Re: What Spitzer's $4,300 bought

In article <5l0lt3h33k5jk4n6fqa8u61jcfl35o44k0@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
neckhardt@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 22:35:18 -0500, huey.callison@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>
>>Charles Bishop <ctbishop@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> Hank Gillette <hankgillette@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> > Neal Eckhardt <neckhardt@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> >> My feelings exactly. Most of the pictures of her did nothing for
>>> >> me, except the one of her on a boat in a white bikini. She should
>>> >> not have her picture taken in a profile.
>>> >Yes, she looked really pretty in that one, although still not $1,000
>>> >an hour pretty.
>>> I'm not sure that pretty is all that you're paying for. Whatever it
>>> is, I can't imagine it being worth $1000/hr to me. I was trying to
>>> decide what my price point would be and can't, quite. Whatever it was,
>>> I'm sure the offer would be refused as not being enough. Conversely, I
>>> wonder how much I'd have to make a year to consider spending $1000/hr
>>> for ***, though it would depend on the talent of the, um Talent, I
>>> suppose.
>>
>>In fifteen years of marriage and another ten years of dating, I don't
>>recall ever once getting regular *** that didn't cost several thousand
>>dollars a year, but let's assume for purposes of argument that we're
>>talking about perky 22-year-olds, since that seems to be the basis for
>>comparison. Figure a nice dinner out twice a month, maybe dancing twice
>>a month, the occasional movie, some flowers, The Four Basic Gifting Days
>>(Christmas, her birthday, Valentine's Day, and your 'anniversary') and I
>>figure that works out to around three grand. And since she's a perky
>>22-year-old, figure *** three times a week, and you can take your time. 
>>
>>...so, some handwaving math later, I figure *** costs about $40 an hour,
>>at least on the rental plan. On the other hand, if you want to BUY it,
>>it's "your house, and half of your ****". And if that doesn't work out,
>>the advantage after you've paid for the first one is that the second one
>>is 50% off- ...on accounta the first one taking half of your ****. 
>>
>>The moral of the story is, if you're only having *** three times a year 
>>ANYWAY, you might as well skip the dating scene and go with the $1000/hr

>>professional, since that's more efficient. 
>>
>>...or two $500 professionals, because that might be interesting too. 
>
>You know? I can't find a flaw in your argument.
>
>--
>Neal"who finally figured out how to get signatures to work"

The only one I can find is that when I was dating, expenses were roughly
shared. Not in a Dutch Treat way, but reciprocaly, this time I'll treat
way. You still buy the gifts were appropriate, but if you're keeping a
ledger, it evens out though I never got jewelry. This was the case 20
years ago. Was there a reversal within the last 5 years?

I'm always amused by Dr Laura's admonition that a woman who sleeps with a
man she isn't married to is an unpaid prostitute and the man is getting
*** for free. She assumes that the woman gains no value from the *** and
it would be just as easy to reverse the genders.

-- 
charles