October 3, 2009

The NYT compares the cost of being an unmarried homosexual couple to a married heterosexual couple.

Obviously, it's immensely important in the debate about same-sex marriage to make the comparison between the costs to a couple of living single and living married.
[W]e set out to determine what they were and to come up with a round number — a couple’s lifetime cost of being gay.
But, also obviously, the economic difference is between married and unmarried, not gay and straight, since a straight couple can choose to remain single. It's interesting to all couples to know the financial effect of marrying. I got married recently — to a person of the opposite sex — and it mattered to us. Now, also obviously, when a same-sex couple is denied the right to marry, they don't get to use the economic analysis in a choice of how they want to structure their lives. But it should be clear that the economic difference is useful to both heterosexual and homosexual couples. And, again, the comparison plays an important role in thinking about legalizing gay marriage.

I've always supported gay marriage myself, and I would even if the economic difference was minimal or great or infinitely complicated. But I can suspect that the NYT's exercise is aimed at convincing people that denying the right to marry is a great injustice, so I'm looking at this economic analysis with some skepticism.

There is an unintended effect to portraying marriage as such a great financial benefit: People who already have the right to marry may decide they ought to marry to rake in all those great benefits.

One thing is that the model they used had a couple with an income of "$140,000, which is about the average income in [New York, California, and Florida] for unmarried same-sex partners who are college-educated, 30 to 40 years old and raising children under the age of 18." $140,000? That's awfully high! There's an old stereotype about gay couples being wealthier than heterosexuals, and I'm surprised to see the NYT stoking it. But I suspect they tried various incomes and hit upon this number because it produced impressive results. Given that the median household income in the U.S. is about $50,000, I don't think you're going to persuade too many same-sex marriage opponents to cry over families that make $140,000.
Here is what we came up with. In our worst case, the couple’s lifetime cost of being gay was $467,562. But the number fell to $41,196 in the best case for a couple with significantly better health insurance, plus lower taxes and other costs.
Most of the analysis involves taxes and pensions and the like — things that vary according to whether the couple is married, but the article also includes the costs of acquiring children: artificial insemination and adoption. These costs are simply the costs of infertility — which can afflict heterosexuals too —and nothing that can be cured by legalizing gay marriage. But there are also costs to marriage that are not included, and that ought to caution people against assuming there are great financial benefits to marrying. First, and the article notes this, your taxes can increase — there's the marriage penalty. Second, there's the risk of needing a divorce, and that can be tremendously expensive, especially if children are involved. There is nothing in the article about divorce.

So, try to make the best decision you can about whether to marry, if you have the right to marry. Money isn't the only thing, but it's worth taking into account. I think there is a dollar amount for each of us which, if we had to sacrifice it in order to marry, we'd choose to live together as an unmarried couple. And maybe there is also a dollar amount for every couple that if they could save it by marrying, they'd go ahead and marry. When I was unmarried, I used to think that I would marry a male friend in a certain scenario: He needed expensive medical treatment, and I had the health insurance coverage to share.

And, again, as for gay people, I think they should be able to look at the same factors that heterosexual couples look at.

71 comments:

Fred4Pres said...

The whole social security survivorship benefit thing was originally intended the widow who never worked outside the home. The concept is grossly outdated for straight marriages (or gay marraiges). Given the huge entitlement shortfalls we are facing, it should be restructured to protect the vulernable only, not be some additional benefit for people (gay or straight) who can live without it.

My totally unscientific observations are most homosexual males do not have kids, do have higher educations, and as a result do better than average in incomes. More often than not, lesbian couples may have kids, but they seem to do as well as straight couples. The biggest arguments for gay marriage are the social benefits of being able to care for your spouse, the small but powerful legal benefits of such a union in conducting the shared affairs of the home. And even divorce is part of that too.

rhhardin said...

The marriage penalty flips back and forth between penalty and benefit, each time being called a reform.

I think the last time was in the 70s, when it went from benefit to penalty.

Mathematically, it can't be done with a progressive tax system.

