Join 3,572 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)

Tags:

Dinner and A Movie ... Divide by One ... Carry the One
July 8, 2004 11:39 AM   Subscribe

Cost of sex with a girlfriend and wife calculator. The people at NoMarriage.com are have devised some formulas for determining how much you need to shell out to get a little nookie from your significant other.
posted by chunking express (103 comments total)

 
$1600.... sigh. I see I make too much and get too little...
posted by zeoslap at 11:43 AM on July 8, 2004


Sorry Ladies, but there doesn't seem to be an equivalent calculator for you.
posted by chunking express at 11:43 AM on July 8, 2004


Although things worked out much cheaper pre-baby :)
posted by zeoslap at 11:44 AM on July 8, 2004


And here I thought I was getting a good deal. Because obviously the only reason to be in a committed relationship is regular sex.

Of course, they also leave out the time I save having someone else do more than half the washing and cooking, and what I would have to pay a stranger to put up with my shit.
posted by Mayor Curley at 11:53 AM on July 8, 2004


Yeah, but half of nothing is still nothing.
posted by yerfatma at 11:57 AM on July 8, 2004


Anyone sexually mercenary enough to take this little parlor game seriously isn't the kind of person I'm all that sure I'd want to be sharing a bed (or, for that matter, a life) with, I'd venture.

Maybe if your last name is Trump, or, oh, Sheen, then you could whip out your calculations and use it as a pickup line. "Hey, sweetcakes, this study says I'm going to spend $500 per sexual encounter on you, so what say we just skip the unpleasantness and go back to my hotel room? I'm good for at least a G-note tonight, as long as we don't talk or watch TV. I'll get the check. Consider it a bonus." Euch.
posted by chicobangs at 12:00 PM on July 8, 2004


$60/hit? not a bad deal.
posted by H. Roark at 12:00 PM on July 8, 2004


You know, this is pure sexist drivel and shouldn't be on the front page. Metafilter is really going downhill.
posted by agregoli at 12:04 PM on July 8, 2004


Calm down, agregoli. I thought the point of Metafilter was to post interesting and thought-provoking sites, not just agreeable ones.
posted by chinese_fashion at 12:07 PM on July 8, 2004


Calm down? I call them like I see them, and this is sexist and offensive. I don't think it's hard to see that - I can't be the only one.

How exactly is this post thought-provoking?
posted by agregoli at 12:11 PM on July 8, 2004


i'm with agregoli. not interesting, thought-provoking, nor even funny. simply lame. this is the kind of thing you do in high school.

Hours you waste on your GF per week

right. because anything aside from sex is a waste. i can see how that's offensive to women. i'm can tolerate "ha-ha" offensive jokes, but this one isn't funny.
posted by mrgrimm at 12:13 PM on July 8, 2004


Sorry Ladies, but there doesn't seem to be an equivalent calculator for you.

That's cause sex with (unattached) men is more or less free for the asking.
posted by jonmc at 12:13 PM on July 8, 2004


I can't be the only one.

You're not.

Fucking offensive is what it is.
posted by dobbs at 12:14 PM on July 8, 2004


I think it's pretty fucked up, but the "nomarriage" site is... well.. thought provoking. It sounds like they generalize bad marriages to be all possible marriages. That's unfortunate.
posted by fillsthepews at 12:15 PM on July 8, 2004


look at the sponsor site.

misogynistic bullshit.
posted by mrgrimm at 12:16 PM on July 8, 2004


I bet the guy who wrote this is still a virgin. Yes, it's lame.

But sexist and offensive? C'maaaan.
posted by bondcliff at 12:16 PM on July 8, 2004


misogynistic bullshit.

Maybe it is and maybe it isn't. But oftentimes any criticism of feminist dogma is met with the all-purpose riposte of "misogynist." Which is an intellectually lazy cop-out.
posted by jonmc at 12:19 PM on July 8, 2004


Fucking offensive is what it is.

Like it or not, there are severely maladjusted people who think that way. I despise them, but they're pathetic enough to laugh at. This falls into the "bad enough to laugh at" category.

But anyone who was deeply scarred should make a Metatalk post because it would fall into the same category.
posted by Mayor Curley at 12:21 PM on July 8, 2004


But oftentimes any criticism of feminist dogma is met with the all-purpose riposte of "misogynist." Which is an intellectually lazy cop-out.

But the post is about hating women and hating yourself. Feminist dogma hadn't been mentioned until you brought it up.

Your anti-PC polemics are sometimes very timely and well put. But we don't need one here.
posted by Mayor Curley at 12:26 PM on July 8, 2004


While we're at it, why not make a "total cost of having your mother say 'I love you' calculator"?
posted by 4easypayments at 12:29 PM on July 8, 2004


are you guys scared of being a virgin?

do you know what sex is for?
posted by 12345 at 12:30 PM on July 8, 2004


Your anti-PC polemics are sometimes very timely and well put. But we don't need one here.

I dunno. We might as well get some interesting conversation out of this turkey of a page.
posted by jonmc at 12:33 PM on July 8, 2004


The No-Marraige guy probably had one woman break it off with him 8 years ago and becasue he's a whiny, cold, bitchy and selfish American man he's decided to blame everyone but himself. They're like that. Also most of them are fat and dress badly too.

Foreign men are romantic, stylish and have sexy accents. After reading that site I am only dating foreign men.
posted by maggie at 12:37 PM on July 8, 2004


You obviously didn't read the link jonmc because whether or not I buy your "oftentimes any criticism" line, this one surely stands rightly accused.

The Nomarriage site has been linked here before, by Space Cadet I think. Need I say more?
posted by john at 12:38 PM on July 8, 2004


Wheee! $7 a hit. For a booty call, that's still more than I bargained for. When she gets a car though, bam, there goes half my costs.

I thought the funniest part was the ad for the vaginal sex toy to the right.

Sexist, perhaps, but there's a breed of men who eat this shit up.
posted by Mach3avelli at 12:40 PM on July 8, 2004


There's a breed of people who eat any kind of hatefulness up. That doesn't mean that it needs to be an FPP (twice, natch), and it certainly doesn't make it thought provoking. Sheesh.
posted by LittleMissCranky at 12:44 PM on July 8, 2004


I read the link, john. It was a lame attempt at humor. And the link mrgrimm posted is a muddleheaded and confused, but legitamite spew of anger. But the knee-jerk misogyny accusation got me thinking is all. And even if something is misogynistic, nobody ever seems to offer "root causes" for misogyny (or racism or homophobia, for that matter) other than sheer bloodymindedness or stupidity. I'm not saying that anything excuses these things but they're worth investigating, no?
posted by jonmc at 12:47 PM on July 8, 2004


This thread is the Pepsi Blue of sex toys.
posted by cohappy at 12:50 PM on July 8, 2004


From a monetary point of view the analysis appears to be reasonable, but is superficial and incomplete ; aka half assed.

Anyway its what you get in a society that tends to measure anything with money, an approach typical of undereducated accountants. Mucho liked by corporate pro and against pseudospeakers these days because it boils down to arithmetics and the aura of "perfection" that surrounds maths.

I don't get why some people is offended by that half assed analysis or by accountant analysis as a whole ; one can replace gf/woman/wife with bf/man/husband and the analysys would still "work".

ahhhhh the refreshing smell of knee jerk reactions
posted by elpapacito at 12:50 PM on July 8, 2004


I think the visceral hate for this is a bit strong, but it sure does drive a wedge between the genders if you buy into it, don't it?

So, don't buy into it.
Or be the kind of guy who thinks that sex is the only meaningful yardstick of a relationship.
Or be the kind of woman who thinks that all men believe this bullshit.

(Your mileage, especally if you are not heterosexual and at least nominally monogamous, may vary.)
posted by chicobangs at 1:02 PM on July 8, 2004


A lot of people do treat sex as a commodity, and people are jumping all over the guy who's simply pointing this out. Funny.
posted by Space Coyote at 1:11 PM on July 8, 2004


jonmc,

OK, I referring to the "misogynistic bullshit" link. It's hard to argue that it's not bad. The writer seems to have had a bad spell with American women and attributes this to the majority and he considers feminism only in terms or unnamed radicals.

I believe the root causes have been talked about here in numerous threads since many misogynistic screeds offer up their experiences as validation for their generalizations. Since we only hear the author's side of all these encounters it's hard to gauge it.

I just went through a bad break up and my friend offered up Charles Bukowski's Women to read since it was offered to him a while back as a post-bad-breakup cure. Having no previous experience with the author other than having unknowingly seen the movie Barfly, I was curious at to how much of himself he put into his protagonist.

I've found a short biography online and found that he had a bad form of acne that left his face pock-marked. Now if this left him with a bad love life, I suspect that once he became a famous poet he turned into a kind of Don Juan lifestyle with misogynistic tendencies.

Anyway, I'm only at the beginning of my research, but I suspect that a strong root cause is projecting any negative things that have caused one to suffer in relationships or suffer from the lack thereof on to women.
posted by john at 1:12 PM on July 8, 2004


I don't get why some people is offended by that half assed analysis or by accountant analysis as a whole ; one can replace gf/woman/wife with bf/man/husband and the analysys would still "work".

When I was young(er) and stupid(er), I watched a movie in a film class where the prof's analysis post-film was tied to the fact that the protagonist was female. I argued that his analysis was weak because the protag "happened to be female. The film could have been made, shot for shot, with a male protag."

The prof's response was: "Happened to be female? I'm not sure I understand that. There are only two sexes. The filmmaker consciously chose to make the protag a female for a reason."

Your argument that one could sub in boyfriend/husband in this instance falls under the same logic my own argument did. The site's anti-woman-for-anything-but-sex. It is not anti-men in any way whatsoever. It's not a fucking pizza that you can swap the sundried tomatoes for sliced ones.
posted by dobbs at 1:12 PM on July 8, 2004


I don't have visceral hate for this - but I do like to hope that Metafilter is better than this, and I'm glad that people agree.

Not worth a MeTalk thread, but can we get a delete, please?
posted by agregoli at 1:15 PM on July 8, 2004


But oftentimes any criticism of feminist dogma is met with the all-purpose riposte of "misogynist." Which is an intellectually lazy cop-out.…

Jesus, jonmc, could you be a little more predictable? Some thing ARE misogynistic. This, for example.

Look, I admire the majority of your posts, and have considered you one of my favorite posters for your irreverence and often insightful devil's advocacy. But lately it's getting to where I can write your comments in any given thread for you. You find "feminist dogma" tiresome, but you never miss single an opportunity to call "PC" on anybody who objects to anything.

For my part, I believe chunking express had every right to make this FPP, and I'm sure it could be considered cute by some. And I feel no need to make a MeTa call out. But I am nauseated.
posted by Fenriss at 1:17 PM on July 8, 2004


A lot of people do treat sex as a commodity

Those people are sad. Some of us spend time and money on someone because we like to. If the only reason you spend time or money on a person is because you expect sex out of them, then grow a pair and tell them. And when they leave in a huff, don't blame it as a moral failing in them.
posted by turaho at 1:19 PM on July 8, 2004


Jesus, jonmc, could you be a little more predictable? Some thing ARE misogynistic. This, for example.

Look, I admire the majority of your posts, and have considered you one of my favorite posters for your irreverence and often insightful devil's advocacy.


First of all, thanks for the compliment.

Second, like I said before, I don't neccessarily disagree, but the thread was shaping up to be:

"This is misogynist!"

"Sure is."

"Yesirree, bob!"

"And how!"

Which however accurate makes for rather dull reading. I figured I'd try and steer it in what I thought might be a more interesting direction, which in retrospect was probably ill-advised.
posted by jonmc at 1:26 PM on July 8, 2004


And even if something is misogynistic, nobody ever seems to offer "root causes" for misogyny (or racism or homophobia, for that matter) other than sheer bloodymindedness or stupidity. I'm not saying that anything excuses these things but they're worth investigating, no?

OK, I am in agreement with you here. I do believe it warrants investigation. In fact, I have been considering for some time starting up a website which would center around a forum to discuss exactly this kind of thing.

When Nomarriage and sites like it have been discussed in the past, I've heard a few voices saying "Why aren't any of you feminists worried about men who've had their children taken from them". Well, I'm worried. I'm a very committed feminist, from a family of women's rights activists (some of them notable), and believe it or not, the rights of men have always been among the most important topics among us.

So let me ask you this (all of you really). Would you be interested in something like that? A forum for hashing out differences and examining root causes of this kind hostility between the sexes? I think it's a serious problem that needs to be addressed. But it's an enormous undertaking that will require me to grow a thicker skin.

If I build it, will you come?
posted by Fenriss at 1:27 PM on July 8, 2004


Call me a silly romantic, but I find this stuff mostly innocuous. I love my wife, a great deal, and don't give a tinker's damn if it costs me my whole paycheck every month to get her into bed. What I want from her company, and what she does for and gives me, is worth a hell of alot more.

Is this link misogynistic, illogical, juvenile? Yep, I'd have to say so. Inappropriate for Metafilter ... probably. Worth getting worked up about? Not in the least.

And jonmc, sometimes your contrarianism looks far more like self-elevating role playing than it does an indictment of intellectual lazyness. If you could offer any argument why this has value as opposed to simply trying to be wiser/cooler than the naysayers, you might have accomplished something. As it is, your response is about the laziest of the bunch.
posted by Wulfgar! at 1:28 PM on July 8, 2004


Is this link misogynistic, illogical, juvenile? Yep, I'd have to say so. Inappropriate for Metafilter ... probably. Worth getting worked up about? Not in the least.

Probably "juvenile" is the most accurate word. It sounds like something the 19-year-old me would've thought after striking out at the corner bar.

And even I admitted that the link was lame, wulfgar. I just figureed we could use it as a springboard to a more interesting conversation.
posted by jonmc at 1:35 PM on July 8, 2004


A lot of people do treat sex as a commodity

Love has become a consumerist phenomena because we just judge people as we judge commodities. We can do better. Or we can get another one. We can always replace what's lost. -- Saul Bellow

I just went through a bad break up and my friend offered up Charles Bukowski's Women to read since it was offered to him a while back as a post-bad-breakup cure. Having no previous experience with the author other than having unknowingly seen the movie Barfly, I was curious at to how much of himself he put into his protagonist.

I've found a short biography online and found that he had a bad form of acne that left his face pock-marked. Now if this left him with a bad love life, I suspect that once he became a famous poet he turned into a kind of Don Juan lifestyle with misogynistic tendencies.


offtopic: John, Bukowski was a complicated guy though he did his best to present himself as very straightforward (and most reviewers/readers see him that way, I think).

I haven't read Women in about 20 years, but if I remember correctly, it's a very disguised tale of unrequited love. Does he not spend the book quietly pining for the one woman from his past while spending pointless nights with others who just make him think of the one he lost?

Odd, but as I typed that, I recalled the last line of the book: I opened him a can of Sunkist tuna. Packed in spring water. Net weight 7 oz. Wow, haven't thought of that in years.

Take a read through Ham on Rye, his fictional biography. (The first thing I remember is being under something.) It's my fave book by buk.
posted by dobbs at 1:38 PM on July 8, 2004


And another thing. I was recently hanging around with a friend of a friend, and he overheard a mild debate between my husband and me about a logistical issue. We worked it out, and I conceded his point. The friend of a friend then said "Naw, that's not how you do it! You argue for a while, and then you give in to her! I've been married before. I know these things. Haw haw!"

So, how much of the trouble is because of this tenacious cultural-artifact that has marriage as some purgatory where men are insensitive bastards who ultimately have to give into their whiny, manipulative wives? We are adults. We don't have to build our relationships that way if we don't want to.

My H and I have never once walked out of one of our rare disagreements without a better understanding of each other and ourselves. And there is absolutely nothing unusual about our relationship, other than a genuine desire to communicate without brutalizing each other. It is not rocket science, and it's not unique to us.

I've had plenty of bad break-ups and failed relationships, but I have no sympathy for men OR women who want to turn around and blame an entire sex for their misery. THAT is intellectually lazy.
posted by Fenriss at 1:42 PM on July 8, 2004


i just want to say the site it worth a look if you treat it like a joke. Its a little sad to think people take it seriously. Also, $11 a hit. w00t.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 1:43 PM on July 8, 2004


dobbs:

The site is clearly an attempt to use cost analysis to provide an economic rationale and incite male user to buy a
"vaginal surrogate" ; this could equally be done to incite female users to buy a "penile surrogate" aka dildo.

The fact that the site is not targeted to incite female user doesn't imply the site is anti-female as I see no derogatory terms used to describe females as inferior/stupid/evil/whatever.

Maybe some people infer that, because the guy/girl on the site writes

"How many hours do you spend having stupid conversations with your GF (per week)"

then he/she is saying that the GF is stupid , but what I can read is that the conversation is stupid, not the GF.

And there is no implication , as the conversation could be stupid because the BF is stupid or the GF is stupid or because the conversation was pointless to begin with.

The site writer skillfully played on "outrage factor" as much as some prominent U.S. tv channel does daily. Just learn not to be outraged so easily.
-----

As for the nomarriage.com site, I didn't read it entirely but I spotted some rethoric and ad hominen attacks against women mixed with some facts and superficial legal references. Some of the stuff on that site could be equally as useful to men and to women that don't know much about marriage contracts, unfortunately my sensation is that the information isn't presented in a gender-neutral way.
posted by elpapacito at 1:43 PM on July 8, 2004


oh, and john, I'd recommend Richard Price's Ladies Man as a great post-breakup book, too.* And a great warts and all look at the American male psyche.

*country music, power ballads, and cheap beer help too.

If I build it, will you come?

Sure.

but I have no sympathy for men OR women who want to turn around and blame an entire sex for their misery. THAT is intellectually lazy.

Agreed. But it's naive to believe that our experiences with a gender (or any group) don't have an effect on how we view that group and that sexism/racism/homophobia etc. just arrive out of thin air or political pressure.
posted by jonmc at 1:45 PM on July 8, 2004


I'm surprised no one has even mentioned the simple idea that marriage isn't for everyone. It IS relentlessly shoved down our necks as some sort of expectation regardless of gender.
posted by djseafood at 1:50 PM on July 8, 2004


But it's naive to believe that our experiences with a gender (or any group) don't have an effect on how we view that group

I know what you mean. I went on a date with all womankind last night and let me tell you, it sure changed my mind about all womankind.
posted by turaho at 1:55 PM on July 8, 2004


Fenriss,

It sounds like it might be a lot of work, but quite possibly worth it in the long run.

Please send me an email if you decide to try it.

dobbs,

Thanks, I read it in two days, so his pining for Linda, I think, might have flew overhead. I did come away thinking that he was sincere in trying to expose himself without excuses or embellishment.
posted by john at 1:55 PM on July 8, 2004


Brutally straight talk about the commodification of women's sexuality from another perspective: The Slut Manifesto.

As far as I'm concerned, the FPP's first link is freakin' hilarious; it so entirely misses the point of relationships, which is that you relate to someone else as a human being, not just a top-of-the-line RealDollâ„¢. That means spending time with them, among other things. And man, if spending time with your girlfriend is a cost, you're better off sticking with prostitutes and booty calls. Or at least getting another girlfriend.

