No, it’s all a commodity. No differentiating products.
Sure you can. I’m curious if when you’re with a chick do you use a strap-on to hit her, or is more like just 69-ish action?
I have it on my schedule to become a lesbian but I haven’t got round to it yet.
In my head, strap on.
Econ Girl, I call the thing you are astutley describing, especially for a chick, “The Gash Equilbrium.”.
Two girls have the choice of getting laid or not getting laid. They also have the choice of calling their so-called “friend” a slut behind their back.
If labeled a slut they will have diminished social (same as economic) value. Lose
If they don’t have sex then they miss out on sex and all it’s benefits: (pleasure, money, attention, jewelry, shoes, children)
Ideally they should both have sex and not label one another sluts. If they did this they would derive the maximum benefit and maintain their social value.
How does the game play out?
Both girls get drunk and accidentally on purpose sleep with the same guy on different occasions. Behind one another’s back they call each other sluts. Their social value diminishes for both of them. The guy they slept with now looks like a “player” and hence derives higher social value and the attention of even more attractive women who then crowd out the two, now socially diminished in value, slutty ex-best friends.
The slutty ex best friends get relegated to Beta males. Both girls lose.
LOS 4.0 - There is no such thing as friendship between two women, only suspended hostility.
I am developing a routine about the fact that the majority of the time a woman is called a slut, it’s by another woman. We men have kind of a warm relationship with sluts, and don’t think they’re nearly so bad as other women do. Which, of course, is one of the benefits of being a bit slutty. 
You could do a funny supply and demand analysis with price being the number of drinks, a shortage of supply results in men leaving the bar, and a excess supply results in threesomes.
I think you have to take into account the desirability of the woman in question. If the woman is very desirable she does not need to be a slut in order to garner attention, nor does she need to call anyone else a slut as that would betray insecurity.
Well, econgirl’s premise is that sex is a commodity - i.e. it is the same product across different females. I would have to disagree. Boning Natalie Portman would definitely be different from a less hot person.
I think econgirl is in denial and just trying is just trying to devalue the “virgins”. It would fit perfectly with how we’ve all agreed that women try to devalue other women. one method by calling all other girls “sluts”
Since a virgin isn’t a slut, then econgirl can only try to devalue the “virgin” by some weird non-sensical logic.
And there’s not a chance sex can be commoditized as Ohai already said. So that shoots the entire logic down.
A commodity has to be homogenous across all, which is clearly not the case
That is where the pitch is going past the player.
I’m doing a market analysis here - I lost my virginity when I was 23, so my personal opinions are not part of my theories. To get to the underlying market structure it helps to make a ton of assumptions and generalizations, I learnt that in econ school.
You guys are thinking to detailed. Just think of it in simple terms:
If the women on the planet all halved their sex output, in general, it would drive up the price for any woman. If woman doubled their sex output all of us would be able to command less for it. Example, a few centuries ago, marriage and full financial support for your adult life was the price of sex and sluttyness was strictly enforced (family honor, purity, conservative dress, bla bla). Then came a substitute for standard of living when women could get jobs - quantity of sex went up, and price dropped from marriage to about 2 cocktails and 1/2 hr of feelings talk.
Hence commodity-like price structure.
While we are on the topic - I’m a big fan of masturbation.
Yep, we’ve all read those Gladwell books and freakonomics too, Econ Girl. Fun stuff.
Clearly, the old business model, which favored purity for the sake of paternity and limiting STDs is no longer very useful thanks to birth control, paternity tests, and things like condoms. Furthermore, the safety net we have created socially and the fact that most modern women seem every bit as employable as men (at least on the surface: I know very few women that want to work in competitive jobs after having kids) also makes it less revelevant as women “need” men less than before. So why is it so bad for a chick to be a slut? There are no tangible consequences except in tail risk events which we can ignore.
I go back and forth on the “do I value experience and skill vs chastity in a woman” question.
One way people look at it is this:
- The slutty experienced chick will have skill from all the practice and different partners. The virgin will just lie there not knowing what to do. Sex with the slut > sex with the virgin.
I think, if you are only going to invest in a one night stand than this is probably the way to go. Otherwise I completely disagree with this statement.
-
Baggage - every woman carries indelible baggage from their past boyfriends - good and bad. If its bad bagge you will suffer for it. For example, if her exes were womenizers she will never trust you, she will always be suspicious even if you are good. This sucks. If it’s good baggage then the woman will always be comparing you to this. Let’s say her ex had a dong the size of CFAvsMBAs, for example, then she will inevitably be comparing your smaller Asian penis to his massive Black one. Either way, I see very little upside relative to the downside. So with a used woman, like a used vehicle, caveat emptor applies. The body might be in tact and the sticker price might be good value, but you don’t know if the previous driver drove her like a sociopath and what effect that will have on her undercarriage.
