August 11, 2017
-
Giving Up Sex for a Couple Grand
I recently read a Daily News article which stated that "women would give up sex and time if it meant they could save money." More than half of the women surveyed would be willing to give up sex for six months if it meant they would get at least $2500 in return. Some women stated that there were more important things than sex, and that they would rather be able to spend the money on those things. Money and savings seem to play a big part in the lives of women according to the article, some of them even going as far as to say that using coupons has become the norm for them. In addition, some women stated they would give up an hour of their day in exchange for money. I mean, I get it. Bills and shopping and the cost of living in general all require a lot of money, but are they worth sex and time? Well, if it were up to me I think I would give up sex for six months in exchange for money to pay my bills. However, the amount of money would have to be greater for me. $2500 does not even cover two months of my rent! That is definitely not worth the other four months of sexual frustration.On the other hand, I do not think any amount of money could make me give up an hour of my day. We'd have to be talking millions. My time is precious. After all, we only live once and one of my biggest complaints every day is the fact that I do not have enough hours in my day for all the things I have to do. In fact, I may be willing to give up a year of sex in exchange for a couple more hours added to my day!
Would you give up sex for money? How about an hour shaved off of every day for a couple grand?
Comments (47)
Sure, I like a challenge. I'd definitely ask for more money though.
$2400 would cover 6 months worth of my rent. I would totally give up sex for that..Not sure if my husband would be happy though.
I don't think I would give up sex for any amount. I love it too much. Anyway, if I did give up intercourse for a couple of G's for a couple of months, I can always give oral or manual stimulation. It doesn't mention that.
I already don't have much sex by choice, so that's an easy challenge. I personally don't have much of generally anything because if I have too much of it, I'll eventually get sick of it, bored, or it loses its novelty. I like it when I want something/someone so badly but can't have him, then later when I finally have him, it is so amazing! the forbidden factor is uhh...yummy. I like forbidding myself
Ok so this is split into two time frames for me. 1. If I was single, hell yes, it had been about 6 months for me anyway until recently. 2. Hell no if I'm in a relationship. That's the funnest part about being in a relationship, I'm not going to give that up haha
You know how much money $2,500 is for 6 months?$13.73 each day you go without sex.Per hour?$0.57I mean, if you're willing to give up sex for 57 cents per hour is it really so sacred to you that you wouldn't counter that offer for slightly more, and in theory wouldn't that in turn make you a 58 cent (or more) per hour hooker? It's a stupid idea to put a price on not having sex. You can't put a price on not having something without indirectly putting a price on having it.
Most of us give up at least 8hrs/day for money, it's called a job.
@nonurbusinessyo@xanga - Exactly.
lol those surveyed people who would give up sex or an hour of their time for a measly 2500 is probably unemployed or working minimum wage or low paying blue collar jobs
It'd justify not wanting to have sex to people who don't understand others who don't want sex.
If only this deal were real... I'll have thousands!
@UndyingNova@xanga - 6 months?! Where do you live because I'd like to move there!
@Jasmine_Elissa - lol. you would be shocked at how cheap rent is in other places! (i actually didn't even know westchester was that bad.) i pay 2500 for my studio downtown (granted, in a super nice building) and believe me, i cringe every single time i write that check. i have friends who live in other cities who pay like nothing. i think the record i've heard is 200 (with one roommate) in philly chinatown. i had a friend who had a penthouse apartment in baltimore, he only paid 1800 split with his roommate--and i have another friend who lives in vancouver in an even nicer penthouse apartment who pays like 2200 with her boyfriend.but i mean, the value of living by myself, and in the best city in the world--priceless. i enjoy visiting other places, but ultimately you couldn't pay me enough money to move anywhere else.@T3hZ10n@xanga - your last calculation is off. why would you value sex over a 24 hour/day period? i find it hard to believe that anyone spends more than MAYBE 90 minutes a day banging (on average).
@TheNotoriousGOD@xanga - That is the inherent flaw of value over time and why money is the absolute worst invention in all human history.According to the article, the condition is that no sex for six months = $2,500... so is the value of 60 minutes of sex $2,500 or is it $0.57? The article didn't stipulate 6 consecutive months.Time is simultaneous regardless of whatever profit stands to be gained looking at it differently.
hmm... If I was a girl who was single but dated around(which isn't how I am anyway), I can see how I could say I'd do it. As someone who's been in a relationship for almost four years, been having sex for about the same amount of time and longs for that intimacy, for $2,500? That'd be hard. I love my boyfriend too much. Only if he was ok with it. For $1,000,000? Yeah. I still wouldn't be ok with it, but yeah. obviously I'd do it, because I know fully that my boyfriend and I would both agree that I'd be an idiot not to.
Technically, there's not much difference between getting paid to work 8 hours and exchanging 8 hours of your day for money. In fact, it would be a lot easier.
I live paycheck to paycheck and wouldn't give up sex for 6 months for $2500. The amount would have to much higher for me.
"some women stated they would give up an hour of their day in exchange for money."Some people already pointed this out, but that is exactly what a job is. If they are willing to do this, are they willing to get a side job or work overtime? No, I would not give up sex for $2500. It would have to be some amount that would in the future make a big difference in our lives- like enough to pay off our house. I could make more than $2500 in six months by babysitting a couple of times a week- not worth giving up sex.
Lol sure, why not. I probably won't end up having sex the next 6 months, anyway, might as well get paid for it.
That'd be the easiest $2,500 for me.
people who get paid for having sex are called prostitutes, how do you call people who get paid not to have sex?of course, you can give up sex all you want, only if you don't take away other people's rights to have sex.
@aclvsh@xanga - And that is the inherent flaw of not taking personal responsibility for how one's actions affect others. If there were two people on earth one could not give up sex without taking away the other's supposed "right" to have sex. Therefore it is not a "right".
There's no way if I was in a relationship I'd give up having sex for money, in some strange world where that was a possibility. Especially for that little money, but maybe that speaks to how desperate their situations are rather than how much they value sex. Given that I'm single and not having sex it would be nice to be getting paid for it haha
i wouldn't give up sex for that amount. for much more, maybe. much more, though. i might give up an hour or two out of my day for that amount though
Some things you just can't put a price on, and for me sex is definitely one of those things! Big time!
Who the fuck would do that for a couple of grand...
As for the sex part, Hell yes! I'd do it for free. If they want to pay me to not be violated... Well I'm down with that. As for an hour per day, there is not a single person here who wouldn't. I can guarantee. You know how I can be so confident? Because giving up some of your time for money is the definition of a job. I give up 10 hours of my life every week for money and an additional 30 or 40 for the promise of a career and the chance to make a difference.
I haven't had sex for 16 months anyway. Fuck it, let's do this.
It depends on how much money. I'd have to say no though. I feel like I'm borderline nympho wait...no sex sex what about personal gratification? If not, then it's definitely a no
@TheNotoriousGOD@xanga - $2500/month?? Jeeze! I can't imagine lol What do you do for a living, if you don't mind me asking?
@learningtolive_again@xanga - haha it's fine. i'm a quant. (if you're not familiar with the term--i do math for a living.)
@TheNotoriousGOD@xanga - Oh wow, that's a pretty impressive career.
@T3hZ10n@xanga - if there were two people on earth, you will be forced to have sex, your kids will have to commit incest, and your grand kids will thank you for your sacrifice. i.e. by your so-called "logic", refusal is not a "right" either.
@aclvsh@xanga - Your reasoning is obviously flawed considering the fact that sex is not a necessity and neither is reproduction. Refusal is a right. Sex is not.
@learningtolive_again@xanga - haha...fun yes, awesome yes, impressive is a matter of opinion i suppose. i frequently wish more people had better math educations, but it's because these skills are rare that we get paid up the ass...so i guess on a selfish note i am happy with the way things are.
@T3hZ10n@xanga - o sorry my mistake, i didn't know you are a robot.
@aclvsh@xanga - People go their entire lives without having sex or kids. Are nuns robots?Just to drive my point home, the scientific requirements for life include the ability (not the necessity) to reproduce.
@T3hZ10n@xanga - nuns give up on being ordinary beings, and they only apply those standard for themselves and not force it upon others. as for couples who are married then one spouse refuse to have kid(s) and force the other spouse not to have sex/kid(s), this would be a violation of basic human rights imo.actually, life necessitates reproduction otherwise we won't even be talking here, our very existence is a sufficient proof.having said that, i perfectly welcome your point of view if you apply it to yourself, one less competitor for my kids and grand kids to worry about.
@aclvsh@xanga - "actually, life necessitates reproduction otherwise we won't even be talking here, our very existence is a sufficient proof."*wouldn'tTherein lies the fallacy. Our existence is proof that reproduction occurred at one point time, not that it currently is necessary. Once you exist, reproduction is no longer necessary to sustain your life. Your premise is further flawed by the fact that even if reproduction were necessary, with the advent of artificial insemination, sex is not. I don't even know why I'm arguing with you. You are clearly beyond stupid. I guess I'm just that bored.
wow, so life will magically exist in the future if reproduction cease to happen from today forward~life is necessary to sustain reproduction, and reproduction is necessary to sustain life.unless by cloning or someone finds a way to life forever, otherwise reproduction is necessary for life to continue for all sexually-reproduced species.you know, you can stop anytime you want, that's your right.
@aclvsh@xanga - "wow, so life will magically exist in the future if reproduction cease to happen from today forward~"We're not talking about life in general or life in the future. You continue to attempt to digress from the original argument that sex is somehow a personal necessity. Also, nice job tagging me in your response.
@T3hZ10n@xanga - if something is not a necessity for individuals then i don't see how it can be a necessity in general.aside from maintain life in general and specific, satisfaction from sexual need is an integral part of emotional health, people who are deprived from it for a long period of time are vulnerable to many emotional issues, and of course, as a robot i suspect you won't have such problems.
@aclvsh@xanga - "if something is not a necessity for individuals then i don't see how it can be a necessity in general."Then you're an idiot. Individuals is plural. If you are speaking of individuals you are speaking in general.Reproduction is not necessary in general for you to exist as a single individual. Whether it was necessary is irrelevant. It no longer is for your sustained existence.
@T3hZ10n@xanga - biologically, my sustained existence would require me to have at least 2 progenies or equivalence, it is applicable to every single individual, not counting robot of course. so in general or specific, reproduction is necessary for the continual existence of life.
people who have the optimal number of children would have better chance to extend their existence as part of their progenies, which is a direct way mortals can do to exist continuously. i am just another mortal.
@aclvsh@xanga - Biologically, your personal sustained existence requires nothing more than maintaining homeostasis and a metabolism. That is like basic 5th grade biology. Are you being serious?If there were a direct link between continued existence on an individual level and progeny people who have the most children would live the longest. Such is not the case.
giving up your time in exchange for money...that's called having a job.