Is it misogynist? One might say so. But it's so absurd that I find it hard to believe that anyone who doesn't already think that way could take it seriously. It's like getting all upset over an FPP about the TimeCube. (Obligatory Disclaimer: This paragraph refers solely to the cost/benefit analysis calculator, not to any crazy rants on NoMarriage.com, which I'm pretty sure I read the last time it was posted on Mefi.)
posted by skoosh at 1:56 PM on July 8, 2004


I went on a date with all womankind last night

So...you get any?
posted by jonmc at 1:57 PM on July 8, 2004


I didn't (and haven't) followed the NoMarriage link but the little spreadsheet thing was funny enough and a lot of folks here need to relax a little me thinks... and trying to justify my outrageous $1600 rate I can only say that $11 means that your time must be all but worthless ;)
posted by zeoslap at 2:03 PM on July 8, 2004


I'm not one to kiss and tell. And in my experience, neither is all of womankind.
posted by turaho at 2:04 PM on July 8, 2004


Fenriss - sounds neato. Do it!

You know what I find interesting? How many people say, "Don't get upset about this." In fact, I was originally told to "calm down."

While I'm most certainly not having a coronary over some dumb site on the internet, why is it bad to be upset over things like this? Why is it bad to point out your outrage? If you re-read the posts here, you can see that many people take pains to say they aren't bothered by it, even though it's stupid, or tell others that it's not worth getting upset over.

Again, it's not at the top of my agenda list, but it IS upsetting to me. I don't see anything wrong with saying so. Just an observation.
posted by agregoli at 2:04 PM on July 8, 2004


Fenriss, I'd check it out.

Just learn not to be outraged so easily.

Thanks, but my apathy regarding misogyny went out the window when I was 7. I don't have much patience for idiots (like those at nomarraige.com) making men seem like a bad idea.
posted by dobbs at 2:06 PM on July 8, 2004


zeoslap - i don't make an exceptional amount hourly - its true... but also lowering the cost is that i enjoy most of the time spent with my girlie and the conversations are mostly not stupid (so i couldn't report alot of time 'wasted') - couple that with plenty of weekly sex and the expense is minimalized.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 2:11 PM on July 8, 2004


Thanks jonmc,
I was in Texas when it happened so there was ample supply of all the things you named and it's how I learned that there are places in "You Don't Have to Call Me Darling" where people sing extra lyrics, (not a big jukebox hit in Chicago where I'm from, but I have heard the song before).

agregoli,

I don't think there is anything wrong with having a strong reaction. Sometimes it seems too many have become apathetic about so many things. I understand this to some degree. People have only so much capacity for empathy at any given time, but hopefully they can take a break and come back to fight the good fight.
posted by john at 2:14 PM on July 8, 2004


I wish I saw this kind of outrage in the Bush posts. Get your priorities straight.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 2:20 PM on July 8, 2004


Not worth a MeTalk thread, but can we get a delete, please?
Have you even given a reason for deletion other than you found one or both of the links offensive?

The calculator, which is the primary link in this post, in and of itself is not offensive. It associates an economic value with an action. Just because the action is described from a decidedly male and likely mysoginist viewpoint doesn't mean the whole thing is bad. The presentation is just a different way of stating that the economic value of sex is:

(((a + b + c + d) * wage) + (e + f + (g / 52)) / i
I am still working on the formula. It's rather complex because the amount of sex keeps going down to zero, and the costs go up to infinity.
I do not believe this rises to the level of offense that means this thread, which I find valuable, should be negated. YMMV, of course.

Is this what got you?
Your GF probably has a drawer full of dildoes. It's time for you to get your own toy and stop being so conscious about it.
The Fleshlight is a cheap, though modest improvement to existing similarly priced devices, knock off of the Venus 2000. (Link not suitable behind a corporate firewall, despite being graphically clean.) While the author approaches the subject poorly, encouraging safe self pleasuring is hardly bad advice. I, for one, encourage both sexes to have toys, but would not have presented the assumption about women's private vaults stocked with weapons of mass pleasure.
why is it bad to be upset over things like this?
It's not, but letting your frustration lead to request an FPP be deleted is what I am reacting to.
posted by sequential at 2:21 PM on July 8, 2004


dobbs: good to see you don't like misogyny..neither do I and I don't like the opposite (damn it's not androgyny I don't know the english word) as well.

Maybe I didn't explain myself clearly enough : if you want to go against mysogyny that's perfectly fine with me and others maybe as well, but pay very close attention to the wording of any mysogynist site you spot, otherwise your opposition will have an eeeasy time bashing you in pieces for being inaccurate and for crying wolf where there is no wolf to be seen and will start accusing you of being superficial and probably on drugs.

It's not apathy (lack of emotion), it's a kind of detachment (control of emotions) and avoiding being emotionally derailed by oppositors into incoherence ; emotional judo :) usually exploited by marketeers.
posted by elpapacito at 2:29 PM on July 8, 2004


I'm aware of the fleshlight. Whoop-de-doo. That comment didn't bother me, or I didn't catch it the first time around. I was always reacting to the original post.

What is a deletable thread then? I didn't see anything wrong with suggesting it be deleted.

I asked for it to be deleted because I, and many others thought it wasn't worthy of being a front page post. However, there has been some discussion so perhaps it's not worth a delete now.
posted by agregoli at 2:30 PM on July 8, 2004


Oh it's misanthropy dammmit now I remember!
posted by elpapacito at 2:33 PM on July 8, 2004


I don't see dobbs having any problem controlling her emotions.
posted by agregoli at 2:33 PM on July 8, 2004



elpapacito,

You are looking for "misandry." Misanthropy is the hatred of people in general.
posted by john at 2:43 PM on July 8, 2004


thanks john
posted by elpapacito at 3:01 PM on July 8, 2004


I think the Slut Manefesto is far more interesting and disturbing than the original links. If nothing else it's fascinating to pick out the little bits of personal weirdness that are exposed by the author.

One of the disturbing things about the Manefesto is that it actually supports much of what is offensive about the initial posts.

So, are we going to dismiss the author of the Manefesto as a confused slut, as she would expect from us?
posted by tcobretti at 3:09 PM on July 8, 2004


I've said it before about the nomarriage crowd and I'll say it again ...

I'll suck you dry. For free. As often as you like. If, you know, that's all you want. You'd just better be gone as soon as we're done, because I don't have time for assholes like you.
posted by WolfDaddy at 3:15 PM on July 8, 2004


Wow. This thread was flat lining but thanks to some well applied defibrillators, she seems to be up and running.