You want

1. Couples with equal total income get taxed equally;

2. There is no tax benefit or penalty for marrying.

Only a flat tax can do both.

Florida said...

How can an article about the cost of marriage not answer the important questions about a man's financial risks from divorce? More marriages fail than succeed, after all.

Men choose not to get married and one of the main reasons they choose bachelorhood is the financial risks that marriage impose only on men in the United States.

Men are the United States' only legal indentured servants. Ask anyone how they feel about slavery and you will get universal answers that it is wrong.

Ask them about "maintenance" however, and suddenly the right of a woman to enslave a man becomes almost a civil right.

I suspect that's why the NY Times refuses to discuss this aspect of marriage.

knox said...

Our tax system wreaks such havoc in our lives. It's just absurd that it's gotten so incomprehensible. I don't think we should be forced to abide by laws that are impossible to understand.

1jpb said...

"When I was unmarried, I used to think that I would marry a male friend in a certain scenario: He needed expensive medical treatment, and I had the health insurance coverage to share."

Fraud? Seems like it should be.

wv: ration

bearbee said...

$140,000 is extravagantly high.

Given the huge entitlement shortfalls we are facing, it should be restructured to protect the vulernable only, not be some additional benefit for people (gay or straight) who can live without it.

Means testing.

The biggest arguments for gay marriage....

is for the government to stay out of people's beeswax.

Ask them about "maintenance" however, and suddenly the right of a woman to enslave a man becomes almost a civil right.

Non-issue in and a plus for same sex marriage......no?

bearbee said...

Don't some elderly marry for financial reasons?

The Drill SGT said...

I thought the health care section was slanted. In many cases, mine for instance, where both spouses make equal pay and have no children, it likely is cheaper to both be covered separately by each employer, rather than both by one employer. At least at my firm and for FEDs, that is the case.

reason: the employer is trying to maximize apparent value to employees for each employer dollar spent. Employers subsidize the employee portion more than they subsidize the spouse add-on.

Jason (the commenter) said...

The money spent on tax preparation could be done away with by doing your own taxes.

I don't understand the spousal IRA numbers at all. It talks about nonworking spouses, but the assumption for each scenario include both people working.

Also, they never factored in spending on cow mats.

J.J. Schmidt said...

When I was unmarried, I used to think that I would marry a male friend in a certain scenario: He needed expensive medical treatment, and I had the health insurance coverage to share.

This from the woman who thinks we don't need health care reform, and who lamely suggests that allowing people to deduct their medical expenses would solve everything! What, precisely, would a tax deduction do for the person who needs an expensive medical treatment and has no coverage?

chickenlittle said...

More marriages fail than succeed, after all.

Somebody tweeted an interesting link a few weeks ago that showed that while overall divorce numbers were rather high, divorce was committed by a rather small group of repeat divorcers, i.e., most people who got married stayed married but a minority got married and divorced several times, skewing the numbers. I think the link was in Freeman Hunts tweet feed but it's so clogged right now with cowmats that I can't find it.

Quayle said...

Supporters of gay marriage are ignoring the most compelling macro evidence there is of the prohibitively high personal and social cost of gay marriage: which is that despite what the gays themselves claim are thousands of years of gay people being in society, there are no societies of which we know that allowed widespread gay marriage and still exist, or in which gay marriage survived as a stable and vibrant social institution.

And the more one tries to argue that gay marriage isn’t new, and existed in, say, Egypt, Roman Gaul or Valois-OrlĂ©ans, the fact that it didn’t survive and thrive as a social institution proves the point that it somehow inflicts a prohibitively high cost on its participants and/or on society.

Consequently gay marriage must be looked at as a huge and dangerous experiment that has never been successfully accomplished anywhere else, and that should be approached with extreme caution, lest our intellectual arrogance (that always seems to flow from material wealth) lead us into making an ill-informed decision about the composition of the foundation of our society, which is the family.

All indicators suggest caution, but what we see is heedless recklessness.

(And this issue is foundational-structural, not personal.)

