TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

51

Inspired by these excellent comments here, I figured this does indeed deserve a thread all to itself.

You very often see RPers talk about how women can get guys above their level but guys struggle to get women on the same level.

Even if we accept this is what really happens for the purpose of this discussion, all this tells us is those guys are not as attractive as they think they are.

After all, if you call it a sexual marketplace, then the rules of any other market must apply. A good is only worth as much as your customers are willing to pay for it. If I invent something and price it at $10,000 and no one buys it, it's not worth $10,000. Likewise, if I call myself a 5 but I can't even get girls who are 2's, clearly I'm not actually a 5. I'd be overestimating my own value.

When TRP talks about themselves being 5's but not being able to get girls who are 2's, those guys are making this same mistake. They believe themselves to be more attractive than they really are. You cannot just decide how attractive you are by yourself, that value is assigned to you by how much demand you get.

Discuss.


[–]PurplepillBrored pill leaning man14 points15 points  (40 children) | Copy Link

If we use the "who fucks who" method of determining SMV, then like half of women become 10s, and "10," our statement of the aesthetic ideal, becomes meaningless. It will refer to both a stunningly beautiful woman and a girl who is just kinda cute.

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (24 children) | Copy Link

True, that's why "who fucks who" measures a man's value. A woman's value would be more accurately measured by who would marry her.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, absolutely.

[–]PurplepillBrored pill leaning man3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I hadn't thought of that. That's really good.

[–]GridReXXit be like that2 points3 points  (21 children) | Copy Link

By her RMV! Yes. Exactly.

[–][deleted] 0 points0 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]GridReXXit be like that1 point2 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

I hold a different view.

[–][deleted] 0 points0 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]GridReXXit be like that2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Me and everyone else on this post differentiating between SMV and RMV.

[–][deleted] 0 points0 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]GridReXXit be like that2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Huh? All of my posts on this thread, especially the particularly long one, acknowledge that men and women are different on this matter.

[–][deleted]  (2 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]boogerpill1 point2 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

So you'd LTR/marry any girl you'd have sex with?

[–][deleted]  (10 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]boogerpill2 points3 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

Then you attach different values to them. If you'd fuck her but not commit to her then her SMV is higher than her RMV.

[–][deleted]  (8 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]HigHog0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

What if she wouldn't fuck you? Wouldn't that make her value higher than yours?

[–][deleted]  (4 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]boogerpill0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yes your RMV

[–]GridReXXit be like that6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

But that is her SMV.

Maybe it isn't her RMV since a lot of men wouldn't want to LTR her because she's fat or not a VS model look alike, but it certainly is her sexual market value.

[–]boogerpill5 points6 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

The kind of guys they can pull would determine their value. Obviously one will be consistently chosen over the other by men who have options.

[–]PurplepillBrored pill leaning man4 points5 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

But the guy is going to fuck the 8 and the 10, because why not? It's not like he has to choose one or the other

[–]boogerpill5 points6 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

Who does he fuck first?

It's more likely that on a single given night, he won't be able to talk strangers into a threesome, and he will choose the 10. The 8 will notice she's never getting the hottest guy but instead is going home with someone slightly below.

[–]KrispyMcSockingtonPillar of the community4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The problem is that there are top men banging not so top women. Men usually have a range, such as banging a 7+, but this skews the market. The 7 he banged once, regardless of whether she was his first or 69th, will believe she is worth a 9 or 10. Then the man who is a 7 who can't get some 7s will dip lower to a 5+. This causes a chain reaction where male 5s are banging 2s because the woman 4s are aiming for 6s.

Also, a man who has average looks might be socially awkward which means he isn't going to necessarily have the game to pull a 5 or 6 but a 2 won't care as much. OPs view that if you are mostly pulling a certain type of number means you are that number, but it does not account for availability (maybe the male 9 was a bit drunk and she was one of the last girls in the bar on a slow night), attitudes (when she slept with a 10 after the drunken night she erroneously believed she was 10-worthy), social dynamics and skills (who are you hanging around? How awkward are you in social situations? Are you charismatic? Do you have game?) and of course the fact that many men will go for the easy lay instead of working for a tougher, but hotter one.

For example, a female 9 might find a male 9 attractive, but she may have been banged by a 10. Thus she may require him to prove himself a bit more before she sleeps with him. However, those 7s and 8s might be more open to him and he might get a threesome out of the deal. He'll take the easy lay. For a man like that, variety trumps exclusivity, so committing to working hard for a 9 vs banging a few 7s and the occasional 8 does not sound like a good deal.

There is also the fact that women don't get commitment from those 8s, 9s and 10s as easily as they do from the 5s, 6s and 7s. If she can get a 10 to commit, then she is comfortably a 10. Men are willing to dip lower for sex, but that doesn't reduce their overall SMV. What happens is women value commitment more than sex and while they're not eager to sleep with men below their SMV, especially if men above her SMV are offering to sleep with her, she will believe she's worth the commitment of those high SMV men.

The 8 will notice she's never getting the hottest guy but instead is going home with someone slightly below.

Slightly below may be an 8 or 9. She isn't the one dipping below that and will still believe she could have pulled the 10 because she pulled a 9. She will feel she is worth the commitment of those men and if she is getting commitment offering from 6s and 7s does this mean she is a 6 or 7? She values commitment, he values sex. An 8 might sleep with a 6 but will he commit? I doubt it.

[–]CarkudoThe original opinionated omega0 points1 point  (9 children) | Copy Link

Who does he fuck first?

Why does it matter?

[–]boogerpill2 points3 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

When a guy goes out and wants sex, most of the time he will only bring one girl home with him. It's safe to assume he'll take home the most attractive of his readily available options.

[–]CarkudoThe original opinionated omega-1 points0 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

And yet, fat, ugly, disabled women consistently are able to have sex AND commitment from guys who bear none of the same flaws.

[–]boogerpill0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

This seems irrelevant

[–]CarkudoThe original opinionated omega-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It is. If you're not comfortable talking about it - just don't reply. I really don't need your excuses.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

If a man can only pull 2's then he's a 2. If a man can't pull anything then he's a zero. No woman is ever a zero regardless of how fat or ugly she might be.

[–]boogerpill0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

So you agree with OP?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Nope. I've slept with 8's without paying for it. I'm certainly not a fucking 8, and the same goes for women. A woman can sleep with brad pitt but if she doesn't look like Angelina Jolie she certainly is not a 10 and doesn't become a 10 by sleeping with brad pitt.

[–]FreshFace77Og! OG! OG! I had pills for breakfast!7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think the idea is that a 5 guy can get a 5 girl if they make an equitable trade, which included he needs for commitment. Put plainly, the 5 guy can get a 5 gf, but not a 5 hook up. That is because 7-9 guys will be dipping into the 5 girls for a hookup. They may even do a long term nsa deal, but without at least the hope of a real relationship, the 5 guy is not getting a 5 girl to just agree to some boning.

This does a little depend on if you are separating RMV from SMV, but if SMV is your only metric, then you need to include the sexual value of the potential for a relationship. This is why "fuckbois" are seen low value.

Another thing to consider in RP theory (which I don't believe in), is that the 80-20 rule would make it so that there would be only the super famous in the 9-10 area. 80% of men would be a 0. It doesn't make sense to have a scale that puts 80% of the men at 0, so it makes sense to divide the evaluation by sexes.

I personally think of the rating as more of a percentile. An 8 would mean that at a party of 1000 guys, there likely to be 19 more sexually appealing than that guy. Also, in this way, my rating of a woman is personal to me. Then a person's overall rating is an aggregation of those they are likely to come in contact with. Kind of "what the average person at that party might rate them as".

[–]betterdeadthanbetaHeartless cynical bastard6 points7 points  (20 children) | Copy Link

If I invent something and price it at $10,000 and no one buys it, it's not worth $10,000. Likewise, if I call myself a 5 but I can't even get girls who are 2's, clearly I'm not actually a 5.

OP, we dont need to make this into an analogy. It already exists via prostitution and pornography where women objectively, and measurably, are paid more than men. The demand, and value of pussy is higher than the demand for cock. That's provable using real life markets, why wouldnt it be true for an abstracted market (SMV)?

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (19 children) | Copy Link

This is not about who gets more sex, but levels of attractiveness. It is often stated by RPers that average men can only fuck unattractive women for example. But even if we accept this is true, by the very definition of how a market works, that man and woman are of equal value. There is no disparity.

[–]betterdeadthanbetaHeartless cynical bastard9 points10 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

You have to keep in mind that men and women arent buying, nor selling the same shit in this market.

Women want to buy relationships with the best dudes they can get. Men are simply trying to buy as much sex as they can get. Oversimplification, but the point is, these two groups aren't selling exactly the same things, nor are they trying to buy exactly the same things.

That's why trying to measure their attractiveness solely on who fucks who doesn't work. A schlub can hire a really expensive call girl by burning a years pay. Doesnt make them identical SMV.

A female schlub can get pumped by a handsome guy by simply spreading her legs and promising easy NSA sex. Doesn't make them identical SMV.

For a more accurate read on SMV, you'd have to take things like relationship into account. Who ends up married to who is a much better picture of SMV than who sleeps with who, because a chick who could marry a 5 could easily get sex from higher rated dudes. Just not a relationship/marriage.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

I think we can agree that if you are paying for it then it doesn't count towards SMV. But in the "hookup culture" where the SMV is relevant, fact is, if a woman you think is ugly is banging a guy you think is hot, clearly they're on the same level specifically within the SMV.

I absolutely agree that the RMV is a whole other matter however. That needs a scale of its own, separate from the SMV, and the judgements that go into what constitutes the best mate in the RMV are much deeper than the SMV.

It sounds like you're trying to conflate the two here though:

Women want to buy relationships with the best dudes they can get. Men are simply trying to buy as much sex as they can get.

If we are talking specifically about the SMV alone, this does not matter. Everyone is after sex.

But again, I agree the RMV is a different game.

[–]betterdeadthanbetaHeartless cynical bastard3 points4 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

I'd be willing to compromise and say SMV is accurately reflected by who fucks whom, EXCEPT in the special case of a subpar chick getting pumped and dumped by a more attractive dude. I think thats the only problem any reds/purples are having with your assessment tbh.

Everyone knows chicks dont have to be that hot to get pumped and dumped. Guys will fuck a chick pretty well outside their SMV range given the chance. Who wouldnt bang some quick, hot NSA pussy even if the chick had a few flaws? Doesnt mean the chick is as attractive as the dude.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

But that's the thing about the sexual market. It is driven by sex, literally nothing else. If an overweight girl is getting a lot of dick she is high value in the SMV by definition.

That same girl may very well be low value in the RMV for sure, but that's a different measurement altogether.

[–][deleted]  (3 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Doesn't matter, if something is high in demand it has value.

[–]boogerpill2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

She also put in low effort. So is he a cheap/low smv man?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

No that's the discrepancy. It's a double standard. The woman puts in "low effort" because she doesn't have to have good SMV to get the higher SMV man. A guy trying to get a girl above him will always have to use massive effort to increase his SMV (if only temporarily) just to climb the ladder.