FWIW Fenriss, that site would be a great idea and I'd definitely visit.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 3:17 PM on July 8, 2004


Man oh man. This was supposed to be a humorous post, so I'm sorry it offended. As some other people have pointed out, the absurdity of a cost of sex calculator is funny. Well, I guess to some people anyway, that's the moral of this thread I suppose.
posted by chunking express at 3:24 PM on July 8, 2004


Here's a non-sexist article about the Cost of Dating Index (CDI) , which has some tangental value I think.
posted by john at 4:02 PM on July 8, 2004


elpapacito , we're talking about two different things while talking about the same thing. I'm not denying the "accounting" factor of the site, nor it's attempt at humor. I'm taking the site in context. It's only "clearly an attempt to use cost analysis..." when viewed in and of itself. When taken in the context of the entire domain, it's clearly an attempt to belittle women and inflate men who think this way.

In addition, I have no problems controlling my emotions regarding this. Apathy has another definition: lack of interest/concern, which is what I meant. My responses have been to the requests to "calm down". I am calm. However, it troubles me that people take anti-women propaganda so lightly. I'm as baffled, I suppose, as those of you who are baffled as to why anyone would be as annoyed with the site's contents.

I can only assume that those not bothered by misogyny have yet to be faced with its end result. Either that or they are familiar with it and are unconcerned anyway, which is troubling. It's of course also possible that they simply find the site not misogynist. I simply disagree, and, being concerned about what I believe is an important topic, will not quietly look away.

agregoli: I don't see dobbs having any problem controlling her emotions.

i'm reminded of an interview with Ken Burns where he states that he was playing baseball in a league for charity. One reporter saw his name on the list of participants and asked another reporter what his chosen charity was. When he was told it was the "Negro League Fund," he responded, "I didn't know Ken Burns was black."

In short: I'm a man. :)
posted by dobbs at 4:03 PM on July 8, 2004


My boyfriend and I just did the test, but we agreed that the stupid conversations (35-60 hours a week) were both of our fault, and we like them.
posted by jb at 4:22 PM on July 8, 2004


While there's a veritable chorus of guys and girls screaming about this being rather sexist, and even calling for censorship / deletion of whats turned out to be a rather extensive thread...

Alot of guys are refusing to get married.

While certainly the value of a relationship can far, far exceed mere sex, you cannot deny that some relationships begin and many relationships continue for no other reason but sex -- and, because of this, what might otherwise be a mutually fair and enjoyable circumstance really does degrade into...well, a rather immature power struggle. What this site is pointing out is -- if you want a fucktoy, buy one, they're cheaper. If you want a relationship, have one because you, you know, actually like this person, rather than simply wanting to get into their pants (or, on the flip side, have already invested a couple years into this person for purposes of procuring a marriage, and are terrified of starting from scratch).

Don't get me wrong, I think marriage is a beautiful thing -- I just married together my best friend and his girlfriend of seven years. But do I think marriage is, quite often, hijacked by a whole host of lizard brain instincts with higher order analysis functions castrated by taboo? I'd be a fool not to believe that, at least some of the time, and possibly more, that this is the case.

There's a reason we celebrate actual life-long loves. It's because they're rare.
posted by effugas at 4:35 PM on July 8, 2004


I can only assume that those not bothered by misogyny have yet to be faced with its end result.
Have you considered that others might have greater concerns on their mind, at least in their own opinion? Religion, starvation, AIDS, local, national or international politics are just a few things that will get me worked up quicker than a bad quiz that associates an economic value to having sex with a woman.

And what is the result of misogyny? The Equal Rights Amendment? Woman's Suffrage? (Despite my playful tone, I seriously do want to know what you believe the end result is. For the record, I'm not poking fun at your intent. I tend to see the good with the bad and sometimes mistakenly believe they need each other.)
However, it troubles me that people take anti-women propaganda so lightly.
Welcome to having an opinion. Seriously, that's not a snark. There is virtually no correlation between what is important to you and what is important to anyone else.
I simply disagree, and, being concerned about what I believe is an important topic, will not quietly look away.
Please, whatver you do, don't give up. Stay engaged, but don't be surprised when you're met with resistance, even from other femenists. Keep on keeping on.
posted by sequential at 4:35 PM on July 8, 2004


Well, gee, I actually liked the Slut Manifesto. I'm not certain that I agree with the way she ties everything into commercial commedies, but her criticism that relationships involve a heck of a lot of manipulation is a valid one.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 5:15 PM on July 8, 2004


: priceless

that wasn't such a hard answer, was it?
posted by Miles Long at 5:44 PM on July 8, 2004


So, if the woman makes more than the man, does that mean she's getting screwed? (so2speak...)

Well, I guess there would also be the orgasms per encounter multiplyer to consider in that case, too.
posted by NortonDC at 6:11 PM on July 8, 2004


Sorry dobbs - I actually did put her (him?) except I used those pointy things instead of parenthesis and metafilter removed them thinking it was code, I suppose.

Of course, your gender doesn't matter, your insightful comments do. Thanks.

Thanks too to chunking express who apologized for offending - that is appreciated. I hope this thread has opened your eyes a bit to why such things are offensive.

I'm not an ultra feminist. I don't crusade every day. But some days, like this one, make me ever exhausted. I see so many little things all the time that contribute to putting down women, and it's just so tiring and sad to me as a woman. I'm very glad, however, that today also restored a bit of my faith in Metafilter.
posted by agregoli at 6:19 PM on July 8, 2004


I read the link, john. It was a lame attempt at humor.

did you read the parent site? It's by no means clear he meant it to be funny. On the nomarriage site, he lists "serious stuff", "articles", "latest news" and "serious and funny stuff"; this is linked from the side next to the "serious stuff", and much of his supposedly serious views seem like they can only be parodies, but the thing is, they're not. The guy honestly feels that there is nothing of value in a relationship with a woman except for sex, and that especially american women are otherwise just "fat, whiny feminist bitches".

The quiz itself was just kinda boring - very simplistic and cliche "costs" multiplied by yr hourly wage and divided by how often you have sex. How is that clever or interesting? It's a standard misogynist line that the money you spend on a woman is the cost of getting some action; this guy just added the costs of your time, which are also commonly cited. That's why those jokes about "just let her win the argument" are offensive; they're just more ways to say, don't waste time actually engaging with someone and relating to them - all that's important is keeping them happy enough that they'll fuck you. If that's how you think, by all means, get a RealDoll or a fleshlight and enjoy yourself.
posted by mdn at 6:47 PM on July 8, 2004


I had seen the links but am now just reading the thread -- well, skippping a bit -- I am surprised to see that so few comments here are about the fleshlight and other fine MeFi baudiness. Maybe I just need to slink back into my hole but there is entirely too much "protesting too much" and not enough "flesh light good!"/"writing down of WolfDaddy's number". *checks zip code*

/Straight, married, shy, socially conservative conservative guy. Really.
posted by Dick Paris at 7:04 PM on July 8, 2004


did you read the parent site? It's by no means clear he meant it to be funny.

