22 ms·

I think it depends on whether you're living with them because of choice or necessity. If you're staying with them because of choice and you have a good job, ju

I think it depends on whether you're living with them because of choice or necessity. If you're staying with them because of choice and you have a good job, just get a hotel room or go stay at a B&B for the weekend or something. If you're staying with them because you're broke, you just don't have sex, unless you're the type who can sell a refrigerator to an Eskimo.

closeparen 6y ago
Does that imply couples are only having a sex a few times a year on special occasions? In American culture that's more of a hallmark of "well into marriage" - young couples are going at it all the time.
- phobosanomaly 6y ago
  I worded it maybe a little weird in retrospect. The implication was that if you have a decent job and live at home you will generally be able to arrange something because of your access to cash. So you can bankroll whatever solution will work with your s/o or casual encounter. If you're broke and living at home, it may be more difficult to enter a relationship or have a more casual encounter to begin with, let alone pay for a bunch of hotel rooms or whatever. So the first person can go at it all the time like you said, but the second person is more limited.
  - bradlys 6y ago
    > The implication was that if you have a decent job and live at home you will generally be able to arrange something because of your access to cash. So you can bankroll whatever solution will work with your s/o or casual encounter. I think this answer still implies you're having sex maybe once or twice a month. Hotels aren't cheap and if you're paying for them more than a few times a month, why even live at home? For many American couples - having sex anywhere from once a week to multiple times a day are all fairly common.
    - phobosanomaly 6y ago
      This is an interesting question. What is the point at which it's cheaper to get horizontal in hotels (and save money by living with parents) versus renting an apartment? Let's do some back-of-the-envelope. From this Huffpo article they're throwing out $1,234.43 as the median rent for a 1-bedroom apartment in a selection of American cities (kid gloves to begin with - let's tackle SF rent later). https://www.huffpost.com/entry/heres-what-an-average-apa_b_10346298 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/heres-what-an-average-apa_b_1... So what are hotel rooms going to run you? I just grabbed something off of Expedia in SF for Wednesday night. Hotel Abri in Union Square $106. Seems not too sketchy, and not too pricey. If your s/o is a little adventurous there's always $60/night Motel 6 (bedbugs notwithstanding). So, say you're having sex two nights per week (sure, not all the time, but you're living with your parents so you're going to have to dial that libido back a little bit - listening to them bug you about grandkids should do the trick). Let's estimate that with tax and everything you're blowing $250/week on hotel rooms. That's $1,000/month. Honestly you're right on that one. Cheaper to just get an apartment. But wait! What if you're in SF? Median rent even with the 'rona is $3,280. $3,280/$110 ~ 30x/month. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/01/san-francisco-one-bedroom-rent-price-drops-11point8percent-in-june-zumper.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/01/san-francisco-one-bedroom-re... So, that's motel sex like 30 times per month. If you're under that, it's just money in the bank. So, maybe you and your s/o could think of it as every time you don't have sex you're putting money away for a down payment? I'm sure that won't have any weird long-term repercussions for your relationship. That's one-sided savings. Say your s/o is pooling cash as well with a similar fixed cost structure. Multiply savings by two.
      - bradlys 6y ago
        You're only looking at very cheap places though and I'd argue it's not going to be a very exciting lifestyle. Those rates seem a bit low - to me. I'm used to places charging $200+/night in the bay area. I'd hate to have to go through a check-in process and what not just to sleep with someone! I'd not bother. You're also not accounting for the fact that the children are "renting" a room from their parents - not an apartment. So, you need to look up the median cost of a room in SF. It's closer to $1200-2000/month. Back in the not worth living with your parents money. I think people who live with their parents probably just aren't having much sex unless their respective partners don't live with their parents. And - honestly - that's about what I've heard from people I know who live with their parents. They might get laid but it's not happening at their parent's place much at all. Btw, there is no cost saving in this equation - the children are merely taking advantage of their parent's wealth. Seems the privileged and celibate will reap some weird financial rewards at some point... at the cost of not getting laid and having a limited set of partners.

closeparen 6y ago

Does that imply couples are only having a sex a few times a year on special occasions? In American culture that's more of a hallmark of "well into marriage" - young couples are going at it all the time.

phobosanomaly 6y ago
I worded it maybe a little weird in retrospect. The implication was that if you have a decent job and live at home you will generally be able to arrange something because of your access to cash. So you can bankroll whatever solution will work with your s/o or casual encounter. If you're broke and living at home, it may be more difficult to enter a relationship or have a more casual encounter to begin with, let alone pay for a bunch of hotel rooms or whatever. So the first person can go at it all the time like you said, but the second person is more limited.
- bradlys 6y ago
  > The implication was that if you have a decent job and live at home you will generally be able to arrange something because of your access to cash. So you can bankroll whatever solution will work with your s/o or casual encounter. I think this answer still implies you're having sex maybe once or twice a month. Hotels aren't cheap and if you're paying for them more than a few times a month, why even live at home? For many American couples - having sex anywhere from once a week to multiple times a day are all fairly common.
  - phobosanomaly 6y ago
    This is an interesting question. What is the point at which it's cheaper to get horizontal in hotels (and save money by living with parents) versus renting an apartment? Let's do some back-of-the-envelope. From this Huffpo article they're throwing out $1,234.43 as the median rent for a 1-bedroom apartment in a selection of American cities (kid gloves to begin with - let's tackle SF rent later). https://www.huffpost.com/entry/heres-what-an-average-apa_b_10346298 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/heres-what-an-average-apa_b_1... So what are hotel rooms going to run you? I just grabbed something off of Expedia in SF for Wednesday night. Hotel Abri in Union Square $106. Seems not too sketchy, and not too pricey. If your s/o is a little adventurous there's always $60/night Motel 6 (bedbugs notwithstanding). So, say you're having sex two nights per week (sure, not all the time, but you're living with your parents so you're going to have to dial that libido back a little bit - listening to them bug you about grandkids should do the trick). Let's estimate that with tax and everything you're blowing $250/week on hotel rooms. That's $1,000/month. Honestly you're right on that one. Cheaper to just get an apartment. But wait! What if you're in SF? Median rent even with the 'rona is $3,280. $3,280/$110 ~ 30x/month. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/01/san-francisco-one-bedroom-rent-price-drops-11point8percent-in-june-zumper.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/01/san-francisco-one-bedroom-re... So, that's motel sex like 30 times per month. If you're under that, it's just money in the bank. So, maybe you and your s/o could think of it as every time you don't have sex you're putting money away for a down payment? I'm sure that won't have any weird long-term repercussions for your relationship. That's one-sided savings. Say your s/o is pooling cash as well with a similar fixed cost structure. Multiply savings by two.
    - bradlys 6y ago
      You're only looking at very cheap places though and I'd argue it's not going to be a very exciting lifestyle. Those rates seem a bit low - to me. I'm used to places charging $200+/night in the bay area. I'd hate to have to go through a check-in process and what not just to sleep with someone! I'd not bother. You're also not accounting for the fact that the children are "renting" a room from their parents - not an apartment. So, you need to look up the median cost of a room in SF. It's closer to $1200-2000/month. Back in the not worth living with your parents money. I think people who live with their parents probably just aren't having much sex unless their respective partners don't live with their parents. And - honestly - that's about what I've heard from people I know who live with their parents. They might get laid but it's not happening at their parent's place much at all. Btw, there is no cost saving in this equation - the children are merely taking advantage of their parent's wealth. Seems the privileged and celibate will reap some weird financial rewards at some point... at the cost of not getting laid and having a limited set of partners.