I wouldn’t judge the man who balks when his fiance demands a guarantee for two weeklong trips to Paris every year and diamond jewelry on birthdays, or the woman who balks when her fiance demands a guarantee for sex twice a week, at least not without without more details.This is truly astonishing. Apparently sex, a fundamental and intrinsic aspect of the marital relationship, without which no marriage is considered to have been consummated, can somehow be equated with a weeklong trip to Paris, plus diamond jewelry. This strikes me as somewhat of an overvaluation of the female service provided, especially in light of the readily available economic data on the average cost of sexual transactions. If we assume $7k per trip, plus another $5k per diamond jewelry, that works out to $182 per sexual encounter with no volume discount. Actually, that would be cheaper than a mortgage... although one suspects this is envisioned as being in addition to rather than instead of the household expenses.
Anyhow, if a woman is unwilling to commit to having sex on some sort of regular basis, then how on Earth can any man be reasonably expected to commit to never having sex with anyone else? If 104 times per year is too much and justifies a refusal to commit to it, then how much is a reasonable average expectation? 12x per year? 1x per year? Never? Dalrock recently posted on the ways that marriage and men's reasonable marital expectations have been debased, but are we really supposed to believe that marriage, with all of its responsibilities, sexual and otherwise, now provides absolutely no sexual rights to the husband?
Update: Marriage isn't the only form of false female advertising.