Yes, I did. And while I don't like the attitudes presented there, I don't believe they came out of nowhere. Prejudices and hatreds rarely develop in a vacuum.

We look for root causes when it comes to terrorism, why not when it comes to misogyny or any other prejudice? Something inthe guys experience twisted his (probably) already dormant prejudices into overdrive. Finding out what could probably be a lot more productive than making him into some abstarct dehumanized villain, both for him and for the rest of us.
posted by jonmc at 7:15 PM on July 8, 2004


and I might add, he's probably misapplied his anger at whatever woman "done him wrong" to the entire female gender, That's where the misogyny (and his culpablity) come into play.

Just about all men have entertained misogynist thoughts. after a girlfreind dumped them, after they've been rejected by some girl at a party. The triumph over misogyny comes in separating the personal from the political, that your anger at that woman should not be applied towards all women. But when someones had a history of rejection and mistreatment by women that can be more difficult.

I'll give you a personal example (based on race rather than gender but the principle is the same). I used to work with a Filipino guy who used to ride me mercilessly. Anything I did, he'd complain about. No matter what I did, i was not the worker he was, in his opinion. One day he rode me in front of a supervisor, screaming "You no resourceful!!" in front of everyone. Part of mybrain was screaming "Why the fuck don't you go back where you came from?!" but the other half was admonishing "No. This is not your better self. You don't hate Asians, you hate him. Your best buddy in college was Filipino. He is not all of his people." So, the next timehe told me to do something, I did it impeccably and he was forced to say "Good job, jon," which gave me a momentary smirk of satisfaction.

Resolving the inner conflict I described above is the key to overcoming prejudice of any kind, and the first step to that is understanding, however uncomfortable that might make us.
posted by jonmc at 7:38 PM on July 8, 2004


-30.28846153846154
posted by swift at 7:42 PM on July 8, 2004


^ WTF?
posted by jonmc at 7:48 PM on July 8, 2004


Reminds me of the old joke:
"This is a feminist bookstore - there is no humor section."
posted by spazzm at 8:29 PM on July 8, 2004


What I've learned today is that if you (as a man) make a lot of money, then sex is really, really expensive, but if you are poor, sex is dead cheap! So, have lots of sex while you are poor, then when you start raking in the big bucks, buy a plastic vagina so you can keep having cheap sex.

Is that right?
posted by taz at 9:31 PM on July 8, 2004


jonmc--

I'm not sure it's intellectually useful to compare the inherent differences between what the genders require against one particular asshole boss. No matter how you shuffle it, there are some systematic effects in heterosexual dating -- sex withholding, commitment dangling, financial entwinement, fradulent surrender -- that cannot be rationalized away as simple exceptions. These are risks inherent in the activity -- to be managed well, or to be managed poorly -- but risks nonetheless.

Don't tell me women don't perceive the legitimate risk that they're just being used for sex -- and don't tell me men are the only ones who introduce decidedly unromantic risks to the dating game. It's a bloody, bloody mess, with no obvious reason why there has to be some easy way for it to all work out. Insulting this guy -- oh, he must have had one of those weird relationships that went awry -- just makes you look rather inexperienced, frankly. Most relationships end at one point or another; the question is, what do you learn from them, and how do you manage the anger? Learning that simply dating / spending time with / making excuses for someone just for sex is ultimately fruitless -- this is actually a good lesson to learn.

Believe me, some people need to learn it.
posted by effugas at 11:00 PM on July 8, 2004


If I build it, will you come?

*suppresses immature snigger*

Seriously, I would love to see a site like that and would certainly participate, as this is a subject that I am very interested in. As jonmc says, attitudes like those expressed on nomarriage.com do not develop in a vacuum and, sad as it is, there are lots of people (both male and female) who blame the entire opposite sex for all their problems. I by no means agree with this attitude, but there is something fascinating about the interaction between males and females (particularly when things are not happy). I would love to be able to discuss this openly and without prejudice, which is almost impossible to do.
posted by dg at 3:39 AM on July 9, 2004


Something inthe guys experience twisted his (probably) already dormant prejudices into overdrive. Finding out what could probably be a lot more productive than making him into some abstarct dehumanized villain, both for him and for the rest of us.

True, but how is that my problem? I don't need to go out of my way to understand prejudice, sorry, I just move on. HE is the one who needs to see clearer, but I'm not going to waste my time on trying to tell him. And I'm certainly going to call such attitudes out when I see them on Metafilter.
posted by agregoli at 6:55 AM on July 9, 2004


I don't need to go out of my way to understand prejudice, sorry, I just move on. HE is the one who needs to see clearer, but I'm not going to waste my time on trying to tell him.

Perhaps, but if we want to make any progress on reducing prejudice in society, we as a whole do, IMHO. When we talk about trying to reduce crime, we focus at least somewhat on the forces that shaped the criminal and somewhat on law enforcement. A similar approach is called for with regards to prejudice.

And I'm certainly going to call such attitudes out when I see them on Metafilter

As well you should. Just adding my (perhaps half-baked) ideas to the stew here.
posted by jonmc at 7:08 AM on July 9, 2004


I still don't see what I'm supposed to do about some jerk on the internet who puts up websites like this. I don't want to feel sorry for him because he had a bad experience and ignorantly places the blame on all womankind. But I DID fight to repeal the damaging attitude. While I'm 99% sure I couldn't change THAT guys' mind, we did help the original poster of this thread to see why treating this sort of thing as acceptable just isn't.

I guess I wasn't really upset over him to begin with. I can ignore such blatant things on their own - but I don't like it being pasted into the Metafilter community, and I've already commented on that. It's when the idiots of the world are brought into the circle of a community like they are friends or comrades, or like they are people who are doing something neat and of value we should all look at that I am offended.
posted by agregoli at 7:55 AM on July 9, 2004


Ah, jonmc, I respect your desire to have some kind of interesting discussion come out of this, but I'm just not with you on this "let's try to understand the NoMarriage.com guy's point of view" bit. He's a sexist, racist asshole. As others have pointed out earlier, whatever specific bad experiences he's had cannot logically be generalized to all of womankind, or all American women. His expectations for how a woman should be are even more laughable than his flawed logic. He lists "a preoccupation with fairness" as a reason why American women supposedly suck. And we're supposed to take him seriously? He's a nutcase, and we can't change his mind, so what is there left to do but laugh at the guy? Because if I'm not laughing, I'm retching.

