Slog Comments
But If You Don't Monetize Women, How Will They Know Their Worth?
1
Brunette = $140.94 but "doesn't smoke" = $16.61?! Even a Master's degree is worth less than blue eyes. Priorities, people.
Though I suppose if a woman's only goal in life is to attract a man (these still exist, right?), think of all the money she'll save on post-graduate education by just buying a box of hair color and some colored contacts.
Though I suppose if a woman's only goal in life is to attract a man (these still exist, right?), think of all the money she'll save on post-graduate education by just buying a box of hair color and some colored contacts.
2
Well...gay men in Seattle have been doing a variation on this since at least 1995. Would like a list of first and last names as proof?
5
@3 Here's the smallest box of blue contacts I could find. $17 per eye, add tax and that's $37.23. In the end, you're $5.10 ahead of the game.
6
Brunette: $140.94
Blue Eyes: $42.33
Master's Degree: $30.17
Does anal on the first date: Priceless
Blue Eyes: $42.33
Master's Degree: $30.17
Does anal on the first date: Priceless
7
@5 hmmm, I don't know. When I'm considering monetizing my value as a human being I'd hate to cheat. Morals... That's gotta be worth a few extra dollars!
10
Do straight guys really shell out that kind of money on a first date? If your willing to pay hundreds of dollars to get yourself laid why not just hire a sex worker?
11
"Overall, Seattle males are willing to spend an average of $247.57 to go on a first date with their definition of 'The Perfect Woman.'"
So the guy pays the woman that for a first date?
Is that what I'm hearing?
Or does he pay the "web site" and she gets a percentage of that?
So the guy pays the woman that for a first date?
Is that what I'm hearing?
Or does he pay the "web site" and she gets a percentage of that?
13
Like it or not, it's a market, and it works both ways. Might as well put a dollar value on it.
I'd be curious to see what value women implicitly place on various features for men. Guessing earnings, height, intelligence, sense of humor, and kindness would be the top attributes, although some of these might difficult to convey on a dating site profile.
I'd be curious to see what value women implicitly place on various features for men. Guessing earnings, height, intelligence, sense of humor, and kindness would be the top attributes, although some of these might difficult to convey on a dating site profile.
14
It's actually cool for this "dating auction" site to release stats like this. It's not like the male users are consciously putting a dollar amount on brown hair. OKCupid also occasionally does this sort of statistical analysis on its user base and it's really fascinating.
15
Fucking cheapskates. My wife spends a lot more than that to be a brunette.
Don't even get me started on how much the Master's degree cost...
Don't even get me started on how much the Master's degree cost...
18
Hot damn, I'm 4 for 5 (brunette, blue eyes, doesn't smoke, casual drinker)! I wonder how many negative dollars "already married" is, though...
21
@18 Pretty close to what I thought... "damn, I can't get a decent job without a degree, can't get a decent man with a degree..."
Choices.
Choices.
22
Oh god, not this troll again. He is the typical 'I couldn't get a date in high school' creep who felt empowered by his first experience with a hooker and now thinks he is 'smart' enough to equate the transactional nature of this to all sexual relationships.
Binder full of women didn't work for Mitt. It's not going to work for Brandon. Although, nice try getting free press from The Stranger. Even without mention of the website...
Binder full of women didn't work for Mitt. It's not going to work for Brandon. Although, nice try getting free press from The Stranger. Even without mention of the website...
23
What about Black Friday? Are there deals? Super sales? Do I need to worry about discount blondes??! Fine then...I cant take the stress! Anal, threesomes, sports. $200. Take it or leave it...
28
@14 Reddit had a story from OkCupid yesterday about how women view 80% of men as "below-average" attractiveness.
32
@13, once you've cleared the bar of basic physical function and literacy, the douchebag test trumps every other variable. It can only be done in person (a look in the eye and a few words is all it takes). Not going to work on eBay.
33
To be fair, they are not saying that a woman or her parts are worth that much money, but rather a chance to date a woman with those qualities is worth that much money to a lot of men. And well, men find physical attractiveness very important.
Besides, everyone knows a human body is worth over 200 grand for parts alone anyway.
Besides, everyone knows a human body is worth over 200 grand for parts alone anyway.
34
Considering how fugly women in Seattle are, $247 is a total waste. Seriously, calling a woman 'Seattle pretty' is NOT a compliment.
35
@32: If only attracting women were that simple!
I can assure you, most ladies have more requirements than that, some of them based on "superficial" attributes, height being the most obvious one. Also, it's interesting that compared to men, women tend to be resistant to the idea that the basis for their attraction can be systematized in any way.
I can assure you, most ladies have more requirements than that, some of them based on "superficial" attributes, height being the most obvious one. Also, it's interesting that compared to men, women tend to be resistant to the idea that the basis for their attraction can be systematized in any way.
37
Well, now that I think about it I should probably thank this website... I can now give a $ to how much I dislike other women! Am I right ladies? Yeah!
"Check out that $245.57 over there. What a bitch!"
"Check out that $245.57 over there. What a bitch!"
39
@32, 35:
Women's attraction tends to be more based upon stability than physical attributes.
Women judge men on their job, social relationships, and ability to provide. Men tend to judge women on their looks. Of course, these are not the only attributes (men still look for stable women) but they are the most important to us biologically.
Is either sexist, is both sexist, is only one sexist, blah blah blah. When it comes to raw sexuality/attraction, we are basically animals...we do not get to choose or intellectualize what we like. If I do not date a woman because I think she is ugly, is that sexist? If a woman does not date me because of my crappy job, is that sexist?
Men and women are very different, anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to sell something or lying.
Women's attraction tends to be more based upon stability than physical attributes.
Women judge men on their job, social relationships, and ability to provide. Men tend to judge women on their looks. Of course, these are not the only attributes (men still look for stable women) but they are the most important to us biologically.
Is either sexist, is both sexist, is only one sexist, blah blah blah. When it comes to raw sexuality/attraction, we are basically animals...we do not get to choose or intellectualize what we like. If I do not date a woman because I think she is ugly, is that sexist? If a woman does not date me because of my crappy job, is that sexist?
Men and women are very different, anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to sell something or lying.
40
39
wich is why a father/mother parent set provides a very different family environment than a same sex couple
wich is why a father/mother parent set provides a very different family environment than a same sex couple
41
@40: All the collected evidence proves you wrong, but I guess if you have a "gut feeling," I can not really argue with that, now can I?
42
41
you are arguing with yourself?
or arguing just for the sake of making noise?
"Men and women are very different", remember?
are you now asserting that two men provide the same parenting experience that two women would that a man/woman would?
really?
OK. its your dime.....
('very different' may not mean what you thought it did.)
and by 'collected evidence' you must be referencing all the homoliberal junk science advocacy that parades as research.
please cite any legitimate study that PROVES that lesbian parents, gay parents and heterosexual parents provide family environments that are not different.
(remember, Danny repeatedly drags out his favorite "study" that he claims PROVES lesbians are better parents than heterosexuals.
remember that VenomWhore is always asserting how innately VIOLENT men are.
remember that the HHS study Al Frankum fwapped off to didn't examining homosexual parenting at all.)
you are arguing with yourself?
or arguing just for the sake of making noise?
"Men and women are very different", remember?
are you now asserting that two men provide the same parenting experience that two women would that a man/woman would?
really?
OK. its your dime.....
('very different' may not mean what you thought it did.)
and by 'collected evidence' you must be referencing all the homoliberal junk science advocacy that parades as research.
please cite any legitimate study that PROVES that lesbian parents, gay parents and heterosexual parents provide family environments that are not different.
(remember, Danny repeatedly drags out his favorite "study" that he claims PROVES lesbians are better parents than heterosexuals.
remember that VenomWhore is always asserting how innately VIOLENT men are.
remember that the HHS study Al Frankum fwapped off to didn't examining homosexual parenting at all.)
Comments (43) RSS