#EqualPayDay meets #EqualPayingDay

April 14, 2015. This date symbolizes how far into the year women must work to earn what men earned in the previous year. Equal Pay Day was originated by the National Committee on Pay Equity (NCPE) in 1996 as a public awareness event to illustrate the gap between men’s and women’s wages. A Tuesday was selected to represent how far into the work week women must work to earn what men earned the previous week. Because women earn less, on average, than men, they must work longer for the same amount of pay.

Any Thursday. This day of any week during the year symbolizes how far into the next week men must work to earn what is needed to maintain a reasonable dating/sex life with women, given how the male in America is still expected to pay for the majority of food, beverage, entertainment and travel-related expenses (F-BET expenses) incurred while sharing company time with the opposite gender in public.

I’m sure it is only a matter of time before both genders join forces in fighting for Equal Paying Day.

In the meantime, here’s another interesting statistic to track for those still so concerned about pay discrimination between the genders. It could be called the “Personal Consumption Meter,” or the “PC Meter” for short. The first part of the PC Meter simply tracks the cumulative value of all the F-BET services a person has personally consumed up to that point in his or her life, whether paid for with one’s own income or by another. The second part covers the cumulative value of all cosmetics, clothes, shoes, accessories, spa services and surgical enhancements consumed up to that point as well. How do you think the genders will fare in that shootout?

The “Who Pays?” Game Update #Dating #Sex

Some 50 years after the initiation of the feminist movement, is there really any doubt that it is time for the female to start paying her way? Let’s just jump to “the why’s” if you don’t mind. According to the New York Post and Time Magazine this past week, apparently there still is considerable push back, from both genders no less:

Kick in, $weetie! Two-thirds of men say women should pay their share on dates

Study: Men Want Women to Chip In on Dates, but Are Afraid to Ask

We all are aware that tradition had the male paying for the female, which made sense given how the female was not represented in the workforce to any real extent, and certainly not even close to equally with the male. We also know that most females back then traditionally stuck it out with just one subsidizing male at a time.

Those days are officially done, and have been for quite some time now.

Modern-day, American-style female empowerment includes the following:

1) The right to make as much money as the male upon making the same choices, including taking on more risk, travel and hours per week.

2) The right to date older, more financially successful males, while regularly blowing off same-age males.

3) The right to not only not “give up” her sex to the subsidizing males who wish to have sex with her, but to text other males while out and about with a particular subsidizing male, thus robbing him of his at-the-moment “paid for” company time, which never was possible before the smart phone.

4) The right to have multiple males subsidizing her food, beverage, entertainment and travel-related expenses in a given calendar month, to the tune of $25 or more per male, all on an “income-in-kind” tax-free basis.

5) The right to slowly but surely take over the real estate and stock markets with all the money not being spent while sharing company time with the male, all while accumulating clothes, shoes and accessories beyond any grandmother’s wildest dreams, not to mention indulging in unlimited spa days and vacation getaways at will.

If these “why’s” are not enough to convince you the time is officially here for the American female to pay her way (notably, just her way and not for the male as he has had to endure for so long), nothing ever will. Except maybe this:

The only way the genders in America will ever truly be equal on all fronts is for sex and status sharing to be viewed as a two-way street, not a one-way street where the female is “giving it up” while enjoying the fruits of the male’s labor to that point in time; a two-way street just like so many lesbians have enjoyed for decades. Further, by paying one’s way at all times, the female will no longer be giving the expectation that her sex is now due to the male because he paid for everything. Come on ladies, think about it.

Research Reality

Enabled by technology, scientists and researchers are getting to the bottom of what makes men and women behave within the human mating process, and in most cases it’s the complete opposite of what anyone ever thought. In the new book “What Do Women Want? Adventures in the Science of Female Desire” (Ecco), author Daniel Bergner upends long-standing myths about women and sex — everything from the nature of attraction and pursuit to the prevalence of taboo fantasies to monogamy itself.

Like Mr. Bergner’s book, Last Call is also not meant to continue the myth-based conversation, it is meant to end it with the facts on how males and females are programmed to operate. But with the classification systems and tools provided throughout Last Call, especially in Part V, “Future State,” order can quickly be restored to the current state heterosexual hook-up and dating world. How you ask? By relying on the most important quality that sets us apart from all other species on earth: morality.

Morality will be reintroduced to the heterosexual hook-up and dating world with universally accepted boundaries—boundaries that can no longer be unilaterally adjusted for the sake of convenience. They can only be customized through upfront agreements within a particular partnership. One positive sign is that if the male can be taught to contain his hormones, at least when in an office environment, then certainly the female can be taught just the same, no matter how strong her hormonal instincts.

