Sexist Chart of the Day: Demi and Ashton Are Splitsville

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


For the Best Titles of Press Releases Ever file, see this one, received today by a fellow MoJoer: “Scientific Reason for the Ashton and Demi Breakup according to a Cougar Dating Study Conducted by WhatsYourPrice.com.” And there’s a chart, which we’ve included below.

WhatsYourPrice.com is pretty much what it sounds like: A dating site based on the idea that every man and woman has a potential market “value” in dollars, depending on their age and attractiveness and some other stuff. It’s even more soul-crushingly exploitive than it sounds, but more on the company in a moment. First, dig their “scientific” dishing on Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher, celebrity lovers whose age difference has long enthralled Hollywood paparazzi, and whose coupling is now supposedly threatened by infidelity.

AshtonDemiCougarCubChart

Demi and Ash are part of a larger negative trend in “Cougar-Cub relationships,” writes company founder Brandon Wade, an MIT grad who also authored The Definitive Guide to Sugar Daddy and Mutually Beneficial Relationships. Cougars, of course, are what douchebags call attractive older women; cubs are the attractive young men who love them. Now that we’ve defined our terms, on to the pseudoscience: Let’s figure out what everyone is worth, in dollars, based on age and hotness!

Based on the chart above, Wade explains:

…we see that the perceived value of an attractive woman peaks when she reaches 25 years old, and gradually diminishes as she ages. The perceived value of an attractive man however, starts at a much lower price when he is young, peaking only when he reaches the age of 34. It appears from the value curve above that at least some stereotypes we often hear do hold some truth. For example, that female models earn the most before they turn 30. Or that men become more attractive as they age.

Does the curve prove these stereotypes, or just perpetuate them? We’ll leave that up to you. But Wade says his gross generalizations have major implications for the 33-year-old Kutcher and 48-year-old Moore. You see, Cougar-Cub unions are basically screwed at some point:

Demi and Ashton started dating back in 2003 when she was 40 and he was 25. The green circle on the value graphs show the value at their respective age back then. Both were valued at approximately $70. This likely means both valued each other equally, which may provide a simplistic (but scientific) explanation for why the two started dating back then. Over time, as both age, Ashton’s value has been on the rise while Demi’s have declined. Fast forward to 2011, the orange circles on the curves show Ashton’s value at approximately $158, and Demi’s value at $56, a $101 difference in Ashton’s favor. This may explain the recent rumors we read about Ashton cheating on Demi, and that their relationship may soon be over. It is also probably a coincidence that Ashton’s new mistress, Sara Leal, who is 23 years old has a value that is more closely aligned to his.

So where is Wade getting all these dollar values for warm bodies anyway? Ah, that’s the WhatsYourPrice.com difference: The site’s raison d’etre is to get folks to set their bidding price for a hot date—to establish, through open trading, a stable market value for everyone who’s seeking companionship. “Most of us are already pretty familiar with the idea of buying a first date,” Wade’s site states, but “an economic model of pricing and paying for a first date did not exist in the real world…until now.” Basically, if you’re “young and attractive” by WhatsYourPrice.com standards, you can put yourself up for a first-date auction and make some dough. And if you’re a lonely guy with money to spend, you can buy yourself a first date with an insanely attractive woman. All the while, you’re providing Wade with macro data on his macabre sexual-slave market. It’s like some grand Nate Silver experiment, only, you know, completely douchey.

To be fair, Wade understands the sensitivity of his work. The Ash-Demi post includes this disclaimer:

While some of you may find this study to be offensive, please understand that it is not our intention to offend. The price value of an attractive male or female in this study is calculated from over 180,000 first date offers traded between members of our website. Our study is meant only to let us understand how humans, from a sociological and quantifiable point of view, evaluate each other.

The very next line of the “study” begins: “The following is the Cougar value graph and the Cub value graph.” Don’t try to fight it, folks: It’s only science!

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate