant industry since 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.
>Eri linked to your post to illustrate how wrong Cold was earlier to say that the free market solves discrimination problems without legislation. Cold was arguing that it didn't make sense for Goodyear to underpay Lilly Ledbetter, because it would cause her to go work for another company, and that companies are always gender/race/religion blind. Eri linked him to your article to show him he was wrong.Except that I never said that the free market SOLVES discrimination, in fact I never even USED the words "free market". What I said is that it is against the economic interest of any business to overpay their employees, which is precisely what they would be doing to their male employees if they were able to pay their female employees less money for doing the same job with the same hours and proficiency without losing them.Just because it is against someone's economic interest to do something doesn't mean that they absolutely won't do it; if that were true then the banks wouldn't have created the conditions that lead to the 2008 collapse. Sometimes people act in their PERCEIVED economic interest which is different from their actual interest, and occasionally they even knowingly act against their interest by giving a job to a family member who isn't actually the best-qualified candidate, although that is far, far more likely to happen with a small business than with a large, publicly traded corporation.Tying that back to the Goodyear case, the fact remains that if Ledbetter was truly such a great-performing managed who deserved higher pay, then it was in Goodyear's interest to pay it even if they were keeping each manager's salary confidential from the others? Why? Because people who are unsatisfied with their pay tend to keep their eyes open for higher-paying jobs in their field. I make nearly twice as much per hour now as I do when I first started working in my current occupation because I kept an eye out for what other employers were offering, which is how I know that my first employer grossly underpaid me despite the fact that I have a penis.Is it possible that Goodyear acted against their economic interest and paid her less just for being a woman? Yes. Is that more likely than the possibility that they paid her less simply for being an inferior manager? No, unless direct evidence can be presented.
>Cold, you may not have used the term "free market," but you argued the issue from implicit and false free market principles. It simply isn't true that businesses always pay the "right" amount, or the absolute lowest that the market will bear. Sometimes they will pay privileged workers more and underprivileged workers less. This has been demonstrated explicitly in a wide array of historical contexts, and you've done nothing to show that it cannot have occurred in the Goodyear case, simply insisted that it would be silly. Fair enough: in theory, it oughtn't have occurred. But it did.Further, you're continuing to ignore the finding of the jury. I don't need to present direct evidence when I can show through the verdict that a panel of twelve of my peers found the evidence dispositive. Finally, and perhaps I'm simply being impatient, but you haven't addressed my data from the EEOC. Do you assert that all 73,058 claims of discrimination are without merit, or do you accept that real discrimination is still occurring?
>Did Cold just use the "I am the world" derailing argument? Yep, he did. Dude, you are not the world.You may choose to be that way but another human will not be that way. Which is why humans consistently make idiotic business decisions regardless of the size of business.
>@Erl Daschund: Dude, don't bother. He just doesn't want to address any argument that doesn't go his way, and he casts aspersions on people whose experience don't fit with his prejudices. It's obvious that he's intellectually lazy. We can answer his comments until we're black and blue, it won't change a thing.
>@girlscientist: I know, I know. I should really get over my "Someone Is Wrong On The Internet" issues. But . . . well, you know the urge.Anyway, I am getting a bit of a headache, and have to go do real life stuff now, so see you guys later.
>The combination of lust for women, with hatred of women, expressed at that website (costofsex.com), is pretty strange. The misogynists don't want a world without women, they just want cheaper relationships. The social effect of misogyny is a lot like the economic effects of Wall Mart.
>Oh, cold, must you be wrong about EVERYthing?Otherwise, there would be almost no restaurant industry since 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. For single people living on their own, this is often not true. Also, people go to restaurants in order to eat well-prepared food that they don't know how to cook, or that would be really inconvenient and time-consuming to make. I don't know how to make good Thai food, or Indian food, or, really, much of anything beyond grilled cheese sandwiches, but with a simple visit to GrubHub I can get all the Thai or Indian or Mexican food I want for a reasonable price. Delivered to my door!If I want a lemon meringue pie, I could spend hours trying to make one, and make a mess of it, or I could just get one at a bakery. Damn. I'm making myself hungry. Anyway, dude, for someone with such faith in capitalism you seem a little rusty on the whole division of labor thing. There's a cool book you might want to read sometime. It's called Wealth of Nations, by some dude with a wig named Adam Smith.
>It simply isn't true that businesses always pay the "right" amount, or the absolute lowest that the market will bear.Did I say that businesses ALWAYS do anything? No, I didn't, in fact I specifically said that sometimes business don't act in their own economic interest, either because they incorrectly perceive it or because, primarily in the cases of small business, the director's personal biases come into play. In a large, publicly traded corporation, however, that latter situation becomes highly unlikely.I shouldn't even have to explain that it is in the interest of each employee to be paid as much as possible, and it is in the interest of each employer to pay as little as possible, no matter what the race, gender, or whatever of the employee. Those conflicting interests form the basis of most job market dynamics.Sometimes they will pay privileged workers more and underprivileged workers less.Are you talking about individual privilege or group privilege. Obviously any individual worker who is being paid more is privileged by being paid more, that is a meaningless tautology. If you mean group privilege, then you know know that I only recognize the existence of two privileged groups in western society: females and the upper class. That's it; talking about any other group being privileged is a non-starter with me unless you can link to a detailed, lucid, and well-sourced article that makes a compelling case for the existence of another privileged group.and you've done nothing to show that it cannot have occurred in the Goodyear case, simply insisted that it would be silly.I never said it CANNOT have occurred, only that I consider the likelihood of it having occurred to be very low and that in my opinion it DID NOT occur. I'm not the one who bears the burden of proof here.
>Further, you're continuing to ignore the finding of the jury. I don't need to present direct evidence when I can show through the verdict that a panel of twelve of my peers found the evidence dispositive.Have you ever been called for jury duty? I have; I could easily have gotten out of it but went along with it to satisfy my curiosity. At selection, I had a chance to assess the intelligence of the others in the room and found that most of them were below average. More importantly the intelligent ones, myself included, were not selected apparently because we demonstrated ourselves as being intelligent and somewhat knowledgeable of the legal system when questioned. I have spoken with others who have also been at selection and heard similar stories, so I know it's not just me.So, having learned that juries are composed of people of below-average intelligence, WHY would I believe something to be true just because a jury thought so? Juries don't even do a very good job of assessing reasonable doubt; if they did then there wouldn't be so many cases of convictions being overturned. If they can't do that reliably, then how are they going to perform the more nuanced assessment of balance of probability?Finally, and perhaps I'm simply being impatient, but you haven't addressed my data from the EEOC. Do you assert that all 73,058 claims of discrimination are without merit, or do you accept that real discrimination is still occurring?You seem to be of the opinion that the legal system is fair and that claims are decided fairly. That's nice, but I don't share it. I consider the legal system to be rife with both corruption and incompetence, therefore you will never convince me of much by simply mentioning the existence of claims that were decided a certain way. I am convinced by direct evidence, and by little else.Now, despite the fact that I regard jurors as my intellectual inferiors, it is not lost on me that they sat through the whole trial and saw all the evidence from both sides while I am just going by summaries available online. Therefore, I don't want to be TOO quick to second-guess them, but the fact is that *I* have not seen any credible evidence that Goodyear deliberately paid Ledbetter less just for being a woman, just self-interested testimony.
>Did Cold just use the "I am the world" derailing argument? Yep, he did. Dude, you are not the world.Did you just commit the strawman fallacy? Yes, you did.You may choose to be that way but another human will not be that way. Which is why humans consistently make idiotic business decisions regardless of the size of business.How many times do I have to repeat that just because something is in the economic interest of a business, that does NOT make the probability of the business doing that thing 100%? There are always exceptions, but exceptions by their very nature have a probability that is below 50% which is the cut-off point in a civil case. That means if you want to assert that the exception actually took place, YOU bear the burden of proof.
>Cold: I am convinced by direct evidence, and by little else.No you're not. You accept things that fit your prejudices, and reject those that don't.Again, back to that "evil feminist quote" list you provided. You didn't look up the original source of the quotes there — that is, the "direct evidence" that those quotes are accurate and not distorted by being quoted out of context.Instead, you relied on hearsay — the word of another person, the person who compiled that list — without checking for accuracy, or knowing anything about the research skills or simple honesty of the person who compiled the list. When you wanted "evidence" that men almost always pay for dates, you asked guys on an MGTOW forum who claimed to have worked in restaurants and took their claims as truth.
>Otherwise, there would be almost no restaurant industry since 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.For single people living on their own, this is often not true.I'm a single person who lives on my own, the value of an hour of my time is above average, AND I am surrounded by cheap restaurants, yet it is still cheaper for me to make my own meals. Now perhaps if I was a bigshot lawyer like Amused claims to be and made over $100 an hour, I was a horribly inefficient cook, and/or the nearest grocery store was much further away than the nearest restaurant, THEN it might be the case that eating in a restaurant is cheaper than preparing one's own meals, but this is certainly not the case for the vast majority of the population.Also, people go to restaurants in order to eat well-prepared food that they don't know how to cook, or that would be really inconvenient and time-consuming to make.Yes, that's exactly my point. When people make choices for THEMSELVES, as opposed to their business, they are much more likely to consider intangible things like personal enjoyment of well-prepared food. If we all conducted our personal lives exactly like a business, focused on the bottom line, then restaurants would only exist for the highest earners and there would be no film industry, no videogame industry, and no music industry whatsoever. That's why pointing to people's PERSONAL lives in an effort to refute my point about BUSINESS is a faulty analogy.Anyway, dude, for someone with such faith in capitalism you seem a little rusty on the whole division of labor thing.I don't have faith in anything, but the fact is that we live in a society that practices a form of capitalism and is subject to market dynamics, hence I speak about them.
>@David:You accept things that fit your prejudices, and reject those that don't.And that has probably more to do with why he wasn't selected for jury duty than his self-proclaimed superior intelligence.