It's when the idiots of the world are brought into the circle of a community like they are friends or comrades, or like they are people who are doing something neat and of value we should all look at that I am offended.

Basically, chunking express posted this FPP in a "let's laugh at the idiot who wrote this page" spirit. Not because he thought it would be thought-provoking, or of great value to us in our daily lives, but because stupid, crazy blowhards are funny. At least to some of us, they are. The joke can only be a joke, however, if the audience finds the author's ideology - sexism, racism, misogyny, and a mercenary view of sex - to be ridiculous. In other words, chunking express posted it precisely because the NoMarriage.com guy's thinking is completely beyond the pale to him, and he felt quite sure that it was beyond the pale of Mefites in general.

The NoMarriage.com guy is not our comrade. We laugh at him, not with him. Unfortunately, I think chunking's deadpan, no-editorial delivery in the FPP (which I don't blame him for in any way; there's far too much FPP editorializing as it is) opened the way to this subsequent misunderstanding of his intentions. And upon a second reading, I can see how a couple of unfortunate, boyzone-ish comments after agregoli's response probably just added fuel to the fire.

So in summation: posted by skoosh at 10:48 AM on July 9, 2004


Yes, in this instance, some indication that chunking express thought the link stupid and silly would have helped, however, I still would have objected, as it was not nearly an interesting enough link/point to bring up. Some men hate women. And?
posted by agregoli at 10:57 AM on July 9, 2004


skoosh, I think part of the problem is that one could find the link funny for two different reasons - because "it's ridiculous" and because "it's true". Eg, spazzm's comment above about feminist bookstores not having humor sections seems to be more supportive of the idea that this is "harmless fun", rather than the idea that this is so idiotic it's funny.

These are really completely different reasons for finding something humorous. If there were a site with jokes about, say, americans, riffing on their being fat and greedy or something, and someone was offended, others might say, man, you're just way too sensitive - it was funny. The point there would be that there was a grain of truth to it, and we should be able to laugh at our own flaws. That's different from finding something funny because it's just so completely out of touch...
posted by mdn at 11:18 AM on July 9, 2004


I respect your desire to have some kind of interesting discussion come out of this, but I'm just not with you on this "let's try to understand the NoMarriage.com guy's point of view" bit. He's a sexist, racist asshole. As others have pointed out earlier, whatever specific bad experiences he's had cannot logically be generalized to all of womankind, or all American women.

1) I agree that he's racist and sexist, and I by no means am trying to excuse that.

2) Its not neccessarily about this guy in particular. And he's a bad choice because he's a fairly extreme case, someone who's made misogyny his raison d'etre.

I just believe that if we're ever going to be able to conquer the various bigotries that plague our society-and that are inside every single one of us, no matter what our race, religion, gender, or sexuality*- just pointing out racism or dealing with it's effects is not enough. We have to look at it's source.

I'm not the first person to suggest this. Donna Minkowitz's book Ferocious Romance is all about finding the humanity in one's ideological enemy.

*i think that some people (I'm not talking about anyone here) may be uncomfortable exploring this topic for fear of facing their own prejudices. Just an idea.
posted by jonmc at 11:31 AM on July 9, 2004


I think that jonmc is right that looking for the root cause is important here. Yeah, this guy is an asshole misogynist. Maybe we can make some progress in the ongoing dialog between the sexes if we can find out why he's an asshole misogynist. This is far from blaming the victim. I have no idea what may have motivated the woma(e)n who hurt him, and it's entirely possible that she(they) were blameless. But either way, the anatomy of the misogynist mind is worth learning for those of us who want to actively try to fix these problems in society.
posted by Fenriss at 1:26 PM on July 9, 2004


*laughs*

Jeez, guys. Enough with the macho / righteously indignant routine. We get it, you're kind and sensitive and wonderful and everyone should sleep with you.

You can do what you like, but I'm going to respect a damn valuable lesson that at least two friends of mine really, really need to learn: "At least I'm getting laid" is not a sufficient reason to stay in a relationship for a guy, any more than "he'll marry me eventually" is for a girl. There are some astonishing heights one can reach in a genuine, shared, mutually loving relationships. But you'll never reach them if you're dreaming of all you'll do with your fools gold. It's certainly a valid criticism to say that this guy advocates guys never getting married, and how that's a total rejection of what can be a really meaningful experience in our lives. But this knee-jerk, chest pounding, save the princess nonsense about how the very real shit this guy is dredging up is a rare exception is about as credible as the Abu Gharib excuse of the week.



Incidentally, you do realize the more you personally insult the author of this article, the more credible it makes him?

jonmc -- racist? Where'd that come from? I might have missed one of his links.
posted by effugas at 6:13 PM on July 9, 2004


Incidentally, you do realize the more you personally insult the author of this article, the more credible it makes him?

Uh, what?
posted by agregoli at 10:20 AM on July 10, 2004


effugas, read some of his articles on foreign women. They're a bit on the racist side.
posted by chunking express at 11:13 AM on July 10, 2004


agre-- I'm mostly referring to all the "OBVIOUSLY this guy is a total loser, is mentally defective, perhaps we should study him like a lab animal to discover more about how this disease spreads" kind of talk. The problem is, most people, if they're being intellectually honest, we'll admit that there really are alot of screwed up relationships out there that are perpetuated by little more than a desire of sex or a fear of being unmarried. It's one thing -- and it's quite accurate at that -- to say that this guy has taken things to the extreme, that he's extended a fair warning into an absolutist polemic. But fundamentally he's got a point, one that massive numbers of Western men are accepting in record numbers -- that alot of marriages, like alot of relationships, just shouldn't be. If you deny him his point, if you call him crazy, if you malign and insult him _personally_, then you force rational people to choose one of two sides:

1) Either he's sane, and lots of relationships are disastrous, or
2) He's crazy, carry along, go get married without a worry.

Faced with 2, 1 seems like a much more appealing choice for the rational mind. The problem of course is that lots of other stuff (like this guy's apparent desire for women to be quite submissive -- note, this is different than being racist or sexist, and basically speaks to cultural differences and preferences that we liberals are supposed to accept) comes for the ride; once its been made all or nothing (he's either crazy or he's not), if he's not crazy, you are, and your position is weakened while he becomes the sane voice.

You know, I think this informs some of the (infuriating) unwillingness of the American populace to turn on Bush...
posted by effugas at 6:28 PM on July 10, 2004


I don't think anyone was saying that relationships are the issue - that his extension of one bad relationship to mean that all women are horrible is what is offensive and wrong.
posted by agregoli at 7:44 AM on July 11, 2004


effugas: I don't think anyone here is contesting the proposition that lots of relationships are disasters and are maintained for all the wrong reasons. It's just that NoMarriage.com is far from the best standard-bearer for this message, mainly because there is not one ounce of blame that its author puts on men's shoulders. As far as its author is concerned, when relationships go sour, it is all the fault of (uppity American) women. When someone says things like:
  • If you can find a woman to be your companion who is not treacherous, a deceitful little actress, a sly whore or a manipulative nag or a shrieking hag, then you are among the lucky few.1
  • My take on marriage: It's a great way to complicate an otherwise amicable business relationship with sex.2
  • A huge percentage of American women are selfish, flighty, insecure, needy and psychotic, and quite capable of concealing those traits during the dating phase. White 'career' American chicks are the bottom of the barrel marriage-wise.
  • I wouldn't even consider dating an American women, the majority are bitchy prudes that only put out when they think they can cash in. I for one will never spend a huge amount of money of some stupid bitch just to get laid. Mexican and Asian women are a much better choice and they look better than American chics too. 3
it becomes difficult to take them seriously. We could have a rational, cogent debate about the pros and cons of immigration policy, but I wouldn't look to a Neo-Nazi/Christian Identity site to give me any helpful insight on the matter. If the NoMarriage.com guy wanted me to listen to him, he might have done well not to have summarily and repeatedly insulted my mother, my sister, my cousins, and most of my friends, without ever even having met them. If you're having trouble seeing the racism, try replacing "American" with "Mexican" or "Asian" in those quotes and see how that reads to you. Not to mention his stereotyping of Mexicans and Asians, among others. He is a racist, and he is a sexist, and if the above quotes don't convince you of that, there's plenty more of the same on that site.

The Slut Manifesto and NoMarriage.com both assert that women are primarily valued by the world for their body parts and the sexual services they can provide. The difference is that the Slut Manifesto believes that this is a Bad Thing, and wants to change it. NoMarriage.com is perfectly fine with it, and has even provided a handy calculator to help men find the best bargains in the woman market. That is, not to put too fine a point on it, fucked up. Therefore, it made me laugh. Others, not so much.
posted by skoosh at 12:40 PM on July 11, 2004


Skoosh--

I see your point, and to a surprising extent, agree with alot of it. The guy's pretty extreme, has almost certainly been viciously hurt in the past, and would be far more persuasive with a lot less vitriol. That's a particularly cogent point regarding him insulting our familes -- yeah, the guy's a sh*t.

I think, though, that I'm willing -- maybe more willing than most -- to separate a bit of wheat from the oceans of chaff. For example: "selfish, flighty, insecure, needy and psychotic" -- while it's horribly offensive to apply that to all American girls, it sure doesn't apply to none of them. (*ahem* "Some more than others, one more than some.") This guy has totally forgotten, or simply failed to experience, the value of a mutually loving relationship. He's probably found himself, time and time again, faking interest in meaningless people who are themselves faking interest in him. The value -- the takeaway for me -- is that unless *I* want to end up that bitter, I need to be quite careful about what I expose myself to, and make sure I don't cavort with the soulless types (who do exist, in every culture) that compose this poor schlub's entire perception of women.

Yeah, I said soulless. There are some f*cked up people out there, of both genders. Don't date 'em, no matter how great they are in bed. Yikes.

Regarding the racist/sexist thing...you simply have to believe that different regions lack different cultures, and thus personality differences are genetic, in order to make what this guy describes racist or sexist. You can make that assertion, but I consider that far worse.

There really is a substantially different experience of people as you travel from region to region and country to country. The reality that this guy hasn't explicitly said is that an American in alot of these places (not a border town) is automatically relatively wealthy for an American (only 19% of the US population has even been issued a passport) and is a "rare commodity" of some sort. The funny thing is, this guy's still buying off the wealth-seekers, it's just he finds them a hell of alot more affordable.

The Slut Manifesto isn't offensive because of the Richard Pryor rule; i.e. it's never offensive to make fun of your own kind. A guy writing that manifesto would be far more offensive than even the NoMarriage guy.

Am I being reasonable here? Whatcha think, skoosh?
posted by effugas at 5:06 PM on July 11, 2004


effugas: I think the difference between you and me (and many other people) is that I don't really feel the desire to separate the wheat from the chaff when it's 99+% chaff, and its bitterness has bled even into the wheat. I suppose the site might have some value as a "but for the grace of God" warning to the rest of us, and I'm glad you could get something out of it that way. But it's not worth the aggravation to me.

Regarding racism, culture, and personality: I believe that the personality mix among different human groups of any significant size is pretty consistent, just as a handful of sand on this end of the beach has pretty much the same mix of minerals as the sand on the other end. There may be culture-to-culture differences in standards of public behavior (which can make a foreign visitor think he's among extremely friendly people, for example, when it's just the cultural norm to smile a lot at strangers), but beneath it all, you're likely to find as many villains and backstabbers among the people of culture X as among those of Y. This is not necessarily because personality is genetic -- there are all sorts of intracultural differences other than genetics, such as family, social class, childhood traumas, etc., that can give rise to intracultural personality diversity.

I think it's pretty sharp of you, though, to pick up on the unexamined subjective bias of a well-off American man dating foreign women from poor countries. There's an unequal power dynamic there that NoMarriage.com doesn't mention at all; not that I would expect it to, since women's perspectives are of vanishingly little consequence to its author.

This is quite apart from the question of NoMarriage.com's sexism, which I'm surprised you still doubt. I've already mentioned that the author never locates the fault for bad relationships with men, but always with women. A hypocritical corollary to that is that women are excoriated for being faithless cheaters, but men cheating on their wives is perfectly understandable. I'm not sure how much more blatantly sexist one can get.

Regarding the Slut Manifesto: There may be something to your contention that it might be received differently were it written by a male. But Lizzard Amazon is not making fun of women, so much as she is describing and decrying a system of gender oppression in which everyone participates. Men come off looking worse in her description, but that's not the point. She basically calls all women whores, so there's plenty of offense to go around regardless of Amazon's gender. The key difference is that she finds this sort of thinking deplorable (she doesn't want women to be seen as commodities), and NoMarriage.com finds it quite acceptable (they advise men to get a good price). Imagine that NoMarriage.com was written by a woman -- would it be any less offensive?
posted by skoosh at 11:57 AM on July 12, 2004


« Older "Untitled Inspirational Memoir"...   |   You can probably guess who peo... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments