As for Ayn Rand, I have publicly stated I admire her a number of times. I like a lot of her ideas. I have never claimed to be a staunch objectivist. You brought her name into this not me. You sound like you’ve substituted religion for philosophy. You’ve done the equivalent of quote scripture. Now you’re preaching and apparently trying to direct me. I’m absolutely not interested in taking guidance from an anonymous commenter who works as hard as you have to build an argument out of my feelings on whether a man should allow himself to be walked on.

When a man takes a woman shopping for frivilous things his purpose is to observe in her, and thus to experience in himself, a condensed expression of the same emotions he can feel only diffusely in other, more serious and complicated situations. Experiencing her in this setting is like experiencing a work of art. Her joyful enthusiasm, her refined consideration of what is beautiful, and her implicit recognition that letting him observe those traits brings him joy evoke in him a pleasant reminder that he brings the same passion, the same rigorous judgement, the same pride to his own endeavors. Her actions serve as emotional fuel for him and in turn he provides her with the practical means by which to perform – and to enjoy performing – them. Of course, she enjoys the objects she shops for in themselves; but in addition to that, and essential to it, she enjoys being enjoyed enjoying them.

Why was this married couple you observed any different? Why, instead of evoking expressions of joy in him, was the husband quiet and reserved during a shopping trip with his wife? The answer lies in a failure to appreciate that emotions cannot be faked; not for any longer that the span necessary to express something which will wipe out any chance to identify their cause. And even then they spring right back – unacknowledged but felt and (subtly, non-verbally) expressed just the same. They return because their cause remains.

The cause of that couple’s inappropriately reserved emotions towards one another, while engaged in an act of emotional intimacy, is that both had ulterior motives. That the act itself was not for it’s own sake.

The husband was incapable of taking pleasure in his wife’s love of beautiful things because he sensed on some level that she did did not care if he did so or not. His emotions told him that to her, aside from the trivial act of being there to deliver the money, it made no difference to her if he was there or not. He knew, subconciously, that what he was watching was not an independent mind at work expressing it’s love of independently determined beauty; and it’s pride in having it relished by another. Thus, his demeanor betrayed a nagging, unadmitted suspicion that her enjoyment of being enjoyed enjoying the plate could, and likely would, come not from him – who had made it all possible – but from a haphazard collection of socially valuable admirerers. When a man is suspicious he is cautious, reserved, subdued.

Her ignorance of what it meant to ignore him betrayed all of this knowledge loud and clear, but his mind could not identify it. His self-delusion – prolonged by her periodic, half-hearted attemts at prolonging her own – prevented him from saying it to himself. Instead, he could only feel it; and to withdraw, in silent, bewildered protest. He was trapped, beholden to a desire to maintain an idea of what she once might have been (or worse, what he had only ever imagined she was), and the pain of facing it felt far too costly. Far more costly than the $1,400.00 plate standing in as this moment’s reprieve.

Their entire relationship is a pretense; with neither fully able to accept nor to reject the fraudulent version of love upon which they mortgage their time, their money, their sexuality, their lives. Both of them know, on some level, that because they profess to love and understand each other that they should do things which exhibit this love. And so, despite their ambivalence towards it, they do things like go shopping together. But the joke is on them; their plan back fires. Instead of extinguishing the guilt they both feel towards themselves, such an experience heightens their awareness of it – and so they must take further action to conceal from themselves the nature of their pretention. They must propound upon their self-delusion.

The husband withdraws, and perhaps tells himself that things such as love, lust, respect, and romance are seperate things; and that he should not expect to find them in the same woman. He quietly rides on the high of viewing himself as a sort of gregarious, disinterested patriach. The wife, conversely, tells herself that she admires her husband’s “masculinity”; his reserved and stoic attitude towards frivilous things. As is becoming of femininity, she only engages him in them when she must, and desperately attempts to feel that her half-hearted, girlish terms of endearment suffice as authentic expressions of love. She completely blanks out that what prompted them was something as dull as the sales girl’s motion in the direction of the cash register.

No, she is not after his money per se. That is only what she tells herself when the opposite set of lies wear thin. And no, he is not after her respect regardless of what he thinks of her standards. That is only what he tells himself when his lie that he loves her will not suffice. What both are really seeking is permission from the other to continue to fake it. To serve as props for one another. Bit players in a privately played out farce with no end and no clear beginning. Him, in her mind, the douting husband to the fashionable, lovable society lady; and her, in his mind, as the delicate wife of a strong, unassailable man with no needs or wants of his own.

What they both want is to not be forced to acknowledge what it is that is actually occuring between them, and how cheaply they could have had it had they just been honest from the beginning; before they had lost the perspective that made them able to know what each was doing to him and her self. That is why the husband will gladly earn; and why the wife will gladly spend. That is why the charade keeps going, to greater and greater heights – with greater and greater symbols acquired, produced, or pronounced. They come into existence, not as expressions of honor, but as tools, meant to suppress as much recollection of the feelings felt at the time as possible. To be looked at, not as reminders of a fully involved experience, but as sign posts loudly proclaiming “Look, I’m beautiful, I must have been purchased with love.”

I you still refuse to see the analogy there, you’re hopeless. That’s fine; but just please stop referencing Ayn Rand publically. And, certainly, stop mimicking her sense of romance in your blog posts; even if you believe them at the time you are writing them. Besides, no one needs to hear about your personality anyways, correct?

Attacking the fact that I profit from any of this is a moot point. It’s a fucking business and as soon as you can separate that from a personal relationship you’ll get over it.

And the point was not about how much the man spent on his wife. Maybe he invented post-its and $1400 is a drop in the bucket. Maybe $42,000 is a drop in the bucket. The point is that he was treated like a piece of furniture when she didn’t need him and then was suddenly promoted to a living thing when she snapped her fingers and needed a wallet. Then he went back to being a piece of furniture again. I’m not against gifts. I’m against a man letting himself be anything less than a man.

So if you’re all for that, then please believe that I am as sincere as I have ever been when I wish you the best of luck in finding your own personal cunt. As for me, I’m going to keep living every day as if it might be my last to treat the men in my life with dignity.

Now back to your math. If you really believe this then I can only assume that you don’t go to movies because it’s cheaper to wait for them to come out on video. I can only assume you never eat outside of your home because it is always cheaper than restaurants. I can only assume you’ve never left a tip because tips are things left for services that make things more convenient for you and it’s cheaper not to take advantage of them. Each of these things are arguably more enjoyable than the option you’ve calculated is most cost effective. I would argue that ClubKayden.com is more enjoyable than Freeones if I’m what you’re looking for at the time. Adam Smith made a pretty compelling argument about consumers being rational. If they weren’t we wouldn’t be able to make a science out of economics. You don’t seem to have quite grasped the concept of utility yet.

Or maybe you’re right and Adam Smith was the asshole.

have no correlations as far as I can tell.” I reject the false distinction between hormones and emotions upon which you operate. Why would a man read your blog? Pay to video chat with you? Attend your personal appearances? Agree to pay to see more of you? Why would you offer a blog, a video chat, a personal appearance, or a website in the first place?

Why would a woman be incapable of sexual attraction to an “empty human vessel” if they were truly seperate?

You were the one proposing that the man got no genuine satisfaction from the $1,400 dish. I agree. He only appeased the woman because he is emotionally invested in her. If, in fact, he was aware that all he was after was the sensation of being a gregarious husband, he could have “cancelled his subscription” and found a readily available cheaper alternative. But he did not. He paid the $1,400 for that moment’s “enjoyment” and told himself – just as, I’m sure, she tells him through daily “updates” of her own – that by doing so he was sustaining something more fulfilling. Because, by giving her what she wanted, he see her thoughts, let her hear his, and see more of someone who, deep down, he doesn’t respect. He was blind to to how irrational he was being – but his emotions (and I’m sure his hormones) were not. You witnessed his melancholy yourself.

I know you anticipated subscribers to your site wanting to consume more than the equivalent of what is available for free elsewhere; and that you adjusted things like your pricing structure and your cooperation with Freeones to accomodate it. That was my post’s point: to ask you why. Why are you expecting a man to care about anything other than seeing your body – which, as I painstakingly demonstrated, he could see the same amount of, for virtually nothing, elsewhere?

As for specifics:

– Enegry, broadband, and computer wear and tear are all national averages. 17 cents is the sum.

– Back dated content is irrelevant. It is not advertised. Any rational person would assume that your updates reach only as far back as August. If he had signed up in August, he would have been paying up front.

– Other women are also irrelevant. Why would someone pay to see you in order to see someone else? Someone else they could see for free elsewhere no less. That’s telling you to “fuck off.” In my analysis, I specifically ignored updates not featuring you for that reason.

– You also profit from DVDs and dancing at clubs which charge for entry and for drinks. I could have analyzed those things also, and made the same point.

– I know about 90 picture sets being the norm on porn sites. 10 seconds per pic x 90 pics = 900 seconds. 900/60 = 15 minutes. 15 minutes + 5

minutes for navigation: 20 minutes. A time equivalent to watching a video, which I also considered to be an “update.”

– If the man spends more than $1400 on his wife in a month, that does decrease the force of my argument. Not enough to make it invalid however. $1,400 per day x 30 days is $42,000. And an increase from 17 cents to $20.13 – 11,800% mark up – divided by 30 is still a 393% markup.

– Why would a rational man pay nearly four times more than necessary to access something? Something which, even if it is relatively scattered, you allow to be available for nothing. If you think he should pay that then – according to your superficial notion of what an Objectivist is – you’re no Objectivist yourself either. Reread D’Anconia’s speech about money.