[–]FreshFace77Og! OG! OG! I had pills for breakfast!3 points4 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

This kind of seems like saying that McDonald's is higher value than Ruth's Chris because more people are served each year and even rich people get mcnuggets more often than cracked lobster. In some ways, it's true, but in most ways, it's a completely useless viewpoint. Very few are going to buy into that metric.

[–]boogerpill3 points4 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

If wealthy people with options are consistently choosing to go to McDonald's over other supposedly better establishments then McDonald's must be better than you think it is.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

No its just more convenient than spending effort on Ruth's. Just like a 6 vs 8, 6s are easier but it doesn't make them of "higher value" than the 8s

[–]boogerpill1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

If nobody is eating at Ruth's I'm guessing their prices are too high. They think their food is more valuable than it really is. Otherwise the customers who can afford it would eat there. But it's not worth it to them.

[–]FreshFace77Og! OG! OG! I had pills for breakfast!0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

So, I didn't say wealthy, I said rich. I chose that because I am by most measures rich, but I really don't consider myself wealthy. I go to Ruth's Chris twice a year, and to McDonald's at least once a month. My rich friends all go to McDonald's now and then. I think your idea of what rich people do is probably way off.

[–]boogerpill1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't see what that has to do with anything.

[–]MissPearlEditor of frequent typos.0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Men aren't trying to get "as much sex as they can get" by default. Loads of them who can get multiple sexual partners prefer one person.

[–]honeypuppy21 points22 points  (88 children) | Copy Link

Even though I find the whole concept of "SMV" as defined by RPers to be problematic at best, I'll bite.

I think the point they're trying to make is that supposedly, women who would rank lowly in a percentile rating of all women can nonetheless still get sex with a man of a comparatively higher percentile rating of all men.

It's just another way of rehashing "women can get casual sex easier than men" for the 2000th time. The complaint would still work if you assigned women higher SMVs to correct for your critique, only it would now be about how women have higher average SMVs than men.

Although there is indeed the possibility such men are overestimating their attractiveness, particularly when it comes to non-physical aspects (like not being a weirdo who treats women like commodities that should have sex with him just because he's "higher value").

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (64 children) | Copy Link

Yeah they're just complaining that women can get casual sex easier. Obviously this is true. But the butthurt about the fact they perceive the women to be less attractive than the men they're with is the specific element that's being addressed here.

It's pretty obvious that if you are assessing attractiveness by a measure of market value, which is pretty much the basis of TRP, then the market's assessment of value is all that matters, and whether or not an individual believes there to be a disparity in attractiveness is irrelevant.

[–]Gnometard12 points13 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

It's not complaining. It's discussing the reality of the situation and how to use that knowledge to your advantage. Not everyone takes the SocJus/3rdWave view of everyone oppressing you. Some of us take responsibility in our actions to make the most of the way shit works.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

If the reality of the situation is that it works like a capitalist marketplace then what I am saying must be correct.

[–]lifesbrinkOutside of your boxes2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

That is kind of a given. Lots of people overstate their attractiveness. It's why I make a habit of not making that mistake.

[–]Gnometard0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

You would be correct, if the currency used by men and women were the same. There is serious inflation on the value of women as they're in demand, referencing the SMV. It's less so in terms of RMV but SMV has to be there first.

[–]CarkudoThe original opinionated omega5 points6 points  (46 children) | Copy Link

There are objective indicators however. It's one thing when a guy doesn't like a girl's pointy elbows and thinks she's a 1/10 for them. It's a little different when talking about obese women having a realistic expectation of dating fit, attractive men, whereas a man has to compensate hugely for even being overweight, let alone obese.

[–]boogerpill6 points7 points  (34 children) | Copy Link

But if she is able to have those standards because hot men find her attractive then it sounds like it's your judgment of her SMV is what's off, not hers. The men that pursue her disagree that she is unattractive.

[–]CarkudoThe original opinionated omega2 points3 points  (33 children) | Copy Link

You're correct, but at the same time it just becomes an issue of phrasing. So, okay, it's not unfair that unattractive women are dating attractive men, because obviously those women are attractive if they're attracting men. It's just unfair that a man is unattractive if he's overweight, while a woman can completely let herself go, be morbidly obese, be a total slob, and still be very attractive.

[–]boogerpill5 points6 points  (23 children) | Copy Link

Is anyone talking about fairness? It's a free market.

[–]YouDislikeMyOpinionRed Pill Man1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

I don't remember talking about fairness at trp. I do remember talking about sexual strategy in our current environment.

[–]boogerpill1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Everyone knows life isn't fair

[–]YouDislikeMyOpinionRed Pill Man0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Seems pretty fair to me. Then again, I'm not looking at it through the wrong lens expecting results that are mismatched with the work required to attain them.

[–]boogerpill0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Which is what so many incels do

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

If everyone knows life isn't fair why do the incels complain so much.

[–]boogerpill0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't know

[–]CarkudoThe original opinionated omega1 point2 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

The SMV disparity between men and women is all about fairness, yes. It may be a free market, but it certainly isn't a balanced one, and the disbalance is that low SMV women can get high SMV men easily or, if you put it another way, that far too many women get assigned high SMV while men with identical traits get assigned low SMV.

Just because it's supposedly a free market doesn't mean this isn't relevant or shouldn't be talked about.

[–]boogerpill2 points3 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

Ok if we're talking fairness let's talk blame. This disparity was not caused by women. It's 100% the result of men's low standards.

[–]CarkudoThe original opinionated omega1 point2 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

It is, yeah. And?

Although if you insist on talking blame, the modern ideas of feminism and social justice do contribute quite a lot to the unfair state - both fat acceptance and the concept of oppressive beauty standards apply exclusively to women, even though men are punished more harshly for being fat and beauty standards for men are much more oppressive.

It's true that men are thirsty and are in huge part to blame for their own weak position in the market, but it's not the men who are promoting the idea that the hollywood movie star look is "average" for a man, while morbid obesity in a woman is beautiful.

[–]GridReXXit be like that3 points4 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

We're discussing fairness?

Women age faster. Lose value quicker. Have a monthly menses commonly associated with nausea, cramps, and irritability. Get pregnant and if lucky hopefully don't get stretch marks, but most likely will.

I think in the greater scheme of it all, the pros and cons balance out between men and women.

[–]boogerpill1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Are men's sexual tastes really that malleable that they can be significantly influenced by something like the fat acceptance movement? I would think it was more biologically informed than socially.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

There's no such thing as low smv women. There'll always be a market for women who are below average in looks. Girls can get pregnant, guys can't. Get it?

[–]HigHog0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

She's high SMV then?

[–]coratoad3 points4 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

From all the studies I've seen, even the infamous OkCupid study, a woman's physical characteristics have a stronger correlation her dating success than a man's. This is especially true for weight. So although this may be your personal expience, it doesn't seem like it's true in general. Do you disagree with this?

[–]CarkudoThe original opinionated omega0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy Link

And yet at the end of the day there are tens of thousands of incel men, and not a single incel woman.

[–]coratoad2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yeah I don't know how to remedy these two apparently conflicting pieces of information to be honest. From the CDC reports, the number of male and female virgins is almost identical, but perhaps the women are primarily virgins by choice and men are true incels. But looking at the OkCupid study, even the least attractive men had a better message response rate than the least attractive women. So I don't know.

[–]CarkudoThe original opinionated omega1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The OKC study indicates that while the least attractive men do have a marginally "better" rate, if you look at the sheer number of "unattractive" men it becomes clear that most of them still get nothing. On the other hand, even the least attractive of women get flooded with messages from interested men. I don't think there's any sort of contradiction here. All women are attractive and can afford to hold out for attractive men. Unattractive men are left in the dust or have to accept being used for betabux.

[–]OfSpock2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Men compete with spinsterhood and lose.

[–]boogerpill1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

What do you mean by this?

[–]OfSpock6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Women have a choice between staying single or marrying one of the guys who is interested in them. These days, they often choose to remain single as there is no longer a stigma against it.

[–]GridReXXit be like that1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Haha, this is sad but true.

Many women would rather stay single than date someone they don't find sexually attractive. Actually that's fair. Why date someone you don't want to have sex with.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Natural selection, buddy. Adapt, be what women want you to be or die off without leaving a legacy behind.

[–][deleted]  (6 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]CarkudoThe original opinionated omega1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

I don't think it's realistic for the average obese woman to date a fit, attractive man.

You think wrong then. I know or knew quite a number of obese women. Of them, only two didn't date fit, attractive men. One just slept with a bunch of them, but wanted someone both sexy AND intelligent to date, while another was in a polyamorous relationship with a fit but admittedly very ugly man, who wasn't really getting to reap the benefits of polyamory at all.

[–][deleted]  (4 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]lilchaoticneutralZeta Male/TrillPill5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

poly crowd tends to be made up of bi's, punks, androgens, pans,trans, queers, counter culturalists etc..

these people can be highly attractive but not in a conventional sense that pairs prime masculinity with prime femininity

[–]CarkudoThe original opinionated omega0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

"Sleeping with" does not equal dating

And? She specifically refuses to date anyone who isn't both athletic and an intellectual, so she chooses to have lots of NSA sex with athletic working class men because they are "easy"

Most of them are either dating/married to obese men, or still single.

Given that nowadays what, the majority of the US population is obese, that's probably just the way the market rolls. In my country, where obesity is relatively rare in people under 40, obese girls and women tend not to have trouble dating fit, attractive men.

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]CarkudoThe original opinionated omega0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

But it's entirely possible that in countries with lower levels of obesity, the number of obese women might be comparable to the number of chubby chasers. In which case they wouldn't have a significant disadvantage in the relationship market. But where I live, the "supply" of obese people definitely exceeds the demand.

Yep, and this goes back to the original argument that overweight and obese women are much less disadvantaged in the dating market. An obese man can't expect to meet a chubby chaser. Chubby chaser women are after men who are fat, but also very masculine and very muscular - not something every fat man can boast of. As a fat man, unless you are otherwise very talented, you'll be disqualified from dating.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

A man is overweight because he wants to be overweight. There's plenty of success stories in fitness where the guy looks like godzlilla in fat and becomes attractive.

[–]CarkudoThe original opinionated omega0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

And? So is a woman. A man is punished for being overweight, and punished very severely. A woman isn't.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Then lose weight and get laid. I don't see the point of fucking complaining about women being able to do something when you could be in the gym pushing iron and be transformed from below average to a god.

[–]CarkudoThe original opinionated omega0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I lost weight over a decade ago, thank you. The reasons I can't get laid now are different, and that doesn't change the fact that women aren't punished nearly as severely for being overweight.

[–]-SetsunaFSeiei-Purple Pill Man1 point2 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

So its been a while since I've been around PPD, but I've always seen the ranking system used as a kind of "objective" measure of attractiveness (i.e. if a guy said he was dating a "7", other guys would automatically know about how attractive she was). Attractiveness is one component of SMV, but it doesn't make it up in its entirety.

Anyways, your market analogy is consistent with TRP as far as I'm aware. For casual sex, where SMV is critical, there are many more men in the market, so women can effectively be more choosy and hook up with someone higher on the attractiveness scale then them. When it comes to relationships, there are more women in the market, and so men can be more choosy, often getting into relationships with women who are more attractive then them (this is often separated as "RMV", or relationship market value, to distinguish it).

So both SMV and RMV involve things other than (but including) attractiveness, which is how TRP can say that a male 5 can struggle to get casual sex with a female 2.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (11 children) | Copy Link

I always assumed SMV measured attractiveness not by pure looks alone. After all it is central to TRP that you can work on your personality and status to increase your SMV.

To be honest, most of the arguments I'm refuting here ("It's impossible for average men to get laid!") are not central TRP beliefs but rather incel beliefs that have been infecting TRP like a cancer recently. But unfortunately the cancer is so deep it's getting difficult to tell it from TRP's origins.

[–]honeypuppy2 points3 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

It's quite possible that is very hard for an average man to get laid (in the sense of casual sex). But casual sex isn't actually that common! It gets a massively disproportionate amount of attention here, but really, most people just go through a handful of relationships until they find someone they want to marry. The alpha players, the CC-riding women, the incels - they're all very much minorities that nonetheless get a ton of attention here.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Casual sex is common in certain social circles, a lot of it is down to your environment and who you roll with. I think that's what makes it very difficult for a guy who just says "I wanna bang a lot of chicks" if he isn't already. A lot of society is exactly as you describe.

You need the right environment if you want to go down that road, and that means not just changing yourself but putting yourself out there in unfamiliar places with unfamiliar people.

[–]honeypuppy1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Well, you don't really need to do any of that for Tinder. All you need is to get right-swiped (which is admittedly tricky for a non-photogenic guy).

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Good point, I was thinking of hitting up the clubbing scene when you don't roll in that crowd normally and aren't used to being in that environment. Tinder makes things easier if you look really good but I'd say real life is easier if you rely more on "game."

[–]honeypuppy0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Well, Tinder and other online dating is quite distinct from real life. If you have good pictures, a good profile and are good at writing messages, you'll probably do better than in real life, especially if you're a bit awkward or slow on your feet.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

True but whether or not you get to talk to anyone in the first place is based on looks. It all depends what your angle is. What's stronger, your looks or your game? Are you witty IRL or only online? Depends on the individual.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Very few men get laid out of tinder. Remember, women are hypergamous. A decent-looking woman is going to be only attracted to a football quarterback star. The guys with those level of looks are the only ones getting laid out of tinder.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Casual sex is extremely common. The vast majority of women have casual sex, they just forget to mention that. They try to make it sound like they had a relationship with the guy so that their beta bux doesn't ressent having had to work for the occasional sex he gets from his girlfriend.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

I do agree that incels have sadly infected TRP and should be removed, but it is quite hard for men who are above average in looks to get laid casually because the women who are their equals are already a lot better looking than most women, which grants them sexual access to Alpha males. What's a guy to do? Sleep with women he's not attracted to because the women in his league can go for higher leagues? Sigh

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

it is quite hard for men who are above average in looks to get laid casually

This is simply untrue... sorry but if you are a male who is above average looks and you're not getting laid you must be on the autism spectrum or simply not trying.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Above average in looks doesn't mean much if your competition are guys who could be considered the younger brother of brad pitt

[–]BrahYouSerious3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

problematic "I dont like it"

[–]ProbablyBelievesIt5 points6 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

They're also ignoring the part where a random coldcall might not even be able to give her an orgasm, much less guarantee no major drama, judgement, or diseases.

Too many want women to take all the risk, for their reward.

Since many women don't just rate men on looks, generally, those posting on TRP are much, much, further down on the scale than they'll admit in public. It's why they favor tactics that prey on the insecure, and keeping their real thoughts to themselves.

[–]lilchaoticneutralZeta Male/TrillPill1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

one of the more compelling BP arguments i've seen so far

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (14 children) | Copy Link

Women don't just rate men on looks? What? We are talking about women who are 18-25, not women who are in their gold-digger stage and looking for a guy to pay for them, what else would young women look for in men if not just looks?

[–]ProbablyBelievesIt2 points3 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

Intensity, sense of humor/fun, trust - you do realize that not every woman on the planet is hanging out in your local meat markets?

Who am I kidding? Of course you don't. Something inside you shuts down whenever a young woman says she isn't shallow, and won't let you focus on any of these women, except for the ones who were wrong.

I wonder if you'll grow out of it?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (9 children) | Copy Link

Intensity, ambition, sense of humor, creativity, charm? I got all of it, and I'm nice to look at to boot! But I can't get laid like a 6'6'' guy who looks super good, those fuckers go up to women I'm talking to and spirit the women away. Not only are they shitlords but they don't even respect a man's turn to try and get laid.

oh, is that so? And where do attractive, sexually-minded women who are looking for casual sex go to if not to 'meat markets?'

bro, no offense, but if a woman isn't shallow she usually isn't sexually attractive. Does she look like she could be a cam girl? Because if she looks like that ofc she's ''shallow'' .

Maybe if I can get through this slump and finally manage to get laid without having to take days, weeks for it to happen I might grow out of it.

[–]HigHog6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Based on your posts here, you also appear to have an incredibly negative and close-minded demeanour. That's a big turn-off.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

For real, what incredibly negative and close-minded demanour. I love sluts! I love girls who bang one different guys 7 days a week. How am I close-minded? what do you mean turn-off. Now I'm slightly offended and curious, but not at you. At the world for not making me perfect-looking!

[–]Noxin__NixonPillPoppa2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Intensity, ambition, sense of humor, creativity, charm? I got all of it, and I'm nice to look at to boot!

Maybe try mixing in some humbleness and subtly?

Also while you might think intensity is a positive quality, its definitely something that turns some (maybe even many) girls off. Have you read Art of Seduction?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

What does humbleness and subtlty got anything to do with attraction? I get the attention of girls far easier by being bold and aggressive and arrogant than i get when I'm sweet and caring and all of that BS. By the way the girls I'm into are those party girls, not the ''I only deign to suck dick if he puts a ring on my finger'' girls.

Nope, never read the art of seduction.

[–]Noxin__NixonPillPoppa1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Also relevant are the anti-seducer archetypes which helps you identity qualities that you don't find attractive. Here are some that might apply just based on your posts:

The Brute: Wants sex and wants sex now. The person who cannot wait and takes no pleasure in the duration of something, only at the end result. I'm definitely guilty of this, for example trying to take off the clothes of the girl i'm making out with, the first time we make out.

The Suffocator: The person who "falls in love" with someone incredibly quickly and clings on to them. Signs of jealousy and serious relationship attitude very early into the relationship are what suffocators do.

The Moralizer: Moralizers follow fixed ideas. They like to criticize and turn people into what they think they would be a "better person". They cannot accept someone for who they are. They argue frequently.

The Bumbler: The self-conscious person. Bumblers worry in an unhealthy way of what people think of them, how they look, what will society think etc. This can be a hard trait to recognize in others.

The Windbag: The person who talks too much, usually about themselves. They like to interrupt and don't really listen to what the other person has to say. They don't realize they are being ballbusters. I hate it when I catch myself being a windbag, fortunately I do it rarely.

this is from:

http://www.naturalgame.com/showthread.php?t=8377

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh, I'm the self-conscious one who feels like he's never good enough and doubts his good luck when it knocks on his door.

[–]ProbablyBelievesIt2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

If you want to seduce some of the most socially desirable women in the same night you've met, you're going to have to just deal with people as shallow as you are, and work harder to get less sex than everyone with committed fuckbuddies.

Enjoy the jungle.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

How am I shallow?

[–]Noxin__NixonPillPoppa0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

You seriously don't think things like fame, wealth and success attracts women 18-25? Lori Maddox, Bebe Buell, the infamous GTOs ring a bell?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

bro, they'll sleep with those guys but they aren't attracted to them. Sexually attracted. Who the fuck was ever attracted to monkey face Rolling stones?

[–]Noxin__NixonPillPoppa1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm not sure you realize what a softball pitch this is

bro, they'll sleep with those guys but they aren't attracted to them. Sexually attracted. Who the fuck was ever attracted to monkey face Rolling stones?

The fact that you are claiming that teen girls are not sexually attracted to rock stars like Mick Jagger, Jimmy Page and Steven Tyler is probably a huge part of why you say you can't get laid.

I'm serious there and not just being snarky.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Regardless of whether women innately have a higher SMV, the fact is- that's their SMV. However they got it, whether just by nature of being born female, or plastic surgery, or whatever else, is irrelevant. Women tend to have greater reproductive value because we're the ones who actually carry the baby- the male input into the process is relatively low effort. So it makes sense, from a utilitarian perspective, that women would have greater sexual value and that does seem to be how it's played out in nature.

[–]itsover110 points11 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

100% legit, I have posted this theory before on some other places.

This is why the whole "even fat women (e.g. 3s) have it easier than average men (e.g. 6s), because fat women can date 7 rated men" theory is flawed.

If a fat woman can date a 7 man, then her rating is effectively 7.

Your rating should be what you can get. If you can only date 2s or fat ugly old girls or whatever despite having a great hairline, being muscular and all that, then that is the clearest indicator of your actual SMV

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

If most women are overweight, then an overweight pretty woman is not a 3, since the 1-10 scale represents a distribution.

[–][deleted]  (2 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Exactly, you got it in one.

You can stand there saying you should be getting hot girls all you want, but if they're not interested in you the market doesn't care about your self-evaluation.

[–]Blackbeard3450 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

You can say she is trying to buy his commitment with sex.

[–]DietyzPurple Pill0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think most people use the rating system based on competition between your own gender. Just basing it on if a guy will fuck you or not is flawed because that hypothetical example is taken in a 1 on 1 context. It lacks all the aspects of female competition

Your number is relative to other women, otherwise every girl above a 7 becomes a 10. Which doesn't make sense because people can tell that a 10 is more attractive than a 7, but you're willing to fuck either if given the right opportunity

[–]questioningwomandetached from society2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

SMV can change from area to area. Some guy might be a loser in his home town but everyone might want him in some country overseas because of the American high status. An American husband is a ticket to money, a greencard, and a husband to use as her very own status symbol, making her rise in status in her own mind.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

He's still not sexually attractive. She's just using him for his money and status, like most women are already doing it with their equal smv boyfriends and husbands.

[–]lilchaoticneutralZeta Male/TrillPill2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Haha maybe RP'ers are Marxists after all and believe more in a labor theory of value (I did a bunch of deadlifts so now I'm a 6)

[–][deleted] 7 points7 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]disposable_pants4 points5 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

Link to me where TRP tells guys they "deserve" anything.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

Deserve was a poor choice of words, TRPers think that women fuck up and men fuck down, this implies that women are banging men better than they would be assuming assortive mating.

[–]-SetsunaFSeiei-Purple Pill Man2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

TRPers think that women fuck up and men fuck down

For casual sex, since there is a greater demand from men and a lower demand from women

For relationships, you usually observe the opposite trend

[–]disposable_pants1 point2 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

TRPers think that women fuck up and men fuck down

Which they obviously do. What's wrong with trying to accurately describe the way the world works?

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

I disagree with the assumption.

If you're only banging low value women, you are a low value man.

[–]disposable_pants2 points3 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

You can be a physically fit guy who dresses well and it's isn't a weirdo and still struggle to get laid. That guy is an above-average man and yet is stuck fighting for scraps. An equivalent above-average woman can't go out on the weekend without getting hit on by a few guys who want to have sex with her.

The above-average man has to lower his standards if he wants to get laid; the above-average woman sleeps with a still better guy who's lowering his standards to get laid.

[–]boogerpill1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

His weirdo status affects his SMV enough that he's not above average in attractiveness. If he was, he'd have options for sex without struggling. High value men have sexual options, by definition. Idc if you see him as high value or above average. The marketplace disagrees.

[–]disposable_pants1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

High value men have sexual options, by definition.

Above average =/= high value. You're thinking of a top 20% guy, I'm talking about a guy who's just ahead of the bell curve.

[–]boogerpill0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

My point about his weirdness affecting his SMV stands

[–]disposable_pants0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

That was a typo -- it's supposed to read "isn't a weirdo."

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Pretty much this. It doesn't really matter if a guy is above average and isn't autistic because the women who match him in looks can easily have sex with any guy she wants.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

All men who aren't at least a 6 are of low value, the 6s are of medium value and they still can only bang women of low value. Its only when a guy is a 7 and up that he can fuck women who are skinny and cute, casually.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, and this is what women do. Women fuck casually guys above them and marry guys in their league. This implies that the vast majority of women are not attracted to the men they end up married too because sure as shit they weren't putting out for guys with their husbands level of smv 15 years ago.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

deserves got nothing to do with it

[–]lady_bakerRed Pill Woman1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

They probably are overestimating. But I get what they are saying.

Two people, a man and a woman. Both are average weight, lightly fit, slightly above average faces, not felons. No particularly distinguishing talents or features. The girl is going to have a lot more options for sex and even dating than the guy, even though on a scale of 1-10 of "apparent functional attractive adult" they are equal.

I think I've been won over to OP's side on this one, though. There are different interlocking measurements, and the one we call SMV is based on what you can actually pull.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Then they are not equal.

[–][deleted]  (3 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

didn't even realise it's a rule

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

It's cool I'll add my reply to your automod post instead so it stays.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

ty man

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

So basically men don't deserve anything, right? lol

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

No, you get what you deserve and what you deserve is what you're getting.

It's not a conspiracy, it's not rigged against you, loads of guys overestimate their own worth and this is backed by tonnes of dating site studies FFS

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

So basically unless is a 10 he's not worth anything? got the message.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

If you think that only 10's are getting laid, you're delusional

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

if you think guys who aren't 10's can go up to women and ask if they want to fuck, then you don't know what getting laid is. I can get women to go home with me, attractive women, but I can't take them into my bed the same night I meet them. I have to talk to them, be funny and charming and display high value before they get down on their knees. It takes me a week to get a handjob, 2 weeks or more before they put out. Therefore I have medium to low smv, as I've seen guys get blown in the nightclubs by chicks they had just approached an hour or less earlier.

How do I know? Friends of mine or guys I met through friends and interact with and observe.

Meanwhile, fucking Johnny Q meets women and sleeps with them the same night, which means he gets laid. I don't get laid. I put work and effort and time into it, I'm paying for it only not with money.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Then Johnny Q is more desirable.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Then only Johnny Q is the man who is genuinely sexually desired.

[–]DaphneDKKing of LBFM5 points6 points  (77 children) | Copy Link

Depends on how you define it. If you define it so that 10% are 1, 10% are 2, .. 10% are 10. And you have the theory that 80% of women go after the top 20% of men. Then it stands to reason than most women are gunning for men above their own level.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (75 children) | Copy Link

But if those men and those women are hooking up consistently, they are by definition on the same level.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

We understand you. The smv scale is discussed a lot and this always leads to confusion in discussions.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪6 points7 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Or that men have low standards for hookups and women have high

[–]boogerpill2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I think this supports the idea in the OP. Markets are based on supply and demand. Whatever is more in demand has more value.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Exactly this.

Men having low standards for hookups (which I don't dispute) is exactly what gives women high value in the SMP, because they're all in high demand.

[–]joseremarqueLSD+MDMA2 points3 points  (30 children) | Copy Link

Not if the distribution of attractiveness is a normal bell curve but the distribution of sex is not.

[–]OfSpock1 point2 points  (29 children) | Copy Link

You're confusing your definitions. A guy might be a 6/10 in either straight looks or in RMV, but because twice as many men as women want ONS, his SMV is 3.

[–]joseremarqueLSD+MDMA0 points1 point  (19 children) | Copy Link

What's the unit of measure of SMV? His SMV is 3 whats?

[–]OfSpock2 points3 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

Same units as looks, obviously.

[–]joseremarqueLSD+MDMA0 points1 point  (10 children) | Copy Link

Looks can be ranked on a percentile scale: 1 is bottom 10%, 5 is 50%. SMV is not relative though. It is a single market clearing value and is therefore not relative but absolute. For example the market value of a banana or a shoe is the dollar value that the banana or shoe is exchanged for. So what is the unit of measure of SMV?

[–]OfSpock0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

What unit of measurement is looks?

[–]joseremarqueLSD+MDMA0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Percentiles.

[–]OfSpock1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Height is separated into percentiles but the unit of measurement is metres or feet.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

The unit of measure of smv for men is height, facial aesthetics, muscles, perfect hairline, teeth etc. The men who are close to to perfection in each of those physical characteristics is a 8, 9, and if he's perfect in all of that or at the least the majority, he's a 10.

Those are the guys who get the casual sex with the women who don't look like they've spent the last 30 years eating non-stop.

[–]joseremarqueLSD+MDMA1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

The unit of measure of smv for men is height, facial aesthetics, muscles, perfect hairline, teeth etc.

No no no no no. The M in SMV stands for Market. If you know anything about economics you know that market value is determined by the value of exchange. The market value of a car is not determined by the horsepower, size, features, etc. It's determined by how much money someone is willing to exchange for it.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Here's the thing, I don't really give a fuck about economics. I give a fuck about who is getting laid and with whom that person is getting laid . If the men who get the most fucking and get it with the most attractive women are 6 feet tall +, with broad-shoulders + perfect face, hair, and a huge donger then that means that the men who have those traits are high smv and all of the other men are medium to low smv.

Considering that in the western world -being white pussy the only pussy I'm interested in - to be considered high smv as a man the guy needs to have all of that or at least the majority I don't really care what Brazilian or Angolan women perceive as a high smv man.

[–]GridReXXit be like that2 points3 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

3 ppl want to fuck him and they all look like Mama June. SMV is about sex.

If he looks like Thor but can't get anyone to fuck him he's still a 0 in the SMP.

Sure he's a 7-9 on the "an I aesthetically pleasing to look at" scale. But that's different.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

Lol, you jest. Why wouldn't Thor be able to get laid? If a man is a 10 he can sleep with any woman he wants to sleep with, or at the very least he can sleep with the majority of the women he wants to sleep with.

[–]GridReXXit be like that1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

If a man looked like Thor but acted like an autist he would have difficulty.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Lol, you people make it seem like autism is as frequent in men as a hot woman working as a stripper. I have seen autistic men get approached and pulled by attractive women.

[–]GridReXXit be like that1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

You're missing the point. I've seen objectively attractive men fail with women for being awkward and meek. So yes. Having a nice face doesn't mean an automatic win.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (8 children) | Copy Link

So basically the only men who have value to women are the 8s and the 9s and the 10s. Even the blue pillers confirm hypergamy and the women's sexual strategy to get sex from alphas and commitment from betas lol.

[–]OfSpock1 point2 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

I said nothing of the sort. If you have 50 women at a club and 100 men, then obviously a mans SMV for casual sex takes a dive. And, despite what red pill thinks, that's the situation. At least half of women aren't interested in casual sex.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

You could have 50 girls and 2 guys in one place and the only guy who'd get laid would be the hot/hottest one, and the girls would either compete for the hot guy or they'd stay abstinant. Seen it happen in college. Plenty of girls, a lot less guys, and only a few got laid.

Nah, at least half women don't confess to being into casual sex. With the proper guy present they will all have casual sex.

[–]OfSpock0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

Just keep dreaming. There are lots of women who wouldn't under any circumstances.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

Nope. The women who claim to have never had casual sex are either ugly af, fat, and Alphas don't want them, or they are lying and forget all about sucking random dick at 4 am in the morning.

[–]OfSpock0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Speaking as someone who was very attractive as a young woman, you wish. Or you're defining attractive as 'wears a low cut dress.'

[–]derp_derpington2 points3 points  (37 children) | Copy Link

Yes but this would also mean that the average women has a higher smv number than a man, because women do constantly go for the best guy they can manage to get. And he will fuck them because why not, but stay in a relationship? No. Essentially a woman who is a 6 will get fucked by 8s but date other 6s. So If you go by who hooks up, then women have a higher smv. But that's not because women are more attractive on average it's just men are hornier and will fuck when its easy. If you go by relationships the numbers will be more even.

[–]hakosuaEscape the Pillory3 points4 points  (24 children) | Copy Link

Essentially a woman who is a 6 will get fucked by 8s but date other 6s.

I think this speaks to the importance of distinguishing Relationship Market Value (RMV) from SMV. If you define these things based on market demand, a woman's SMV will typically be higher than her RMV. Conversely, in a lot of very traditional cultures, men have higher RMVs because they can provide things for a woman that she can't provide for herself. This also seems to be true in cultures where there's a gender disparity such that women outnumber men. SMV and RMV are closely related but they are by no means the same thing.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

SMV and RMV are closely related but they are by no means the same thing.

Yes indeed. They are conflated too often. They're very different markets.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

Yes indeed. They are conflated too often. They're very different markets.

The problem there is that many women are playing for both teams, so to speak. They are different markets for different reasons, but the players in both are often the same. Certainly most women tend to play both sides to the middle on this one.

[–]boogerpill2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I'm not sure I totally understand what you're saying, but aren't men also playing in both markets?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

but aren't men also playing in both markets?

Probably more so than women. But I don't date men, and I don't shop in both markets, so that point isn't all that relevant to me.

[–]boogerpill0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is one of the most annoying TRP cliches. Just because you don't date men doesn't mean you can't make observations about them. Why does everything have to be relevant to you specifically?

[–]OfSpock1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

That fact that at least half of all women refrain from casual sex is one of the main reasons why it's so heavily weighted

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

How many of that half are members of a religious faith that essentially takes them off the "open market" because they tend to marry within their own? I can agree there ARE plenty of sexually conservative women around, but the vast majority aren't looking for "heathens" to have children with. Non-religious women that are sexually conservative aren't all that common in my experience, but I've met plenty "faithful" ones.

Of course, depending on how hardcore RP I was, I could say that even those women would jump on an alpha if he was "hawt" enough, but I'm not interested it proving humans are flawed creatures. There's more than enough proof of that already.

[–]OfSpock0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

According to most studies, there are lots. Generally red pillers refuse to believe that the number of sexual partners women have is in the 4-7 range, so the conversation dies around that point.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Great comment

[–]hakosuaEscape the Pillory0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Thanks!

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

Here's the thing though: As a man, when I'm looking to "lock down" a woman, of course I'm going to be looking for a woman with a high RMV. But, as a man, a very large part of a woman's RMV in my eyes is... her SMV! Why? Well because a primary factor for me is and always will be how hot I think she is.

But yes, the issue really is a mix-match of SMV and RMV being shoved together. If woman can bang a 8-10 guy for one night, technically her SMV (at least for that night) was 8-10. However, her RMV probably isn't NEARLY that high, and in my mind the more 8-10's she ONS with, the lower that RMV goes.

Guys that are LTR leaning tend to get a bit upset at the SMV, because the more women take advantage of that side of the equation, the lower they are putting their RMV to us. So SMV is the sticking point, and where most of the complaining comes from. I simply don't want to settle with a woman that has made a habit of having sex with guys much hotter than her, but not interested in sticking around. Sure, perhaps her SMV is high enough to snag those "alpha bad boys", but her RMV is in the shitter IMO.

[–]lady_bakerRed Pill Woman3 points4 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

Same for a certain kind of woman. If I know you've been banging the hottest chicks you can as your sole criteria, it makes NO sense for me to try and lock you down. You obviously don't want what I have to offer.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

No doubt! In fact, you pretty much just described my target audience. ;-)

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas0 points1 point  (9 children) | Copy Link

Imo men can switch gears much more easily and settle down but ltr with a former player is a risk

[–]DrunkGirl69Manic Pixie Drunk Girl1 point2 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

What makes you think men are better at switching gears?

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy Link

Personal experience and observation that men are better at compartmentalizing love and sex

[–]DrunkGirl69Manic Pixie Drunk Girl1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

I thought you'd think men are less suited for and less satisfied with settling down at all, players most especially. If all women want relationships/marriage I'd figure they would settle into that role more smoothly. TRP/society makes it seem like the guy's arm needs to be twisted in order to make a commitment. Since he doesn't want it as much I would think it would be a more difficult transition.

Edit PS what's your experience? You been married?

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Right, your SMV may be different than your RMV, although I think it's makes sense o say that at least for men, your SMV will be an important factor to your RMV.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Male and female smv scales are completely independent of each other and can't be cross compared

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

Let me put this as simply as I can. If there is a guy you think is a 7, and a girl you think is a 5, and they are hooking up, obviously they perceive each other to be within their mutual range of attractiveness.

If this becomes a pattern that is repeated, it suggests those people are within their mutual range of attractiveness on a larger scale.

Therefore, whether or not you think that man is too good for that woman does not matter. The marketplace disagrees and that's all that counts.

To use the analogy in the OP, if you think your product is worth $10,000 but no one is buying it at that price, it is not worth $10,000. It does not matter how much you insist it actually is worth that amount. It only matters if others are willing to actually accept your valuation.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Let me put this as simply as I can. If there is a guy you think is a 7, and a girl you think is a 5, and they are hooking up, obviously they perceive each other to be within their mutual range of attractiveness.

I don't think this is true at all. You could reverse the genders and the girl could just have really low self esteem and the guy could be deluded and it wouldn't be true either. Hot guys will totally fuck girls they think are less attractive than them but rarely commit.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

If a girl has really low self-esteem and is willing to fuck below average guys the exact same principle applies. That girl is reducing her own SMV because she is setting her own value low.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Girls don't fuck guys below average because they have low self-esteem. 9 times out of 10 the girls who are fucking guys below average are girls who are below average and are only doing it because for some odd reason guys above her aren't interested in fucking her.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

It couldn't possibly be that the women who are 7's and therefore in the guy's league are not going to put out easily and he lowers his standards to sleep with a 5, no? I have friends who are 10s who have slept with 5's because they are horny. They weren't attracted to the fat women, they even told me so. I don't think you understand much the male sex drive. There are guys who fuck sheep.

Get it?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

You're missing the point. By putting his standards down he is accepting she is within his range for sex. That's how value in a market is determined.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

No, by putting his standards down he's making sure he doesn't go home with blue balls. it has nothing to do with his attraction for her or her smv.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Doesn't make her attractive, no, but it's indicator of SMV yes.

You seem to have a problem separating attractiveness (or quality in general, really) from market value.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Market value = looks.

Looks = what gets men laid.

Women just need to brush their teeth and to vaguely ressemble a humanoid being and they can get laid.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Lol I dunno why I bother trying to speak to the lookism cult.

[–]boogerpill1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It shouldn't be called a market value if it is just percentiles.

[–]Gnometard5 points6 points  (19 children) | Copy Link

No, you're missing the entire point. You must be a woman. Women are the hunted in terms of sex and relationships. Being the hunted means you have your pick from all the cocks throwing themselves at you. With dicks flying from all directions, more than a few of them are going to be above your SMV. Whether you're a chick who is at a 2 or a 7, you're going to get some dicks from a higher SMV to choose from. Why choose equal or lesser when you can simply accept the advances from above?

As a dude, at a 5, you CAN get chicks who are a 5 but without some game and status a 5 but it's more difficult as the chick is going to be used to the 6+ cocks that she doesn't have to work for.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

You must be a woman.

I am in fact a proud penis owner.

With dicks flying from all directions, more than a few of them are going to be above your SMV.

If that guy is willing to fuck that girl, clearly he perceives her SMV as worthy of his.

Note that this does not mean they have equal RMV, but when it comes to just sex, obviously her value is within his or he wouldn't be trying to fuck her.

As a dude, at a 5, you CAN get chicks who are a 5

Yes, yes you can. And if you can't then you are not a 5 by very definition.

It seems it's you missing the point here. A free market does not give a shit what you value yourself at. All that matters is how you are valued by others.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas1 point2 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

I will agree with this because you made the distinction between SMV and rmv. This post is related to a quasi theory I'm contemplating where women's SMV is just inherently higher than men's overall

[–]boogerpill3 points4 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

It's basic supply and demand. Pussy is in higher demand so it has higher value. OTOH men have a higher average RMV for the reason that relationships are what women want.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

No, its not. Why are you people obsessed with this fantasy that relationships are what women want? College parties? nightclubs? Women aren't looking for relationships before the age of 25, the age of 15-25 is when women are looking for alpha dick, in a casual setting.

[–]HigHog0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

~50% of my female friends in that age range are in steady relationships.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

How do you know they are not cheating on their boyfriends with Alphas? See, one of my greater concerns, nay, fear, is that if I am in a relationship(with an attractive girl, obviously) she will cheat on me all the time with Alphas. Because I am no god damn David Beckham now am I

What about the other 50%?

[–]HigHog0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Well I can't know with 100% certainty, but I trust them and think most would tell me.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, I don't really trust anyone so I can't feel you there.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You should make a post about that theory, I've suspected the same for a while.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

The rating system is based off of your peers in sex, not your overall human sexual value.

An absolute 0 is ugliest girl on earth. Ugliest guy on earth is also a 0. Just because their numbers line up doesn't mean that they automatically consider each other equal in value.

Your way of looking at it twists the rating system into a semantic debate. If being a 5 means you can date any 5, then the RP argument would simply change to "Highest men rank 5-6-7, while highest women rank 7-8-9". Frustrated reading your comments because you're just changing the meaning of the words and numbers, rather than actually refute them.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

All I am saying is this. There is no massive injustice where women who are deemed unworthy of attraction by TRP are magically given attention by guys TRP deems out of their league. That is emotional anger because things are not "fair." TRP is meant to look at life as it is and adjust to it, so I find the fact they're just sitting around crying about this shit to be strange.

Pragmatically, if you are trying to look at the dating scene as a marketplace, you need to accept that value is assigned by supply and demand.

Therefore, your value in the SMP is whatever you're able to get. If I can pull girls who are 8's, I am an 8. If I can only pull girls who are 3's, I am a 3.

There is no such thing as a 5 who cannot pull 5's. If you cannot pull 5's, you are not a 5.

If your issue is with how mathematical curves work, feel free to use a different ranking system. This isn't a mathematical equation. It is simply a statement of fact - attraction is not driven by how desirable you think you are, but rather how desired you are by others.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

No, it doesn't. You keep persisting that if a man sleeps with a woman he sees her as part of his smv or higher. Guys will fuck anything. There are even super hot guys fucking below average women. Because they're drunk, because they are horny, or because they don't want to waste time talking to girls in their league because those girls can demand more before putting out.

[–]Noxin__NixonPillPoppa0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

If that guy is willing to fuck that girl, clearly he perceives her SMV as worthy of his.

I don't think you can always use what is basically a metaphor like SMV to analyze someone's decision making.

When a drunk guy decides to go home with an overweight girl as his slumbuster he is not "perceiving her SMV worthy of this".

He is drunk and horny and just wants to get off and forget about it in the morning. Trying to use "SMV" is the wrong frame to use to explain what is happening psychologically.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

I keep having to repeat this. SMV is purely a measurement of how valuable you are for sex. Nothing else. Even if you're an ugly chick, if lots of drunk guys bang you, clearly you have demand within the sexual market. It is as simple as that.

[–]Noxin__NixonPillPoppa0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

What sexual market though? The sexual market at a cheap dive bar or the sexual market at a posh nightclub? Sexual market in broad daylight or at the drunk hour of 2am?

Basically what I am saying is that even an individuals SMV is going to change quite a bit depending on context even in a few hours. Its not a static number. The ugly obese girl's SMV rises the closer to last call it is and the more rose colored the beer goggles become ya

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

I'd argue that if you know you can get a high price for something it still has value, even if the price is lower in certain circumstances.

If a dodgy bloke in the pub is selling stolen iPads the value will be low, but that doesn't mean a brand new iPad from a legit retailer is worth any less.

A girl might not get much attention during the day but if she can hit up a club for sex any night of the week she has high sexual value.

[–]Noxin__NixonPillPoppa0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

My angle is that if a man wants to get laid more than he currently is, then he needs to not adopt a strict SMV interpretation but rather realize that SMV is always in flux and take advantage of that.

For instance, in some cities like New York not owning a car means nothing. But in Los Angeles its a huge signal. Lets say a young 20 something dude has a car but its some $1000 beater. So a good strategy in this particular city is to scope out bus stops all the time. No attractive girl that is riding the bus in LA is doing it because she wants to, she is doing it because she has to. So even if you only own some cheap beater car, you are still going to appear higher value to that specific female because she has to ride the bus. Thus your pre-selection greatly increases your odds of finding a woman you can persuade to bang you. If a dude doesn't have money but has a cheap car he is actually going to have more success hitting on hot poor girls at the bus stop than chubby middle class girls that drive Toyotas. I've seen many examples of this. A lot of dudes think its easier to hit on the chubby middle class girl. No, its easier to hit on the hot poor girl who almost always will have less self-esteem than the middle class girl who grew up more pampered even if she isn't as hot. Obese nympho girls realize that their SMV skyrockets at 2AM at bars and clubs and take advantage of that. Not all men realize the circumstances in which their relative SMV rises and thus most incels aren't taking advantage of opportunities they could have. The other thing is the difference between a hot girl's actual SMV and her self-perceived SMV. Everyone knows that some hot girls have very low self-esteem so their perceived SMV is lower than you might expect.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree with all of this yeah, and that's basically what I'm trying to get across. The whole concept is relative. It's about who is willing to buy what you're selling, no more no less.

Not all men realize the circumstances in which their relative SMV rises and thus most incels aren't taking advantage of opportunities they could have.

Agreed. They want a perfect dream girl to ~love them for who they are~ and won't settle for less. If I stuck to their defeatist view of never ever changing myself I'd be a virgin too. I'd also probably be unemployed.

The other thing is the difference between a hot girl's actual SMV and her self-perceived SMV. Everyone knows that some hot girls have very low self-esteem so their perceived SMV is lower than you might expect.

Yep. That's why the the hot/crazy scale is legit. You can bang a girl hotter than you if she's crazy.

[–]dt89334 points5 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

OP is misunderstanding the semantics. The 0-9 scale is usually understood to refer to the decile in which someone fits for their gender. For example, a 9 is in the 90+th percentile, an 8 is in the 80th to 89th percentile, etc.

OP is trying to fit money values to the numbers. Such a system could make sense, and OP is correct that the current use of the numbers does not make sense in the definition that he (mis)understands the numbers to have.

[–]YouDislikeMyOpinionRed Pill Man1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think this is the best comment in this thread.

[–]OfSpock0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

No, he's trying to say that attractiveness doesn't equal SMV.

[–]GridReXXit be like that2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

That's what I got.

There are 3 scales.

  • Physical Aesthetics - do you look like Shrek or Chris Hemsworth? Do you look like Mama June or Joan Smalls?

  • Sexual Market Value - who wants to fuck you?

  • Relationship Market Value - Who wants to commit to you?

The three are related but, utilize different metrics meaning you can score high on one or two and still manage to score low in the remaining scale(s).

For example if a guy's RMV is high, but his SMV is low. He may snag a wife, but it will be a deadbedroom sitch no doubt.

If his RMV is high and his SMV is high then she will daydream about gleefully skipping in the sunflower fields with him till death do her part. And if he happens to look like Idris Elba (high physical aesthetics) she'll be excited to show him off like a proud mama.

If his SMV is high, but his RMV is low, she will plate him like what Rihanna sings about in "Needed Me."

If his SMV is high (he could be swaggy and dominant), but he looks like a 3 on the physical aesthetics scale, she will likely only invite him to her house under cover of darkness.

Lastly I think the confusion comes in because TRPers use the SMV scale, but when they throw out a number, "she's a 8," they're really talking about her physical attractiveness or her aesthetics.

This happens because for men, how physically attractive she is highly correlates with his willingness to fuck her aka her SMV. For women this isn't necessarily the case. We can objectively view that a man like Justin Bieber has perfect ratios and gorgeous eyes and still not be turned on by him.

For us his SMV is some mix (and the distribution of this mix varies from woman to woman) of his Physical Aesthetics, Personality, Status, Charm, Swag, Presence, Physical Stature, etc...

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

SMV is subjective in the sense that some people attach more/less value to different things. Look at the relationships around you. Which one looks better? Which one makes more money? Which one has a higher degree of education? Which one has a better career placement? Which one has a better career trajectory? Which one has a higher social value? More friends, more involved family, better community around them? These are the things that effect someones SMV. Some less valuable than others, and some less valuable than to you than to me. But 80% of the time (at least around me) the man is superior to the woman in damn near every category but the looks. This is why we say that women date up, and men date down. She brings the looks, and he bring literally everything else.

To your point though, when you look at a relationship that's very clearly as I just described, do you really give them the same value because they ended up together? When one has clearly built a far superior life situation than the other, I'll consider their value higher.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

In your example, the man values looks as much as the woman values career prospects. If they have agreed to be together, they are of equal value in their perspectives.

Yes even if in this hypothetical relationship the woman brings literally nothing else (which doesn't reflect the majority of real world relationships in current society, but I'll roll with it for discussion) if the man values looks highly enough that he looks past this, he has obviously set her value as equal to his because of this.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

I still don't think two people choosing to be together negates their value, and revalues them equally. Does that mean Donald and Melania Trump are equal SMV? I don't think so.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Does that mean Donald and Melania Trump are equal SMV?

Yep.

[–]boogerpill0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Or would it mean they have equal RMV?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Ah yes, good spot. You're right.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

No, they aren't... money doesn't buy attraction, it only rents a woman's vagina/womb while he has money. Sexual market value, not gold-digging value, dude. Melania was thinking of the hunks she fucks on the side while trump was getting her pregnant.

[–]questioningwomandetached from society6 points7 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Men say don't care about any other category but then complain women lack every other category. The hypocrisy is priceless.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I complain about my car too. You gotta take what you can get.

[–]DrunkGirl69Manic Pixie Drunk Girl3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yep. On one hand it's "women bring nothing to the table" and when we point out that many women do bring all the valuable qualities a man does they say "LOL we don't care about that we only care how she looks"

...then why the fuck are they complaining?

[–]sittinginabaralone1 point2 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

They mean they look like a 5. Same way I can't walk into a restaurant with $20, take a shit on the table, and get served. It doesn't mean I don't have enough money to eat there.

The other thing is, a 5/10 woman doesn't equal a 5/10 man. That's like saying 1 USD = 1 CAD. It's not that people aren't overstating their worth, they're just not normalizing between gender.

[–]HigHog0 points1 point  (13 children) | Copy Link

What does "a 5" look like though? It's subjective so who's doing the rating?

[–]sittinginabaralone0 points1 point  (12 children) | Copy Link

5 just represents average, whatever average means. The person rating themselves is doing the rating in this case. Not ugly, not really anything special either.

[–]HigHog2 points3 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

Average in what way? Do you mean meet a certain base level of attractiveness or are the median level of attractiveness or mode? Again, it's subjective so according to who? My best friend thinks her boyfriend is really hot, I don't, so is he average or hot?

[–]sittinginabaralone0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

I don't know where you're going with this. There are people that most people would consider attractive. And there are people that most people would consider unattractive. There are people who fall right in the middle of those extremes. That would be the median. That guy is a 5. Just by appearance, if you were to just look at a plain old picture of him. No other factors considered.

Now, the question is, why is that guy having trouble getting the female equivalent? It doesn't mean he's not a 5, it means there are more factors that dictate attractiveness and that the female 5 is effectively more like a male 7.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Fair. Or:

  1. He doesn't think a female 5 is actually a 5 and is actually pursuing 7s

  2. He doesn't want to put the legwork into dating, which most women, even 5s require, especially from men of equivalent SMV

[–]sittinginabaralone0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Okay?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy Link

Average means the guy looks like the majority of the male population in that given Country.

If your best friend is hot and she's dating a guy and is in lust with him, and he's not paying money for it then he's hot, not average.

If he's dating an average looking woman then he's average.

[–]HigHog0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

Or attractiveness is subjective.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

No, its not. Attractiveness is not subjective at all. David Beckham, Cristiano Ronaldo, Manuel Neuer, Navy seals, Brad Pitt, Pierce Brosnan, Sean Connery, male models, tv stars.

THEY ALL. Look the same. Perfect face, tall, ottermode body build, very masculine behavior etc. Looks are not subjective at all. There's a reason why Casanova was Casanova and the guys he went to school with weren't. 6'3'' + perfect face, muscled-up, big cock etc.

[–]HigHog1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I'm not googling them all as I'm on my phone but I can say straight away I don't think the Manuel and Christiano guys are attractive, and I can pretty much guarantee I don't think all navy seals are attractive.

I don't really like massively tall guys and I like a little layer of chub.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/ff/38/5e/ff385e66396b602be1d1d5e64702c6b1.jpg

young sean connery ^

David Beckham:

http://www.beautyblog.es/wp-content/uploads2/david-beckham-classic-8.jpg

Cristiano Ronaldo:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-3gxWUsAOgvI/T6sXGuywCSI/AAAAAAAAAMk/cxumLw_hCXA/s1600/6a00d8341c6d4753ef0134861efad0970c-400wi.jpg

Manuel Neuer:

https://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/football-bayern-munichs-manuel-neuer-waves-to-fans-at-the-end.jpg?w=748&h=501&crop=1

Pierce Brosnan:

http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/jamesbond/images/b/bd/Bond_-_Pierce_Brosnan_-_Profile.png/revision/latest?cb=20121104121818&path-prefix=es

These all are 10/10 men, and I'm not taking into account their fame, charisma, charm, and money.

beauty is not subjective. Any of these Alphas could go up to any woman(alright, the vast majority) and get laid easy as a pretty girl going up to guy and asking him if he wanted sex with her.

[–]HigHog1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Like I said, I'm not attracted to Manuel or Christiano. Pierce Brosnan looks a bit old but he was probably attractive when he was younger.

[–]ppdthrowawaiRed Pill1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I'd say you're only halfway there. Men typically fuck down and are able to date up in SMV.

That means if youre easily pulling 6s, youre likely a 7 and can LTR an 8.

Obviously it's not that simple as there will always be outliers but rule of thumb would suggest mans smv is in between who he dates and fucks.

[–]boogerpill3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

If you can LTR an 8 then your RMV is 8. If you can only pull 6s for sex then your SMV = 6

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

No, if you can LTR an 8 and you don't have matching looks it means you are renting her pussy with your money. If you can only pull 6's for sex it your smv is 7 or above, as women don't put out casually for men in their league, unless the men and the women are 10's.

[–]___Jamie___1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

This is stupid. Your marketplace analogy would only work if all the males advertise equally. A 2 male may advertise himself MUCH MORE. Compare him to a drop dead gorgeus model that does zero approaches and 2 guy will in time sleep with a hotter girl.

Doesn't mean his product is better.

Think about it. Maybe there's a better tasting Coke somewhere in Africa. But we just havent heard of it.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I don't see why this matters. Coke is still higher value than the mythical African version even if the African version is better simply because Coke has the demand. High quality does not necessarily equal high demand and demand is what determines value.

[–]___Jamie___0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Okay okay. But then SMV is pretty meaningless since when traveling by airplane it changes every hour because of different hotness of people in that region that I'm flying over. Traits that are sought after in one country are often considered taboo/ugly in other countries. In some countries just having a US passport gives you a huge SMV increase because of the high demand.

This all makes SMV defined like this a pretty a badly designed "measurement"

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Isnt that the same as anything elses value though? Value of any commodity is constantly changing according to the demands of the marketplace.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Traits that are sought after in one country are often considered taboo/ugly in other countries.

Well... yes. How does this make SMV meaningless?

[–]Entropy-7Old Goat1 point2 points  (36 children) | Copy Link

If a guy says he is a 5 as part of complaining about how he can't get laid, they typically mean they are rating their own looks and not their SMV.

If a 3 female can get a 7 man to sleep with her, that doesn't make her a 7, it still makes her a 3. The 7 could get a 7 but he is slumming it. Women don't slum it.

The angst about how women can have sex if they want to is misplaced. If guys didn't have such low standards it would even things out.

[–]boogerpill1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

If guys didn't have such low standards it would even things out.

I agree with this part 100%

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (34 children) | Copy Link

If a guy says he is a 5 as part of complaining about how he can't get laid, they typically mean they are rating their own looks and not their SMV.

I'm saying that guy is probably misjudging his value.

[–]YouDislikeMyOpinionRed Pill Man1 point2 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

So if I go to a looks rating website, and I choose a random 8 smv male, then I hypothetically learn that he fucked a girl who is rated as a 2, does that make her an 8?

[–]boogerpill1 point2 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

If she is consistently fucking an 8 or multiple 8s, she must be an 8.

[–]YouDislikeMyOpinionRed Pill Man0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

So let me get this straight, if she puts on a sign saying "I'll fuck you if you're hot", and 10 guys who have an smv of 9 fuck her, she has 9 smv?

[–]boogerpill1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

That would obviously be a really unusual case. The way the sex market works, men approach women for sex. If she is being consistently propositioned by 9s, who should have enough options that they don't have to dip that far below them very often, then yes she's a 9.

[–]YouDislikeMyOpinionRed Pill Man1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Ok, so now we have defined that this scenario takes place in the sex market we currently live in and the girl has to be consistently propositioned.

I've lived many real world examples.

I don't judge her SMV to be 9, she's a 5. If she's consistently getting 8s and 9s it's because those guys are stooping low because she's offering easy sex. Every guy does it once in a while and she's a pro at figuring out which guy does it. Also, she may be doing shit in the bedroom that not many girls do. I'll let you use your imagination.

I'm not going to compare her to a solid 9 SMV girl because there is no comparison. One needs to jump through hoops to barely make it to the finish line and the other nonchalantly walks to the finish.

If you want market dynamics, her current value is derived from her historical value and her future value. If My eyes see a 5, that factors into the calculation. If other men see a 5, that factors into the calculation. If 90% of the population sees a 5, that factors into the calculation. If she keeps fucking 9s indefinitely, then her smv is effectively 9, but only because she has optimized her life so well that she is able to utilize an smv of 5 as if it was an smv of 9.

[–]boogerpill1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

If she keeps fucking 9s indefinitely, then her smv is effectively 9

So you agree

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Here we go again. Guys want to get laid. Guys know that if they want to get laid with women they either have to put in work to get with women in their league, or they have to look down and sleep with women below their value. What do you think guys are going to do? That doesn't make a 5 a 10. Doesn't matter how many guys she slept with who were 10's.

[–]boogerpill0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

That means 10s are actively pursuing her though. Not for relationships but for sex of course. But it's not like she's pursuing them. They choose her.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

They choose her because she's easier than the girls he's attracted to. If you put my physical ideal in front of me but you tell me she's going to be a whole lot of hard work for me to fuck her, and then you put a reasonable lookingbut not hot girl in front of me and you tell me she'll fuck me 7 ways different into Kingdom come.. do you know what is going to happen?

I'm still not attracted to her. She's just not repulsive to sleep with.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Does that mean that if I borrow a friend's car and that car is an audi I am now the owner of an audi? You people sometimes... lel.

[–]boogerpill0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

If your friend is willing to trade his audi for your car every weekend I think he finds them suitably comparable.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

No, it just means that he doesn't want to get robbed or attract gold-diggers.

[–]lady_bakerRed Pill Woman1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Men did this to themselves by not having standards!

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

Women did this to us men by having extremely high standards. Every flaw with the smp is because of women, deal with it dude.

[–]lady_bakerRed Pill Woman1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

You know a lot of people in here are sincere and want to fix the cluster f*ck, right? Not all, but I certainly do.

Does it seem reasonable to you that one gender is above reproach and the other bears all the blame? We evolved together, live together, have needed each other since time out of mind. We both have issues and I'll be the first one to say that at this time and in this place, women get a pass on their bad behavior more than men do.

So tell me, when a man who dates a 6-7 will fuck a 3 just because he is horny, how is that the woman's fault?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

No, you don't get it. Women wanted this. Women wanted the hookup culture. Women wanted nightclubs and access to Alpha cock. Everything that is wrong between women and men is the responsability of women.

Every problem that women have, emotional, psychological or physical was caused by women. There's a shit ton of women - I would even say most women - who are young and are already suffering from a huge variety of mental problems, or girls with stds, or girls who have slept with 10+ guys before they were 20, and girls who have extreme low self-esteem despite being attractive because they are living in a sea of alpha cock and those guys do whatever they please to women.

This is all women's fault, and now women are getting their just reward. A lifetime of getting fucked by alphas and rejected by beta bux. Trust me, this cluster fuck is going to change, but it won't benefit women at all. There's more and more young men who are turning their lives into a diet of porn, video games and bromances.

Men are finally learning that women cannot be trusted and that they cannot love.

''So tell me, when a man who dates a 6-7 will fuck a 3 just because he is horny, how is that the woman's fault?''

Women can easily solve that by closing their legs. No one is forcing them to have sex.

[–]lady_bakerRed Pill Woman1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Your average woman is no more perceptive and no more powerful than your average man. We have behaved badly, for sure, but the societal pressures that led to sex going from marriage bed to nightclub are more of a PTB situation, and unintended consequences.

http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2016/04/the-decline-of-america-is-not-accident.html

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

A woman of average looks is still more powerful than the average man. She can easily sleep with better-looking man. Every couple I see, or at least most of the couples I see, the man is more attractive than the woman. He has better facial aesthetics, he's a lot fitter, he's better in every regard, but despite being above average he has to date below average women.

The only women who have it bad are the women who are 5'2'' and weight 500 pounds. America is declining because women wanted the patriarchy to decline and they wanted the matriarchy to rise, so that they could be free to enjoy endless alpha cock. Now they got their wish. Why do women keep complaining about being unhappy?

[–]Entropy-7Old Goat0 points1 point  (12 children) | Copy Link

I'm saying he is perplexed as to why is value is not in line with his looks.

[–]boogerpill2 points3 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

It's possible he's mistaken about his looks

[–]Entropy-7Old Goat0 points1 point  (10 children) | Copy Link

It's possible, but I think in most cases it's an honest attempt. Some of the field reports are maybe less so when the guy is going on about he is an 8 or 9 with 12% body fat, a 300kg squat and $150k income.

[–]boogerpill1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

I'll have to find it in the comments but someone posted a study showing that men do consistently rate themselves higher than other people rate them. I believe I've read the opposite is true of women.

[–]Entropy-7Old Goat0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

I haven't seen a study but there are online articles that go both ways with observations that either sex overestimate while the other estimates. TRP has lots of examples of women having a delusional high opinion of themselves and it being chalked up to "entitlement" because they figure they deserve a guy with a six figure salary and an athlete's body.

[–]boogerpill0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

Yes I'm familiar with TRP's examples and they don't hold true in real life. I've never met a woman who wasn't insecure in her looks or thought she was less attractive than she was.

[–]Entropy-7Old Goat0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

But the example are from real life.

[–]boogerpill0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

I have no reason to believe they are more than theories on the internet that contradict everything I've seen in real life.

This article explains how even that OKCupid study shows that men are more likely to shoot out of their league than women are: https://psmag.com/louis-c-k-on-assortative-mating-why-do-men-overestimate-their-own-level-of-attractiveness-5846af096a61#.icv7eu71b

This one references multiple studies showing that men overestimate their own attractiveness while women do not: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sports-mind/201507/when-men-arent-good-looking-they-think

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

It's also because looks are not the only thing that matters.

[–]Entropy-7Old Goat0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, and in recognizing that guys seek advice on how to get the whole package in line with their looks.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

For casual sex looks is the only thing that matters, for relationships what matters is his bank account and how willing he is to spend his money on her. Either way.. the guys who get the casual sex with the women who actually ressemble women are the only true victors out of all of this.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Nope. I've seen many times before men of equal looks get rejected by women of equal looks, the problem is that women have always more value than their innate smv because most men go down for casual sex, including the hot ones.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Looks != SMV.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, and the women who were in the same league rejected these guys for alphas. Women always have more value than men.

[–]fas_nefas1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I think it's less about assigning their own SMV, and more about simply supply and demand. There's no reason to believe that 1s of either gender are any more or less interested in casual sex than 10s, 4s, 7s, etc. of the same gender. In other words, sexual interest exists irrespective of a person's own SMV. If someone can disprove that with some research, I'd be interested to see it.

So underlying this SMV idea, I think, is the simple truth that men are generally more interested in casual sex, whereas women are not generally as interested. I would say that this is true in my experience as well.

I think a we can more simply chalk it up to a high supply/low demand issue for women and a low supply/high demand issue for men. So SMV is just the side effect of men being generally more willing to take what they can get in terms of casual sex than women. In other words, RPs confuse cause and effect.

The underlying cause of the supply/demand imbalance is a simple biological fact. Women disproportionately bear the costs of pregnancy in physical, social and financial terms. These vosts are magnified when a pregnancy is not planned. Women are therefore incentivized to avoid casual sex more than men.

In fact, if we assume that men want a greater supply of casual sex, which seems to be the case, logically they should do at least three things aimed at lessening the burden on women:

1) Men should encourage the view that there is nothing wrong with women being sexually promiscuous.

2) They should encourage careful and consistent use of birth control for themselves (condoms) and their partners (hormonal).

3) They should support the use of child support as a means of sharing the financial burden of unintended pregnancy.

These things would diminish the disproportionate burden on women to engage in casual sex, increase supply for men, and ease SMV disparities.

In conclusion, SMV seems more a side effect of a supply/demand imbalance, due to real disincentives that women face with respect to casual sex. Complaining about the effect while contributing to the cause seems entirely illogical to me.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Everything you said makes sense how dare you be logical on a PPD thread

[–]literallyhereyellow pill gender bending lizard1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I would add a few other things to the list, as a consideration many (most?) women have before casual sex is the likeliness of them getting assaulted/raped. Casual sex can be dangerous so women are more likely to want to have a relationship before sex is involved. To add to your list, I also think men should try to work together to increase safety, communication, and respect so that the culture of casual hook ups is no longer so threatening to women. (A few other things come to mind as well, but I definitely agree with supply/demand in this case.)

[–]AutoModeratorBiased against humans[M] 0 points1 point  (19 children) | Copy Link

Attention!

  • You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.

  • For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.

  • If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.

  • OP you can choose your own flair, just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Good points. I'd only add that how a guy rates another guy has fuck all to do with-- and might be completely different from-- how a woman rates him.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Spot on OP. TRPers (and guys in general) massively overestimate what they deserve.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's funny, for me personally I was always the opposite I was insecure about my looks and thought I was unattractive. Probably because I had pretty bad acne in my teen years. As I grew up it went away but I thought of myself as ugly. Then I realised hang on a minute I'm getting all these hot girls. Maybe I'm better than I think lol.

But one thing is for sure: self-assessing how attractive you are is not accurate measurement.

[–]Bluer_than_Red3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

100% right OP. You're only as attractive as how others (or in the case of straight men: women) judge you. If most women judge you to be undesirable then, hey, guess what? You're undesirable! It's also one of the reason why there are so much more unattractive or undesirable men out there than there are women.

[–]A_RexMRP you wish was single1 point2 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

Agree that your SMV is determined by what the market will bear, not what you think you're worth. However, your example is flawed. Women of such low SMV (1-2) are almost completely unattainable because they are withdrawn from the market due to their own ultra low self esteem. Even if they weren't completely unavailable, they may not be gettable by a male 5 because his comparative SMV is too high (she understands that she would have no higher potential with him than occasional use as a human fleshlight).

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (10 children) | Copy Link

I'm just using the example that red pilers were using in the linked thread. They were making the claim that a male 5 has the same sexual opportunities as a female 2. Going by your post you understand how ridiculous this claim is.

[–]A_RexMRP you wish was single2 points3 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

You are wrong here, because you are equating the market for females with the market for males. The theory goes that women only go for men higher in SMV than they are. Women will tend to shoot a notch or two higher than themselves, and if in the mood for an ONS will shoot for the moon. However, there is an SMV floor for the guys such that women will not venture below. Male 5s fall into this zone. Contrast that with female HB5s, which a male 9 will fuck under the right circumstances, and who could probably LTR a male 6-7.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

However, there is an SMV floor for the guys such that women will not venture below. Male 5s fall into this zone.

TRP literally just made this up to feel better about striking out.

Newsflash: if you can't get laid you are below 5.

[–]shoup88Report me bitch1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Do you subscribe to the idea that SMV is a bell curve? Like there are just as many men above 5 as there are below?

If so, do you truly believe that fully half of the male population has zero luck with women?

[–]A_RexMRP you wish was single2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Sort of yes to question one - there are way more men in the 4-6 range than men in the 1-3 or 7-10 range.

Your second question is a bit loaded. What I should have added to my above post was the low SMV pair-off phenomenon we see. Later in life (usu. mid 30s and up), your SMV 1-3s come to realize that they aren't winning in the SMP, ever. As such, you'll see these men and women pair off, usually for companionship more than anything else, but it's not like they are thrilled with what they have - they've settled. I wouldn't call that being "successful" with women under any circumstances, but how you view that arrangement determines the answer to your second question (the "there's someone for everyone" trope)

[–]shoup88Report me bitch0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

So the floor only exists until a certain age, and then women will start settling for men they previously wouldn't have?

[–]A_RexMRP you wish was single0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Those women either settle or acquire cats to fulfill their need for companionship. Thus some guys will end up forever alone.

[–]boogerpill0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

That is just ridiculous to say that no women ever have sex with 5s. If a man is an incel he is not a 5

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

But casual sex, does he have it? That's what matters, not that he ''makes'' up for his lack of high smv with money.

[–]boogerpill0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Most women don't have causal sex, from what I've heard and seen

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

The vast majority of women have casual sex. By women I mean chicks who aren't overweight or ugly. The vast majority of the women who 40 years ago would be considered average are getting fucked by alpha men, therefore MOST women WORTH sleeping with are getting casual sex.

[–]Archwinger0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Well, this is kind of a "duh". Your value is defined by what others think of you. It isn't something you "identify" as.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

If you look through the linked thread, it seems too many RPers don't get this.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

A scale is used to rank the individuals of one group, so a 2/10 girl is nearly always uglier than a hot 9/10 babe. Of course it wouldn't work using the rating of group A against the rating of someone of group B. Like you can have a 5/10 fresh potato and cook it and it'll be OK but not so much for tomatoes.

Also, one of the key point of TRP is that women tend to date way outside their league and that makes them unhappy in the long run because those guys have more than enough to pick from and commit.

[–]BPremiumMeh0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

It all comes down to with what's easy. A female 5 can have sex with a male 7 because she will make it easy for him. He won't have to put in effort in attracting her, so why not? A free meal is a free meal. While the male 5 has to work at attracting his female equivalent, cause she has higher standards.
Due to the higher SMV guy settling for easy, in inflates the females SMV temporarily.

[–]voteGOPkBlack Pill0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

how do we reach the final number /10?

It seems this discussion is confusing looks rating /10 with SMV rating, which I never have seen put in /10 rating

assume this guy was incel due to mental neurosis and anxiety: http://i.imgur.com/fU4QQ0w.jpg

would that make him a very low SMV?

I doubt, since just on looks he probably has some women going "omg I want him inside me"

are we talking about looks rating or how much sex you can have?

because this is seems to be crux TRP idea that most women can pull higher tier men and it takes real "alphas" to have lots of sex

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

That guy would never be an incel. Women would approach him and offer him sex pretty easy. I have friends who look like that and are very emotionally weak and insecure(how the fuck woudl I know why they are insecure) and they still get laid everytime they go out.

[–]Andress10 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Ok.Then 80% of women cant settle down because they only find 20% of men attractive.Most women dont want to pair off with a man on the same percentile as them if we compare each gender in its own bracket. Maybe it is for the best.

[–]yeah_um_so0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

If a male 5 can't get a female 2, he is not a 5.

But if he can which number determines who's score?

is he a 2 or a 5?

is a male 5 really a male 2 if he sleeps with a female 2?

is a female 2 really a female 5 if she sleeps with a male 5?

which way does it work? which determines the actual value? who decides that value?

that's the flaw in your thinking.

You have to assign an apples to apples value in order to determine who is fucking up and who is fucking down. otherwise it is apples and oranges and is totally meaningless.

the fairest way to rate attractiveness is percentiles on a bell curve.

a "5" is the 50 percentile. someone in the middle of attractiveness. an equal number of people above and below.

The problem is that women don't rate men on a bell curve. They rate 80 percent worse than average. That isn't fair and doesn't make mathmatical sense. The mens graph is a bell curve.

Above average in female terms is the top 20 percent.

That doesn't make sense. That is the fundamental problem. It is a direct result of the disparity and availability of casual sex to women. A girl who is male rated "5" (50 percentile) wants a guy female rated "5" who is in the 80 percentile.

This is an exact disparity and the source of the 80/20 comments you see all the time. It directly follows observations. This allows for incels who can't get laid. This allows for women who can't find the attractiveness disparity privilege she possesses that will bang her, but not relationship her.

This also exactly follows message patterns by independent testers using the exact same profile with different photos. (this shows a 2/5 star woman getting as many messages as a 4/5 star male 80/20 again...)

[–]rulenumber3030 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

There's prolly potential for something like the ELO rating system for working it all out but really who can be bothered.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Generally a guy will fuck below his SMV but won't enter an LTR with a girl below his SMV. Women are the opposite. Thats why a girl who fucks below her SMV is called a slut - she ruins the sexual marketplace for other women. There should be an equally derogeratory term for a man who commits below his SMV, as he does the same for men.

[–]kick6Red Pill Man0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

You're oversimplifying the concept of a market a little bit, but you're close. The concepts in play are luxury/superior/veblen goods. Have an economics lesson on me.

[–]Murlocgoesmurgle0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

You see, the problem is when shit like this gets discovered.

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Only an expert review works. Ask several of the popular kids to get a rough idea. Those that know everyone and know who's sleeping with whom can gauge the league the best and also know what type the people are into

[–]lurflyDevil's Advocate-1 points0 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

Wouldn't it be problematic trying to set an SMV for the women too? For the exact same reason: you don't know how she is faring the market?

And even if you do know the guys she is pulling, you don't know what kind of girls they get so you can't rate them... and on and on. So no one can know anyone's SMV.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (8 children) | Copy Link

Well yeah that's my point. The market sets the SMV naturally.

[–]lurflyDevil's Advocate-1 points0 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Basically its not possible to know anyone's SMV.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

It is, but it cannot be judged by self-evaluation. I've always said you should judge your SMV by the girls/guys you can get, not by how hot you think you are.

[–]lurflyDevil's Advocate0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

The market sets the SMV

Not self-evaluation. Not your evaluation of the girls/guys you get. The market, as you said.

How can you evaluate the girl you're with if you don't know how she is doing in the marketplace? How can you use the SMV of the girls you get or don't get to determine your own, if you don't know how they are doing themselves?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

Well the girls you get are reflective of your market value. A guy with low value won't be pulling very hot girls for example.

I think what you're saying is that this still has an element of subjectivity since you're assessing how hot those girls are, and this is true, but it's the closest you'll get to an accurate measurement and really it's all that matters.

As long as you are aware of the type of girls you are able to get, the subjectivity of how you perceive those girls is still irrelevant. It's still useful data.

[–]lurflyDevil's Advocate-1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Honestly I really disagree. Especially cause hotness is so subjective to a lot of people. Hair and eye color, race, personality, style, interests, all play a role in attraction.

I agree with what you started to say (the market determines SMV) but disagree with the ability of one random dude (or anyone really) to even begin to collect anything close to objective "data".

Now, guesses? Sure. But if a guy is the type to inflate his own SMV I wouldn't trust him to rate girls. Why does one inflate their SMV? For the good feels. That same guy could consciously or subconsciously change the SMV of the chicks hes with for more good feels. Sleep with a 6? "Lets call that an 8 and feel like a champ!" Sleep with a 5 but feel unsatisfied? "Lets call that a 2 and whine to my bros for support to score higher".

All seems pretty pointless to me. Its very hard to get objective about attraction. Hot or not is easy. 1 or 10 is easy. But 6 or 7? Its going to come down to personal preferences.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Fair play, I can agree that even an assessment based on the girls you've been with in the past is just a guess when it comes to girls you meet in the future. But it is an informed guess. It's by no means 100%, but generally speaking like will attract like. The technical term for this is assortive mating and there's been a lot of research into it.

[–]lurflyDevil's Advocate1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

generally speaking like will attract like

And man do I wish that was enough for people. Silly numbers lol

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

For marriage, yes. Women will marry men in their league because they can't make the alphas commit to them, but they aren't attracted to their husbands.

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2024. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter