>
 |
| 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.
>I imagine Cold orbiting the Earth in some kind of armored satellite, desiring and hating the blue-green orb that scrolls endlessly beneath him, and issuing threats of thermonuclear war.
>Cold, if we acted like a lot of businesses do, we all would go running around throwing our money at already overpaid CEOs and trying to wheedle money out of any low-paid workers we ran across.
>…except that his radio transmitter is broken. What a pity.
>No you're not. You accept things that fit your prejudices, and reject those that don't.It's human nature to do that and it takes conscious effort to resist doing that. I exert much more effort than the average person not to do that, but I'm not perfect.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.You found ONE quote in the entire list that was out of context, and the source for that quote was a old issue of a magazine that I assumed was not available online. Furthermore, I never even used that quote directly. I didn't write that list and I consider it to be outdated, which is why I joined the effort to produce a better 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.Right below that poll I mentioned that I had asked the same question of my friends the previous day but that I figured it couldn't hurt to poll the forum as well. My offline friends are of a variety of persuasions and have no reason to lie to me, but I never claimed that the results of my polling them was anything more than anecdotal evidence. If you have access some some reliable, scientific study on how often women pay their own way on dates then by all means, share. Lacking that I go with the next-best thing, which is the word of people I trust. I'm a "trust, but verify" kind of guy when dealing with friends, but when it's not possible to directly verify then all I can do is trust cautiously.
>And that has probably more to do with why he wasn't selected for jury duty than his self-proclaimed superior intelligence.You can believe what you like, but I was there and you weren't.I imagine Cold orbiting the Earth in some kind of armored satellite, desiring and hating the blue-green orb that scrolls endlessly beneath him, and issuing threats of thermonuclear war.I imagine that you watch too many sci-fi movies. Don't get me wrong, I'm a sci-fi fan myself, but sometimes there's too much of a good thing.
>@Cold: You're adorable.
>Cold, again, you didn't check any of the references in that list before posting it. So you're more of a trust-but-don't-bother-to-even-try-to-verify guy, it seems. Meanwhile, you reject the jury verdict in the Ledbetter case based on nothing except your notion that jury members are stupid. Do you reject all jury verdicts out of hand, or just this one? I can think of a few jury verdicts I don't accept, but only because I've actually looked into the cases myself. Like, say, the original OJ verdict.
>Someone named Cold has some serious issues with the concept of logic and reality and basically everything.Let us break it down cuz I have a lazy Sunday afternoon to while the time away with such silliness.Lack of knowledge of what "I am the world" means was the first glaring example: you made a claim that obviously people would not be paid less because they would be off to look for another job as soon as they could…after all YOU did it that means everyone does it. See what that is? Not a strawman but a "I am the world" attempt at derailing. Which failed spectacularly like almost everything you post does.As for your laughable claim regarding jury service-unlike you, I work in the judicial system. Not the attorney side of it but court's side. And the jury selection process is not a system of picking "below average" persons to decide cases. It is a system that attempts to weed out those who will be biased. If you were not picked, it had little to do with going for stupid people and more to do with the size of a jury that is picked (and contrary to popular belief, most juries are six to eight persons not twelve.) So having a room of 50 possible jurors means that the first 20 will be the most likely pool that will have people picked. I have seen juries with doctors, engineers, construction workers and all sorts of persons. In fact, generally the ONLY type of person who will be rejected right from the get go is an attorney or judge. The reason for this that an attorney I asked gave me that I thought was stupid was they assume that the rest of the jury would follow the attorney or judge's view since the jury would defer to the greater knowledge of the system that attorneys and judges have.) Also, if you took two seconds to actually read some of the decisions reversing the jury's decisions, you would find that the problem lies not in what they decided but in what went on prior to the trial. If you have a factor of police misconduct (Mapp v Ohio), a factor of prosecutor misconduct (the Duke Lacrosse case is a recent high profile example), a lack of proper jury instruction or a number of other things, you have reversal depending on what the original judge did. Not on what the jury did since they are only to decide on the evidence presented in court. If that evidence is lacking, you have them making a decision that does not follow what actually happened.So you are making a bunch of assumptions based on your overblown sense of self about juries that has little bearing on reality and shows an obvious lack of knowledge of the legal system.
>*laughs even harder at Cold's supercilious postings*
>I exert much more effort than the average person not to do thatlol
>I imagine that you watch too many sci-fi movies.Perhaps. In addition, I guess the fantastical ideas suggested in the "cost of sex" test, that men will take a rigorously mathematical look at their relationships and decide to abandon the opposite sex based on their calculations, have put me in that frame of mind.
>Cold, again, you didn't check any of the references in that list before posting it. So you're more of a trust-but-don't-bother-to-even-try-to-verify guy, it seems.I checked as many as I could, but when the source is a magazine that was published decades ago I tend to assume that it's long-gone. You can keep harping on that one quote all you like but does nothing to negate the rest of the list.Meanwhile, you reject the jury verdict in the Ledbetter case based on nothing except your notion that jury members are stupid. Do you reject all jury verdicts out of hand, or just this one?It's not so much that I reject jury verdicts but that I don't give them as much weight as some people, especially in civil cases which I don't believe should even have juries. "You should belive this because a panel of people with below-average intelligence decided that it was at least 50% likely to be true" is not a convincing argument to me. Is I said before, it is not lost on me that these jurors sat through the trial and saw everything and for that reason and ONLY for that reason I am willing to give some consideration to their decision, but I absolutely will not take their verdict on faith.
>Lack of knowledge of what "I am the world" means was the first glaring example: you made a claim that obviously people would not be paid less because they would be off to look for another job as soon as they could…after all YOU did it that means everyone does it.I know exactly what it means and I know that I didn't do it. My statements about the nature of how businesses operate are based on actual, first-hand experience as well as the contents of textbooks and articles on the subject. You have made the wild and false speculation that I imagine that everyone in business is of the exact same mind as me and passed it off as fact, which is a strawman fallacy. Deal with it.As for your laughable claim regarding jury service-unlike you, I work in the judicial system.And you think telling me that makes me MORE likely to believe what you say? Sorry but the opposite is true; I have enough experience with the judicial system to know not to take anything you people say at face value. Yes, that's a prejudice of mine, but it's one that I consider to be justified and of course it always takes a back seat to actual evidence, should you ever provide any.If that evidence is lacking, you have them making a decision that does not follow what actually happened.If the jurors actually understood what reasonable doubt meant, then a lack of exculpatory evidence wouldn't actually hurt the defendant that much. In actual fact it does hurt the defendant greatly, at least if the defendant is a man, but that's because jurors generally aren't good at assessing reasonable doubt.
>Cold:I checked as many as I could,Given that the very first quote on the list is fictional, I rather doubt that is true. http://www.snopes.com/quotes/mackinnon.aspCan you show me even ONE link to the original source of any of these quotes? I'm checking the list now, and will be doing a post about it.
>You mean you will actually take a break from mocking the fringes of the MRM and implying that they represent the movement in general, and you will actually make a post of substance? I'm looking forward to it.I don't own a copy of Professing Feminism and I haven't been able to find a complete copy online. The butchered version available on Google Books is missing page 129. Like I said, I checked as many as I could but that wasn't one of them.I'm quite happy to have you do my research for me, but I can't offer you anything in return for it other than the honorable mention that you declined.
>Um, no. I was pointing out that you were making a claim that has no basis in reality-just because YOU ran off and got a better paying job does not mean that anyone else would. Some people do. Some do not. And others make claims that what they do, everyone else does. Do you understand what reasonable doubt is? I have a preponderance of evidence that shows you do not.
>Can you show me even ONE link to the original source of any of these quotes? Sure, here is the source, from a .gov domain no less, for the following quote from Hillary Clinton:Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat.
>So? Sometimes women are victims of war even more than men.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_rape
>Being killed > being raped.
>Cold, I found the quote in Professing FEminism online with no problem. The quote is not from MacKinnon, but from two critics of feminism paraphrasing what they believe is the argument of MacKinnon and Dworkin.http://books.google.com/books?id=5IKHbZacWJYC&pg=PA129&lpg=PA129&dq=%22In+a+patriarchal+society+all+heterosexual+intercourse+is+rape+because+women%22+professing&source=bl&ots=7eQMcIuakL&sig=pRQAhcJDO3Wh0d7JRy9adbNnW7g&hl=en&ei=dHlYTaqdNYLHgAfWt_ihDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=falseBesides Hillary, do you have any other links?I'm just interested to see how many quotes you actually checked before putting the list up.My suspicion is zero, and that you simply looked up the Hillary quote after being challenged. (I mean, if you'd checked enough to find out that the very first quote was wrong, wouldn't you have noted that when posting it? Or thought twice about posting such a list?) But even if you are looking them up now I would appreciate any links you have. I know that many, perhaps even most, of these quotes are in fact accurate. But I've found three imaginary/misleading quotes so far, which suggests that whoever put it together did a pretty shoddy job of it, and that MRAs circulating the list have never bothered to check it out themselves.
>Um, no. I was pointing out that you were making a claim that has no basis in reality-just because YOU ran off and got a better paying job does not mean that anyone else would. Some people do. Some do not.Ah, the bright minds that the judicial system hires. My own experience was clearly offered as an ILLUSTRATION of how "people who are unsatisfied with their pay tend to keep their eyes open for higher-paying jobs in their field." That's a true statement, but it seems like the meaning of "tend to" escaped you thus resulting in your impression that I thought I was the world.You might want to look up this concept of "asymmetry of information". See, if I'm an employer and I have the miraculous power to read every employee's mind, then I can simply pay each of them the bare minimum to keep them with me and only if I become aware that they are looking at the wages of others in their field will I consider raising their pay.In reality, however, nobody has these powers and hence as an employer I would have to deal with an asymmetry of information. I don't know which employees are hunting for higher-paying jobs elsewhere and which ones will continue working for me indefinitely no matter how little I pay. Therefore, I have to seriously consider the prospect of my best employees leaving me if I don't pay them enough and act accordingly, even if in actual fact they have no intention of ever leaving.
>Actually your proffer was basically you doing as I said.
>That's nice that Google offers the full text now, but at the time that I looked for that book they only offered a butchered "preview" that was missing about half the pages, including page 129. Hence, I gave the author the benefit of the doubt for that one. In hindsight that was a mistake.I didn't join the new list project on a lark; I did so specifically because I'm not satisfied with that out-of-date list and I want a better one that includes all the hateful quotes made since the 90s.Don't think that I'm not aware of your game in asking for links. You know perfectly well that the sources are mostly copyrighted works that can be easily acquired through bit torrent and file sharing sites but which cannot simply be hyperlinked. Nobody is stopping from going to a library to check the actual books, which puts you at no legal risk. You can also download them if you want, but you do that at your own risk.
>Actually your proffer was basically you doing as I said.Oh you mean because I still used myself in the illustration? That doesn't change the fact that employers generally do operate that way or else they wouldn't even bother with performance bonuses. By repeatedly claiming that I think I am the world, which is entirely false and which adds nothing of value to this exchange, it is YOU who is making a deliberate effort to derail.