Apparently someone decided to write an article about how Cost per Orgasm can be a useful metric for a man to use to gauge his relationships. I won’t link to it because I read about it from a secondary source and the concept does not interest me enough to seek out the original post since all of the arguments on both sides are obvious ones. Felicity Morse of the Independent wrote about it and was appropriately outraged enough for everyone. If you want to trace your way back to the original by hopping from one island of outrage to another like the Pacific Fleet in WWII you can do the link.
What I did find interesting was her conclusion.
Of course, if you’ve read the the cost-per-orgasm blog and you’re still seething, there’s a simple way to kill Stone’s equation at the first hurdle: split the bill. Stone seems to forget that women are actually able to pay for their own drinks these days. And their own vibrators.
Apparently this is an area where the women’s rights movement in the UK greatly lags our own here in the US. We have advanced to the point where we are enlightened enough to understand that it constitutes nothing less than waging war upon all womynkind if we do not force complete strangers to buy maintenance items for them such as condoms, or birth control pills. This is the MOST heinous offense one can commit against women judging by the attention paid to the issue during our political campaigns. Short of saying something less than adulatory about abortion, refusing to buy things for women that they could buy for themselves is the worst form of misogyny imaginable. Felicity, to use a terminology the Brits would understand, has let down the side.
As to the main issue — using Cost per Orgasm does indeed assume that a service is being purchased rather than a relationship constructed. But the quid pro quo in that deal is not so different than the one put forth by politicians who say they will give you a shiny new IUD in return for your vote. We have already determined what these women are. Now we are just haggling over the price. So perhaps men can be forgiven for thinking a woman who can be bought in one regard, can be bought in others. I myself have trouble putting a finger on the limiting principle in their thinking. It is certainly not sex since the goodies they most covet are all concerned with that aspect of life. I will just point out that if feminists keep progressing their demands in this manner one can only assume that their ultimate goal is to make women wards of the state. But that is an argument for another day.
The other thing I took away from the article in question, which I find infinitely more fascinating, is that people actually pay $200 for a friggin’ dinner! This I did not think was even possible, let alone a common occurrence. Certainly not common enough to be published on a blog or a newspaper in such a casual manner. What did they eat? Pteradactyl fingers wrapped in Yeti suet?
Any woman who would let a man spend that much on her pretty much eliminates herself from the marriage pool right at the first hurdle (that place where lower maintenance women such as our dear Felicity are letting you know you have no chance with them by splitting the bill and slamming the tip of their vibrators into the ground while yelling “None Shall Pass”). That means there is only one other pool such a pricey date can be in. When a man spends that much it is clear that an offer is being made.
I assume this high dollar amount is inflated by including enough alcohol to incapacitate anyone below a certain weight (a weight usually carefully calculated to fall between that of the man and the woman), and was included so that the pick-up artiste who came up with the formula could make the price per pop (so to speak) seem as large as possible. But then I have been married for decades and live in a place with a low cost of living. Perhaps the rest of the world lives beyond my means and I just don’t know it. Either way, that figure was way more shocking to me than the thought that men might think about how much it costs them to get what they want. I bet at this very moment dedicated science-bros are plotting Cost per Orgasm vs. Penis Size and applying third order differential equations to the results to find the sweet spot based on income.
To put things in perspective, in my own case $200 is roughly twice my clothing budget for an entire year. I would literally have to give the shirt off my back on just the hope of her ending up on her back if this is how dating works these days.
I am ashamed to say that, even though I am an engineer by training, my cost per orgasm is not something I ever calculated. In my defense I will simply add that such an equation is ultimately worthless anyway because of course there are more things you get from a relationship with a woman than just sex.
There are also sandwiches.