As discussed in Chapter 7, “Mechanical Females,” the American Medical Association documented the prevalence of female outrageous behavior while on vacation. Then as discussed in Chapter 8, “Inherent Differences,” and Chapter 13, “The Great Fashion Divide,” The Wall Street Journal and other publications exposed how females are breaking office dress codes across America, while slowly admitting to doing so in order to advance their incomes and careers. With both findings, it is pretty obvious how the female hormones often prefer not to be contained when amongst others, whether while on vacation, or just at the office for the day.

From Chapter 8, “Inherent Differences,” we were awaken to the fact that while male erections and his feeling of sexual desire are almost always connecting (penis to brain), the female of our species is often not, that is, her genitalia arousal and sexual desires (vagina to brain) are disconnecting. Simultaneously, in Chapter 15, “Power Parts,” we learned how, due to proximity, the part of the female’s brain which ties to her sexuality is right next to the part which controls her feet. Thus, there is a very likely “without self-consciousness” connection between her sexuality switch and her love for shoes, and how they enhance her bodily appearance and/or showcase her foot flesh and toes.

Acknowledging what is happening, to what extent it applies, and then connecting to the facts are the keys. Table 16.1 summarizes twelve facts—think “differential dozen”—that research has established relative to the heterosexual hook-up and dating world. Looking at all of these findings collectively should really enlighten any who still care enough to try and make things better.


Research Study Conclusion Masculine Male

Effeminate Female


Participates in public nudity on vacation

not allowed



Risque dressing for work

not allowed



Genitalia arousal and sexual desire disconnected

rarely no

often yes


Brain and feet connected sexually




More likely to flaunt flesh when ovulating




More likely to cheat when ovulating




Loses sex-drive with the same sex partner




Increased sexual attraction to bad boy behaviors




Sexual partner selection independent of good genes




Has monogamous-type bonding gene




More and better orgasms with richer partners




Has a cheat gene when fit



Game on

Is there any Truth to the “Good Guys Always Lose” Mantra?

With the fourth and final tier (of “celebrity” power points), we have the really bad boy, usually described by the terms “thug,” “criminal,” “prisoner” or “convict.” They prove the truth of the notion “good guys always lose.” In one example, Magdalena Sanchez, a prison ward psychologist, had sex with Demetrius Hill, a “violent, abusive, twice-convicted felon who is a member of the Bloods gang”—in spite of the fact that Ms. Sanchez’s husband was a highly successful Wall Street banker, making millions to support her while in a $70,000-a-year job. Yet, Mr. Hill’s bad boy celebrity status had Ms. Sanchez putting her upper-class lifestyle at risk. Hmmm

Another example of a bad boy celebrity is convicted murderer Scott Peterson, whose female fan mail rolled in years after his incarceration. Now there is a male who was not only regularly cheating on his wife, but also killed her and their unborn child after the fact. And females still wanted him sexually. This type of non-celebrity-female-to-celebrity-male chaos has even me at a loss for words, if you can ­believe that.

Now click here to see the latest “bad boy” celebrity type to get the same treatment: Boston Bomber

The Cheating Chaos

In today’s America, the majority of non-elderly adults are having sex with multiple people every year. Moreover, little seems to be stopping those who are having sex with one person on a regular basis from proceeding to have sex with others.

Upon inquiry by the New York Daily News, Dr. Lawrence Balter, a professor of applied psychology at New York University, says “men and women who are as blatant about affairs as [Roger] Clemens has an ”oversized sense of entitlement. They believe if it makes them feel good, it’s justified.

Importantly, this mentality is not limited to people of Roger Clemens’ status; it is employed by practically anyone who thinks they can get away with it. Even more troublesome, people are no longer cheating only because they are unhappy, but simply for the challenge and adventure of having sex with someone new.

Today, both genders justify keeping their sexual options open no matter whom they currently have in their life. Said differently, many males and females are entertaining alternative partner prospects even when they are currently having sex with someone on a regular basis.

Opposite-sex companionship is clearly an individual freedom for both genders. But once two people start sharing company time and sex with each other on a regular basis, a bond is formed. Whether spoken or not, it is a bond that can lead to a monogamous-type understanding on both sides. However, justifications for having sex outside of one’s regular partner are running rampant. Welcome to hormonification.

hormonification 1. the hormonal related state or condition, of being blameless for having sex with others 2. a person justifying or being justified to partake in a sexual encounter, including a sex act, even though regularly having sex with others

The growing field of evolutionary psychology offers a theory on how the sex drive is genetically programmed. As reported by Philip Weiss in New York magazine, “One of the leaders in the field, David Buss, author of The Evolution of Desire and a professor at the University of Texas, says that men’s genes program them to seek many mates and to attempt to monopolize the reproductive lives of those mates. But women are also programmed for infidelity, Buss says. They have a drive to monopolize the economic resources of their mate, according to the theory, but also to keep a man or two in reserve, because men die earlier than women, and men go off, and women need protection.”