-
Openmindedness - I think you can train a virgin to do whatever it is you want sexually. She will not have a prior context and therefore won’t see it as abornomal if you are a freak, or too run-of-the-mill, if you are just into the standard “comfort sex” that most people actually prefer.
Getting back to “The Gash Equilibrium” it makes sense for women to lie about sex, as I have just proven, and deflate the number of men that they have slept with. We all know they do just that. It also makes sense for them to call their rivals sluts, which they do.
The longer women play this Gash Equilibrium game the less valuable they become in the eyes of men. They appear sluttier, less pure, and as the pool narrows they are forced to cannibalize one another to compete for a diminishing pool of men. It gets even worse when you realize that new contestant females are added at each interval.
Two conclusions:
-
The Dr. J rule - named after my brother which I have told you before, who concludes that any woman over the age of 25 that is not in a serious long term relationship is probably not in one for a good reason. Meaning buyer beware. Do not date chicks over the age of 25 if at all possible. (Yes there are exceptions, but it is better not to risk being wrong if you have a choice). This theory is supported by the Gash Equilibrium concept above which says the excess baggage she carries (regardless of the depreciation) is almost never positive.
-
Women should date older men who are more mature, have better estimable future cash flows, and are ready to be serious about a relationship (meaning ready to have kids soon). They should not waste time sleeping with, but especially not dating guys their own age who are unknown quantities, with difficult to estimate future cash flows, and who will in the case of success have a high probability of dumping the old girlfriend for a newer, better, younger one.
Sharpe Ratio - The rational thing is for a 30 year old man to date a 20 year old and marry her when she is 24. This maximizes return for both man and woman and minimizes variance.
^ Bravo, man. Bravo. I agree with EVERYTHING. I’ve never agreed to everything in a long post like that before. You can probably throw in this rule: Don’t marry a girl who’s father is much wealthier than you, because you’ll never reach the level he spoiled her, and by god, you’ll probably never hear the end of the complaining how daddy treated her better.
And I can say from personal experience the rest are very true. I’ve done the training thing which was awesome, I’ve heard the lies of # of men etc etc… all very true.
In this day, if women want independence and freedom to sleep around, that’s a personal choice they make. But those same women should be giving up all the traditional rights of the guy having the burden of taking care of the family, of giving the girl everything because she gave everything to him only etc.
If it is truly a marriage of equals, then why does the guy have to be massively in the red on spending all the money, buying the gifts, ring, when there’s a bunch of guys who already got all the goods by doing none of those? Because I’d much rather be the guy who got all the goods for nothing
I’m 26 and I’m single because I’ve been turning down dates since October so I could work stupid hours and study while breaking in my horse. But, I won’t bring up the exception to the rule. I have an argument against the whole rule.
If you are a solid 10 (like me) it takes you longer to find another solid 10. Why? Picture people’s rankings on a bell curve. I’m in a market without much liquidity and volume -> inefficiences can be found.
And in informational inefficiencies and non-transparent pricing and it’s not surprising why a lot of people are either single or pretending to be happy in a relationship.
As for me, I’m on to the new frontier of dating girls after the exam.
Exactly, the Dr. J rule applies to you as well. There is a good reason you are single and should remain so. I’ll leave that up to the boys to intuit.
The low trading volume sounds like you need to lower your ask. I’m sure that like most North American chicks you’ve priced yourself for perfection like LULU has.
In any case I applaud your decision to date chicks. I love lesbians, please videotape and forward to me.
I gotta say, I like your style Econ Girl too bad I didn’t meet you when you were 19.
I like lesbian videos too. Giggles!
Econ, did you take your first pound of meat like a champion and enjoyed it, or it was more like just a painful experience?
i check out a girl’s face, than feet…i suppose if the head and feet are ok, everything in the middle should fit in just fine…
Geez, guys, show some class here…
There’s probably a separate forum where you’re all being evaluated as HCGs, and you don’t want to fail on the C category either.
Class is a dead concept nowadays. What’s the point of being classy when you can download a graphic homemade sex tape of pretty much everyone who is famous? It’s a prerequisite these days. The message is clear - short class!
Whats more alarming is that Econ Girl is obviously a guy. Well it was fun while it lasted.