82
83

THEORYThere is no one, objective archetype of the High Value Man (self.RedPillWomen)

submitted by KittenLoves_Endorsed Contributor

It's not uncommon to see a lot of posts here where the OP will say, "high value men want X!", or "high value men don't care about Y!", and then the comments will be a mess of differing opinions about whether or not these statements are correct. "Actually, high value men don't care at all about X, and they really love Y!" A good example of this is the recent post about men not caring about a woman's accomplishments.

I'm sure many people reading these discussions are tempted to believe that there is one objective response, one absolute list of things a high value man likes and cares about, a checklist of everything a woman needs in order to snag the man of her dreams. Unfortunately for those of you looking for your Ultimate Checklist, life is a bit more nuanced than that.

These types of posts always bring about a lot of discussion because people have different experiences. Some women found their high value man having only a high school education and working as a waitress. Good for them! Others only found their high value man once they had a master's degree and luctarive career. You go, girl! But what this means for everyone reading and commenting here is that there isn't one single list of things that every high value man cares about, because there is no one, objective High Value Man.

Are there objectively high value men? Yes, of course they are. Nobody would dispute that a high-ranking politician, a world-renowned actor, or a CEO of a multi-million dollar company are high-value men. But for most people reading posts here, these types of men aren't attainable. And even in this list of men who would be objectively high value, there is still a huge amount of difference between them -- the kind of woman a politican would like to marry is likely quite different from the kind of woman a celebrity would like to marry.

A man can't fuck your law degree: the difference bewteen SMV and RMV

One of the things discussed frequently here is the fact that men don't care about your career or your personal achievements. And on some level, yes, this is true. That level is the level of SMV -- the sexual attraction you inspire in a man. Trying to get a man to notice you involves looking nice and acting pleasant, it doesn't involve waving your CV in their face. Imagine if a man tried to get you attention by constantly talking about how well he can cook and take care of children. That's all well and good, and you may find that impressive (who wouldn't want a delicious meal, after all?), but I highly doubt most of you would be desperate to rip your clothes off as he drives you to his appartment in his sensible minivan in order to cook you a meal and look at pictures of cute babies. Why? Because this man is trying to inspire sexual attraction using things that are really only important once in a long-term relationship (and not in every LTR, either). This is what a woman does when she tries to snag a man by talking about how she earns six figures and went to top universities. That's all well and good, and a man may find that impressive, but the first stages of courting and attraction begin in the genitals, and no matter how many cum laude degrees you have from Harvard and Oxford, that's not going to make anybody's dick hard.

So yes, if you want to attract a man, being beautiful and feminine, open, warm, and approachable is pretty much the basis of what you need. But nobody is here just to learn how to attract a man. That part is pretty easy. What we need is to know how to keep that man -- and that's where things start to get more tricky, and where what you bring to a relationship (aka, your RMV, aka that fancy PhD in astrophysics) comes into play.

Know the type of man you want, and know the type of woman that man is looking for

Everyone doesn't have the same idea in their head of a "high value man". I'm sure some people would look at my boyfriend and think, "I'd never go for that!", just as I look at some people's partners and think the same thing. That's because even though at a very base level women want similar things (protection, security, love) we have different tastes, different interests, and different goals in life. A woman who's childfree and loves to travel is not going to be happy with a hard-working family man, and a woman who wants to be a homemaker with many children isn't going to be happy with a man who travels a lot for work and doesn't make enough money to support a family of five on his own.

But these big disparities aren't the only ones to keep in mind. Want to be in a relationship with a highly-educated professor? He's going to want someone he can have intelligent conversations with, who will hold her own among his peers during gathers. Does this mean you need to have a PhD? No, but it does mean that, for this kind of man, your education is important and if you want a relationship, your academic "credentials" will be taken into account. Likewise, it's been brought up a few times that business owners, lawyers, doctors, and other people with high-ranking careers often look for a partner who can match up to them. No, you don't need to be a lawyer to date a lawyer, but it's pretty unlikely that someone who's got a lot more opportunities to meet women who are both accomplished and beautiful is going to settle for someone who brings significantly less to the table. Beauty and femininity are good and important, but they are not the only traits a man is going to consider when picking a partner. After all, just as a man is more than a wallet to women, a woman is more than a vagina to a man. Both parties are picking a partner, and different men are going to have different needs.

So rememeber, if you're interested in the high-ranking career man, it may not be impossible to get him if you're a high school educated waitress, but it will be more difficult. Don't just think about everything you bring to the table when looking for a partner -- remember that different sets of men have different requirements as well. And if you're looking for a specific type of man, you need to be the specific type of woman he needs.

Let's close off with some anecdotes:

My cousin is probably what most people would consider "objectively high value" (lucrative career in finance, high earning, etc). His wife is a CFO.

Another cousin is an engineer. Her husband is also an engineer.

My best friend is a lawyer. Her long-term boyfriend has a PhD and lucrative STEM career.

My friends in academia are all dating or married to other academics/educators.

My friend who works as a caregiver for the elderly is dating a very lovely veterinary technician. High-ranking, high-earning careers? Nope! But that's not what either of them were considering when picking a partner.


[–]redwatch95 35 points36 points  (4 children)

You have put into words what I have been thinking about and I cannot thank you enough for that.

I was becoming a little resentful to the sub for its harsh view on accomplished women but what you have presented is something I can certainly get behind.

Well done!

[–]KittenLoves_Endorsed Contributor[S] 15 points16 points  (3 children)

I'm glad you enjoyed my post! I have found that there frequently isn't enough rational middle ground presented, it's either "it literally makes no difference to any man ever if you have a degree or not", or "actually, if you ever want to get a truly high value man, you need to have an impressive CV", but really neither one is 100% objectively true, because we're not all looking for the exact same type of man.

In my case, I can say this -- I'm in the process of getting my PhD, my boyfriend has a masters degree. My education didn't do anything to attract him to me in the first place (and neither did his do much for me in the beginning), but now that things are significantly more serious, he sees my education as something that is attractive and beneficial in terms of our future, even if he's not lying in bed every night getting off to the idea of me working on my thesis. :P

[–]redwatch95 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Hahaha you’re funny πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚

[–]KittenLoves_Endorsed Contributor[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thanks. ;)

[–]MrTrizzles 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It feels like the middle ground (in this case 'reality') is missing because it's common for people to mistakenly use generalizations as laws or axioms, forgetting that one cannot ride a generalization all the way to an instantiation.

That's assuming people are even aware of the distinction. Combine all that with a general lack of experience and you get comments that sound kinda right and kinda confident but often miss the mark when arbitrarily applied to individuals.

I've been mulling this over and I haven't come up with an easy fix.

[–]ClearBolt 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Reading this made me happy. Thank you.

Reminds me of Rocky says about relationships. " She's got gaps. I got gaps. Together we fill gaps."

[–]masterofthebarkarts 8 points9 points  (0 children)

All very true. I think another way of looking at it is that femininity/beauty/warmth are must-haves; you aren't even going to be considered unless you have these kind of basic, attractive qualities. However, once you hit the 'minimums', personal choice and personality matter a lot more on an individual basis. My fiancΓ© wouldn't have considered me at all if he didn't find me pretty and pleasant, but for him it's also very important that someone is intelligent and ambitious (work ethic is important, and he's a bit of a snob haha).

[–]LateralThinker133 Stars 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Are there objectively high value men? Yes, of course they are. Nobody would dispute that a high-ranking politician, a world-renowned actor, or a CEO of a multi-million dollar company are high-value men. But for most people reading posts here, these types of men aren't attainable. And even in this list of men who would be objectively high value, there is still a huge amount of difference between them -- the kind of woman a politican would like to marry is likely quite different from the kind of woman a celebrity would like to marry.

An easier way to quantify objectively high-value men is thus:

Competent, Attractive, and Stable.

It's that simple. A man who possesses competence, is attractive (across dimensions of physical, mental, social), and who is stable (mentally, economically) is objectively attractive.

Now these may vary between cultures as to what each of these is, but they are the benchmarks of high value that scale with their respective cultures. Others may have additional benchmarks, but I'd argue that these are the universal ones.

just as a man is more than a wallet to women, a woman is more than a vagina to a man. Both parties are picking a partner, and different men are going to have different needs.

So rememeber, if you're interested in the high-ranking career man, it may not be impossible to get him if you're a high school educated waitress, but it will be more difficult. Don't just think about everything you bring to the table when looking for a partner -- remember that different sets of men have different requirements as well. And if you're looking for a specific type of man, you need to be the specific type of woman he needs.

This. Most women's dating failures are due to not understanding what men want - or not accepting it, or trying to force it to change. HAES/Fat Acceptance, for example, is trying to brainwash men into liking unhealthy, unattractive women. This doesn't work.

Only by understanding and accepting what men want, and being willing to swallow your ego and leash your hamster, can you find a good man and keep him and yourself happy.

[–]ConservativelyRight 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Solid read. All this to say, just as with men talking to other men, I've seen people with nothing but a diploma far outshine others with degrees on degrees in terms of raw intelligence. Imo a lot of the "lawyer marrying lawyer" "doctor marrying doctor" "engineer marrying engineer" "financier marrying CEO" happens as a result of the networks that these people mingle in. It happens that once your life revolves around career (and for most by their mid 20s, this is the case), you're generally really only going to meet new people through that career. You're no longer in school or hanging out with friends that introduce you to new people all the time. I even see this with my own life (medical student) -- when you're so busy with one thing, you kind of become alienated from everything else, and it becomes harder to relate to other people, let alone form brand new bonds. So this might be a case of correlation without causation. To be perfectly frank, the only way right now that I'm going to meet a woman not in healthcare is going to be if I cold-approach a girl at a cafe where I'm studying, or maybe chat up a waitress at a restaurant or a girl at the gym (yeah...real classy, I'm sure she'll be dying to go out with the 50th guy to do that, not to mention it just makes me feel cheap and dirty); but anyway, that's about as close as I'll get. Generally for most people, it's easier to "warm up" to a person first, through working with them/having a brief chat based on something else you both already had to talk about, and then ask them out; rather than "Hi I'm X....drinks tomorrow?"

Just a thought. I think you're thinking about this in terms of the woman's perspective, which is kind of...sit and wait to be approached, and when you're approached, it could be by anyone of any SEC. Rather than the man's perspective, which is that we have to make a conscious effort to put ourselves out there, and it's not likely we're going to do that cold with someone we barely know; mostly since the chances of success will be that much slimmer. Imo men put far more into each approach, mentally and emotionally, than women do. As a result, we tend to go with a "high probability of success" approach, rather than take a chance on some random girl. The reason for this is that if we fail, it's not only a problem of rejection/ego, but it can also be embarrassing and create an issue whereby it becomes awkward to go to the establishments we frequent. This, I think, is the rationale of most men. They don't want a bruised ego. They want to go with someone they know, who they have good rapport with, who could let them down easy if they reject them. And finally, they don't want to embarrass themselves by potentially making themselves look like a creep out in public, especially not at places they go to regularly where other people know them. I think this may be a more reasonable explanation for same-class pairings. But that's just my opinion.

[–]aftertheafter-party2 Star 2 points3 points  (3 children)

Nobody would dispute that a high-ranking politician, a world-renowned actor, or a CEO of a multi-million dollar company are high-value men.

I mean... not to be a contrarian, but I would not touch those men with a 20-foot pole. This is because of overinflated egos & a lack of energy bandwidth to give me the attention & quality time that brings me happiness in a relationship.

[–]KittenLoves_Endorsed Contributor[S] 3 points4 points  (1 child)

I wouldn't particularly want to date any of these men either. But this isn't about personal preference so much as accepting that these are objectively the types of men that nobody, if you married one, would be saying, "ugh what's she doing with that beta schlub?"

[–]aftertheafter-party2 Star 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair -- but I would probably be saying, "Yikes!" & gossiping with my husband about it

[–]chillywaterphish 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Those men you described are ambitious and a bit aggressive personality wise, which is what I'm seeking. A hyper alpha male to complement me. My ex was a very soft, geeky, video game playing, engineer. Even though he was Italian, he very rarely showed his alpha side and it wasn't attractive to me personally. He was nice and kind, but it just didn't work out. I'm now trying to seek that alpha that is single.I do notice that the men that are "soft" are usually single. Hmmmm...