ObieJuan
Senior Don Juan
I take no credit for this as it was posted on OT, but here you go 
A) Women are exchangeable commodities. As such, they have supply and demand schedules. We all know that as demand increases, the equilibrium "price" is set higher. This price may not be monetary in nature, but rather just giving flowers, taking on dates, dressing nice, taking showers, and so on. With this in mind, we, as heterosexual men, should favor any opinions which reduce the demand for women and increase the supply. One idea is to promote male homosexuality while fighting against lesbianism. This would lower the number of demanders and increase the supply of women. We should also be against polygamy for the same reasons.
B) Unique or spectacular women are like monopoly firms. Because they have such highly differentiated products, they can "restrict output" to artificially raise prices. This is why you won't ever get much sex from a unique b!tch. Better just go with the ol' reliable chicks.
C) Be aware that sexual interaction has the problem of the "double coincidence of wants." In economies of the past, people just bartered for goods and services. The problem with this was that each trade had to involve two commodities which people were willing to exchange for. With no generally accepted medium of exchange, there is a high search cost on finding available trading partners. As a result, not a lot of market transactions take place in barter systems. This is what sexual interaction is. Barter. If we come up with something (possibly non monetary) that represents a generally accepted medium of exchange, you'll have as much sex as you're willing to give.
D) Women who can't get laid are like firms with excess inventories. After some time, they continue to lower the price until they are essentially liquidating all inventories. The implication? Find an older ho... like 32-38 years old, who is still single. She'll have a really short time preference and will not spend much time bargaining. As such, you'll capture much of the total welfare effect in the form of consumer surplus. AKA it'll be really easy to hit it.
E) Vertical integration between firms allows for transactions to take place via command and control. This means that the cost of using the market (transaction costs) are nullified and in some cases, this improves overall efficiency of production. Arranged marriages help to eliminate the costs of using the market, by the parents acting as managers in the production of future children.
F) If you come across a "product" that has been on the marketplace for some time (in other words, not completely sheltered and raised by wolves) and it seems like an absurdly good deal (too low of price, too good of product), remember that there’s probably some unseen defect. This explains why I always go for the nice packaging and end up with crazy ho's. Its not that I'm really necessarily attractive myself, but rather that I just end up with hot girls with big major defects.
G) Just as poor people can drive expensive cars (assuming they waste all their purchasing power on it), rich people can drive cheap cars. Don't assume that everyone has to be roughly paired up with someone of equivalent "quality." Some people are fine with an ugly and stupid ***** because she requires basically no effort. In effect, she is like masturbating with another piece of human flesh, then you put her back on the shelf when you're done.
H) A corollary to G is that those people who are usually "whipped" are generally nothing more than stuck with a product that represents an enormous part of their purchasing power. Much like a poor McDonalds worker is tied to the payments on his new BMW 3-series, the ugly dude who is whipped over his semi-hot girlfriend is just putting in the work to continue to be with her. That's all.
I) Another corollary to G is that... while some poor people can "drive nice cars"... only the richest of the rich are going to be driving Bugatti’s and Rolls Royce’s. Get over it. Supermodels will never be yours. The best you can hope for is an old Integra GSR with low mileage.
J) Using George Akerlof's "the market for lemons", we can basically argue that most used products on the marketplace are lemons... used cars for example. If you had a nice car, why would you sell it? Feel free to read the article on the problem of asymmetric information if you wish, that’s the gist of it. The implication? Most available chicks will be defective. Leave them on the lot and go try to steal someone else's. At least you know it’s probably good.
K) Each additional unit of production will likely have diminishing marginal utility... meaning each additional time you have sex, it will represent less benefit as did the previous time you had sex. The implication? Eventually sex gets boring. You cease to be willing to "pay" for it (again, non monetary prices) and the relationship falls apart and you go somewhere else.
L) A solution to K is to vary the product being traded. K would only happen if the sex was homogeneous... in other words, the exact same each time. Solution? Better sex, different positions for sex... or... dare i say it... anal sex.
A) Women are exchangeable commodities. As such, they have supply and demand schedules. We all know that as demand increases, the equilibrium "price" is set higher. This price may not be monetary in nature, but rather just giving flowers, taking on dates, dressing nice, taking showers, and so on. With this in mind, we, as heterosexual men, should favor any opinions which reduce the demand for women and increase the supply. One idea is to promote male homosexuality while fighting against lesbianism. This would lower the number of demanders and increase the supply of women. We should also be against polygamy for the same reasons.
B) Unique or spectacular women are like monopoly firms. Because they have such highly differentiated products, they can "restrict output" to artificially raise prices. This is why you won't ever get much sex from a unique b!tch. Better just go with the ol' reliable chicks.
C) Be aware that sexual interaction has the problem of the "double coincidence of wants." In economies of the past, people just bartered for goods and services. The problem with this was that each trade had to involve two commodities which people were willing to exchange for. With no generally accepted medium of exchange, there is a high search cost on finding available trading partners. As a result, not a lot of market transactions take place in barter systems. This is what sexual interaction is. Barter. If we come up with something (possibly non monetary) that represents a generally accepted medium of exchange, you'll have as much sex as you're willing to give.
D) Women who can't get laid are like firms with excess inventories. After some time, they continue to lower the price until they are essentially liquidating all inventories. The implication? Find an older ho... like 32-38 years old, who is still single. She'll have a really short time preference and will not spend much time bargaining. As such, you'll capture much of the total welfare effect in the form of consumer surplus. AKA it'll be really easy to hit it.
E) Vertical integration between firms allows for transactions to take place via command and control. This means that the cost of using the market (transaction costs) are nullified and in some cases, this improves overall efficiency of production. Arranged marriages help to eliminate the costs of using the market, by the parents acting as managers in the production of future children.
F) If you come across a "product" that has been on the marketplace for some time (in other words, not completely sheltered and raised by wolves) and it seems like an absurdly good deal (too low of price, too good of product), remember that there’s probably some unseen defect. This explains why I always go for the nice packaging and end up with crazy ho's. Its not that I'm really necessarily attractive myself, but rather that I just end up with hot girls with big major defects.
G) Just as poor people can drive expensive cars (assuming they waste all their purchasing power on it), rich people can drive cheap cars. Don't assume that everyone has to be roughly paired up with someone of equivalent "quality." Some people are fine with an ugly and stupid ***** because she requires basically no effort. In effect, she is like masturbating with another piece of human flesh, then you put her back on the shelf when you're done.
H) A corollary to G is that those people who are usually "whipped" are generally nothing more than stuck with a product that represents an enormous part of their purchasing power. Much like a poor McDonalds worker is tied to the payments on his new BMW 3-series, the ugly dude who is whipped over his semi-hot girlfriend is just putting in the work to continue to be with her. That's all.
I) Another corollary to G is that... while some poor people can "drive nice cars"... only the richest of the rich are going to be driving Bugatti’s and Rolls Royce’s. Get over it. Supermodels will never be yours. The best you can hope for is an old Integra GSR with low mileage.
J) Using George Akerlof's "the market for lemons", we can basically argue that most used products on the marketplace are lemons... used cars for example. If you had a nice car, why would you sell it? Feel free to read the article on the problem of asymmetric information if you wish, that’s the gist of it. The implication? Most available chicks will be defective. Leave them on the lot and go try to steal someone else's. At least you know it’s probably good.
K) Each additional unit of production will likely have diminishing marginal utility... meaning each additional time you have sex, it will represent less benefit as did the previous time you had sex. The implication? Eventually sex gets boring. You cease to be willing to "pay" for it (again, non monetary prices) and the relationship falls apart and you go somewhere else.
L) A solution to K is to vary the product being traded. K would only happen if the sex was homogeneous... in other words, the exact same each time. Solution? Better sex, different positions for sex... or... dare i say it... anal sex.
