Men, Women, Babies; Stocks, Currency, Bonds

[malcolm]

I saw this excellent post on another board, and it seemed apposite to the recent flurry of posts regarding the Meat Market.  Many folks here (myself included) are afflicted with a tendency to apply economic analysis to the broader world.  The following is a great edifice of econo-sexual analogy and financial metaphor, which I thoroughly enjoyed.  Thoughts, anyone?



Here's a new bit of terminology that I thought up. Investors can "long" (bet on) and "short" (bet against) a stock. Women "long" and "short" men. Women are currency, men are stocks, babies are bonds, divorce is selling a stock, marriage is buying a stock and dividends refer to money spent on the woman.

Some women "short" men by having sex quickly, partying with them, bleeding them for money early in the relationship and showing their terrible attitude. Great fun for them in the short term.

The guys that are "shorted" are the type that don't appreciate with time. They lower their value with a criminal record, drinking, drug abuse, gambling, violence, abuse and cheating. Emotionally dysfunctional women "long" these men and end up in a terrible relationship. Why do they stay? Because they bought a stock at 50 and it dropped to 40. They are hoping the stock will go back up. Irrational women are just like irrational investors, they throw good money after bad.

Smart women realize that "nice guys" (as in investment) are like a profitable company. At 30, a woman's value is low, while the man's value is high and rising. What does an investor do? They go long on the investment. They demand chivalry, act like a "good girl", act perfect to bait the man and then get the payoff (expensive ring, wedding, house, retirement plan, baby...).

Of course when a stock has stagnant earnings and doesn't appreciate in value (probably because of the insanely high dividend payments the investor requires, such as a woman's request to shop, not work and live above her means) a smart investor dumps that stock and cashes out (divorce). It doesn't matter that the high dividend payments kept the company from re-investing the money to earn more. Plus the investor still gets dividends even though they aren't even invested in the company anymore (alimony). Imagine if a stockholder demanded more than they invested when selling the stock and then demanded dividends after selling?

This analogy also applys to single moms. A child is like a convertible bond (a bond that can become stock). The set payments are just like owning a bond. If she can use the child to guilt the man into marriage, she just converted her investment to a stock due to the fact that she is now a 50% equity holder in the man's wealth. Also, just like a bond, when (child support) payments are not made (probably because it was an unreliable man/company that she should have "shorted"), as a creditor the woman looks to recover. Just like a distressed company, the creditor takes value (wage garnishment). The company is also forced to sell assets at a lower price due to distress, thus reducing the company's value. This happens when the child support systems brands people as "deadbeat dads", revokes professional licenses, suspends driver licenses, destroys credit ratings and throws the man in jail. Still, when a company goes under, the bond holders may not receive full payment (some guys just don't have the money for these outrageous child support payments). The company is weighed by the debt just like the man's ability to earn is hurt if he gets behind on child support payments. Unlike regular bonds, if the guy finds out that the wrong company name is on the bond (paternity fraud), it doesn't matter.

So dating is an investment game to women. If she spends too much time "shorting" men, then she won't have the funds (looks & youth) at 35 to purchase a good long term stock. Their chance to go "long" on a man has passed. If they go "long" early with a man, they have to wait for the young man to earn and produce dividends. Unlike with stocks, patience and waiting for an investment to grow is not advisable. Buying into an established man/company is the way to go.

So their ideal strategy is to "short" men until they find the best possible one to go "long" on. Luckily, they can borrow against that stock and "short" other men (by cheating). If they lose money by "shorting" men (getting caught), then a sale (divorce) will follow and the woman still gets her dividends.

Once the investor has gone "long" and then sold, their options open up. They can "short" different men, live off the proceeds from the sale and the dividends. They can also "long" another man by getting married again.

Since going "long" is the smart long-term strategy (just like with stocks), women press for marriage. Their "long" investment is likely to appreciate and pay dividends. Women are like paper currency, they have a steady depreciation due to inflation. So over time, as the price to "long" the stock goes up, her currency depreciates. Thus, each time she "shorts" a man, she is spending some currency (wear & tear, number of men who have scored) and her currency is always depreciating, even if she does nothing.

Like most investors, women understand the nuances of how the market works. The are like the investors looking for the next Southwest, Starbucks or Cisco. They try to time the market and when they do it wrong, they end up as spinsters. Also, like a smart investor, they fear foreign capital. If foreign woman are allowed on the market, demand for stock will rise sharply. Foreign currency (just like in real life), has higher value and the American currency will have little purchasing power. So the American Woman is left with "penny stocks" (undesirable guys), "junk bonds" (a thug's bastard children) and men that should be "shorted" because that is all she can afford. She will demonize foreign investors and companies who accept foreign currency in an attempt to monopolize the market.

For men, the advice is simple. Don't seek outside sources of funding/validation. Build equity, "short" all the women around you (short the US currency) and don't issue any bonds.

I hope this analogy wasn't too complicated. I like thinking of marriage as a woman "going long" on a man. I'd like to see what everyone else thinks.

[John Edward Mercier]

Very unique way of thinking about it.
(FYI-NH doesn't have alimony)

[Caleb]

you're an incurable romantic, malcolm 

[malcolm]

Very unique way of thinking about it.
(FYI-NH doesn't have alimony)

Yay!  My new home will be marginally less oppressive than my old home!

[picaro]

If she spends too much time "shorting" men, then she won't have the funds (looks & youth) at 35 to purchase a good long term stock.

[...]
Women are like paper currency, they have a steady depreciation due to inflation. So over time, as the price to "long" the stock goes up, her currency depreciates. Thus, each time she "shorts" a man, she is spending some currency (wear & tear, number of men who have scored) and her currency is always depreciating, even if she does nothing.

This is a very shallow calculus that doesn't appreciate a woman's other virtues.  If you undervalue emotional stability, fealty, intelligence, personality, etc... nightmare marriages are much more likely.

See this "Best of" Craigslist post:

Why are some of the women living lavish lifestyles on the upper east side so plain? I've seen really 'plain jane' boring types who have nothing to offer married to incredibly wealthy guys. I've seen drop dead gorgeous girls in singles bars in the east village. What's the story there?

[malcolm]

If she spends too much time "shorting" men, then she won't have the funds (looks & youth) at 35 to purchase a good long term stock.

[...]
Women are like paper currency, they have a steady depreciation due to inflation. So over time, as the price to "long" the stock goes up, her currency depreciates. Thus, each time she "shorts" a man, she is spending some currency (wear & tear, number of men who have scored) and her currency is always depreciating, even if she does nothing.

This is a very shallow calculus that doesn't appreciate a woman's other virtues.  If you undervalue emotional stability, fealty, intelligence, personality, etc... nightmare marriages are much more likely.

See this "Best of" Craigslist post:

Why are some of the women living lavish lifestyles on the upper east side so plain? I've seen really 'plain jane' boring types who have nothing to offer married to incredibly wealthy guys. I've seen drop dead gorgeous girls in singles bars in the east village. What's the story there?

There are exceptions to every rule, I'll grant you.  That being said, it usually pays to remember generalities.

Years ago there was a Volkswagen advertisement that featured two men driving around town.  They pass an upholstered chair on the side of the road, take a look at it, and put it into the car.  After a short while, they notice a pungent odor coming from the chair, and leave it again at the side of the road.  The point is that SOMEONE PUT IT THERE for a reason.  For a woman to retain her singlehood into her mid-to-late 30s, there is a REASON (or more than one) that no man wanted to marry her.  These same women will frequently bemoan the choices men make, but not look at or modify their own behavior.  (Standard Disclaimer:  Exceptions exist, judge folks by their behavior.)

The other issue is that our courts provide incentive for a woman to "cash out".  People change with time, and your financial future is to important to take a chance with a government marriage.

[Jacobus]

I don't know what kind of relationship you have with your stocks, but this analogy doesn't do much for me (a married man, BTW).

[porcupine kate]

Interesting way to put it.

What happens when you come across a women who is a good stock and not a currency?

In being a position to hear the horror stories did you every encounter a true Lady that would be a good investment?

How rare are they?   

Could you even tell if you saw one. 

I know principled Libertarian women who have never considered a man as a meal ticket.

[malcolm]

What happens when you come across a women who is a good stock and not a currency?

I should highlight that I didn't write the above essay.  It was posted in another forum, and seemed a good addition to the topics the group was dealing with at the time.  With that in mind, I'll do my best to respond.

In order to capitalize their operations, companies go looking for money.  The go to banks for loans, or to venture capital firms, or issue bonds (hoping someone will buy them at a reasonable rate), or sell some stock.  There are exceptions in blue chip stocks, but for the most part, money does not come looking for them.

Among mammals, the predominant mating behavior can be simply described: Males court, Females select.

In the analogy from the above essay, in order for a female to be considered a stock, and a male to be currency, the female would have to do the courting.  Further, this courtship would need to be of a non-alpha male.  Females pursue movie stars and professional athletes just as the blue chip stocks are pursued by liquid markets.  Most men are not blue chip stocks.

In my entire life, I have been asked by a woman on a first date, which she paid for, only twice.  I don't think that is a reflection of any undesirability on my part, but just a fact of life: women do not pursue men.

In being a position to hear the horror stories did you every encounter a true Lady that would be a good investment?

By definition, a good investment appreciates with time.  The vast majority of women do not get become more desirable as they age.  And no woman gains fertility with age.  That's just a fact of life; Mother Nature is NOT a feminist.

I have know VERY attractive older women.  Actually the woman I'm seeing now is just a bit older than me.  These women are great for dating, but not for marriage.  Time and money spent with them is a discretionary entertainment expense, not a capital investment.

Most men are not currencies because (for the most part) young (broke) men are not attractive to women, and lack the funds to pursue a woman to begin with.  Their fun days come when they get older and have more financial stability.

How rare are they?   

Like I mentioned above, I have been asked on a first date twice in my life.  I have been on 300 (+/-) first dates in my life.  That would make the proportion of these women less than one percent (in my experience).  This density of women-prone-to-pursuing-men may have some religious, regional, philosophical, or social class variability, but I can't imagine the portion of them being more than (maybe) 5% of the female population.  Even this amount would be fully five-times greater than my experience has shown.

They do exist, but their portion is closer to background noise in the statistical sample, than a recognizable social trend.

Could you even tell if you saw one?

Honestly, no.  The (few) women who have pursued me were both disproportionately attractive, and could have most any man.  I was frankly surprised to be pursued by them.

I know principled Libertarian women who have never considered a man as a meal ticket.

But I would wager that these women still employ the traditional mating model.  That is not a dig on them!  These behaviors are in our genes.