Bissage said...

Crunching the numbers was even trickier before Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) came along, so there’s been some progress.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Quayle: there are no societies of which we know that allowed widespread gay marriage and still exist, or in which gay marriage survived as a stable and vibrant social institution.

Canada, Iowa, New England, Spain, South Africa, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden. These are places where gay marriage has equal legal status. They all still exist.

Even where it doesn't have equal legal status, gay marriage is still widespread in the West. We still exist.

chuck b. said...

I hate to tell you this, but $140k/year is not "awfully high" for two people working in California or New York.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Quayle: Consequently gay marriage must be looked at as a huge and dangerous experiment that has never been successfully accomplished anywhere else...

Birth control, women's suffrage, federalism, emancipation: these types of things are huge. Letting a few percent of the population get legal benefits from marriage: not huge.

(And this issue is foundational-structural, not personal.)

You say it's not personal, but the importance you place on something that would apply to such a small percentage of the population says something different.

chickenlittle said...

I hate to tell you this, but $140k/year is not "awfully high" for two people working in California or New York.

When my wife didn't work (just a couple years ago) we were well below that mark, so $140k/year for a couple raising kids is still a lot of money.

You might amend your claim to include just certain enclaves of California. :)

Chase said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Zachary Paul Sire said...

...despite what the gays themselves claim are thousands of years of gay people being in society, there are no societies of which we know that allowed widespread gay marriage and still exist


Non sequitur. Try again, your homophobia is showing.

L. E. Lee said...

Jason (the commenter) response to Quayle was perfect.

--------------------------
Concerning Ann writing that she would commit insurance fraud as a way to provide health care to a sick friend-I have posted in previous comments that one possible health care reform is that we should allow everyone without health insurance to marry Ann and share in her platinum plated coverage. How do you feel abort polygamy Ann?

You crack me up Ann!

Chase said...

I do not support gay marriage, but I do not have a problem with health insurance being adjusted for same sex partners - or 2 unmarried people straight or gay - to match the benefits and cost of straight married couples.

The state has every right to favor the relationship that produces children - or has the possibility of producing children, whether or not the couple intends to produce children - and the raising of children in homes with both a father and a mother. It is not favored because of "love" or emotion, it is favored - fairly and rationally - because all of human history without exception teaches the same lesson. To recognize and act upon this fact is wise and beneficial to all of society, including gay citizens.

Give every equal benefit that is desired to same sex couples - and there are many that should be. But it will still never be or create a "marriage". Marriage by it's very definition is the the legal recognition of a relationship joining of 2 different genders - and that will never change. Call it what you want, but "same-sex marriage" does not and will never truly exist.

Zachary Paul Sire said...

Call it what you want, but "same-sex marriage" does not and will never truly exist.


Tell that to the thousands of same-sex couples (and the untold millions to come) who are married right now all over the US, living their lives, going about their business, and raising kids. You've already lost.

Chase said...

Zachary -
I have way too much respect for you to not tell you to not play the homophobia card.

You are a thoughtful writer. Engage what you quoted.

L. E. Lee said...

Chase wrote
"Call it what you want, but "same-sex marriage" does not and will never truly exist."

There are racists who say the same thing about interracial marriage. Fine company you keep.

Chase said...

you've already lost.

Some battles, yes. But it's not settled yet.

And it won't be any time soon.

L. E. Lee said...

Chase,
BTW, I know of many same sex couples who have children and are raising them just fine even though they and their children have to face hillbilly bigots like you everyday.

Chase said...

There are racists who say the same thing about interracial marriage. Fine company you keep.

Careful there.

Marriage was never about race. Race has no true biological difference. Refusing to marry because of race is wrong, because race has never affected the definition of marriage. The defiiniton is not what someone wants it to be at a particular time or what someone wants legally recognized - it is always about the gender.

Marriage IS about gender. Always has been - always will be.

To recognize that is no more discriminatory than enforcing men only and women only restrooms.
It is recognizing reality and relating to it correctly.

Take the emotion out and think rationally for a few moments.

Chase said...

TW, I know of many same sex couples who have children and are raising them just fine even though they and their children have to face hillbilly bigots like you everyday.

As do I.

But so what? Call it something else and be proud of it. It's not marriage. And surely even you agree that the best case scenario - despite individual exceptions - is for a child to be raised by a mother and father.

Seriously. Say that 15 children, all infants were needing parent couples. And say that there are 100 mother-father couples and 15 same-sex couples available for adopting these children.
Say that you know nothing about these couples personally except that they all have sufficient income, they all have excellent references, and they all have stable relationships of more than 10 years - and that's all you know and are permitted to know in order to make your decision.

Who do you first think of when making the decision - the mother-father couple, or the same sex couple.

Not calling same sex relationships "marriage" is not wrong. It is wise and correct.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Chase: The state has every right to favor the relationship that produces children...

If you had said "raises" instead of "produces" I might agree with you. I find it hard to believe that most people on the right put a greater emphasis on producing rather than raising children.

Marriage by it's very definition is the the legal recognition of a relationship joining of 2 different genders - and that will never change.

By its legal definition in some places, but not in others. Definitions are made by people and changed by people. Considering events, I don't see how anyone can make this argument anymore.

L. E. Lee said...

Chase, you can dress it up all you want to but you are still a bigot. Up until recently marriage was "defined" in this country as being between people of the same races. It was common for people to say in the past that marriage between the races was "unnatural" because god and nature created different races. Some people still hold to that view. Courageous fighters of these bigots changed that "definition" and we are a better and more just society for it.

Your same sex bathroom analogy demonstrates how much of an intellectual pygmy you are.

Don't tell me to "take the emotion out and think rationally for a few moments." You need to take your bigotry out first.

m00se said...

Careful: Sully latched on this one. Don't make him angry...

Jason (the commenter) said...

Chase: Marriage IS about gender. Always has been - always will be.

Is marriage about gender or producing children? Since gay marriages with full legal equality exist the "always" statements cannot stand.

Since your arguments revolve around definitions, once the definitions are changed will you support full legal recognition of gay marriage?

L. E. Lee said...

Chase,

I would place the children with the wealthiest couples, straight or gay. They would be the best able to provide these orphans with the greatest opportunities. So, by your logic poor people, straight or gay, should not be allowed to marry.

Also, if it is true that gays have a higher income we should favor same sex marriage over male/female ones! See, Chase, we can both play your silly little social engineering game!

L. E. Lee said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Chase said...

Lee - I am sorry that you feel that you can avoid the argument by throwing out name-calling and perjoratives. I thought you were an adult and not an insecure school yard bully, but I will know better next time.


History has made the definiton of marriage. It has historically never changed and that has always been and always returned to being about gender. Whatever some society wants to make it mean at any particular time, it always returns to being the same thing - about gender. And it will survive this experiment too, and the eventual demise of same sex "marriage" relationships. What the future holds will be the inevitable
re-recognition of the benefit of mother-father family.

Jason,

Thank you for adding "raising" of familes. Yes, producing AND raising in mother-father families. Something we all recognize as the overall best case scenario.

L. E. Lee said...

Also, Chase, I would judge these couples as individuals not as members of broad groups. It is the American way.

daubiere said...

"Consequently gay marriage must be looked at as a huge and dangerous experiment that has never been successfully accomplished anywhere else..."

you could have said the same thing about representative democracy in the 18th century. who knew?

Jason (the commenter) said...

Chase: Who do you first think of when making the decision - the mother-father couple, or the same sex couple.

Well, you made everyone sound so generically perfect I'd go with first-come first-serve.

Having a mommy and a daddy versus to mommies or two daddies, I'm sure there will be differences, doesn't seem like much to me.

L. E. Lee said...

Sorry Chase if my honesty offends you. I call out bigots when I see them.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Chase: History has made the definiton of marriage.

Suits me, I make history, by definition!

Chase said...

Okay Lee,

I'll leave the discussion now so that you can save your hateful incapacity to engage reasonably with those who disagree with you for others.

Chase said...

Jason,

LOL!

See ya

L. E. Lee said...

Bye Bigot.

(Don't worry, I don't hate you. I just know who you are. It is a truth thing.)

peter hoh said...

Bearbee wrote: Don't some elderly marry for financial reasons?

Yes, and some elderly people get married in church without making it legal because of tax reasons, inheritance issues, benefits, etc.

Chickenlittle, as I understand it, you are correct. Using the number of marriages and the number of divorces does not tell you how many marriages are likely to last. IIRC, more than half of all first marriages last.

Chase, according to some definitions of marriage, Althouse and Meade are not "really" married.

Quayle said...

Canada, Iowa, New England, Spain, South Africa, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden. These are places where gay marriage has equal legal status. They all still exist.

But this argument has one huge, gaping hole: it ignores any discussion of what are the natural timeframes in which the results of poor social structural choices would become apparent.

Absent such a consideration, it rashly and unjustifiably assumes that if gay marriage hasn't shown any bad results in 10 years, there must and will not be any bad results ever.

That is a whopper of an argument for something that, upon even a simple reflection, would be realized to take likely generations to show up.

Yet my point still stands, no such society has come down to us, despite the huge numbers of gay people that they gays tell us existed in ancient history.

You say it's not personal, but the importance you place on something that would apply to such a small percentage of the population says something different.

Numbers are immaterial. I wouldn't advocate putting one untested substance or stone block in a foundation for a building, let along a society.

But I do note the malleability of the meaning of numbers in the gay argument. There are tons of gays when it is beneficial to the argument, and only a few gays when that suits the claim.

So what is it? Are there so many gays that we can't ignore them, or so few that we should ignore them?

These are structural arguments that gays make personal to suit their vengeance.

Quayle said...

you could have said the same thing about representative democracy in the 18th century. who knew

It is an unfortunate byproduct of the love of Darwin’s theory of evolution that people lazily and reflexively argue that things can only get better with change – can only evolve.

Yet even the second law of thermodynamics conflicts with that notion, and it is decidedly more hard science than Darwin’s theory.

The truth is that some changes bring good, but some changes bring bad.

Change isn't innately good or bad – and that is why we must discuss each change – because for every scenario you can point to where an opposed change brought good, I can point to one where an opposed change brought the bad predicted and opposed.

For example - let’s ask: given the lower scholastic test scores and greater probability of living in poverty that is unquestionably correlated with broken marriages and single parent homes – was the increasing and widespread social acceptance of divorce a “good thing?”

Jason (the commenter) said...

Quayle: Numbers are immaterial. I wouldn't advocate putting one untested substance or stone block in a foundation for a building...

You say gay marriage hasn't shown a bad result in ten years, and that any negative result may take generations to appear. You say you wouldn't put a single untested stone block in the foundation of a building. You say that numbers are immaterial.

You sound paranoid.

Forget about trying to convince me, think about other people who might read what you have to say. Instead of calling things "rash" or "simple" if you could just make an argument that wasn't so heavily dependent on adjectives or definitions you might be more persuasive.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Quayle: It is an unfortunate byproduct of the love of Darwin’s theory of evolution that people lazily and reflexively argue that things can only get better with change – can only evolve.

It would be a misguided view of evolution, because the view of progress is not promoted by evolution. Darwin even got people angry with him because he didn't talk about humans as being better than other organisms. That "the Descent of Man" bit.

If you read the works of Francis Bacon you will see that "progress" as an idea actually came from looking at advances in the mechanical arts.

Bruce Hayden said...

I have gotten to the point that I really don't care about same sex marriage, one way or another. I opposed it for a long time, as did, I think most Americans, just because we weren't brought up with it. Then, Eugene Volokh brought me around to domestic partnerships, as he moved towards full marriage. And, slowly, and surely, I think I have followed.

Legally though, the thing that I argued then, and still do, is the slippery slope. The reality, I think, is that plural marriages have had a much higher history of acceptance, and, in the end, I think it is going to be hard to justify same sex marriage without ultimately extending that to plural marriages, esp. polygamy such as is practiced, somewhat covertly, in some of the more remote parts of this country, and routinely around the world. We already have the problem of what to do with plural families that move here from other countries, esp. Moslem ones, where it is apparently well accepted by both the religion and society for a man to have up to four wives (as scary as that sounds to those of us who have problems with one woman).

Call me a sexist, but my one proviso is that I am not happy with seeing two women raising kids. While they may do better than one, they still (usually) have the problem of raising them without a male in the household. (As you can probably guess, I am pretty much ok with two guys doing it). I have been told by Lesbian friends that the women they know who try to raise kids together go out of their way to have strong male influences in their kids' lives. Maybe, but the one instance I know most about, the daughter in kindergarten was petrified of adult and almost adult men, never having spent any significant time around them. So, it isn't universal, and the vast majority of inmates in prison grew up without a father figure in the house.

Donna B. said...

First, let me say that I think children are magnificently resilient and will grow up fine raised by any "parental unit" that shows them love and trains them well.

That "parental unit" can be a single person of either sex, one of each, or two of either.

But opposite sex couples and their children will have it much easier, no matter what simply because they will be in the majority.

I have no doubt that gay couples who have children understand this and understand that their children are not likely to share their sexual orientation (or whatever the current PC word is.)

But none of the above is an argument against same-sex marriage for social reasons.

I think gay marriage will become much more common and accepted, but I don't think there will be a federal law making it legal. Marriage (and divorce) "rules" for heterosexual couples differ greatly from state to state, and any federal legislation would have to address that also.

Further, I think supporting gay marriage is quite a conservative thing to do. It will promote stability in a subculture that, at least is popularly perceived, as lacking in that area.

Also, there's as much a problem with abuse among gay couples as with heterosexual, and without some kind of legal recognition of status, the abused partner is left with absolutely no social support network. It's bad enough for abused heteros.

I see more positives than negatives in allowing same-sex marriage.

Randy said...

According to the most recent information released by US Census Bureau, 75% of all those who have ever married are still married to the same person, 20% are on their second marriage, and 5% have been married 3 or more times. The average length for all marriages, including all those ended by divorce or death, is 18+ years.

Randy said...

BTW, according to that same study recently released by the US Census Bureau, there are 565,000 gay & lesbian couples living together in the United States today. I personally doubt a very large percentage of them are raising children, BWDIK?

amba said...

The money spent on tax preparation could be done away with by doing your own taxes.

I had that bright idea. Then I looked at the form 1040, or is it 1040A. Pretty soon I was rolling on the cowmats laughing. The thing reads like a parody of itself; it is incomprehensible.

vw: wican

Randy said...

Althouse's point about why the high income was chosen seems about right to me. This is issues advocacy paraded as disinterested reporting of comparative costs. Any resemblance to the realities faced by the average gay or lesbian couple, with or without children, and these numbers is purely coincidental.

Michael Hasenstab said...

The NYT should do the same analysis using a gay couple that adopts children compared with a gay couple that has no children.

Or a gay couple where one partner used to be straight, then came out and got divorced, and now has high child support payments, versus a couple where both partners were gay from go.

Or a gay couple that used to live in Manhattan, but then moved to a low-tax state like Florida.

Why just 'gay' couples? Does that include 'lesbian', or not? I'm not sure that it's statistically valid to lump them together on the cowmats like that. Lesbians have an entirely different economic structure than gays. Why no comparison between married and unmarried lesbian couples?

Come on NYT, you can do better.

TosaGuy said...

$140K was selected because that is the income demographic that reads the NYT. The paper is just give its readers what it wants.

Pete said...

Hey hey hey. What's all this crazy talk about saving money by preparing your own tax return? That's what CPAs like me are for. Let's keep to the discussion of the cost benefits/penalties of gay marriage and have no more of this "prepare your own tax return" nonsense.

Pete said...

Sorry, I meant "prepare your own tax return on cowmats" nonsense.

Much better.

Dale said...

L.E. Lee,

Bye Bigot.

Go to hell, you hate-filled piece of shit.

Hoping you die while getting fucked in the ass.

Titus said...

My British/Indian husband and I have a combined income of over 500k. Did I mention he has amazingly large arms?

140k in my neck of the woods for a gay couple would be poverty.

My husband is a VP at State Street Bank and I am a VP at a Biotech company. 140k couples are nowhere to be found in Boston and would be appropriately shunned.

If you are gay and over 30 and living in a fabulous metro area in the US it is a requirement and a minimum to make 100k base, excluding bonus and stock options.

I think the lowest paid couple in my group is around 200k, poor things.

None of my friends have or desire kids either.

Maybe 140k would be ok if you lived in Pierre South Dakota but it just isn't going to work on the East Coast. You would need to live far off in the burbs with that kind of compensation and who wants to live in an unfabulous zip code? No fags I know.

Did I mention my Indian boyfriend splewed on my face last night? It smelled a little like curry and couscous.

Titus said...

My Indian/British husband also has three different accents he uses specific to his audiences.

One is an Indian Accent

Two is a British Accent which is my fav.

And three is a weird American/British combo accent which he said he acquired because employees at State Street had a hard time understanding his British accent.

Isn't that interesting?

Last night we showed either other the websites we use to jerk off to. Things are definitely getting serious when you devulge that information.

Is Meade working in Madison? And if so, what is he doing?

Titus said...

My Indian Husband, who is a vegetarian, has stepped out to pick up Thai food for us.

He is uncut as well and wears a leather cock ring which has snaps on it. We have never had sex without him wearing the cock ring. I asked him about it and he said that the sensation is more exciting, whatever. I am willing to live with it.

I, on the other hand, do not wear a cock ring. Is cock ring two words or one?

Go Badgers 5-0!

Last night when sharing our porn sites that we jerky too we watched a video of a guy who was on his back sucking his hog and then splewed in his mouth. How weird. I have no interest in sucking myself off.

How are you Miss Althouse? Or is it Mrs. Meade?

Titus said...

I do have something to admit.

I can't cum when I have sex with my British/Indian boyfriend with big arms. While he cums three times a night I don't cum at all.

It is the whole familarity thing. I can cum in 5 minutes with a stranger but with someone who I have been with many times, and love, forget it.

I do enjoy the contrast of an Indian with really big arms and a great body. I think it is because you expect and Indian, I know racist, to be some geek who is technical and kind of skinny. But when you find one that is pumped up it is very much a turn on. A turn on yes but not enough to make me cum.

When we are doing it he says things like, "you are mine" and "I own you" and "you are the best". All comments I enjoy but still not enough to get me to shoot my load.

Titus said...

I do believe cumming is overrated though.

Love and intimacy and holding each other is just as good in my book.

So what if I can't come with My British/Indian boyfriend who is a vegeatarian and has an amazing body?

I am in love though, how weird. I never thought I was capable or deserving of it.

L. E. Lee said...

Dale wrote about me
"Hoping you die while getting fucked in the ass."

Well, how quaint. Another Althouse Hillbilly bigot appears.

chickenlittle said...

Well this thread got weird fast.

*waves at Titus*

I drove through Waunakee twice last August while back in WI.

Dale said...

L.E.Lee is a bigoted jerk-off turd.

Michael Hasenstab said...

*waves at Titus*

Hey man, great to hear from you.

kentuckyliz said...

I was under the impression that gay couples could accomplish about all of the legal benefits of marriage with a set of properly executed legal documents. So what's the big deal?

Marriage is a religious concept. If you want the religious ceremony, you can find someone to do that for you. Or cook up your own pastorless mountaintop experience.

peter hoh said...

kentuckyliz, no, legal paperwork is not a substitute for marriage, as this couple found out the hard way.

Jason said...

Lee,

News flash: gender != race.