Lowest Common Denominator

I said I was going to stop talking about dating/relationship type stuff, but a tweet I saw and responded to made me realize there's something that needs to be discussed. Someone who one of my friends retweeted said that rule #1 for any "relational" (as opposed to relationship) partner was that they had to have a vagina. I said that the condition was necessary, but not sufficient. Guy then replied to me and said that sometimes it is sufficient.

Now, my mind immediately went to the fact that guys have been falling all over themselves for it for years and years. Even though there are so many reasons to not do so - friendships, finances, family - fools still go all out for it. Jay-Z and R Kelly made a song about it. Many rappers have made songs outlining the dangers of such behavior, although the message is often clouded by some accompanying presentation which a large segment of the population considers to be misogynistic.

I'm not arguing 'for' or 'against' on that point, because that's not what this is about. What this is about is one simple thing that guys who go all out seem to forget: something that has economic application even though it's a mathematical concept.




That is the lowest common denominator among women.

Let me say that again: it is the lowest common denominator among women. Think about it: if they didn't have that, they wouldn't be women. All women have it. Therefore, there's no reason to go selling out for something that 'a' woman has...when 'all' women have it. Not only do all women have it, but I guarantee it's not that different from woman to woman. It's my theory that 80% of women are indistinguishable in that area. Of course, this can change with some effort...but it's not like all that many women put that much into the effort to make those changes. Matter of fact, the women who do probably fully fit into that top 10 percent. Of course, if there's a top 10 percent and I say 80 percent are indistinguishable, then that means there's a bottom 10 percent. Now, if a man happens to get with someone in that bottom 10 percent then he's just out of luck that time. The law of averages says he'll be alright next time around.

From what I understand, there's much more variation among men...in more areas than that one, but definitely in that one. That said, we're not part of this discussion...so back to the main point.

I promise that a woman's dress does not make her better (in that area) than any other woman. Neither does her hair, makeup, shoes, intelligence, kindness, smile, job, or anything else. It's a stand-alone product, and no external object is going to improve or detract from it in any way. I've never heard a man say it felt great because of the dress she had on. The dress is off, first of all - well, in most cases. Second, it just makes no sense. Do the dress and the other things combine to make her more attractive in general? Most likely.

So...sell out for those things. If she has a great personality, knows what wOBA is, and can make a sandwich; then marry her. Men can sell out for those things all day long because those things are unique to certain women (shoot, I don't even think I can name a woman who knows what wOBA is: maybe I should try to date Christina Kahrl). Going dumb and then having one's justification be "I'm trying to get some...", though?

No.

That's like me saying I don't want to breathe the air in my front yard because my back yard has better air. Unless there is an external factor that directly affects the air, then it's the same in both places. Same with women. That part of the equation is the same. Why do extra for that? That's a direct violation of the most basic of economic principles. Supply is high, therefore the price should be low. Stop raising the price.

Now, just so no one gets it twisted: I am not saying that women should not be held with high regard and value. I am saying that women should not be held with high regard and value for something that all women have. If a man's going to sell out (and I'm clearly not saying that's advised or recommended in any situation), he should make sure she's worth the price...and that alone doesn't make anyone worth anything.

Even if men go with a "least common multiple" type principle, that would be much better. At least then they would get everything they want: there's a component of everything that a man would consider important, everything valuable. That's not even getting into the fact that the multiplicative effect may be the most important mathematical concept that should apply to a search for a woman. Stated another way, this is "the whole being greater than the sum of its parts".

Women obviously have more value than that which is found between their legs. Those who seek women would do well to find that value, especially if they don't want to overpay: and it makes no sense to overpay for anything, especially during a recession.

Besides, if you're going after a woman...chances are good you'll need that money you end up saving.