Independent of this evolutionary psychological reasoning, one can split the ways that the monogamy promise is being murdered: Either the monogamy promise is not being made because of all of the sexual fun and temptation out there, or it is being made only to control the other partner. In the latter case, the partner initiating the promise has no intention of avoiding temptation, and likely no intentions of telling anyone once confronted. Welcome to biased dishonesty.

biased dishonesty 1. to cause to have a bias; influence; prejudice regarding a dishonest sex act or pursuit 2. fraud, lie, deception, etc. committed when having sex with others and not telling ongoing sex partners, most often driven by selfishness

With so much to deal with and explain if caught cheating, and with fewer and fewer partnerships being truly monogamous, biased dishonesty practices are ever more prevalent in America. While males and females date each other to share company time and sex, they are leaving their options open when without each other—or are at least testing whether they still have what it takes to sexually attract third party opposite-sex people—all while using biased dishonesty to cover their tracks. This dynamic makes the monogamy promise practically meaningless in modern America. Think about it.

Happy Hours

By now, most adult Americans who consume alcohol have not only heard the phrase “It’s happy hour somewhere in the world,” they have toasted to it as well. Whether on vacation or not, people are going on drinking shifts for four to even twelve hours straight. Personally, I think it might be time to redefine what constitutes binge drinking. Maybe “bombed drinking” could be a much needed second level. Exactly how many drinks does a person consume during a typical drink shift? Particularly at bar venues where “dancing it off” is not really an option.

Just look at it this way, how many minutes does it take the average drinker to consume one alcoholic beverage? If a person has a drink every fifteen minutes for the first two hours and every twenty minutes for the next two hours, this amounts to three and one-half drinks per hour, assuming not much time is wasted between drinks. Calculating one’s own average drinks per hour and average drink shift in hours could help put things in perspective. It is time to say this together – to hell with those blood alcohol content studies and their theories on how many drinks consumed per hour based on weight make one ­intoxicated. They need to recalibrate their charts with newly minted categories.

As long as no one gets hurt, intoxicated people can be quite comical, knocking over drinks, bumping into other people, falling off chairs, tripping, and losing their phones, wallets and pocketbooks. And there is not a term more apt than “dancing fool” to describe someone who is not a dancer attempting to dance once intoxicated.

Never being one to stop having fun with terminology, here are two new definitions of DWI to sip on: Drinking While Intoxicated and Dancing While Intoxicated. If sexually available, neither DWI situation is currently illegal. However, for those who are technically not sexually available due to a “morality-based” monogamy promise, one can also think in terms of the following DWM definitions: Drinking While Monogamous and Dancing While Monogamous.

Dancing, especially the type of dancing popular today, involves a lot of touching. Aside from a massage or an actual sex act, there is nothing more sexual two people can do with each other. When sexually unavailable, it is questionable why anyone would dance with a third-party, opposite-sex person if touching is unavoidable. The possibility for a sexual connection is extremely high when people dance, especially if there is any attraction between the dance partners.

While discussing how dancing leads to romance for many of the stars on Dancing with the Stars, New York Post reporter Cathy Burke has this to say: “Footloose was right: Dancing is the devil’s work. And you can file the ABC megahit Dancing with the Stars under Satan’s Dept. of Homewrecking.” That comment reflects how many of the show’s stars were not sexually available when they hooked up with each other.

As for consuming alcohol without one’s monogamous partner, one might want to be more selective about the venue. For example, this Midtown Manhattan bar is probably not the safest place:


Call it a precursor to the 2nd annual Lingerie Ladies night. We’re getting warmed up with a happy hour Playboy-esque party! No, Hef won’t be there. But all of your favorite Finn-mates will be, dressed to boot in bunny ears, tails, heels and not much more.

Ladies don’t be shy!! If you come dressed up, you drink free all night long!! All beer, wine, mixed drinks & specialty shots!!

Other Drink Specials:

Ladies: 1/2 price drinks and house shots.

Guys: Open bar 8:00-10:00 for $20!!
All beer, wine & mixed drinks.

Also … $4 domestic beers & $8 jager & car bombs!!

What a dangerously awesome combination! Scantily clad females hanging out drinking cheap alcohol while fully covered males get wasted making the most out of their two-hour open bar. The impact this type of alcohol consumption has on the male’s sex act pursuer role and the female’s genitalia gatekeeper role is simply fascinating. Combine the shot and drink specials with the early start drink shift and the following is not an unreasonable summary of what can transpire as the evening progresses:

Male alcohol perspective of a female: “She was a two at 10 PM but a ten at 2 AM”

Female alcohol perspective of a male: One to two drinks – “he’s funny”; three to four drinks – “he’s funny and cute”; five to six drinks – “time to dance and even touch if he knows how to move”; after six drinks – “I might give him sex tonight…”

Personally, I tend to be a four or five drink guy, one that a female at that same drink level finds cute and funny enough to give the “time of day,” that is, a conversation. Luckily for me, there is plenty of Jagermeister to fuel the female’s interest. At the end of the Bar XYZ ad, please take notice of the Jager special they were offering. By the way, that is not a typo. Eight-­dollar shots are a bargain in Manhattan, where bars, nightclubs and lounges can easily command double digits for one’s right to see double quicker. For any not familiar with Jagermeister, a formal introduction is called for.

Jay Cheshes, a writer for the New York Daily News, has this to say: “For the past 20 years, Jagermeister, the bitter herbal German spirit developed in the 1930s as a digestive aid, has been the go-to shot for nights you’d never want to remember. As Jager sales soared, bitter liquor became synonymous with binge-­drinking.” I say, mix Jager in with bottle service, and who knows how the night might go from there.

The STUD Defense System is the perfect solution for a “not sexually available” woman when out without her boyfriend.

If a female absolutely has no choice but to play her respective gender role when without her partner, standardized defense statements are here to save the moment. Introducing the hopefully soon to be Council-sanctioned Shun The Un-Deterred defense system. The STUD defense system is designed to be recognizable by any male on every occasion. It will actually prove to be a very effective means for keeping sexually interested people of any gender at bay while out, no matter what one’s friends are up to.

Table 18.8 summarizes each defense round:

Round Style Defense Statement
one amicable no thank you
two angled I am not sexually available
three analytical no means no the first time, the second time, and now this third time
four assertive get away from me
Table 18.8: STUD Defense System;  Source: Last Call © 2013

Those four verbal defense statements are designed to progressively get less cordial and at the same time more focused. First, the female will amicably try “No thank you” to any offers of a drink, dance or lengthy conversation attempt…and now that I think about it, body or hair touching, prolonged caressing and mini massages as well. If not successful, the female will next take the angle that “I am not sexually available.” If the male still persists, going analytical on him with “No means no the first time, the second time, and now this third time” should do the trick. If not, a very assertive “Get away from me” gets straight to the point.

Now I realize it is a worry of some that they do not want to appear bitchy, especially to male friends of their friends. But I say the person being the bitch is the one insisting on the pursuit past “no thank you.” Upon getting drinks paid for despite one’s protest and then getting rejected on buying a round back – whether when part of a group or flying solo – simply walk away at that point. As a common-sense reminder, the ultimate solution is to remove oneself from that human jungle scenario altogether.

Who is it you are hanging out with right now? Just a friend…

When dating someone for a few months, how many times have you discovered they were out without you, and with an opposite-sex friend (or two) no less? Yet you had never heard of that person up until that point.

The Just-a-Friend tool easily sets not-present partner expectations on how an arranged outing (or “unplanned” encounter) with an opposite-sex third party person can end up being more than just a few cocktails together. Here’s the tool: Just-a-Friend, and here are the directions from Last Call‘s Chapter 20, “Disclosure Decency”:


The Just-a-Friend tool can assist in communicating to a partner what type of yet-to-be identified familiar third-party person one will be sharing company time with for any significant period. That is, someone who has yet to be discussed in any type of detail within the partnership as to who they are, and whether there is any sexual history or at least known sexual interest ­between the two of them.

This tool records reasonable information beginning with what that friend’s partnership status is (answering the question “Is your friend sexually available?”), then asking “Is that friend sexually attracted to you, you to the friend, or both?” Next it sets down any shared sexual history with that friend, including how far the sexual encounter went, and finally asks for an answer to the important statement, “We are or are not currently hooking up.”

Quick “best of my knowledge” brutally honest answers will help achieve the goal of the Just-a-Friend tool, enabling a partner to non-intrusively assess the probability of a sexual encounter during the time one will be seeing the third-party person, whether ­opposite- or same-sex. The first Just-a-Friend tool has only four questions and can be completed in one minute or less:

Naturally, if all the answers are choice “a,” there is a low probability of one’s partner having sex during that particular third-party company time outing. Any combination of “b” and “c” answers could put one a little on edge. If all were answered “d,” one should count on some interesting partner communications the following day.

The end result of the Just-a-Friend tool is that it naturally leads all involved to be significantly more brutally honest in their dating matters. It allows both partners who are currently compatible and content to recognize that, regardless, they still might have sex with someone else. A direct derivative of such a tool is that many partners will feel obligated to at least text their partner shortly after parting ways with their “friend.” Some might even do so beforehand, giving some type of heads up that everything is cool, and a “I can’t wait to hold you again” signal, especially if that friend is known to still have “feelings,” or even vice versa. Without such communication, the left-behind partner could end up having quite a sleepless night as he (or she) tries to rationalize why the non-cohabiting partner has not attempted to make contact. (Yes, the “I didn’t want to wake you” excuse is officially dead, unless instructed beforehand not to.)

The tool can also be used in situations where one is getting together with a group of friends. Those that will definitely derive benefit from this use are partnerships in which one or both partners are originally from another city and are likely to go home for the holidays or special friend/family events. Upon making the announcement one is doing so, that partner can answer the four questions for each sexually interested or interesting person he or she is likely to run into, or even already has plans to see.

Future Just-a-Friend tool questions are expected to factor in whether the friend is currently contentedly dating or married; or if they are, say, off work the next morning and therefore can hang out as late as he or she cares to. The Just-a-Friend tool can also be used in “after the fact” situations, especially when one’s partner unexpectedly runs into an old acquaintance. It is expected the Just-a-Friend tool will prove invaluable in such situations, especially once both partners have the smart phone app downloaded.

Welcome to the Moral Monogamy Promise

As monetary and sexual temptations grew over time, the words monogamy and morality began to more often come up together in conversation. A person’s morality was supposedly the force to keep them monogamous when without their partner. When a person was caught cheating, that person’s moral standing was compromised. They were then considered shameful, and likely ostracized. Perhaps a look at the definitions of those words can help explain why:

monogamy 1. the practice or state of being married to only one person at a time 2. Rare the practice of marrying only once during life 3. Zool. the practice of having only one mate

morality the character of being in accord with the principles or standards of right conduct; right conduct; sometimes, specif., virtue in sexual conduct

Monogamy is “the practice of having only one mate.” We assume for now that Webster’s Dictionary meant “having only one mate” to mean having only one sex partner in a given period of time—say, in a given month. Whether or not a person made an actual promise to be monogamous is not at issue, it boils down to whether a person is actually practicing monogamy. Morality is about the “principles or standards of right conduct.” What exactly does the word conduct encompass when it comes to sexual partnerships? Does it strictly prohibit all non-monogamous behavior, or does it simply prohibit being dishonest about non-monogamous behavior?

In America, the elimination of any real limits on acceptable annual sex partner counts for either gender, and the prevalence of overlapping partnerships, has led to record levels of hormonification and biased dishonesty. Even so, many apparently still place the blame for their infidelities on their own life experience, which may be anything from a harsh breakup to the influence of others, including the media.

Basic common sense says that by the time one reaches age twenty-five, there are no longer any excuses to being immoral about sex. Most people in America by that point, have had almost ten years of sexual activity and experiences to learn from, and all have absorbed a great amount of information on the negative impact of undisclosed cheat events. By age twenty-five, there is no longer any room for doubt or excuses. If one has sex with a third party person, to not disclose this fact while promising monogamy is immoral, no matter how you look at it.

This leads to one of the most important new concepts in Last Call. The combined term moral monogamy will now be used to describe the promise to refrain from having sex outside the partnership, plus to come clean within twenty-four hours if one does. This honesty-stimulating new concept is not implying anyone will have third party sex. It is just a guarantee that if they do, the cheated-on partner will be one of the first to know about it (recognizing that they cannot be the first, for obvious reasons).

Of course anyone can still make the choice to stick with the non-guaranteed monogamy promise. But with the momentum of the heterosexualist movement’s grassroots effort across America, one could quickly find themselves the exception against the rule. And yes, “loving someone so much” and using that as the excuse for cheating and then lying about it is out the door as well.

Last Call will strengthen the moral monogamy promise by identifying clearly marked ­boundaries—not rules, but cascaded boundaries that a male and female can customize to define what constitutes cheating within their particular partnership. While they won’t guarantee someone won’t go out-of-bounds, universally recognized boundaries definitely allow a person to respectfully acknowledge when they have crossed the line. Without clear boundaries, the power of human morality is useless.