Get Free Email Updates!
Join us for FREE to get instant email updates!
Sexual Market Value
-By Caleb Jones
“Well, whatever! He’s probably better-looking than me, but he’s not richer than me, he’s not funnier than me, and he’s not more famous than me.”
His friends quietly looked at each other with wry smiles. Then Spade said,
“It’s Steve Martin.”
Aspects of SMV
Sexual Market Value (SMV) is a topic that's discussed in great detail in the manosphere, going all the way back Rollo Tomassi's famous chart. I generally agree with his viewpoints, but I tend to look at them a little differently. As always, I tend to look at these things using simple logic rather than a lot of complicated nerd math that often doesn’t reflect the real world.
Before we discuss the actual SMV of the average man or woman, we need to establish baselines for what SMV is, and how SMV is determined.
1. SMV has nothing to do with you personally, or any other individual you can cite. You are an individual, and an individual is not a statistic. Whenever I see this topic discussed, people discussing it always go back to themselves as examples. “Guys hit on me now in my 30s just as much as they did when I was in my 20s.” “Now that I'm in my 50s, I bang way more hot chicks than I ever did in my 30s.”
This is a mistake. It doesn’t matter what you personally have experienced. What matters here are averages taken over a sample size of millions of people.
I can tell you for a fact that I have sex with attractive women (including younger ones) now much more easily at age 44 than I did at age 36. Is this because 44 year-old men have a higher SMV than 36 year-old men? Not really. It’s because in my individual case, comparing myself now to when I was 36,
1. I'm more outcome independent.
2. I have stronger game / dating skills.
2. I’m almost 50 pounds of fat lighter (though still overweight).
4. I “present” a little better (better fashion, etc.).
I also make more money, though I can’t count that since a woman on a first or second date with me would not know this, since my cheapass, lower-middle class lifestyle looks exactly the same from the outside looking in as it did eight years ago. I some ways it looks even worse. For example, the house I live in now is shittier than the one I had a few years ago.
Therefore, the difference in results was because of my own personal improvement, rather than an inevitable increase in SMV just because I got older or my income increased.
You could argue that the older a man gets, the more time, and thus opportunity, he has to increase his SMV. That’s certainly true, and that’s a factor, but not an evitable result of aging. For example, as they age, most men simply get fatter, uglier, and don’t really increase their incomes very much. Most older men in normal, everyday society do not look, nor act, nor live like Hugh Jackman.
2. Your SMV is determined by the opposite sex, not your sex. I’ve discussed the concept of gender myopia, a phrase I coined a few years ago and have discussed several times at this blog. This is when you subconsciously start to assume that what the other gender wants is what you want, which of course is incorrect. My standard examples are when men send dick pics to women, and when women brag about how strong, independent, and sassy they are. In both cases, you’re dealing with idiots who think that what they would like in a partner, the other gender would also like, when in fact the other gender is looking for the exact opposite.
So, when a college educated woman implies that female SMV might be a little higher because a woman makes more money or is more educated, she’s full of shit. She might give a shit about that, but men’s penises don’t. The same goes for when a gym rat dude talks about how a man’s SMV relates to his exact bicep measurements.
Men determine women’s SMV, not women. Women determine men’s SMV, not men.
3. SMV of the two sexes are determined by very different factors. This is a big one that confuses a lot of people. Men’s SMV is determined completely differently from women’s SMV, and it’s tempting to mix the two.
Men’s SMV is determined by the following factors (listed in no particular order):
Wealth/Income Confidence/Dominance Appearance Social Standing
Women’s SMV is determined by these factors:
Men’s SMV is determined by how well he can take care of someone, women’s SMV is determined by how fertile she is (real or perceived), even if men wanting to have sex with her have no desire to have children with her. It’s not rationality, it’s biology.
This is why it doesn’t matter if a woman makes a lot of money or has a college degree, and also why a less attractive man can have sky-high SMV.
To be fair, appearance is a factor with men’s SMV, but it’s not the be-all that it is with women. In other words, if you have two 38 year-old men who make the exact same amount of money and have the exact same level of social standing and confidence, the one with a full head of hair and a trim physique will indeed have at least a slightly higher SMV than the one who is balding and has a pot belly.
By the way, I agree with women when they complain this isn’t fair. If I was a woman, I too would be upset that a super hot 19 year-old drug addict with a low IQ and no money has a higher SMV than a decently cute, intelligent 28 year-old who has a college degree and a Good Job™. Yeah, it’s not fair, but that’s the way it is.
I don’t make the rules here. I just play the game.
The good news for women is that your appearance is directly within your control. Even a woman of low or low-average looks will instantly raise her SMV several points just by losing 15 pounds and changing her hair color to blonde. Improving her fashion, make up, and getting breast implants (if she needs them) will jack it up even more. I went into great detail about this a few years ago when I was talking about my two female alter egos, Blackdragonette and BeeDee.
The problem is that, while men have no problem understanding they need to improve their confidence and/or income to be more attractive, women get upset and offended when you suggest they need to improve their appearance to do the same. “I shouldn’t have to change my hair just for you men!!! Fuck you!”
Oh well. I tried to help.
Based on the above factors, what is the actual peak SMV for men and women?
I don’t think anyone knows the answer to this question with full accuracy. Rollo Tomassi believes that female SMV is highest between 18-25 and peaks at around age 23, declining forever every year after 23. He believes men’s SMV is highest between 33-43, peaking at 36 or 38 and declining forevermore after his late 30s.
One could nitpick all that to death, but I’m not a nitpicker, so I generally agree with it. Two points:
1. I have always thought, even before there was a manosphere, that men’s physical appearance peaks at age 37. I even thought this when I was in my 20s. I couldn’t wait to get older so I could look better and people in the business world would respect my physique. Today at age 44, I still hold that magical (to me) age of 37 in my mind as the goal age to look like as I get older. I’ve heard other men and women also mention that they think men tend to peak in appearance in their late 30s.
So it’s interesting that many of us have come to this late 30s figure as some kind of peak for men. However! We’re only talking about appearance, and appearance is not SMV.
2. Why is a woman’s peak SMV 23 and not 18? Really think about that for a minute.
Your default answer is probably, “Because 18 is too young.”
But why is it too young?
Two words: Societal Programming.
Let’s say you took the vast majority of men in the Western world, of all ages (including men over 40 and 50), isolated them in a private room far away from everyone they knew (particularly their moms, sisters, girlfriends, wives and female friends), promised them absolute, 100% anonymity and confidentiality, got them a little woozy on either alcohol or sodium pentothal (truth serum), hooked them up to lie detector, and then asked them, “Ok, be honest. What makes you hornier? A hot 18 year-old or a hot 23 year-old?”
I could be wrong on this, but I’m convinced that if you remove all the societal factors, most of those men will answer the 18 year-old. I agree that there are many men over 30 who have no sexual interest in 18 year-old women, but these are the minority. The only reason you don’t see most Western men publicly stating preferences for 18 year-old women is they fear the horrific negative reaction they’d receive from others in society, particularly women over 33. So they temper their biology and answer “women in their 20s” instead of “18 year-olds.”
(Note for you women about to call me a disgusting pig: I no longer date women under the age of 23 any more, and haven't for quite a while.)
Therefore, Societal Programming places a strong influence over the SMV of men and women. I suspect the true peak SMV of females is 18 or 19, but the societal peak SMV is around 23. (You may argue that societal peak SMV is actual peak SMV, and you might be right.)
What We’re All Forgetting
You may have noticed that I have never discussed SMV on this blog before, while it is a very strongly discussed topic on most other blogs like this.
This was intentional. Over-focusing on things like SMV is, in my opinion, a self-defeating exercise. If you read that male SMV peaks at age 38, if you’re 22 or 47, it simply gives you one more excuse to throw your arms in the air and declare that you’re Screwed™ and Can’t Get Laid™.
Above I described how I, as an individual, have a higher SMV now at age 44 than I did at the average peak SMV of 36-38. This is because your desirability factors as a man, your appearance, income, confidence, and social status, are all within your control. Even better, you don’t need all four. If you have three of them very strong, you’re probably good to go. In my case, my “social status” is pretty much zero (other than a few web sites I own, most of which don’t even have my name on them). However, my income is high, my confidence is sky-high, and my appearance is decent (even arguably above average for the typical American man my age), so I do just fine.
More importantly, your SMV doesn’t account for one very important factor: game skill.
As I discussed here, I know numerous men, both in real life and online, who get laid with hot chicks like rock stars, yet they have NO money, little or NO income (often unemployed), NO muscles and below-average looks.
How do they do it then? They have strong game. They learn the skills, get their asses out there, put in the numbers, deal with the rejection, and get laid. Their SMV is pretty much zero, but they get laid anyway.
That’s the problem with focusing on SMV. It directs your focus from the right place (your own, individual efforts) to the wrong place (macro-societal averages and preferences).
By the way, this applies to women too. At the Girls With Game site, there are women over there who I know for a fact regularly out-game other women who are better-looking and/or younger (in other words, higher SMV) and snag the higher quality men. Once again, SMV has nothing to do with it. Game does.
Game > SMV.
It’s important to remember this, since this goes against much of the narrative I see online today. Over the years, I’ve seen things move in this direction:
Early PUA (early to mid 2000s): “Looks don’t matter at all! You can lay any girl you want!”
Mid-PUA (late 2000s): “Looks matter and are a strong factor, but you can overcome a lot of that with strong game.”
Manosphere (today): “Looks and money are ALL THAT MATTER! If you’re not ripped or rich, you’re screwed!!!”
As is so often the case, we’ve moved from one stupid extreme to the other. We should have stopped halfway. I’ve been very clear that looks do matter, but I’ve also been clear they’re not the deciding factor that so many men today think they are (odd cities excluded). Game (including confidence and outcome independence) is hugely important. Never let all this focus on esoteric concepts like SMV dissuade you from the truth: unless you’re an odd exception to the rule, you have control over at least 95% of the variables involved in your personal SMV. Society’s SMV doesn’t matter much.
Want over 35 hours of how-to podcasts on how to improve your woman life and financial life? Want to be able to coach with me twice a month? Want access to hours of technique-based video and audio? The SMIC Program is a monthly podcast and coaching program where you get access to massive amounts of exclusive, members-only Alpha 2.0 content as soon as you sign up, and you can cancel whenever you want. Click here for the details.
Get Free Email Updates!
Join us for FREE to get instant email updates!
Blackdragon 2017-02-01 11:10:54
Ugh, why would you fuck Taylor who has a Skeletor body but not Ariana who at least has a proportional body?I probably wouldn't fuck Taylor. I don't find her attractive and I said she was barely fuckable. I like her face a little better than Ariana's though.
Also shirt on while having sex? What kind of weird hangup is that?It's not a hangup. I prefer my women naked during sex. But if she has a flat chest, that's a huge turn-off for me and I won't enjoy myself as much. I like boobs.
Why bother even fucking her if she can’t even have the dignity of being fully naked?1. She can refuse to fuck me if she likes. 2. Most women I've done this with (which is not that many) don't care at all. Some of them even prefer it. I'm Alpha 2.0; I never tell a woman what to do.
lolsack 2017-02-01 01:40:13
Not to me. I find Miley Cyrus and Ariana Grande’s bodies disgusting and wouldn’t touch them. At all. Mila Kunis and Taylor Swift I consider barely fuckable, and even then they’d have to keep their shirts on while having sex with me. I’d much rather have sex with one of my FBs or MLTRs.Ugh, why would you fuck Taylor who has a Skeletor body but not Ariana who at least has a proportional body? Ariana's tits and ass are both slightly bigger than Taylor's and she's much shorter (Taylor's height exaggerates the flatness). Also shirt on while having sex? What kind of weird hangup is that? Why bother even fucking her if she can't even have the dignity of being fully naked? I'm not trying to give chicks more stupid illogical insecurities they can carry on to the next poor bastard.
lolsack 2017-02-01 01:26:04
The change in beauty standards may have something to do with the population becoming increasingly r-selected. One of the traits of r-selected species is reproduction at a very young age.This is utter bullshit, every indicator across developed societies (and developing countries too) points towards the opposite. Higher marriage ages, higher childbirth ages, population decline (or reduction in growth rates), longer life expectancy. You must be one of those idiots that think saying esoteric evolutionary science jargon like "r-selected" makes you look smart. And even if that "r-selected" nonsense wasn't total bullshit, you still managed to fail to establish any sort of link between "reproduction at a young age" and the beauty standards described. Does age have anything to do with having a big ass? Not really. So despite how smart you think you look, in reality you are completely incoherent.
M_ich 2016-08-10 05:49:28
It’s not rationality, it’s biology.Rationality unchained from vanity and vainglory-dictated delusion accepts biology (in other words: the masses' rationality, and their indoctrinators', will never accept biology. The "triumph" of sociobiology wished by some would disprove sociobiology itself. If they think it can "triumph", they don't understand it).
Blackdragon 2016-06-04 12:18:41
I wonder why it’s so hard for you to admit that not everybody experiences things in the same way as you aka subjectivity.I have admitted exactly that hundreds of times, to the point of saying monogamy can work for some people. Also remember that I'm not just talking about me. I'm talking about the literally thousands of people in nonmono relationships I've communicated with over the years. It's interesting when people forget that I've been talking about this stuff for almost a decade and have been read by literally millions of people. I'm not just one single guy reporting his own, individual experiences. You're all over the place. First you said that few women would accept an open relationship, and I pointed out this is incorrect. Then you pivoted and said women's friends will all start ostracizing her if she's in an open relationship. I pointed out this is incorrect too (and yes, there are always rare exceptions), particularity because women aren't going to go around bragging about this to everyone. My guess is now you're going to pivot to something else yet again. Let's agree to disagree.
Duke 2016-06-04 11:21:47
KJ. I have literally never seen anything like this happen with women in cohabiting OLTRs or OLTR marriages. .I wonder why it's so hard for you to admit that not everybody experiences things in the same way as you aka subjectivity. "I don't agree with what you said and other people have never mentioned this so it must be KJ." Most people actually have social circles that involve other people besides family, the people they're dating or the people they interact with in their job. Not knocking it as I am pretty much the same way. My point is this reason of not wanting to be judged is why all the people I've known that have an open relationship keep their sex lives a secret as you yourself have expressed this fact endlessly thoughout your blog. I think there was this poster on this blog who even complained about this very issue. I believe her name was Bulma or something. She said that she couldn't fit in because her friends were all in mono relationships and she wasn't, and this made it difficult for her to fit in. I'm guessing she like other women just pretended in order to not draw attention to "being weird" aka non-conformist.
Don’t fear things you’ve only seen happen in your imaginationAnd I don't fear that, just acknowledging what some women may be going through. Most men will put up with a lot of shit from their girlfriends/wives and won't bitch about it because men aren't really supposed to complain; and besides being whipped is so normalized that nobody would take him seriously. Most women on the other hand are going to be more vocal with other people about something that they aren't happy with and begrudgingly accept which may include being an FB or MLTR in some guy's rotation. And that is what I'm guessing leads them to LSNFTE or else they would just continue in those relationships indefinitely.
joelsuf 2016-06-01 17:24:45
Don’t fear things you’ve only seen happen in your imagination.lol try telling the Manosphere that.
Stonecutter 2016-06-01 13:39:58
2. Olivia Munn was describing Alpha Male 1.0s in that clip, to a T.You're absolutely right. I should have clarified that Alpha Male 1.0s is what she has gone through but what she really wants is an Alpha Male 2.0 who won't be so needy trying to control every aspect of her life.
Blackdragon 2016-05-31 17:12:40
Then I came across this clip between Craig Ferguson and Olivia Munn1. Craig Ferguson is one of the greatest Alpha Males on television in the last several years. 2. Olivia Munn was describing Alpha Male 1.0s in that clip, to a T.
I agree there are quite a few women who would “accept” it. But my concern is that she do it more begrudgingly than you would care to admitNow you're changing your argument. I didn't say they wouldn't do it begrudgingly. (Some will and some won't.) I said they would accept it, correcting you, who said they wouldn't.
they will come to behave differently around her and may even begin to exclude her from the group because of her non-conformity, which is a huge thing for women.KJ. I have literally never seen anything like this happen with women in cohabiting OLTRs or OLTR marriages. Don't fear things you've only seen happen in your imagination.
Duke 2016-05-31 12:01:02
Incorrect! For many years I was averaging two marriage proposals a year, and the vast majority were okay with all three. (They didn’t love it, but they accepted it.)I agree there are quite a few women who would "accept" it. But my concern is that she do it more begrudgingly than you would care to admit. I've been around women a lot, and they love to talk about their romantic relationships with one another. It has got to be brutal to hear about her friends and their beta male husbands who promise all three things, while she is seemingly being "deprived" of these things. She can't really share her experiences with you because they (1) won't be able to relate, and will probably say some shit like she is not being respected by you and (2) If she expresses indifference to their romantic relationship models because of (1), they will come to behave differently around her and may even begin to exclude her from the group because of her non-conformity, which is a huge thing for women. This may not be a big deal to you, but I wouldn't feel comfortable being around a woman that had to give up this part of her life just for me. She would end up being like a the female version of a beta male. So in order for this to work, she would probably need some type of female mission to keep you and her female friends from being her whole life.
Stonecutter 2016-05-31 11:31:19
Hello everyone, recently discovered and been soaking up as much of the Alpha 2.0 model as possible and it's been complete eye opener. Anyways, I've been watching various talk show clips to actually pay attention to the ways people interact and behave to learn what I can. Then I came across this clip between Craig Ferguson and Olivia Munn and right around the 5 minute mark, Olivia hits the nail on the head on the problem with most modern men that BlackDragon has opened my eyes to. All the traits she is describing as desirable to her is completely congruent with Alpha 2.0. Just had to share that eureka moment with you guys . https://youtu.be/Jurs847Zg2c?t=4m57s
Blackdragon 2016-05-29 23:04:08
Few women would accept what I call the big three (unless one’s game is really tight): No legal marriage, no monogamy, and separate financesIncorrect! For many years I was averaging two marriage proposals a year, and the vast majority were okay with all three. (They didn't love it, but they accepted it.)
Assuming they don't break up, he will be eighty-four by the time she turns sixty.Trump will dump her ass long before this and snag a younger wife. Once you've been divorced three times, more divorces aren't a big deal at all, particularity if you're an ultra-wealthy Alpha 1.0 serial monogamist with a penchant for prenuptial agreements. In other words, Trump will never have a wife as old as 60.
Duke 2016-05-28 14:19:58
Correct, provided you are following all the usual OLTR marriage rules (not kissing her ass, no shared finances of any kind, no legal marriage, open relationship where you can get some on the side, etc). A wife refusing to have sex with you is catastrophic under the standard legal, monogamous marriage. But under an OLTR marriage it’s a workable (though less than ideal) system, particularly for much older folks.Hell yea that shit will be enforced. Few women would accept what I call the big three (unless one's game is really tight): No legal marriage, no monogamy, and separate finances; and a fourth which I've been thinking about, living together part-time for only three days or something. But that's the point. If they it accept it good, if not that's okay too. They will be the ones presumably pushing for cohabitation, so they are the ones that will have to follow my rules. Most probably think they will eventually grind me down and change me on this, but a strong, unshakable frame shall be maintained.
Again, I don’t think you should set a platonic OLTR as a goal, but view it as a worse case but acceptable scenario if it happens.Not setting it as my goal, but if I shack up with a woman in my fifties (hopefully she will be in her forties or younger), my thinking is that by the time we make it to ten years together it will dwindle down to a nearly or a completely sexless relationship. We will probably be comfortable enough together to not break up and just decide to ride it out together until one of us dies. Lol. We can still potentially be together for fifty years if we make it past a hundred.
Therefore, in terms of long-term pair-bonding for two old people (60+), yeah, you’re probably looking at having an over 60 OLTR wife who doesn’t have sex any more while you’re banging younger hotties on the side. That, or do the Tom Cruise / Donald Trump serial marriage thing and keep getting divorced and remarried as soon as your wife gets too old for you, over and over again for the rest of your life. But that sucks; OLTR marriage, platonic or not, is much less work and hassle than the serial marriage thing.I can't imagine having a 60+ wife, but it's probably inevitable unless you're very rich or famous like Trump. Trump is turning seventy next month and his wife is forty-six. Assuming they don't break up, he will be eighty-four by the time she turns sixty. Like you said I wouldn't put it past trump to marry another young hottie if he divorces this one though.
Don_Quibollox 2016-05-27 19:14:08
Xplat has a blog? I wonder if this is the same one that used to be on RVF.Yes, same guy. He was banned from RVF because he wouldn't tamely subscribe to the Roosh credo. He has had a blog for years. High quality writing from an very original thinker. I gave a link above.
Blackdragon 2016-05-27 14:33:02
BD, although you haven’t explicitly expressed it (I think you just mentioned you wouldn’t mind if your OLTR gained enough weight to be unattractive for sex) it seems that you are more than willing to entertain the idea of a platonic OLTR with FB on the side as a viable option.It's a viable, though worst-case-scenario option. It's not ideal but it's acceptable.
I think this makes sense once a man becomes older and can appreciate a female companion platonically instead of having an resentful attitude towards her like she is ripping him off somehow because she isn’t having sex with him any more.Correct, provided you are following all the usual OLTR marriage rules (not kissing her ass, no shared finances of any kind, no legal marriage, open relationship where you can get some on the side, etc). A wife refusing to have sex with you is catastrophic under the standard legal, monogamous marriage. But under an OLTR marriage it's a workable (though less than ideal) system, particularly for much older folks.
I think this non-sexual pair bonding might be something I might consider in ten or fifteen years when I’m in my late forties/early fifties.Again, I don't think you should set a platonic OLTR as a goal, but view it as a worse case but acceptable scenario if it happens. But to your point, yes. Though there are exceptions to this, women generally stop having sex at around age 60. The anecdotal evidence of this, both my own and other men who have emailed me about this, is overwhelming. Therefore, in terms of long-term pair-bonding for two old people (60+), yeah, you're probably looking at having an over 60 OLTR wife who doesn't have sex any more while you're banging younger hotties on the side. That, or do the Tom Cruise / Donald Trump serial marriage thing and keep getting divorced and remarried as soon as your wife gets too old for you, over and over again for the rest of your life. But that sucks; OLTR marriage, platonic or not, is much less work and hassle than the serial marriage thing.
Duke 2016-05-27 14:07:27
BD, although you haven't explicitly expressed it (I think you just mentioned you wouldn't mind if your OLTR gained enough weight to be unattractive for sex) it seems that you are more than willing to entertain the idea of a platonic OLTR with FB on the side as a viable option. I think this makes sense once a man becomes older and can appreciate a female companion platonically instead of having an resentful attitude towards her like she is ripping him off somehow because she isn't having sex with him any more. I think this non-sexual pair bonding might be something I might consider in ten or fifteen years when I'm in my late forties/early fifties.
XsplatXplat has a blog? I wonder if this is the same one that used to be on RVF. Lol at BD being infallible. He can be a bit cocky and arrogant, but I think he has more than earned that right.
Blackdragon 2016-05-27 11:37:48
Women view men as a provider when they have a high income and have an overall behavioral set of a beta. When a man has the characteristics of an alpha 2.0 or even a 1.0, what ‘role’ are they classified as in their minds?Player / Lover.
So what exactly causes the attraction meter to tick when it comes to the behaviors of alpha 1.0’s and 2.0’s?Because provider behaviors are unattractive to women, and Alpha / Lover behaviors and traits are highly attractive to them even if they simultaneously piss women off. It goes call the way back to when we were cavemen; it's biological and not (necessarily) something within women's control.
Don_Quibollox 2016-05-26 19:35:36
BD, great to see that you recognise that you are fallible (as is every human being). You have gone up again in my estimation. High T Alphas are bound to lock horns occasionally - don't take it personally. I have complimented this blog more than once and will continue to read with great interest. I notice that you haven't defined your particular usage of 'pair bonding' in the glossary.
Edward 2016-05-26 18:53:05
Women view men as a provider when they have a high income and have an overall behavioral set of a beta. When a man has the characteristics of an alpha 2.0 or even a 1.0, what 'role' are they classified as in their minds? I wouldn't say that they would come off as a provider given the 2.0's cheapness and abundance mentality, as they can easily abandon a girl if she is too problematic (it doesn't seem to make sense when it comes to successfully reproducing life and ensuring its safety). So what exactly causes the attraction meter to tick when it comes to the behaviors of alpha 1.0's and 2.0's?
Blackdragon 2016-05-25 23:44:46
Aaaaaand here come the personal attacks, which means you have no more points to make. If you believe that I think I'm infallible, please unsubscribe from this blog and don't read any more articles here. I certainly wouldn't read a blog if I thought such of a blogger. And again, feel free to continue to think that having emotional sex with multiple people is pair bonding (ha!). The person you're quoting is using the term "pair bonding" quite differently than is normally understood. Not that you care at this point. Nice talking to you.
Don_Quibollox 2016-05-25 19:20:48
If you seriously want to think that MLTRs are pair bonding, you’re welcome to that belief. (Hilarious.)Xsplat would disagree with you, I think. He is an expert at conducting MLTRs, plus a rigorous, deep and courageous thinker (and one hell of a writer). He recently wrote in a very revelatory post: "And yet I stubbornly insist on not merely casual sex with many girls, but on pair bonding with many girls at the same time. I insist on it, and I do it. That’s how I actually live my life." And: "I’m sceptical of claims that it’s possible to be emotionally and sexually intimate frequently without forming classic pair bond attachments." One advantage that Xsplat has over you is that he's not selling anything from his blog, therefore he can occasionally admit to being fallible rather than some kind of all-knowing guru whose view of relationships is always 100% correct in all respects. (To avoid any confusion, note that I changed my nickname from Scandy)
Blackdragon 2016-05-25 10:36:29
Above you clearly implied that you would still be kicking much younger guys’ asses at my age.Incorrect. I implied that when I'm older I won't be complaining about one particular girl who fucks or temporarily nexts me for a younger man. My sex life and relationship life will be just as awesome at age 60 as it is now.
I think MLTRs do involve pair bonding.They do not. There are no commitments made to an MLTR and you are allowed to get as emotional and romantic with as many other people as you like. This is not pair bonding.
You might want to refer (and defer) to Xsplat on that.My friend, you're talking about terms I myself helped define a very long time ago. I think I know the correct definitions of these terms. If you seriously want to think that MLTRs are pair bonding, you're welcome to that belief. (Hilarious.) Keep it up though. You're doing great.
An OLTR may well be the best arrangement for you to have when you get old, but don’t kid yourself that you won’t be compromising a major area of your life by sharing living space with another human being.In terms of some compromises and some drama increases when you actually co-habituate with a woman, yes, and have said exactly that about 500 times on this very blog. From these repeated comments you are very clearly unfamiliar with my content. You should take some time and read through the archive here, so that you don't keep attempting to point out things or challenge me on things I've already discussed at great length.
Many older people prefer to live alone because they are so set in their ways that sharing just becomes intolerable on a long term basis.I agree. I don't need to actually live with an OLTR (although I may; not sure).
Maybe when you’re my age BD, you might like to have my advice on how to get anywhere near the above figures.I'll just keep taking my shots, thanks. Far less time consuming. I work 7 days a week and my time as at a premium.
Scandy 2016-05-25 02:15:58
BD, you’re not in your late fifties like me. Wait until you get there and then we’ll see if you feel so bullish.Years ago on here, guys in their 40s would say, “BD, you’re not in your 40s like me. Wait until you get to be my age and then let’s see if you feel so bullish.” Well, today I’m in my mid-40s and I actually do better than when I was in my 30s, including with younger women.
Blackdragon 2016-05-25 00:26:57
At the start of it you imply that you’re still going to be whupping young guys’ metaphorical asses at sixty;I never said or implied anything like that. I said the exact opposite, that at age 60 I'll probably just be paying for the younger pussy in some form.
why would you go for an OLTR rather than MLTRs?I love MLTRs. However in a man's older years OLTR usually the best way to go in my opinion, since OLTR is pair bonding and MLTRs are not. Though not all men are the same. I've discussed that topic at great length for many years here.
Sounds a bit like oneitis to meAn OLTR is not oneitis unless you're doing it incorrectly. Read the definition of oneitis here. I will not be compromising any major area for any woman, now or in the future, OLTR or not. Read this for more information.
Excessive body fat stores mean that testosterone aromatises to estrogen more easily. You might want to check that.I check it via blood tests every three months, and both my testosterone and estrogen are at at optimal levels, the equivalent of an 18 year-old man. Read this for more information. Anything else?
I’m actually trying to help you, and anyone else who is approaching middle age.You're actually getting defensive and insulting me, or at least trying to. If you have any more veiled insults that make no sense in an effort to defend your oneitis, please keep them coming. I can do this all day.
Scandy 2016-05-24 23:48:44
BD, for the first time, I'm disappointed in you. Specifically your lack of foresight and unwillingness to learn from those that have preceded you. As one gets old, one has to learn to let go. Parents and friends die, the face and body sag (more), the ageing process seems to accelerate, and everything just doesn't seem to work as well as it used to. There's still a huge amount of life to enjoy, but expectations have to be adjusted. That's just a rational approach to optimising happiness. I understand your somewhat testy arrogance, possibly spurred by a reluctance to accept that you will have to let go of some of the things that make you attractive to women now. "Rage, rage against the dying of the light"? I do understand. It was hard for me, too, but I've come to accept it, whilst doing what I can to ameliorate the most significant ravages of time. And your post is contradictory. At the start of it you imply that you're still going to be whupping young guys' metaphorical asses at sixty; then at the end you say you'll probably go down the sugar daddy route and splash some cash for hot, young pussy. Nothing wrong with the latter - I'm considering it myself. But hot, 40 year old guys simply don't have to do that. Aside: why would you go for an OLTR rather than MLTRs? Sounds a bit like oneitis to me. Excessive body fat stores mean that testosterone aromatises to estrogen more easily. You might want to check that. Someone once said old age is not for wimps. Well, middle age is when push comes to shove and you start to feel unequal to the struggle sometimes. What was once easy begins to become a little taxing. The less weight you carry, the easier it will be. And not just body weight, I mean expectations and ego as well. Don't shoot the messenger. I'm actually trying to help you, and anyone else who is approaching middle age.
Blackdragon 2016-05-24 22:23:31
BD, you’re not in your late fifties like me. Wait until you get there and then we’ll see if you feel so bullish.Years ago on here, guys in their 40s would say, "BD, you're not in your 40s like me. Wait until you get to be my age and then let's see if you feel so bullish." Well, today I'm in my mid-40s and I actually do better than when I was in my 30s, including with younger women.
In most girls eyes, there are huge differences between a handsome, fit guy in his early forties (e.g. my ‘rival’) and a less handsome, but still fit, guy in his late fifties. Huge. The sexual energies are different, the relationship potentials are different, to name just two.And this has absolutely nothing to do with your personal success with younger women. I'll say it again. I'm an overweight guy in his mid-40s, and I still out game fit, ripped guys 15 years my junior all the time.
this guy apparently has great game, possibly better than mine. In the long run I will probably prevail, if I want to, because I’m very experienced at long term relationships and I have a head start (plus I’m reading this blog).Then what the hell are you complaining about? If you're this upset about it, drop your oneitis and move on for christsssakes.
I look forward to reading your posts in fifteen years’ time.I'll be 60 years old, and I'll be making so much money at that time I'll likely just be throwing a little cash at hot young sugar babies whenever I want to get laid outside of my the OLTR I'm sure to have by then (who will likely be in her late 40s / early 50s by then, which is also fine). I doubt very much I'll want to send any time "gaming" at that point, though I could be wrong.
Scandy 2016-05-24 20:03:53
And that doesn’t matter. I have been out-gaming younger, better looking, ripped guys for many years now.BD, you're not in your late fifties like me. Wait until you get there and then we'll see if you feel so bullish. In most girls eyes, there are huge differences between a handsome, fit guy in his early forties (e.g. my 'rival') and a less handsome, but still fit, guy in his late fifties. Huge. The sexual energies are different, the relationship potentials are different, to name just two. Game does not trump all - that's a PUA myth, isn't it? Game can compensate, and I have some otherwise I wouldn't be pulling twenty-somethings now and then. But this guy apparently has great game, possibly better than mine. In the long run I will probably prevail, if I want to, because I'm very experienced at long term relationships and I have a head start (plus I'm reading this blog). Honestly, I'm not making excuses for myself, just telling it how it is for older guys in the sexual marketplace. Age brings humility. I look forward to reading your posts in fifteen years' time.
Blackdragon 2016-05-24 11:14:47
No matter how much I work out (I do) or increase my wealth, I’m going to struggle to approach the SMV of a handsome, cool, much younger, solvent dude.And that doesn't matter. I have been out-gaming younger, better looking, ripped guys for many years now.
Scandy 2016-05-23 20:01:04
Truc and BD, very useful feedback, thanks guys. I admit I do have a bit of oneitis, despite the fact that I do regularly fuck other girls (some in their twenties, but mostly thirties - I'm late 50's) and am always looking for more. Unfortunately I started the relationship with the wrong frame (that was before I discovered this excellent blog). Just to address BD's point 1: I have pretty much maximised my SMV, but I'm old. No matter how much I work out (I do) or increase my wealth, I'm going to struggle to approach the SMV of a handsome, cool, much younger, solvent dude. Plus, by all accounts (I never met him) he seems to have natural game and total outcome independence. But you're both right, my own frame and game are the answer. I need to get on with my whole life process and stop fixating on any particular outcome.
Blackdragon 2016-05-23 10:05:44
if a guy has already maximised his SMV, but because of age or other issues has appreciably lower SMV than a new guy (who is also non-monogamous) who is trying to get with his main, long term girl, should he even bother trying to compete?1. If there's another guy with appreciably higher SMV than you within your circle, then you probably haven't maximized your SMV. 2. Remember that game overcomes SMV gaps. Often easily. 3. Your question is a debilitating one and shows the complete wrong attitude. You shouldn't care at all if she likes some other guy (unless she's your OLTR, which clearly she is not). FBs and MLTRs can go do whatever they want. 4. You can do whatever you like, but I don't chase women and I don't fight for women. I'm the prize, and I have better things to do. If she wants to go be with him, let her. Fuck other women, get some new women, enjoy yourself, and work on your Mission. When her NRE ends with New Guy, and it will, welcome her back with open arms.
See BD, I understand what you are trying to do with this article, but that’s why just even talking about SMV can put guys in the wrong headspace.I agree and have said that several times here, but Scandy's comment is more about his own oneitis than it is about SMV. In other words, he would have the same question even if we weren't talking about SMV here.
Truc 2016-05-23 05:41:29
General question about MLTRs: if a guy has already maximised his SMV, but because of age or other issues has appreciably lower SMV than a new guy (who is also non-monogamous) who is trying to get with his main, long term girl, should he even bother trying to compete? Or just step back gracefully and let them get on with enjoying the NRE, and wait for the novelty to wear off? And, does it make a difference if the new guy’s SMV is also appreciably higher than the girl’s?See BD, I understand what you are trying to do with this article, but that's why just even talking about SMV can put guys in the wrong headspace. Life is not a RPG, girls don't chose guys based on a series of characteristics scores! Like in your situation Scandy, even if you are a fat balding dude working at Mc Donalds, the simple fact that you are willing to let her go and not contact her when she is with the other guy WILL MAKE YOU HIGH VALUE IN HER EYES. SMV has nothing to do with it... She will be like "oh, he is not chasing me, wtf?! All guys try to get me back when I leave them... So logically he must have other options at least as good as me" Preselection (indirect) + outcome independence Of course it's important to maintain your looks a bit, make some decent money etc, but it is all very peripheral when it comes to the core concepts of what attracts women.
Scandy 2016-05-22 20:08:48
General question about MLTRs: if a guy has already maximised his SMV, but because of age or other issues has appreciably lower SMV than a new guy (who is also non-monogamous) who is trying to get with his main, long term girl, should he even bother trying to compete? Or just step back gracefully and let them get on with enjoying the NRE, and wait for the novelty to wear off? And, does it make a difference if the new guy's SMV is also appreciably higher than the girl's?
Blackdragon 2016-05-18 12:02:55
Tell a guy who wants to grow muscles how to eat and lift and he'll more or less accept it without question, even if he does not follow through. Tell a woman she has to squat heavy to loose weight and tighten her ass and she'll probably skip it and go to a zumba class just because lifting "is boring and will give me a big biceps" and dancing is "more fun" and "burns a lot of calories"Haha! Yes! (That zumba looks like such bullshit.)
Lovergirl 2016-05-18 07:27:57
It’s fucking night and day. One wants to meet half-way, the other sounds… well, like, “it’s all about me, me, me, me, me.”It's not about being selfish, it's about the way attraction works for men vs women. I know I'm not the only one who generally doesn't notice men or think about them sexually until they make some kind of display of interest in me. I can think oh, this guy is nice looking, without having any sexual desire for him.
Gluteus_Maximus 2016-05-17 21:26:41
Women try to get men’s attention, so that they can accept or reject them IF they try to fuck them. They don’t (generally) go after men with the thought, “I want him to fuck me”. At least I don’t.Sex WILL follow. You do not need to be conscious about it in the present moment to know that it WILL happen. It's like watching a movie and knowing there will be an ending. You guys KNOW EXACTLY what you guys are doing. And as you, Lovergirl said to Maldek:
You’re joking right? Using Arnold as an example?He's almost 70 years old, and that happened not too long ago. So THAT is irrelevant.
I’ve seen very ugly, very fat women, have sex with many, many men and some of them very high quality men at that.Hugh Jackman. But Lmao @ this difference.
I think it’s much more of a mutual dance
Women try to get men’s attention, so that they can accept or reject them IF they try to fuck them. They don’t (generally) go after men with the thought, “I want him to fuck me”.It's fucking night and day. One wants to meet half-way, the other sounds... well, like, "it's all about me, me, me, me, me." LMAO there's nothing wrong with it, but when you see these two perspectives right next to each other, it's SO FUNNY. Even when I say “A guy like me actually HAS to come off as a dick," it's still coming from a place where I don't want to waste a woman's time. There are also women who most guys would say are "bitches" who come from this place and are the ones I speak of when I say I get along well with.
Like for instance, I’ve done things like go to a concert, scope out who I thought was the most attractive man there, and then made efforts to get his attention and get him to hit on me as opposed to someone else there. Also, even though we aren’t usually the one doing the direct initiating, we do prompt it by “presenting” ourselves…getting yourself in his line of vision and giving him The Look. Which is then his prompt to hit on you. Or getting yourself in a situation where he has anot excuse to talk to yoy. In a sense, that’s initiating. I’ve definitely been in plenty of situations where I might not have made the first move but I definitely saw the guy before he saw me, picked him out as a target, and then created the circumstances for him to make his move.I first picked up on this very phenomenon while tripping out on psychedelics and raving. People make such a big deal about day/night game when this is all men have to do (not the raving or taking drugs part, HAH). As in, genuinely have a good time and pay attention to your surroundings. It's just being observant. Even back in college, I would purposefully eat alone as much as I could in the cafeterias so girls feel they have a better chance of me approaching them since I wouldn't be distracted by my friends, so they would hover in closer proximity, choose seats very, very close to me, making it easier for me, because I made it easier for them. Women, even those living off-campus would come to my side of campus, to do this, to find out who the fuck this guy is, because I'm awesome (you still need to be awesome). You do this enough, and you can sense this shit and piece things together like a motherfucker. I stopped needing "The Look" a long time ago. I literally often feel like I'm psychic. I don't think many people realize how often attractive women go out alone during the day. But it still shouldn't take that much experience to FEEL the difference between:
I think it’s much more of a mutual dance(because it is) and
Women try to get men’s attention, so that they can accept or reject them IF they try to fuck them. They don’t (generally) go after men with the thought, “I want him to fuck me”.
maldek 2016-05-17 19:03:12
@Lovergirl: "He wasn’t at all “hard to get” lol." You have a point. Many men (bodybuilders on roids count 3x) will fuck anything. But yet, women often go a loooong way to make themselves attractive to get or keep the attention of their target male. You are a very competitive kind you girls. @Kate "So you may never have had a situation where you slept with a woman who had no further interest in you" -> only if i was still a vergin, the truth is worse 😛 Often its not hard to notice if a girl has no further interest in you WHILE you sleep with her. Sometimes this leads to good sex but most of the time it does not. If the sex was less than great, chances are she will have no further interest in you, unless she needs you as a provider or sugar daddy. What makes her a whore. In the bigger half of cases however I do indeed see "her romantic interest being there" after 2-3 times of great sex. BDs concept seems spot on to me. Note: Using a condom does decrease the effect considerably. "men never show their soft side to other guys" -> Thats certainly true. They show their mask all day. And then they get the great idea to unveil their inner weakness to the woman they want to fuck. I wonder how this did work out. True strength needs a strong core; if there is only a hard shell with a soft inner self, the person has not yet fully grown up.
Lovergirl 2016-05-17 17:43:02
@ lovergirl. Women make an effort sometimes as far as trying to get a guy in competition with other women. Like for instance, I’ve done things like go to a concert, scope out who I thought was the most attractive man there, and then made efforts to get his attention and get him to hit on me as opposed to someone else there. Also, even though we aren’t usually the one doing the direct initiating, we do prompt it by “presenting” ourselves…getting yourself in his line of vision and giving him The Look. Which is then his prompt to hit on you. Or getting yourself in a situation where he has anot excuse to talk to yoy. In a sense, that’s initiating. I’ve definitely been in plenty of situations where I might not have made the first move but I definitely saw the guy before he saw me, picked him out as a target, and then created the circumstances for him to make his move. I think it’s much more of a mutual dance then just a one-way women choose and men compete dynamic like you have in some species. Ive also know some shy but good looking younger guys who basically never hit on girls, they just waited for girls to hit on them.Women try to get men's attention, so that they can accept or reject them IF they try to fuck them. They don't (generally) go after men with the thought, "I want him to fuck me". At least I don't. Maybe you do. In any case, my POINT, which I feel we are diverting from, is that women don't have to be anything spectacular to get sex from even very attractive, very smart, very wealthy men. I've seen very ugly, very fat women, have sex with many, many men and some of them very high quality men at that. SMV is really not that important for women when it comes to sex because most men are either "yes" or "no" when it comes to fucking a woman and their default answer tends to be "yes". Case in point- Arnold. Something about his housekeeper was "passable" to him. It didn't matter that she was not even half as attractive as many other women he could get. He still fucked her. I'm quite sure if I were alone in a room with him, he would be willing to fuck me, lol. My comparative SMV to some 23 year old is irrelevant. Hell, one of the guys I am currently fucking is not only super hot, with a great body, but he's extremely smart AND extremely wealthy, on top of that, he played college football for a big name school. He could get way more attractive women than me and he probably does....but he is still fucking me- a 39 year old, less than perfect mom. He wasn't at all "hard to get" lol. 😉
KryptoKate 2016-05-17 16:44:31
@ lovergirl. Women make an effort sometimes as far as trying to get a guy in competition with other women. Like for instance, I've done things like go to a concert, scope out who I thought was the most attractive man there, and then made efforts to get his attention and get him to hit on me as opposed to someone else there. Also, even though we aren't usually the one doing the direct initiating, we do prompt it by "presenting" ourselves...getting yourself in his line of vision and giving him The Look. Which is then his prompt to hit on you. Or getting yourself in a situation where he has anot excuse to talk to yoy. In a sense, that's initiating. I've definitely been in plenty of situations where I might not have made the first move but I definitely saw the guy before he saw me, picked him out as a target, and then created the circumstances for him to make his move. I think it's much more of a mutual dance then just a one-way women choose and men compete dynamic like you have in some species. Ive also know some shy but good looking younger guys who basically never hit on girls, they just waited for girls to hit on them. @ Maldek I wasn't saying guys have their feelings hurt if they're only valued for SMV as speculation but experience and direct observation. I'm certainly NOT saying guys won't still take "just sex". I'm saying that most men implicitly assume that if they get sex, they also automatically have the woman's interest for something beyond sex...they're relying on an assumption of her romantic interest being there for the taking. Even BD assumes this with his 2-lay "lock in" concept. However, if a man sleeps with a woman and she ends up NOT having any further interest in him and rejects his pursuit of a relationship beyond sex, then yes he WILL have his feelings hurt. I've seen it plenty of times. And that might strike you as weirdly "soft" men, but that's not surprising bc men never show their soft side to other guys, they show it only to women. So you may never have had a situation where you slept with a woman who had no further interest in you when you were interested in her, but if it did happen, I guarantee you wouldn't find it to be enjoyable. Also, I'm not saying every relationship I've ever had with a man didn't start based on sex, that is of course true. I'm just saying that I've never had a feeling that a guy liked me primarily for sex as opposed to everything together. Most (but not all) of my boyfriends could have gotten with hotter women than me, but they couldn't have gotten with anyone cooler than me. Lol, you can't prove me wrong! ;D @ Gluteus I think your view is totally rational and makes sense from the perspective of optimizing costs and benefits without wasting your time and energy. Not everyone is a satisficing optimizer though, some people strictly care about the status competition and having something .001 percent better than everyone else. Donald Trump being a prime example...I doubt he even cares about sex or enjoys it that much, he just cares about whatever makes him look most impressive to others (as he perceives it). Funny you picked Marisa Miller. There are only a handful of women who ever made me feel insecure by their existence...Rebecca Romijn (back in the 90s), Marissa Miller (in the early 2000s), and now the chick on the Direct TV commercials. Bitches. 🙂
Gil Galad 2016-05-17 14:53:17
Women don’t try to fuck menI'd only say that with a grain of salt. On average, yes, men are the initiators and women are more on the receiveing end, but 1° I'd really underline the word "average", because it varies a lot, and 2° this can become false given a different definition of what "trying" and "initiating" means. Women have their own way of being extremely aggressive sexually, sometimes. There are several girls I would've otherwise found easy to ignore who, upon noticing me, acted with me in a way that made it feel like a "duty" to hit on them, it's hard to describe, but they create situations where you find it very difficult to not ask them out, or sexualize the interaction, etc. There is one lately that I had to "skip" because I'm too busy; the number of obvious opportunities she gave me, jeez, I almost feel it's my fault she's not going to be getting the D. Also I don't think that men would "fuck anything". Men tend to have a "type", visually speaking, with whom they'll be much more flexible than others: they'll readily fuck a 5 who is their type and refrain from fucking an 8 who isn't. As for the particular case of Arnold, it's difficult to judge. The guy juiced; personally testosterone starts getting the better of me with just some zinc supplementation (I get super horny and need a big effort to avoid taking stupid decisions); who knows what dumb things a guy on steroids might do in response to the androgens and to his boners.
Lovergirl 2016-05-17 13:49:26
If you had the chance for a time warp to meet him in person when he was at his peak you would do a lot to get his dick inside of you. Be honest and show some respect.Uh, what? Lol Respect? I'm not disrespecting anyone, just saying that he would fuck anything, including someone super ugly, even to the point of getting her pregnant. Men, famous or not, are not discriminating when it comes to who they are willing to sleep with. As far as me, no I wouldn't go out of my way to "get his dick inside me", peak or not. Despite the fact that I never found Arnold particularly sexy, even at his peak, there isn't ANY man I would go out of my way to try to get to fuck me. Women don't work like that. That's the part men seem to have a hard time comprehending, because you have to try to fuck women. Women don't try to fuck men. They try to fuck us and we either accept or reject them. We don't ever have to "do a lot" to get a man to fuck us. He either wants to and TRIES to, or he doesn't. If he isn't trying, he isn't going to matter to us. Period.
maldek 2016-05-17 12:21:22
@girly Yep he did that. Small price to pay for all his success. All things considered he had an extremly impressive live. Should the Hillary troll win this election I wouldnt be surprised if we see Arnold as POTUS in the not so distant future. But thats a different story. If you had the chance for a time warp to meet him in person when he was at his peak you would do a lot to get his dick inside of you. Be honest and show some respect.
scray 2016-05-17 11:38:01
If the main bio cue is fertility, then a woman's peak SMV would be around 23 because that's when female fertility peaks. Idk, 23 year old women look sexier to me than 18 y/o women. I understand the whole 'she can have kids for longer' mindset, but that sounds too logical for a 'biological impulse.' The bio impulse would be on the level of 'if I fuck her she's very likely to have my kid.'
Lovergirl 2016-05-17 11:12:07
@Maldek- You're joking right? Using Arnold as an example? He got his butt ugly housekeeper PREGNANT. Enough said. Lol
maldek 2016-05-17 09:13:57
@Lovergirl "but I don’t think you have to be anything spectacular to capture a man like this or get his attention." My humble self may fit this description. As far as I am concerned you couldnt be further from the truth. And this gets worse as i get older (I am about the same age as BD). 20 years ago it would have been relativly easy "to get my attention" - as in have sex with me. My sex drive used to be pretty high and I would consider every 6+ worth a bang. A man from my own home town in austria may serve as a good example "Arnold Schwarzenegger" (who i used as an example to follow for the past 30 years and it served my well. Male readers may want to consider doing the same if they want a great life) had over 2000 women before he even became a movie star. It was not that hard to bang him in his youth. Nowadays it would take considerably more effort to get a bang with Arnold, dont you think? About the same is true for me. I do value quality a lot more than quantity now. Plus I do have enough women in my life to cover my needs 110%. For any new woman to get my attention I do need a good reason. Why would I spend time with her/bang her when its MAYBE good, when i could also bang this other girl where i KNOW it will be good? This is a pure luxury problem. I never was without female company even one week in the past 20+ years. There are no free boxes. To get a box a girl has to replace an existing girl. Vitriol understands it. Kate was pretty much spot on in her observation.
maldek 2016-05-17 08:55:59
Hi Kate. This got my attention "his feelings will be hurt just as much as a woman in that situation." This is how most women think. Men are different; and one word explains it perfectly well: prostituion. Most men are happy with sex-only, even if they have to pay for it. If the women are hot and it is free? Holy shit! Most younger men would call this heaven. "I’ve probably been valued more for my RMV than my SMV most of my life" I dont think so. If you are at least a 6 in looks (what i think you still are 😉 you can be sure it is not the case. For a man every relationship starts with sex; its the foundation everything else is built on.
Gluteus_Maximus 2016-05-17 08:38:43
I know a couple of guys like this (usually they’re business owners).This is because the type of challenges that are commensurate with venturing off on your own and making shit happen takes massive balls. Balls you won't know you have until you go do it. It's a caliber of balls that most people just do not have the awareness to even understand how much of a gap there is between those that do this and themselves that don't.
Gluteus_Maximus 2016-05-17 08:32:14
Remember, I was comparing Rooney Mara to Ellen Hollman, saying the physical difference is negligible. Then I compared Ellen Hollman to Marissa Miller, a "10" and saying that the difference there is STILL negligible.
Gluteus_Maximus 2016-05-17 08:19:57
Hard to imagine how any woman would ever feel comfortable about keeping his attention (nor should she).
If you mean keeping his attention away from other women, totally, then I agree that is unlikelyKeeping his attention would mean chilling out with the expectations. Even back when Gluteus_Maximus was a scrub, cute, pretty women were dorky. Hot, more physically attractive women are STILL dorky.
or I would say “realistic” — self esteemI don't see that much of a difference between cute, pretty and hot. Don't get me wrong, I see and feel the difference. Just so we can have a similar frame of reference, Rooney Mara is very cute/pretty. Ellen Hollman is hot. But the difference, physically, is SO negligible. I understand I am more of an exception, but what I'm saying is: "7's" can very easily have equal footing with "8's" and "9's". Especially if they are fit. There are many chubby women who, if they lost weight, I'd be like "dayumn." I've encountered many who have the core features, but they're hiding it underneath fat, aka the physical manifestation of insecurity. BD puts it very brilliantly with the term gender myopia / "Men determine women’s SMV, not women," so that use of "realistic" in describing low self-esteem makes no sense (continue reading as I finish making the connection later), as it's women who seem to be placing undue amount of focus on that difference of cute/pretty/hot. (Which, to be fair, is warranted, as that is what men are always saying. "Hotter woman this, hotter woman that." But keep in mind who these men are that are saying these things. ) This video is NSFW, but it is not explicit nudity and it's still YouTube. Asians are already, usually not seen as hot. But a guy would not turn down sex with this woman. Especially as she's fucking squirming about. If a man can have sex with a woman, and of course, given the right degree of compatibility, they can develop into a relationship. What I want to get across is that, YES, looks is the primary determining factor for how men value women... BUT once it's passed a certain level, it doesn't really matter, unless of course you're dealing with men who are trapped in the SP cycle of thinking they are better off with hotter and hotter women, even if it's in regards to a "0.1" improvement in physical looks, which in and of itself becomes fucking arbitrary. Let's compare Marissa Miller to Ellen Hollman. Let's say Marissa Miller is a "10," because arguably, she is, if not very, very close to it. Ellen Hollman is nowhere near as well-known as Marissa Miller, but their physical characteristics ARE SO SIMILAR it doesn't fucking matter to someone who is not a Retard. I would and would've happily dated more cute/pretty women had they not ruin it for themselves.
Captain 2016-05-16 21:19:18
With a lot of American slags, a high smv in relation to her's can hurt you especially if she's over 25. That's how insecure most American women are. If you are an 8 or 9 smv wise and she's a 5-7, you have to play a very odd game where you sincerely compliment her (not about looks) and deprecate yourself in a funny, confident way. I've found this to be the case even if you genuinely like the woman for something more than just sex.
Lovergirl 2016-05-16 21:12:05
If a guy is smart AND really hot AND has his shit together financially….Idk. That’s very rare. Hard to imagine how any woman would ever feel comfortable about keeping his attention (nor should she).If you mean keeping his attention away from other women, totally, then I agree that is unlikely, but I don't think you have to be anything spectacular to capture a man like this or get his attention. Nor do you have to be at your "peak SMV". If that were the case all the hot, rich, famous men would be getting with women half their age and it really only happens once in a great while.
Vitriol 2016-05-16 20:41:02
It’s not a situation most guys will ever relate to, but if for some reason a guy has women go after him for SMV but reject him on RMV, his feelings will be hurt just as much as a woman in that situation. Two guys I knew like that, who girls basically passed around for sex because they were SOO attractive but totally unsuitable for a relationship: one was really, really dumb, and the other had been in jail for a violent felony at a young age and was just never going to be able to get a good job because of it.Sounds like these guys were pretty fucking soft to be honest (or extreme in some other sense). The overwhelming majority of the males I've interacted in my life couldn't care less if a girl wanted a relationship with them as long as they were getting some pussy. Yes... some of these guys I knew were the "hawt" jocks or drug dealers and they weren't exactly crying to their male friends about only getting pussy and not being able to wife-up the girl they fucked the previous night. Something like this "RMV" you speak of really only starts to matter for most American women once they're in their 30s or older and have kids from a couple different guys, maxed out credit cards, and need a provider to pay their bills. Before that it's Alpha Fucks all the way and their "boyfriend" is the guy who they show to their parents who pays for shit when she wants a traditional night out. Girls who are in their teens and 20s in 2016 fuck guys for weed and pills. Their "relationships" are a facade because they're going to do whatever they want anyway.
If a guy is smart AND really hot AND has his shit together financially….Idk. That’s very rare. Hard to imagine how any woman would ever feel comfortable about keeping his attention (nor should she).I know a couple of guys like this (usually they're business owners). They basically have plenty of high-end whores on tap who are paid in one way or another. The PUA sites won't tell guys this, but these types of dudes get more (really high quality) pussy in 6 months than guys relying on cold approach game will probably get in the few years they stick it out before they become some chode who wants to settle down and become monogamous (regardless of how good their game is). Doing tons of cold approaches to bang 10-20 girls a year really is a poor man's game, and I didn't even realize this until I met some successful guys who showed me how things were done. (As a footnote, you don't even need to be rich to do this. You just need to be willing to put a decent amount of money into getting pussy instead of things like video games and sports that most "normal guys" care about way too much.)
joelsuf 2016-05-16 19:23:06
Mine is (in order of importance): Outcome Independence Confidence Putting in the numbers Dealing with rejection Pickup skills/technique Body language / Fashion / GroomingNot too sure that Body language/Fashion and Grooming is that low. Here's my list of the traits (in order of importance) Outcome Independence Experience/skills/technique Appearance/Body Language/Fashion/Grooming Social Circle Numbers Game
Kryptokate 2016-05-16 19:03:23
@ Gluteus Yup, there are a lot of people with "low" -- or I would say "realistic" -- self esteem who will pre-emptively reject someone they consider too hot for them. So they don't have to be the one being rejected. I think women do this as a matter of course, while men don't usually do this unless they're pretty introverted or humble. And with men it often manifests more like anger...when a guy really gets on one about what a huge bitch an attractive woman is, you know that's one woman he's really, really dying to fuck. Really hot guys are also so rare, it makes them even more intimidating. It helps if they're dumb or poor or something, to compensate and make you feel less intimidated. 😉 If a guy is smart AND really hot AND has his shit together financially....Idk. That's very rare. Hard to imagine how any woman would ever feel comfortable about keeping his attention (nor should she). @ Gil your points are well-taken. I get why men treat RMV as SMV, since bare SMV isn't going to be relevant for the vast majority of them. One place it would be relevant would be on Tinder where there are women who truly are just looking for sex only, and in those cases I imagine there are a few high SMV guys cleaning up but it isn't relevant anyone else. Another thing I think is interesting is that *no one* enjoys feeling like they are only valued for their SMV. Even people who are only looking for sex themselves don't like to feel like they're only valuable for sex and nothing else. It's not a situation most guys will ever relate to, but if for some reason a guy has women go after him for SMV but reject him on RMV, his feelings will be hurt just as much as a woman in that situation. Two guys I knew like that, who girls basically passed around for sex because they were SOO attractive but totally unsuitable for a relationship: one was really, really dumb, and the other had been in jail for a violent felony at a young age and was just never going to be able to get a good job because of it. Both were gorgeous though. Both felt really shitty about being "used" by women and complained about being walking dildos and would turn down the women who came on to them, if it didn't seem like she was interested in a relationships. I know those are anecdotes that are nothing like most men's experiences, but sometimes it's the exceptions that illuminate the normal rules. As for myself, I feel like I've probably been valued more for my RMV than my SMV most of my life so it's hard to relate to women who feel used for sex because I've never felt that way. Like I said, I'm not usually the sexiest woman a guy is capable of getting.
Blackdragon 2016-05-16 10:22:04
So SMV is interesting, but it really is completely irrelevant at the individual level.Agree 100%. That's why I don't really talk about it.
Tin Man 2016-05-16 07:28:13
One more thing, then back to work ... (which may be a bit off topic) My experience over the past few months is this ... Every woman, regardless of age, wants to be sexualized. She wants to "feel" sexy, she wants to know you want to fuck her. Translate that to SMV, the further away a woman is from their "peak" (and personally I believe it is personal peak for them) - the more they WANT someone to sexualize them. They want to be desired - just like that 18-23 year old. That's the reason, that if you find an older guy, that is getting laid (if that's the goal) ... you'll find a guy that is just putting them in the role of sex goddess. He gets laid, more often than not, because he is giving them the one thing they desire the most, and something they can't actually buy - feeling sexy and desired. It really is a game. Play it. I started being very blunt with women when asked "well what do you want" - I tell them (of course, I also use very provocative language - pro tip, learn to write). Then step back and let the hamsters run loose and just enjoy the chaotic scene.
Tin Man 2016-05-16 07:14:30
OK BD, just going to comment on the last piece of the article ... and take a quote from Roadhouse ... "Opinions Vary". It really is an irrelevant discussion (which is why you've probably stayed away from it), for one fact, you are look at a MACRO level when all that anyone really cares about is the MICRO level. At the Macro, there are truths based upon the averages. At the Micro, unless you are an absolute "average" person - in every aspect of your life and every criteria considered - your results will be different. They will be better, they will be worse, they will be the same. At the micro level - there are no real "rules". What worked for one person, won't work for another - not in the exact same way. There are things we can be taught that will generally help us, but once we get past those certain things - we take an individual path, and our results can start to be different from other people - doing exactly the same thing. So SMV is interesting, but it really is completely irrelevant at the individual level.
Anon. 2016-05-16 05:14:14
Regarding Kate’s take on SMV vs relationship value. One of the other websites on applied female psychology once took note how if you observe a large group, the sexiest woman is so often not the hottest one. My theory is that looks peak very early and then deteriorate, but knowledge of how to behave in a sexy manner only goes up, so it’s a question of when decline of the former overtakes the increase of the latter. I would not call SMV and RMV directly comparable, because one is emotional and the other is more rational. It’s fairly certain that sufficiently high SMV is enough for at least some kind of relationship to ensue, however it may end up in terms of strength and longevity.
Blackdragon 2016-05-15 12:36:59
BD, I’d be interested in your take on the correlation between how “girly” a woman is and how likely she is to accept nonmonogamy. You say you really like girly ones (but you did also mention the corporate, independent type), and for some reason I see those as more likely to have strong Disney and pro-monogamy stances.Girly women also tend to be more submissive, or at least flexible, if they see a strong man who can take care of them and fulfill their other Disney fantasies. I'm generalizing of course, not all girly girls are like this. But I've seen no difference in "difficulty" between girly women and more normal women.
Gluteus_Maximus 2016-05-15 02:14:15
It’s not because those guys are actually the hottest but because women subconsciously apply a “hottest guy that might POSSIBLY be interested in me” factor. They do this automatically because they’re always subconsciously assessing relationship value.Great confirmations. When I say "A guy like me actually HAS to come off as a dick." It's because it's the best and easiest way to prevent certain women from falling in love with me. Had to learn from the best. Hot women know this best. And it's part of why I get along with "bitches." But this is what women, like the many cuties I mentioned do not understand -- women with lower self-esteem. When an attractive man is talking to them -- literally walks across the street just to do so -- that's ALREADY a green-light. No need to question it. If you can tell a guy is extremely confident, that he can approach practically anyone with ease, and he came over to talk to YOU. Oh my God, women overthink that shit to death. The only sign I need from a very attractive woman is if she stays in conversation with me. I've had sex and developed great relationships with women that grew out of very, very chill, relaxed conversations. Things most guys from the outside looking in would consider "doing fucking nothing." I don't mind super-cute "7's" at ALL. Having dropped out of college (and becoming more successful than most of society) I don't really give a shit about many social norms, so although I appreciate beauty, looks, I also like to look at who this person is. So "7's" are more than acceptable in the looks department. It's actually the bare minimum, HAHAHAHAHAhahaha. I've had sex with very hot women who DO NOT take care of their dogs. This is a biggie for me because I've been in this situation and always hated that shit. They become "that person" in a community or building with the annoying ass barking fucking dogs. I will continue to fuck her, but I will not upgrade her.
Gluteus_Maximus 2016-05-15 01:23:26
"but the latter only comes from women
with higher, higher self-esteem."*** who have greater access to higher-quality men and genuinely don't give a shit because of it. Especially if I do not fall under their umbrella of preferred race, hair-length, clothing-style, profession, whathaveyou.
Gluteus_Maximus 2016-05-15 00:55:10
Men apparently don’t factor in whether or not the woman would be interested in them.L O L since this is how I think and behave +95% of the time:
Perhaps if you showed women photos of guys and said “assume that every man here is madly in love with you and not attracted to any other women, which one do you think is most attractive?”A guy like me actually HAS to come off as a dick. Sometimes, I feel like the male equivalent of a Hot girl. As in, why and how guys automatically think Hot girls are "bitches." This is a bit off-topic but came up in one of the last articles I posted here. You explain clearly why it's "harder" to get with "7's." The insecurity, intimidation, the constant assessment of "does he like me," is greater. It makes me have to go out of my way to "try" and show her that I already fucking like her and to chill the fuck out. I've encountered many, many very cute "7's" who are very sweet and quite talented, but that I know have stayed away simply out of anxiety and discomfort, and because I'm unwilling to put in the extra effort. It manifests mainly through just extreme passivity, with a strong whiff of "how can I guy like this be interested in me?" or overly-compensating "disinterest" with knee-jerk demeanor-reactions that give off the sense of "fuck-off asshole" only after a friendly and charming, in-person "Hi" -- the same "Hi" that a more attractive woman is receptive to. There's a distinct difference between a "fuck-off asshole"/disbelief vibe, and a slight testing vibe of "is this guy who he's presenting himself to be?" but the latter only comes from women with higher, higher self-esteem. It also reminds me way back when I was first learning about "negs" and how I would bust that shit out any time some girl was giving interest. I still remember the faces that resemble "what the fuck is wrong with you?" or "why'd you say that?" "I thought we were getting along," Lmao. What I'm saying is, I've grown to assume those knee-jerk reactions, similar to the "fuck-off asshole," can be traced to the teaching of women playing hard to get (which is similar to what "negs" are supposed to help achieve), just incredibly, incredibly miscalibrated. I've learned to laugh at it, because it's stupid, just as I rarely, rarely ever find myself having to use "negs" at all. But it's also a sign that "oh, this girl is gonna' be WORK." No thanks.
Lovergirl 2016-05-14 19:23:26
It must be the wording, but you gave me one hell of a laugh LovergirlI'm not sure why, lol? I mean, they have eyebrows, haha.
Gil Galad 2016-05-14 16:50:08
BD, I'd be interested in your take on the correlation between how "girly" a woman is and how likely she is to accept nonmonogamy. You say you really like girly ones (but you did also mention the corporate, independent type), and for some reason I see those as more likely to have strong Disney and pro-monogamy stances.
Gil Galad 2016-05-14 16:01:53
Most of them have little to no hair on their face or head.It must be the wording, but you gave me one hell of a laugh Lovergirl "women don’t GIVE sexual market value to men who they don’t see as sexually interested in them. Men give it to pretty much all women that are reasonably attractive, equally": sounds like we men are SMV-giving sluts lol. But that's why I find it more realistic to define SMV as the degree of attention and success that you end up getting, when all is said and done. Not the theoretical one that requires special conditions to be fulfilled.
Lovergirl 2016-05-14 15:58:55
Thing is though, that women don't GIVE sexual market value to men who they don't see as sexually interested in them. Men give it to pretty much all women that are reasonably attractive, equally. This is why men think in their heads that women are going to be threatened by younger women when, for the most part, we aren't. We are getting just as much attention as they are (assuming both are attractive). If you are thinking of a woman getting jealous, she is going to be equally so over attractive other women, independent of their age. Its why women can look at a man and see that he is a 10 in the looks department but not really care or want to sleep with him. Now if that man comes over and shows her attention, yeah she may change her mind, but until then he's kind of irrelevant. His value SEEMS low if he isn't a potential suitor.
Gil Galad 2016-05-14 15:38:34
@Kate: your link won't re-open so I can't go back to copypaste the usernames at the bottom of the pics, but see for yourself: they very explicitly signal that the users are gay men. I can't remember any individual one but at least one started with "homo" LOL We don't disagree at all on what you call bare SMV. But male SMV as defined in this article isn't bare SMV. It's closer to what you call RMV, though maybe not identical.
only if you could somehow get women to not apply a subconscious “but how much would he like me” evaluation [...] women subconsciously apply a “hottest guy that might POSSIBLY be interested in me” factorI actually love thought experiments of what people would do, they're extremely useful to make a logical point, but this is exactly the case where they won't do, because we're dealing with a sexual market: it doesn't matter what could and would happen, what matters is how much sexual interest a person ends up getting. It's like when product A is effective and product B is just as effective but A gets more sales: for some reason (design, advertising, etc) it sells itself better, so it's the "higher value" product, by fact. BD's definition of male SMV is what I might call de facto SMV. It's not cut-and-dry, but in terms of degree, women have a harder time dissociating "sexiness" from dating potential when they judge a man's attractiveness. Which is probably biological, but let's skip that. In what circumstances they would compartmentalize doesn't matter if in practice they don't (not often enough to influence the numbers the market displays at the end of the day), because the result is there: men with a higher "RMV" are those that get the most female interest, and that's "de facto SMV", and in my opinion, what BD calls SMV, and that's the value that peaks in a man's thirties, on average.
Carl275 2016-05-14 15:35:34
@John Doe That's a really interesting essay. I would like to know more about your opinion on the STD's topic, especially when you said that the HIV transmission for Heterosexuals is very very low Now let's take Charlie Sheen for example. We are all pretty sure that he's a Heterosexual alpha dude. How do u think he got the AIDS? Do you think he contracted it from the unprotected sex or from the drug injection?
Lovergirl 2016-05-14 15:11:45
A Short Essay by John DoeGood God, John....why are you rambling on about prostitutes on here? Why bother even reading this site if that is what you want to do? Just go buy yourself some sex. You don't have to do anything to improve yourself to get a prostitute. Just have money.
Lovergirl 2016-05-14 15:09:09
Weird question: was he clean shaven ?It's been 3 years ago and it was a one night stand, so I barely remember what he looks like but I'm pretty sure he was clean shaven. I don't like big beards on men AT ALL and pretty much all the guys I sleep with fit the same "profile" lol. Most of them have little to no hair on their face or head.
Kryptokate 2016-05-14 13:57:37
@ Gil How do you know it's gay men who posted those photos? There are thousands of those "hot guys" pages on pinterest which is mostly a female site. The reason I even knew about it is because my friend (female), who's 35 has a hot guys pinterest page she made and hers looks mostly like the link I pasted -- which was just the top hit when I googled "hot guys". You may be right, but I think that women and gay men probably mostly agree on what constitutes the best looking man -- but only if you could somehow get women to not apply a subconscious "but how much would he like me" evaluation. Because what Lovergirl said definitely applies, which is that women automatically and subconsciously apply a "relative attractiveness" factor when assessing a man, and if he's too good looking and she thinks he's too hot for her, she'll downgrade him. It's almost an ego preservation measure. I think this is why you get these survey results showing that men think women aged 20 are the hottest regardless of their age, while women think a guy a couple years older are the hottest til the women are in their late 20s, then they think a guy around their age looks hottest, then at age 30 they start thinking guys a couple years younger look hottest. It's not because those guys are actually the hottest but because women subconsciously apply a "hottest guy that might POSSIBLY be interested in me" factor. http://i.imgur.com/Ijgzwsk.png They do this automatically because they're always subconsciously assessing relationship value. Perhaps if you showed women photos of guys and said "assume that every man here is madly in love with you and not attracted to any other women, which one do you think is most attractive?" That would probably show better what she really thinks is hottest, and that would be guys around 25-28. Men apparently don't factor in whether or not the woman would be interested in them. I don't know if that's natural/biological, or because society conditions women from birth to worry about whether men like them and doesn't do that for me. I find that younger men are more concerned with their looks and that seems to be party because the media and advertising are starting to cater more to women enjoying men's looks (see the Magic Mike movies, for example). My friends who are in their 30s do sleep with guys in their 20s (sometimes very early 20s), but they are sort of weirdly high-self-esteem women and I wouldn't say it's the norm. I don't like hanging out with sad sacks, so I err on the side of arguably obnoxious very high self esteem, brash women when it comes to the women I'm friends with. I wouldn't sleep with a guy more than 10 years younger than me, but admittedly that is really just a pride issue on my part, not because I don't think they're attractive. The guy I'm dating now is 40 and he's very attractive and looks great for his age, but when he shows me photos of himself in his late 20s and early 30s....holy shit he was HOT back then. Part of me wishes I could have gotten him like that, but on the other hand, I would've been too intimidated because he was too hot and other women would always be hitting on him. And anyway I am quite sure he feels exactly the same way about me, lol. So I don't torture him by showing him pics of me at 28. 😉 Anyway, it all goes back to SMV vs RMV. Guys care about bare SMV for women because they want just one-night stands. Maybe 5-10% of women care about bare SMV for men because they want just one-night stands. Maybe 5-10% of women care about their bare SMV, but that's only because they are selling it (i.e. strippers, escorts, sugar babies, models, Hooters waitresses, etc). The rest of women care about their own RMV, not their SMV, because they want a relationship. And only maybe 5-10% of guys who are physically attractive enough to pull one-night stands regularly care about their own bare SMV, while the rest care about their RMV because that's how they get women. So overall, MOST people are concerned with their own RMV . Which is why I would agree with BD's overall point that people shouldn't focus so much on SMV because it's just one factor. He calls the other factors game and I would just call everything that isn't bare SMV to be part of RMV, which includes SMV plus lots of other factors. To further muddy things, you have the fact that people's perception of your actual looks change once they get to know you. When people are assessing photos or the looks of people they don't know, everyone mostly agrees about how hot they are. But once you get to know people and their personality and other factors get included, people's opinions about how attractive a person are change. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/30/science/for-couples-time-can-upend-the-laws-of-attraction.html?_r=0 Yes I would say growing a beard makes you look better if you're baby-faced. Or really, almost any guy looks better with a beard unless he naturally has a chiseled, perfect jaw. Beards cover up baby faces, weak chins, and double-chins. Kind of like how long hair makes most women look better and only a woman with a really model-perfect face with beautiful cheekbones and and a jaw can pull off short hair.
John Doe 2016-05-14 12:49:24
Are Prostitutes Better Than Normal Women? A Short Essay by John Doe Is it cheaper to have sex with normal women than with prostitutes? No, and here is why. When you have sex with a normal girl, it's by no means "free". You have to take her out to dinner, buy her drinks, and you might have to go on two or even three dates before you will have sex with her. If you add up the total costs of these three dates, it would be approxiately around 400 dollars. Now let's look at the cost of the average high quality prostitute. You can bang a prostitute for 2 hours for 250 dollars. What are the benefits of using prostitutes instead of dating normal women? 1. The average prostitute is far hotter than the average normal woman you can date. 2. YOU get to do the choosing, and the power of choice is in YOUR hands, instead of in the woman's hands 3. With a prostitute, you have sex with her and that's it. No emotional drama, no mind games, no bullshit, like there is with normal women. 4. You don't have to waste hours of your valuable time that you could otherwise spend on making money, taking women out on dates or trying to pick up women in bars and clubs. No, instead you pay a prostitute for one or two hours of her time, have sex with her, and leave. 5. You choose WHEN you want to have sex. So let's say you're a busy businessman, instead of wasting 5 hours at a bar or on a date, instead you'd spend only one or two hours with a prostitute, and that at your convience too. YOU are the one who chooses WHEN, and so you save a LOT of time. 6. Prostites are DEFINITELY cheaper than getting married. Overall, through a 10 year marriage and divorce, you'd end up spending at least 250,000 dollars. Now let's take that number and divide it by 250 dollars, which is the average price of a high quality prostitute in a Western country. That is sex with 1000 different high quality prostitutes. Now if you talk to any married man, who is HONEST, he will admit that sex with the wife after the first 6 months or year starts to get boring. And this is why people in long term relationships barely have sex, because it's BORING having sex with the same person time after time. Variety is the spice of life! You could have sex with 1000 different women for the same price it would cost to marry one woman and have sex with her. And considering how unstable most western women are nowadays, the chance of divorce is around 60%, with the woman initiating the divorce 90% of the time. You are likely to lose at least 50% of your assets and savings in a divorce, and so marriage to a western woman may end up costing you up to 500,000 dollars or even a million dollars, once you add in the divorce costs and long term child payment and alimony costs. So let's take that number, one million dollars, and divide it by 250. That's 4000 DIFFERENT women you could pay to have sex with, instead of marrying one woman who will just end up turning into a bitch and divorcing you anyway. So it's your choice guys. Would you rather marry one woman, who will get bored of sex after 6 months, and end up stealing all your assets and savings in divorce, or would you rather have sex with 4000 different beautiful women for the same price? Another very relevant point is that the world of modern dating has become quite risky. Most women see nothing wrong with making a false rape accusation against a man. Most rape cases are fake and are done out of a motive of REVENGE by the woman. Did you break up with your girlfriend? Watch out, she might make a false rape accusation against you just to get revenge. Did you cheat on your girl with another girl? Watch out, she might make a false rape accusation just to get revenge on you. Forgot to tell your girlfriend "happy birthday"? Watch out, she might make a false rape accusation against you in order to get revenge on you. At least 90% of rape cases are FALSE, the sex was CONSENSUAL and the woman later changed her mind AFTER the act and decided "oh it was rape". LOL. And this is why the police no longer take rape cases seriously, because literally 90% of women who claim to have been raped are LYING! So that is another HUGE benefit of prostitues. A prostitute won't make a false rape accusation against you. What's another GREAT reason that men choose to use prostitutes? Because by paying for sex, they can have sex with a MUCH hotter quality of woman than they would normally. For example, if we rate women on a scale of 1 to 10 in terms of beauty. The average guy will be able to pick up and have sex with a 4 or a 5 from a bar, a club, or Tinder. Meanwhile, if the same man paid for sex with a high quality prostitute for $250 dollars (about the same amount of money he would spend picking up a 4 or 5 from a bar, club, or Tinder), the prostitute he would have sex with would be an 8 or 9 on the beauty scale. So for the same amount of money, he can have sex with a much hotter woman, and with much less effort too. Think about all the effort you have to put in to go to a bar or club. You have to buy good clothes, you have to spend lots of money on drinks and food, and also have to spend a lot of money on making sure your apartment is cool and stylish so the girl will feel comfortable there. So unless you're a man who was blessed with the looks of Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise and have women chasing after you, the easiest and cheapest option for most men to have sex with the hottest quality of women is to simply PAY for sex with a hot prostitute. One guy was asked why he paid to have sex with prostitutes and his reply was "If I’m being brutally honest, the hottest women I’ve ever had sex with have been prostitutes … I would never be able to have sex with women who are ridiculously hot unless they were prostitutes.” I can also personally testify to this point. The types of chicks I was getting from Tinder were mostly fat or at best mildly hot, I would have rated them between a 3 and a 6 on the attraction scale. Then the first time I went to a prostitute, I was blown away with the options and the QUALITY too. Here were super hot girls who I could bang for such a cheap price. Needless to say, I gave up on dating and ONLY bang prostitutes now. I'm a much happier and peaceful person as a result. Another couple of reasons that men gave as to why they choose to have sex with prostitutes are: "Getting a prostitute is so easy: no strings attached, you can choose the woman you want before you purchase, then they arrive at your door. Couldn’t be easier." I can also testify to this. Getting a normal girl to have sex is a real pain in the ass and involves so much struggle, drama, and mind games. Then of course after you have sex with her, you have to deal with her stalking you, calling you so many times, and with her unrealistic expectation that you are going to have a committed and exclusively relationship with her. All that compared with the EASE of banging a hot prostitute, and the choice is simple. I chose to not waste time trying to date women anymore and only bang hot prostitutes now. “We want to have sex without all the bullshit of pretending to be really interested in a girl. When you pay for sex, you don’t have to swap numbers at the end when you know you won’t call. You pay, have sex, she leaves. Everyone’s happy.” This goes along with the above point. With normal women and dating, you have to PRETEND to care about her and PRETEND to be interested in her, when in reality all you want is to have sex with her. With a prostitute, there is no pretensions and that really is a beautiful thing because ultimately then sex becomes about the raw physical act as well as the pure attractiveness of the woman, and thus you are able to enjoy sex a lot more. Lastly, let's touch on the issue of legalization. On average surveys, 70 percent of men said they would vote to legalize prostitution, meanwhile 60 percent of women said they would vote to keep prostitution illegal. Now it's pretty obvious why women want to keep prostitution illegal. Women use sex as a weapon to control men. So it would disrupt the economics of women's control over sex if prostitution was legalized, because then MEN would have control over WHO they want to have sex with and WHEN. Forget all those arguments about morality, the REAL reason women want to keep prostitution illegal is so that they can CONTINUE to control men with sex. In effect, women are like a mafia that is desperate to keep control of the sexual marketplace. If prostitution was legal, men would be a lot less inclined to put up with women's bullshit just to get sex from them, when they can go pay for sex from a much more attractive woman and without all the hassles and drama that dating and normal women bring. What about STDs some of you might say? Well the whole STD scare is mostly a MYTH that has been blown way out of proportion by feminists and conservative religious leaders in order to scare men away from having sex. In reality, the rate of transmission of AIDS is 1 out of 700 during heterosexual sex. That is, if a man had penis to vagina intercourse with an AIDS-infected woman, it would take 700 times on average before he would contract it. The only way people get AIDS is through using needles to inject drugs, or having anal sex, especially with homosexuals. So the whole AIDS thing is a huge scare, a MYTH, that has been blown way out of proportion. What about Herpes? Well studies show that 80% of the US population already has Herpes in one of it's forms, so that is not really an issue. The only other STD that you would have to worry about is Chlamydia, and it can be easily cured within 3 days with antibiotics. Now, that is UNPROTECTED sex. If you are using condoms to have sex with, then the chances of getting any of these STDs becomes less than zero. And that includes oral sex as well. Most prostitutes will insist that you always use a condom, even during oral sex. So as long as you are using condoms, then STDs are nothing you should even remotely worry about. So what are some of the main reasons why prostitution should be legalized? 1. If prostitution was legal, it would reduce the STD transmission rate by about 50% amongst prostitutes. 2. If prostitution was legal, it would reduce rape by at least 150%. Many studies have shown that legal prostitution reduces rape, sexual assault, and other sex crimes by a lot. The same studies have shown that legal prostitution reduces the STD rate amongst the general population by about 50%. 3. The real number of human trafficking victims in the prostitution industry is actually less than 5%. But if prostitution was fully legal, the tiny number of women who are forced into prostitution involuntarily would be able to go to the poliec to get help and escape from their pimps. Keeping prostitution illegal hurts prostitutes the most, so it's funny how feminists want to keep prostitution illegal and yet at the same time claim they care about women's health and women's rights. Feminism is nothing but the biggest pile of bullshit hypocrisy the world has ever seen. 4. Feminists say "my body, my choice". So if 95% of prostitutes are VOLUNTARILY engaging in prostitution, then why should those women have the RIGHT to choose what to do with their own bodies, even if that includes trading sex for money? What right does the government or anyone else have to tell two consenting adults that they cannot exchange money for sex? 5. It would save a lot of money and resources from our police and government. Tens of millions of dollars a year are wasted by our police and government arresting and putting prostitutes in jail. If prostitution was LEGAL, on the other hand, and taxed and regulated, it would bring in tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars a year in tax revenue for our government, as well as freeing up valuable police time for REAL crimes like rape, theft, murder, assault, etc. 6. If prostitution was legal, prostitutes would have legal rights and would not longer get taken advantage of by pimps and other shady figures, including corrupt police officers. Yes, the police also contribute to the oppression of prostitutes because there are many corrupt police officers out there who blackmail and extort prostitutes for money and/or sexual favors. If prostitution was legal, all of this would end and prostitutes would finally have legal rights. 7. Prostitution is the world's oldest profession. It is NEVER going to stop no matter how much the police or government tries to stop it. There are ALWAYS going to be men who are willing to pay money for sex, and there are ALWAYS going to be women who are willing to give sex to men for money. Prostitution has also been an integral part of many cultures and thus trying to stop it is literally impossible. And why should it be stopped? No one has the right to tell two consenting adults that they cannot exchange money for sex. So rather than waste time trying to stop it, just legalize it and tax it, the same way we do with cigarettes, alcohol, and now marijuana. All in all, I believe in personal freedom. I believe that no one has the right to force their own sense of morality onto others. In some very ancient cultures, prostitutes were actually given very high status in society and considered as spiritual people who could heal men of their problems through sex. That was thousands of years ago though, before self-righteous modern western religions were invented and started violently forcing their concepts of morality onto people. Funny how societies that were thousands of years old were actually far more advanced than we are in the modern age in terms of sex and prostitutes. It took almost a century for people to wake up and legalize marijuana, which is a completely harmless natural plant that hurts no one. In the same way, society and people in general have to EVOLVE and realize that they have no right to force their own sense of morality or control onto others. The modern society is actually a very sexually restrictive society, compared to cultures and civilizations of the past. And it's this sexual restrictiveness which contributes to so much psychological neurosis, sex crimes, and frustration in general. Is it a coincidence how people in America are so quick to anger and lose their temper, whereas in a place like Thailand where prostitution is legal and accepted, people are very laid back and cool headed? People need to stop seeing sex as such a big thing, and just realize that sex is a normal and acceptable part of life. With that said, I believe that I have covered all the points as to why prostitution should be legal and an accepted part of society, and so this essay comes to a close. Please feel free to copy, paste, and distribute this essay as my goal is to influence and educate as many people as possible, the only thing I ask is that you do not change it or edit it in any way whatsoever. Thank you very much Sincerely, John Doe
Blackdragon 2016-05-14 12:02:45
I like the articles you’ve provided on the website pertaining to the matter and greatly appreciate them but is there a concrete collection of these pickup skills/ techniques that would be beneficial to implement into one’s repertoire? Can you recommend one of your products or any other you may have heard off to get a one-stop collection.Yep. If you like online dating, get this. Once you have a girl willing to meet up with you (via online dating or daygame or whatever) get this.
I strongly disagree with you, because I think that smart, highly educated girls are very attractive and for me, it is much easier to talk whit them, than it is with a girls who are as dumb as a shoe.That's you. I'm talking about society at large. I also find intelligent women very attractive. But that still has nothing to do with societal SMV.
It’s actually very illuminating to see Lovergirl apply a 30 year old women’s rational (AKA woman logics and justifications) to the extremely stereotypical phenomena of girls fucking alphas and marring unattractive betas that is outlined so clearly by the Blackdragon here in his blog.Men think women are "complicated." They aren't. Women. Are. Very. Predictable.
John Smith 2016-05-14 10:51:01
You are proving Kate’s point. If a woman wants a RELATIONSHIP with a guy she isn’t going to want him to be too “hot”. Women are extremely competitive when it comes to looks. They don’t want a guy that is “prettier” than they are and getting more attention. That doesn’t mean they won’t have sex with him, but for a relationship they often prefer a guy to be LESS attractive to other women. That way they don’t have as much worry about being left for someone else.It's actually very illuminating to see Lovergirl apply a 30 year old women's rational (AKA woman logics and justifications) to the extremely stereotypical phenomena of girls fucking alphas and marring unattractive betas that is outlined so clearly by the Blackdragon here in his blog. She probably doesn't even realize that she is doing it 😀
John Smith 2016-05-14 10:15:12
What about Kim K., Beyonce, JLo, Christina Aguilera, Rihanna, Nicki Minaj, Kate Upton?Well Kate Upton is sited as a trend changer. Beyonce and Christina Aguilera are 2000-isk. Kardashian's reality show began to air in 2007. JLo was a fly girl on in living color. Allot of people still think 2000/2005 was just a little ways back...but you could have had a baby in 2000 and have it turn seventeen soon. IMO things have been changing allot since then. @johnnybegood
Completely incorrect — it’s actually society and your cultural upbringing (including religious influences) that make you prefer screwing virgins. Not biology. Those are cultural hangups. Chiding women for ‘putting out’ too much or too easily is a combined effort from women who want to protect the supply of pussy, and men (possibly betas in authority, or the priesthood) who tell women ‘oh you can’t fuck him and you can’t put out to Mike and you can’t do this’ — to retain sexual control via morality, rather than … actually being sexually desirable on their own.Some men find sex gross and therefore find a woman who has had sex with less men more appealing. Some men like the thrill of being somewhere no other man has been before, or they perhaps feel as though they can be more confident during sex because said woman has no other men to compare them too (how good/bad he is in bed). Sometimes it's as simple as being about ownership. Hell, some men just (falsely) fantasize that a virgin will simply like sex with him more because it's so new to them. There are other reasons then the one that you site that could just as easily represent why men might like virgins (or women that have had sex with less men). People are made up of more then biology and sociological programming. They also have private psyches that they do not share with the world. I believe you are correct, but at the same time you are only referencing one component of a much larger whole. The human system is far more complex and dynamic.
POB 2016-05-14 09:24:43
Completely incorrect — it’s actually society and your cultural upbringing (including religious influences) that make you prefer screwing virgins. Not biology. Those are cultural hangups. Chiding women for ‘putting out’ too much or too easily is a combined effort from women who want to protect the supply of pussy, and men (possibly betas in authority, or the priesthood) who tell women ‘oh you can’t fuck him and you can’t put out to Mike and you can’t do this’ — to retain sexual control via morality, rather than … actually being sexually desirable on their own.@johnnybegood Mind you we're not in disagreement here. I put up an hypothesis (right or wrong), not an affirmation, to shed light on a lesser point who's still open for debate. You're right: biologically speaking, all we men want is young healthy women to have sex with and (possibly) carry our descendants. Our penises really don't care about virgins or whores, only our minds do.
Gil Galad 2016-05-14 09:09:51
@Lovergirl: my disagreement with Kate was mostly about the pics in the link as evidence, not so much about the point she was making. The users who posted those "hot pics" are mostly gay men, not women. I did insist that male smv in this article wasn't defined solely on "how hard women would wanna hit that": what peaks in men at 34-38 isn't immediate, rip-his-clothes-off fuckability, it's more of a combination of factors that collectively raises the overall female interest he's getting. A well-built guy who's visibly not in his twenties anymore with a bit of gray in his hair doesn't necessarily make you wanna jump him right then as a 26-y-o might, but his appearance conveys many, many different things to a woman who sees him: not just hotness, but stability, "distinction", protectiveness, etc. The "Ew, he won't have any time for me" part comes out even from girls who weren't asked if the ultra-ripped young guy is relationship material: you just ask them if he's hot, and they spontaneously consider his dating value. Another reason why men's desirability is more complicated than just looks. Plus, if a girl chooses a guy because he's "not too hot", I'd say his "lack of excessive hotness" still counts as SMV. I could still be wrong though and I'd benefit from your opinion.
When I was 36 I slept with a 23 year old once and it felt totally icky.Weird question: was he clean shaven ? I'm a younger guy as well, and whenever I grow a thick, no-fucks-given beard, there are two groups that suddenly become interested in me: 1° older women, 2° Eastern European girls. I used to find the beard creepy and some acquaintances confirmed it to me, but when facts proved me wrong, I listened to the facts.
Lovergirl 2016-05-14 07:46:27
I know it because I’ve seen it – would be “Noooo ! wtf ? he must be so obsessed with working his body that he’ll have no time for me !”You are proving Kate's point. If a woman wants a RELATIONSHIP with a guy she isn't going to want him to be too "hot". Women are extremely competitive when it comes to looks. They don't want a guy that is "prettier" than they are and getting more attention. That doesn't mean they won't have sex with him, but for a relationship they often prefer a guy to be LESS attractive to other women. That way they don't have as much worry about being left for someone else. Even just for sex though, there is no way in hell I would bang a 17 yr old, or probably any guy under 25. For the most part they don't even look sexually appealing to me, at 39. When I was 36 I slept with a 23 year old once and it felt totally icky. I couldn't do it again. You know, it's funny, when I am out and about on my job, working with other women, we almost always agree on which guys we find "hot". There is an older woman, who is like 52, that likes to play pick the hottest guy of the day (and she freaking TELLS the guy, haha) so we will watch out for him and there has never been a disagreement, even with some of the girls being in their early 20's. As far as dating and sexual preferences, we are all probably completely different, but when it comes to picking out a guy based on looks alone, we tend to agree. Not a lot of arguing, like you see with guys when they talk about what women they are attracted to. I'd say the age range widely varies when it comes to the hottest guy too. One I can think of in particular, had GRAY HAIR, lol, but he was still very muscular and had a hot face. So, out of thousands of men, he was the one that got picked. He turned beet red when she said something, which was funny because I'm sure he had to know he was attractive. Some men don't bat an eyelash when she tells them. On the other hand, there is a woman that all the guys I work with think is "hot" and she is probably about 27. I haven't seen or heard much commentary about women much younger than that and the guys range in age from about 23-50's. My boss was super excited though when a 26 yr old woman called him a "hot older man" (he's 50). That's just observation. Maybe men are all lusting over 18 year olds but that doesn't really affect women much, like Kate said, because we want men who see us as relationship material, at least to some extent. Plus, at 18, a lot of girls still aren't at their peak. I know I still had acne, braces, hadn't learned how to pluck my eyebrows and was just getting my makeup down, haha. By 19, maybe I looked my best because I had it more figured out, but I was still maybe too skinny. A girl who has curves at that age is probably going to struggle with her weight in later years because a woman's metabolism tends to slow down in her mid-20's. There's that "freshman 15" weight gain in college that actually helps those that are on the thinner side naturally.
Gil Galad 2016-05-14 06:45:34
@Kate: By the way the link you gave https://www.pinterest.com/ynaved/hot-guys/ is mostly (if not entirely) gay men posting pics they like, not women. I suspected it as soon as I saw the washboard abs and the large muscle mass of some of the dudes (the typical female reaction to some of those pics - I know it because I've seen it - would be "Noooo ! wtf ? he must be so obsessed with working his body that he'll have no time for me !" There are specific countries like Brazil where this would be false, but not in general), and then I got ample confirmation when I read the nicknames of the members who posted the pictures. I'm not saying they're not attractive to women too, but those pics are much, much more representative of what gay men like, not women.
Gil Galad 2016-05-14 04:52:47
Concerning the age women peak in looks, I think we're forgetting the fact that overall prosperity influences this. I've read somewhere that the age of puberty in women has been decreasing lately, probably because little girls are better fed. Recently I watched Zara Larsson's clip Bad Boys and I would've sworn she's 20, 21 (in fact I damn near fell off my chair: she's exactly my type, except for the small tits), not just because of her body but also her voice. Well she's 15 in the clip. This wouldn't have happened in less prosperous societies of the past. The body delays puberty and delays the moment it starts having its periods when it perceives resources to be scarce or irregular. For men, I've always suspected that when you ignore ASD and related, women are more willing to bang guys aged 17-28. But we've got to respect the premises of the article: female smv was defined as looks + youthfulness, while male smv was defined closer to what Kryptokate called RMV, not pure fuckability or ability to create female fantasms, so the idea that men peak in their thirties still stands.
Henry 2016-05-14 03:33:02
Hi, When you say "By the way, I agree with women when they complain this isn’t fair. If I was a woman, I too would be upset that a super hot 19 year-old drug addict with a low IQ and no money has a higher SMV than a decently cute, intelligent 28 year-old who has a college degree and a Good Job™. Yeah, it’s not fair, but that’s the way it is", I strongly disagree with you, because I think that smart, highly educated girls are very attractive and for me, it is much easier to talk whit them, than it is with a girls who are as dumb as a shoe.
Izzy 2016-05-14 00:24:37
Similar to your list. Mine is (in order of importance): Outcome Independence Confidence Putting in the numbers Dealing with rejection Pickup skills/technique Body language / Fashion / Grooming You don’t have pickup skills in your list and seem to think they’re all crap. Much of what is taught is crap, but skills/technique are still required for at least the beginner or intermediate guy (advanced level guys are pretty much like naturals and don’t need to think about technique).I like the articles you've provided on the website pertaining to the matter and greatly appreciate them but is there a concrete collection of these pickup skills/ techniques that would be beneficial to implement into one's repertoire? Can you recommend one of your products or any other you may have heard off to get a one-stop collection. Thanks!
Blackdragon 2016-05-13 22:59:56
Your sexual market value equals your potential value as a mother/father. It is that simple.Interesting. I can't find a reason to disagree.
I always find myself thinking about what men and women value in each other (what their smv is based on) and how that relates to their success rate and/or satisfaction level. So we know that these are the things we value and looking for, but is this really working well for us today?You're absolutely right; focusing on these macro issues when you're seeking someone to have sex with or marry will cause you to do most of this stuff wrong and suffer great unhappiness once your NRE is over, from the beta who falls in love with a woman's societally-acceptable looks to the manosphere right-wing Alpha 1.0 who thinks his Western mono-marriage will work forever because his wife only fucked four women before him. It also touches on what I said in the article; focusing on things like SMV is far more likely to make you unhappy than happy.
Your points about women’s SMV are correct, however, when you start talking about men you are conflating SMV with RMV (i.e. relationship value). These are not the same thing so you’re comparing apples to oranges.Perhaps, but by separating to two you're making the conversation very muddy. The reality is that in most scenarios when a guy is horny for a girl, he's not looking for a relationship, yet the reverse is not true when a woman is looking to actually fuck a guy. What percentage of all unmarried women are out cruising for guys just to get one night stands? Some, but very few. Therefore your definition of male SMV to a woman wanting nothing but a one night stand is interesting, but largely irrelevant. True SMV, when viewing society as a whole, is indeed a combination of your SMV and RMV definitions. Don't make the Lovergirl mistake of thinking most women are like you, Kate. You're an exception to the rule.
Kryptokate 2016-05-13 19:24:00
Your points about women's SMV are correct, however, when you start talking about men you are conflating SMV with RMV (i.e. relationship value). These are not the same thing so you're comparing apples to oranges. An 18 year old high school dropout drug addict girl has higher SMV than a 28 year old college grad with a good job, but she most certainly does not have a higher RMV. Most men of any age are not going to invest in the drug addict, they'll just bang her. But they'd bang the 28 year old too, it's just they'd choose the 18 year old if it was sex only. For a relationship the majority would choose the responsible 28 year old. Women's SMV, if we're measuring ability to give a guy a boner, peaks at roughly age 14 to 16. This has been made very clear by studies that actually measure blood-flow to dicks when guys look at photos and don't know the ages of the women they're looking at. It makes sense because in a hunter-gatherer state of nature, once a women starts ovulating, she will be snatched up and either pregnant or breast-feeding for practically her entire fertile lifespan (roughly 15-45), so guys are motivated to really notice as soon as a girl begins ovulating and snatch her up before anyone else does. You have to realize how incredibly rare it would be to even meet or come across a women who was (1) within childbearing age range, and (2) not already taken by another man who will murder you or already pregnant or lactating, in hunter-gatherer societies. Snatching up the young girls as soon as they hit puberty is most men's best bet. And also, they're naive and don't have any social power or experience at those young ages, so they're easier to convince to do things that aren't in their best interests. So yes of course men are wired to notice and respond sexually the strongest to a girl who just hit puberty. So on bare SMV, a girl that started getting her period about a year or two ago (it takes a year to start ovulating) is what gets guys hardest. However, most women are not really interested in their bare SMV, they care about their RMV. Bare SMV is not worth anything to a woman unless she is selling sex. If it were, hot 18 year old women would have high status in our society, but they don't, they're mostly dead broke and have very little social influence. And bare SMV isn't worth much to a woman because if the only thing you're going to get from a guy is sex (pump and dump), then all you have to do is be capable of giving him a boner, and it really does not matter that someone else gives him a harder or quicker boner than you. You just need to pass the threshold. If 99% of men were killed off and 100 women were all competing over one dick, then maybe bare SMV would matter, but that isn't the case. On RMV, looks and youth are NOT the only things that matter and it's preposterous to pretend that it is. For a relationship, people are (subconsciously) looking at: (1) who gives me the best long-term outcome for children, (2) who increases or at least doesn't degrade their social power, autonomy, and influence, and (3) who is enjoyable and companionable to spend time with. In this manner, looks are often a threshold matter and then the other factors become way more important...sense of humor, energy, social class and connections, emotional stability, agreeableness, interests and hobbies, etc etc etc. The majority of professional men I know will NOT date a woman who does not have a college degree (and some are so snobby that it also has to come from an elite school) and is not a professional. Will they fuck them? Oh hell yes. Will they commit to a relationship with them and take them in public? No. On companionability, there a million things people care about and these vary a lot person to person. I know liberals who would never, ever consider dating a Republican. I know smart people who would never get into a relationship with someone else who wasn't intellectual. I know people who demand that the person they date partakes in their hobbies. I know people who will only date someone who does the same drugs as they do. I know people who will only date fellow neat-freaks. This list is quirky and quite lengthy. The point is, to equate SMV with RMV is incorrect. I have NEVER been the hottest girl or youngest chick my boyfriends could get with. I have always been the one they wanted to lock down. They're different. For guys, everything you talked about goes into RMV or dating value. For pure SMV (again, using the definition of what will get a woman wet and wanting sex) it comes down to only three things: (1) physical attraction (look good and smell good and sound good), (2) sexual aggression/dominance and indications that he'll be good in bed, and (3) lack of negative consequences if she sleeps with him (i.e. he won't blab about it or be judgmental). That's it. For a one-night stand the other factors don't matter at all. And the peak of a man's physical attractiveness is 25-28. Or roughly 10 years after a woman's. I could write a whole post proving this based on Tinder and the fact that every hot Hollywood actor who makes it big when he's a no-one based just on sexual charisma is roughly age 25-28. After they get popular based on their looks, they can coast for decades on their name recognition and acting skills and personality, but to get attention in the first place for looks, they're 25-28. See Brad Pitt when he hit and was the hottest he's ever been (in Thelma & Louise), Orlando Bloom, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Channing Tatum, etc. If you want to see what the highest SMV guys look like, there are tons of pinterest boards of "hot guys" that women create that show exactly what they think is hottest. I just googled it and this came up...these guys are not even close to age 38: https://www.pinterest.com/ynaved/hot-guys/ They are maybe 22 to 28. Right now, all my female friends who are in their 30s are obsessed with watching this guy's videos, who they drool over: https://www.youtube.com/user/JoeSantagato And I don't know how old he is but I'm guessing 25 to 28ish. That said, everything you said about guys is true if you're talking RMV and not SMV. 35-38 year old guys are probably the peak for RMV. Again, about 10 years after women's peak RMV. If a guy is still single at that age and stays in shape and is responsible and has his life together, he can have his pick of basically anyone for a relationship. I agree with everything of course regarding averages and medians not applying to any particular person. There are 40 year old men and women who look a lot better than most 25 year olds, but there is NO 40 year old man or woman who looks better than they did at 25 unless they have cosmetic intervention or were overweight when they were 25.
Ash 2016-05-13 17:05:55
I always find myself thinking about what men and women value in each other (what their smv is based on) and how that relates to their success rate and/or satisfaction level. So we know that these are the things we value and looking for, but is this really working well for us today?
maldek 2016-05-13 15:39:18
In the past few years i did some research into the whole idea of SMV. In the end i found the most basic view is also the most accurate. Your sexual market value equals your potential value as a mother/father. It is that simple. For women: Your youth is the number of children you can possibly have. Our cavemen brains are smart enough to judge this, even if we are not aware of it - works within the "boner test". As you get older your looks change. It changes in a way, males find less attractive because nature is honest and does signal to potential mates how fertile you are. Older = less fertile. Most men are not aware of it but we do very much follow these signals. Your beauty is also a sign of fertilty. When age is the number of children you can have, your beauty speaks about the quality of the offspring. What we consider "hot" is a woman who can have many babies (is young enough) AND those babies are top quality (she has beauty). For men it is basicly the same. But with different wording. Our looks is more important when we are younger. It does signal the quality of our genes. But it is not THAT important because it is only a "potential". There are many good looking guys who are big, muscular but end as total losers. As we get from 20 to 35 it is much easier for women to "fall in love" with us. A 35yo man will have a solid message regarding his value as a father - all a woman has to do is look what he does, how he lives and how others respect him. No risk. When we cross the 40-50 line a few things will change. Like our T going south and with it our will to fight. It will become easier for the younger wolfs to challenge us for our alpha position. We still have the alpha position and women want our babies but a new risk has started to surface. One day we will die. Maybe not next year but babies take 15+ years to grow up so women's lizard brains have to think long term. It comes the day when you realize (for women a few years sooner than men) that mother nature no longer is your friend. Nature wants to remove you from the genepool so the younger can take your place. It is this day, when you should start using every trick our modern society has found to trick nature for as long as you can. For women this is plastic surgery, make up, HRT and lots of sex. For men this is most likely TRT along with lifting, cardio-healthy lifestyle and as much status and money as you can get.
Blackdragon 2016-05-13 13:13:21
If you are anything but caucasian (especially asian or hispanic), it’s practically guaranteed you’ll peak at an age much higher than 37.Agree and very good point. Cacuasian men (like me) age the worst of all the races.
donnie demarco 2016-05-13 12:52:37
Great article. One quick addition: That 37 year mark for "male peak appearance" is a useful data point, but IME is specific to caucasian men. If you are anything but caucasian (especially asian or hispanic), it's practically guaranteed you'll peak at an age much higher than 37. So keep working those looks; you've still got them.
Gluteus_Maximus 2016-05-13 12:22:58
Let's say I hit it off with two random hot women from OKC, they both happen to share the same social circle, so I'm only going to continue with one. Both graduated from different universities, and met working at a non-profit, but one quit the non-profit to design clothing for outdoor hiking. Who did I choose? The person who quit her job. She ended up being a high-end MLTR for 3 years. When the standard of appearance is already met, which can be assessed in a nanosecond, it becomes a matter of compatibility. Many people lose sight of that. I'm more likely to upgrade an "8," who I get along well with, to MLTR status, over just a "9.23." I'm extremely selective over who I consider friends. I'm met a lot of guys who've focused too much on SMV. They may not even say it explicitly, but I can tell from their priorities and how they go about them that they care too much about that shit. It's incredibly boring. And not just the ones who keep chasing after women with higher and higher SMV, but also the guys who don't go after hotter women because they think they themselves don't have ENOUGH SMV. It's stupid. I always keep an eye out for (still physically attractive) women who fall out of the norm. Dropouts, musicians, artists, designers, performers, dancers, cosplayers, craftswomen. People who do what they do not because they were told to. Sure, I'm an extreme autodidact, just to mention having dropped out of college, so it can be said that I'm biased, but there's genuinely a lot more to people who lead their lives in this kind of way. It's a simple fact: you have to possess something inside that makes you crazy enough to venture out and do your own thing. SMV is irrelevant. I'm automatically 100x more attractive, having successfully taken the risks of going against social standards, than any guy who hasn't even tried. The same goes for women who've done the same (but again, I'm still talking about women who are also physically attractive). At the same time though, this doesn't really apply to escorts, where in order to be an escort you pretty much have to let go of the "need" for social acceptance. And I say this not because I haven't met some cool escorts, it's just I wouldn't want to ruin the dynamic that comes with using money as an exchange.
Blackdragon 2016-05-13 12:03:45
What about Kim K., Beyonce, JLo, Christina Aguilera, Rihanna, Nicki Minaj, Kate Upton?Those women aren't from Hollywood, nor are they considered the standard in beauty. Three of them are black so they are meant to appeal to black men, not men at large. Kim K is considered "fat" by a hell of a lot of people and Kate Upton is an unusual exception in the modeling world (having come from the internet and not the modeling industry). No woman who looks like the above women will ever star in a mainstream Hollywood movie or TV show (and if one or two slip through the cracks, they're exceptions to the rule). I wish they would.
Can you please summarize what you class as ‘GAME’? My understanding of what game is: killer instinct (being able to pull the trigger/not being a pussy) confidence persistence (work ethic) OI social freedom (i.e. touch the girl when you want, talk about sexual topics/sexually charged conversation, and etc.) being relaxed For me, anything else is just mainstream pickup crap.Similar to your list. Mine is (in order of importance): Outcome Independence Confidence Putting in the numbers Dealing with rejection Pickup skills/technique Body language / Fashion / Grooming You don't have pickup skills in your list and seem to think they're all crap. Much of what is taught is crap, but skills/technique are still required for at least the beginner or intermediate guy (advanced level guys are pretty much like naturals and don't need to think about technique).
No, biologically speaking, you shouldn’t give a fuck if a women is a virgin at all. Especially if you are just going to pump cum in her and leave, an effort of about 5-20 minutes.Agree. The virgin stuff is pure SP, not OBW. Biology tells you to fuck a younger woman. SP tells you to fuck a virgin (or close to it).
Just a quick note, and I’m sure many of you already know this, the more sexual partners a woman has had the higher the risk of divorce. But then, that only matters under the traditional monag system, which is not how we are biologically wired to live.Yeah, per Johnny's point, marriage and divorce are nothing but false SP constructs. Biology has nothing to do with it. (And I've refuted your point in great detail in my book.)
BlindIo 2016-05-13 11:07:21
Just a quick note, and I'm sure many of you already know this, the more sexual partners a woman has had the higher the risk of divorce. But then, that only matters under the traditional monag system, which is not how we are biologically wired to live.
Gil Galad 2016-05-13 09:19:18
Not biology. Those are cultural hangups. Chiding women for ‘putting out’ too much or too easily is a combined effort from women who want to protect the supply of pussy, and men (possibly betas in authority, or the priesthood) who tell women ‘oh you can’t fuck him and you can’t put out to Mike and you can’t do this’ — to retain sexual control@johnnybegood: what you said in there is exactly what "biology" means: an instinct hardwired into each sex to try to further its own sexual agenda at the expense of the other sex's agenda. That's why I've always been saying that "cultural" explanations of sexual behavior are ultimately circular. That they vary from culture to culture doesn't mean the culture caused it, it's just the same sexual agenda expressing itself however it can given the available social context. But in any culture, the general instincts of men and women remain a given: get the other sex to date down, get it to take care of the children, get it to put up with cheating, and prevent it from sleeping around (greater emphasis on children, emotional and financial commitment for women, greater emphasis on sexual double standards for men). When there are wide deviations from this model, it's usually because the sexes have found something compensatory that justifies giving less weight to a part of their agenda, that is all. As for penis shape, you concluded too fast: it may be meant to scoop out the cum, but it's simply one out of several strategies for that same goal of limiting other males' genes access to your sexual partner. It is an addition, not a contradiction, to the preference for low notch count women. (Bear in mind that I am in no way trying to derive an ought from an is: I'm saying these are our biological instincts, not that we are justified in imposing them)
Vitriol 2016-05-13 09:18:39
"Rest of the field is made of a collection of regular dudes who could do a lot better with minimal game and some self improvement. Bottom line is if everybody realized that, nobody would buy their BS."The basics of what most guys consider to be game and self-improvement are pretty simple and only take a few months at most to get deeply into. Beyond that, many guys won't be able to improve their closing rate too much without doing something drastic like steroids or plastic surgery to improve their appearance or moving to a totally different part of the world where women might be more receptive. Once a guy has optimized his appearance and knows how to consistently talk to girls and come across reasonably well, it's absurd to think that doubling down on the same behavior with tons more approaches is going to help. However, a lot of guys who are heavily into the PUA stuff actually advocate that because their way of getting laid is the "true and correct"method. Anyone else must be some angry MGTOW, porn addict, or lazy loser who can't be bothered to approach and face rejection. I remember seeing some of these guys tell older male virgins to start doing approaches and they might get laid in six months to a year. That's a really great way to solve the problem.
"On the other hand I think there’s a lot of guys doing PU and really trying to help people (most of them for free), so I would not rush and put everybody in the same basket."There's definitely some benefit to younger guys who really don't know anything about women forcing themselves to interact with women to get a better understanding of how things work. That's certainly how I became red-pill aware, and at the very least it should instill a healthy amount of cynicism about how women can be opportunistic and ruthless, and how things like marriage, relationships, and dating aren't perfect in real life. So you're correct to acknowledge that there's a difference between helpful general life advice versus assuming every guy who doesn't want to spend years of his life doing thousands of cold approaches (and all the wasted time, money, and effort that comes with that) must be a loser.
johnnybegood 2016-05-13 08:38:11
deep down I think my outdated biology still forces me to spread my seed on an untouched vessel…Funny how mixed up people get about biology. Completely incorrect -- it's actually society and your cultural upbringing (including religious influences) that make you prefer screwing virgins. Not biology. Those are cultural hangups. Chiding women for 'putting out' too much or too easily is a combined effort from women who want to protect the supply of pussy, and men (possibly betas in authority, or the priesthood) who tell women 'oh you can't fuck him and you can't put out to Mike and you can't do this' -- to retain sexual control via morality, rather than ... actually being sexually desirable on their own. No, biologically speaking, you shouldn't give a fuck if a women is a virgin at all. Especially if you are just going to pump cum in her and leave, an effort of about 5-20 minutes. Hell, even the shape of your penis itself was designed to scoop the cum of other men out as you hump a girl, so your seed gets to impregnate her. Not exactly 'virgin' territory we are talking about here. In terms of biology, you are only assessing the health, fitness, and fertility of a woman (based on cave-man standards, not reality). I don't think the # of times she's been fucked has ever come into play in the animal kingdom (and we are indeed animals). Mostly because this is usually unknown. Her current number of kids may come into play. Also, age isn't the best indicator of virginity anyways once you get past age 18. It's unusual for a hot girl not to have been fucked sideways by then. No, that's a cultural desire, not a biological one.
Shanghai Bobby 2016-05-13 08:08:15
BD, Can you please summarize what you class as 'GAME'? I think that this terminology is being thrown around too much, and a lot of guys get super mad when they think what they're doing is having good game, but in reality they're just being Mr. funny man clown making the girl laugh. My understanding of what game is: killer instinct (being able to pull the trigger/not being a pussy) confidence persistence (work ethic) OI social freedom (i.e. touch the girl when you want, talk about sexual topics/sexually charged conversation, and etc.) being relaxed For me, anything else is just mainstream pickup crap. Cheers, SB
POB 2016-05-13 06:16:38
But PUA sites come up with this bullshit where they tell guys to just do even more approaches, dress slightly differently, or put a few more hours in the gym (all while buying more PUA books, watching their youtube videos, etc).@Vitriol Problem is most commercial PUAs are too afraid to lay out the truth: only a handful guys are gonna make it using their tools. Rest of the field is made of a collection of regular dudes who could do a lot better with minimal game and some self improvement. Bottom line is if everybody realized that, nobody would buy their BS. On the other hand I think there's a lot of guys doing PU and really trying to help people (most of them for free), so I would not rush and put everybody in the same basket. @Crab Just to make it clear, of course I was generalizing, because I know some iron maidens who'd laugh hard if you mentioned crossfit or zumba as "fitness alternatives". But you're right, most women I know don't diet properly and weight train very infrequently (if they train at all). About men's SMV peaking at late 30s, a reasonable measurement might be tinder matches. When you're 35-36 (and attractive), you'll have no problem matching with 18-25yo chicks. But once you change your age to 40+, those matches drop by 75-80%, maybe more, even if you look the same.
BlindIo 2016-05-13 02:36:37
The change in beauty standards may have something to do with the population becoming increasingly r-selected. One of the traits of r-selected species is reproduction at a very young age. Girls are, supposedly, getting their first period at earlier ages than they used to. But is it also having a psychological effect on male preference? In prehistoric times it may have been evolutionally useful for men to prefer older women in environments with low amounts of food, and younger ones when food was plentiful. And it's not like anyone is starving in the west nowadays.
bluegreen 2016-05-13 00:30:30
Today’s standard of female beauty....What about Kim K., Beyonce, JLo, Christina Aguilera, Rihanna, Nicki Minaj, Kate Upton?
SMV has nothing to do with you personally, or any other individual you can cite.Tomassi says much the same thing
Data is not the plural of anecdote.I would consider adding Vitality to the list for men. I would also say the 4 (wealth, confidence, appearance, social standing) may be all partial indicators for Vitality (i.e. high sex drive, high energy, ambition, "life of the party", charisma). Wealth/Income Confidence/Dominance Appearance Social Standing Vitality
Game > SMV.Why not look at Game as a way of increasing one's personal SMV? If someone is getting laid more, doesn't that demonstrate probable higher SMV? I would add Game to list for both men and women. Good game could be seen as a good indicator for many attractive qualities like intelligence, social skills, ambition, right? Men = Wealth/Income, Confidence/Dominance, Appearance, Social Standing, Vitality, Game Women = Youthfulness (much like vitality?), Appearance, Game For men, in terms of increasing the main SMV factors, here's some ways to improve those factors (I think). Wealth/Income = improving skills, investing, continuous learning, making the most of opportunities, creating and/or selling value, long-term planning Confidence/Dominance = positive self-talk, cultivating good habits, being assertive Appearance = diet, fitness, dress, good health habits, grooming Social Standing = not sure exactly but maybe good vibes, giving freely, being assertive, "win-win" scenarios, being a leader, adopting important roles Vitality = this seems mostly biological, so maintaining/improving good health Game = improving game, practicing game
Blackdragon 2016-05-12 21:33:36
I agree, though with a slightly different twist. If you go back through the archive of this blog and the the CJ Blog, you will see me complain semi-regularly and repeatedly that today's Hollywood's women have the small-breasted bodies of little boys, while in the 80s the hot women had big tits and big(er) hips. So yes, the beauty standard has changed, as it always does. I hate it.
Miley Cyrus, Mila Kunis, Taylor Swift and Ariana Grande as examples. Hot? Yes. Fuckable? Hell yes. Arousing? Most definitely.Not to me. I find Miley Cyrus and Ariana Grande's bodies disgusting and wouldn't touch them. At all. Mila Kunis and Taylor Swift I consider barely fuckable, and even then they'd have to keep their shirts on while having sex with me. I'd much rather have sex with one of my FBs or MLTRs. Bring back the 70/80s, when women looked like women. Lynda Carter, Loni Anderson, Ellen Barkin, Rebecca DeMornay, Madonna, Kelly LeBrock, Samantha Fox, Kim Basinger...and so many, many others. Today's standard of female beauty = prepubescent boys. I utterly hate it.
John Smith 2016-05-12 20:01:00
With regards to how hot women are vs their age, this has been an interesting topic for me. Blackdragon, consider the following: As an example we will use the old music videos by George Michaels "Freedom" and "She's too Funky". When I was a young kid watching those VH1 videos (and the like) they consistently gave me a raging hardon. Thank god for youtube because nowadays I can relive the experience at will. I mean, my god those women make me feel like I could fall over lol Today we have a different view of beauty being shown to us. I guess we can use the likes of Miley Cyrus, Mila Kunis, Taylor Swift and Ariana Grande as examples. Hot? Yes. Fuckable? Hell yes. Arousing? Most definitely. It takes me back to that stage right at puberty when you were hot and horny for everything that walked and sex was this enigmatic, new and unattainable thing. These days 20 and 30 somethings (like Jessica Alba) still look like kids in a way. But weren't all of those models in the George Michaels videos all young 20 somethings at the time? It is as though there is a different hardwired biological reaction between these two ideas of what is beautiful and what is sexy. The idea of fucking a Ariana Grande as a pubescent minded young teen is immediately arousing. I guess a part of that quality in a man always exists. But if I really think about it, I much rather have any one of those girls in the George Michaels video hands down. They look like young (youthful) WOMEN as oppose to sexy teenager-like girls. So the view of what is beautiful has changed. Back in my day all of the underdeveloped little girls wanted to grow up and look like women. Now they feel old as they reach the age of 23? (I had a hot 23 year old tell me this at the local mall recently). So although sociological programing may change what we are told is sexy, I feel as though a vast majority of men still would choose the women of old VH1 and Baywatch if given the chance. Young but womanly-looking women and the style that they exuded over today's more child-like, underdeveloped no tits and ass selection. Any man would be just as content fucking any of these women. But if given the choice (as in the example of a room full of men promised absolute anonymity) if you had to choose? Would you really elect for the the likes of a 18 year old Ariana Grande or the likes of a 25 year old Linda Evangelista or young Cindy Crawford? I am curious to read your reply. BTW, this blog is amazing and has helped me immensely 🙂 The Alpha male 2.0 was a fantastic and illuminating read.
Vitriol 2016-05-12 19:14:05
but I was also getting into cold approaching and got sucked into the PUA notion that “sex only counts if it is from a cold approach” which was a popular view to this day just go on PUA networksI probably also cost myself some pussy about 4 or 5 years ago by buying into this line of thought. Using only PUA style cold approaches to get laid is like voluntarily keeping a shitty sales job. You only get paid on commission, most of the leads suck, and you can go days, weeks, or months on end without closing. If someone had a job like that, you would probably tell them to only keep doing it until they found a better way to get money consistently, right? But PUA sites come up with this bullshit where they tell guys to just do even more approaches, dress slightly differently, or put a few more hours in the gym (all while buying more PUA books, watching their youtube videos, etc). Any normal heterosexual man is going to think that spending a significant amount of time on wasted effort through approaches that go nowhere isn't really a great long-term solution to getting laid. It isn't even really a great use of your valuable time once you've reached the age of 24 or so and have a reasonable understanding of female behavior. That's why a lot of the men buying the "game conquers all" line of thought really take it too far and end up with some ridiculous results. Do you really want to spend most of your time on your fashion, style, and wardrobe, be neurotic about your physique and diet, and become a social butterfly who goes to things like networking events, happy hours, and night clubs, just to talk to everyone and not even drink any alcohol because "it might mess up your game"? Sounds like how a lot of people might stereotype a gay lifestyle actually.
Blackdragon 2016-05-12 18:15:57
On the flip-side, age alone can raise a man’s SMV. For example the average 33 year old man will have a higher SMV at 33 (i.e., greater sexual options) than he did at 23 just because he got older (even if at 23 he was more ripped or whatever) because women tend to want someone their age or older.Correct, I just clarified that in my comment above. Men's SMV does indeed increase with age alone but only until age 40 or so. So I agree with your 33 vs 23 example, but I would not agree if you compared a 35 year old man with a 50 year old man.
BlindIo 2016-05-12 17:10:09
“I shouldn’t have to change my hair just for you men!!! Fuck you!”This is the biggest problem for me. Women today have terrible personalities compared to the past. And it's all because life is easy and safe. 18 is not too young. I'd prefer younger if only the law still allowed it. For the simple reason that they get older so why not get as many good years as possible.
The Dude 2016-05-12 16:48:43
BD - A person's peak SMV represents the time in their life when he or she has the most and highest caliber sexual options. That is a 35 year old woman with high-caliber genetics can be hotter than most women younger than her, but assuming she optimized her SMV throughout her life, based only on youth and looks, her SMV will still be much lower at 35 than the 21 year old version of herself. However, as you mentioned, there are external factors that affect someones ability to attract the most and best options. For example, sex ratio in the city is a huge factor. Regarding the 18 vs 23 peak for women, it's not just societal programming that causes female SMV to peak at 23 as oppose to 18 (although you are right that SP does discourage men from going that young), but the societal structure. That is, most people graduate college at 21 or 22 and hit the working world the following year around 22 or 23. At that time women have much greater access to higher SMV men (i.e., men age 24 - 40 with careers/jobs) than they did in college where they were they primarily were surrounded by lower SMV men (i.e., younger full time students maybe working part time). Yes, a girl might have been hotter, younger, tighter and objectively more desirable at 18 than 24, but if she took the normal college to corporate working wold path, she likely has way more access to a greater number of high SMV going to happy hour with her bosses/managers than going to a keg party at the frat house. This was especially true before the online dating boom where a successful man age 30-40 would have a much tougher time meeting 18 and 19 year old women on a regular basis (obviously online dating is changing that). On the flip-side, age alone can raise a man's SMV. For example the average 33 year old man will have a higher SMV at 33 (i.e., greater sexual options) than he did at 23 just because he got older (even if at 23 he was more ripped or whatever) because women tend to want someone their age or older. This allows him as a 33 year old to potentially go for girls his age and younger which, if you go down to 18, is a 15-year span, while at 23 he had just hit the working world and was competing over a smaller pool of women his age and younger with older, more established higher SMV men.
CrabRangoon 2016-05-12 14:31:14
@POB "Tell a woman she has to squat heavy to loose weight and tighten her ass and she’ll probably skip it and go to a zumba class just because lifting “is boring and will give me a big biceps” and dancing is “more fun” and “burns a lot of calories”." Very true here. I actually know a couple girls who are "zumba instructors" and are chubby. Zumba and dance type classes like that are a joke. Girls need to strength train as well, not just worry about burning calories. Not to mention their diets typically suck.
POB 2016-05-12 14:12:50
Nice post! Some quick points: 1) I'm also not sure if women's SMV peak at age 23. Although I know they are still very young and their sexual performance is generally better than their younger counterparts, deep down I think my outdated biology still forces me to spread my seed on an untouched vessel...and my caveman brain knows chances are higher the younger they are. But who knows? Maybe if someone did a blind experiment with 18-23yo attractive women, guys would probably end up picking the more sexually developed (better breasts, butts and hip to waist ratio) disregarding age completely; 2) Generally speaking, I think women know that appearances and looks matter a lot to us. They also know (deep down) that their peak comes at a very young age. The problem is they usually ignore sound advice on how to maintain a young body/face as they age (especially when it comes from straight men). Tell a guy who wants to grow muscles how to eat and lift and he'll more or less accept it without question, even if he does not follow through. Tell a woman she has to squat heavy to loose weight and tighten her ass and she'll probably skip it and go to a zumba class just because lifting "is boring and will give me a big biceps" and dancing is "more fun" and "burns a lot of calories". Also women tend to focus their efforts and jump in on the new "fitness trend" or "miracle solution" that costs a lot of money. Fitness, cosmetic and fashion industries make trillions every year selling those very "amazing discoveries" they come up with every now and then. What's the bottom promise? Buy this and you'll look younger/hotter. Sad part is 90%+ of the time it's just a scam, but girls keep buying anyway. On a side note, I see a lot of hideous women with perfect hair! It's like everything else is falling apart but the hair's been 100% taken care of. I guess it's one more indication that it really is one of the most sexual parts of the female body. BTW, I agree with all your points, especially the ones regarding game>SMV and the manosphere shift.
joelsuf 2016-05-12 14:05:37
Mid-PUA (late 2000s): “Looks matter and are a strong factor, but you can overcome a lot of that with strong game.”Yeah that's been my view for awhile now. Still gonna be my view. If you are relatable, masculine, popular, and experienced you can be a total loser and still get with chicks. It really is all about getting your name out there. But most manosphere idiots want to talk to less chicks but get more chicks. This makes literally no sense to me and because of this hubris I have become accustomed to troll manosphere areas just to see how butthurt they get. It doesn't take much lol.
Wealth/Income Confidence/Dominance Appearance Social StandingI'd like to add experience to that list. A 25+ year old male virgin could have all four of those but because he sees his virginity as a "problem that needs to be solved" it will cancel out all of those. But meanwhile someone with none of those if he has a lot of experience will get him chicks almost naturally. Even more strange, if a virgin LEARNS about sex, is excited and curious about it, and it makes him experienced and ready for his first fuck (like me when I was a virgin) chicks will flock to him. This happened to me about a decade ago when I was still trying to get rid of the V card and probably 5 or so chicks in my social circle wanted to have sex, but I was also getting into cold approaching and got sucked into the PUA notion that "sex only counts if it is from a cold approach" which was a popular view to this day just go on PUA networks (which I also troll). I should have just hit up the chicks in my social circle lol
Blackdragon 2016-05-12 12:18:00
As we get older, men appreciate, women depreciate. Sorry, but this simply isn’t true. After about 45 men DRASTICALLY depreciate in SMV, overall. Remember, women get to decide this, not you. Men like to tell themselves they are getting hotter and hotter as they age, but this isn’t any more true for men than it is for women…it’s just that men have a later peak in their SMV (around 35).I agree it's an oversimplification to say that men automatically achieve higher SMV as they get older, however: 1. That IS generally true with men under age 40 (and it is NOT true, getting higher SMV as you get older, for women of any age). If you're just talking about people under 40ish, the men appreciate, women depreciate statement is accurate. 2. When men climb over 40, then yeah, this gets a little more complicated, since as I said in the article and as you said in your comment, most normal men start to look like shit when they enter into their 40s. (Monogamous marriage is a BIG contributor to this.) So I would say a more accurate statement is this: As they age, women depreciate, men appreciate as long as their youthful and fit appearance holds.
When I am drunk I have a good game. However, when sober not so good anymore.So your game used to be good; what happened? Just undo what you did to make your game less good.
mark 2016-05-12 11:29:19
BD Good article and I generally agree. I used to have a really good game. When I am drunk I have a good game. However, when sober not so good anymore. When in a social situation I have not problem with game when there is nothing at stake. However, in a dating situation or pick situation I tend to seize up. What do you recommend to read to shake the cobwebs off and get my game back? Mark
Gil Galad 2016-05-12 11:19:52
With bodies it’s perhaps a little closer but even there women rely on youthful connective tissue holding a lot of body fat in all the right places (breasts, butts). Once the connective tissue loses it’s firmness everything sags, looking worse with time.and
So as everything sags on a man’s body he can counter much of it by managing to carry lower body fat levels and making sure he maintains or gains muscle mass. [...] Gaining muscle mass won’t really restore her curves, unfortunately, but more women should train squats to at least keep a nice ass.Agree 100% with this. All women would benefit from lifting or sprinting.
Yes, but these effects of age, given the best possible conditions (genetics, health, self-care, etc.) serve to make men’s faces look more masculine and make women’s faces look more… masculine.Agree to an extent. Past a certain age these effects become negative for everyone. Almost every effect of age on a woman is detrimental to her attractiveness starting in her twenties. On men, those effects are partly positive at first, and become negative past 35-40.
Kurt 2016-05-12 10:14:22
Both men and women have the same skin and are exposed to the same outside elements. What ages us would be the outside elements like sun & wind, lack of sleep and just the years passing us by in general. These things do not just affect women only.Yes, but these effects of age, given the best possible conditions (genetics, health, self-care, etc.) serve to make men's faces look more masculine and make women's faces look more... masculine. So women lose out with this one, even though the physical effects on the face are the same. With bodies it's perhaps a little closer but even there women rely on youthful connective tissue holding a lot of body fat in all the right places (breasts, butts). Once the connective tissue loses it's firmness everything sags, looking worse with time. Men don't have to rely on that level of body fat to look good (in fact it's more the opposite) and look better at lower body fat levels than women do. So as everything sags on a man's body he can counter much of it by managing to carry lower body fat levels and making sure he maintains or gains muscle mass. A woman is screwed at either high or low body fat but will usually be at least better off with lower. Gaining muscle mass won't really restore her curves, unfortunately, but more women should train squats to at least keep a nice ass. Not fair at all and I really feel for women on this one. But the way it is.
Diggy 2016-05-12 09:24:03
I don’t make the rules here. I just play the game.Don't hate the player. hate the game. If you are not born extremely rich or have some insane talent that will lead to frame, the name of the game is maximize your genetic disposition. Working hard to improve at any age will improve your SMV from its baseline. So why not skip the focus on age or the impending doom and just do the best you can with the tools you have? Is that not what this website is about? Turn 38 this year... Not worried at all. Because of my growth I will do far better than I have in the past.
Lovergirl 2016-05-12 09:17:12
The good news about SMV (for both men and women) is that if you look/act better in those categories than the vast majority of other people your age, then you're going to kill it with the opposite sex. Nobody guesses that I am almost 40 and that is fantastic for me, as a woman. I'm fortunate enough to have great genetics, in that the women in my family all look significantly younger than their age as they get older, even my 60 year old mother, who looks 40 despite taking terrible care of herself and being a drug addict. Even taking halfway decent care of myself will give me a leg up. It's part looks and part attitude and energy. I met a guy the other day while I was working who told me he was 44 and all along I had been thinking of him as an "old guy". I hear a lot of 40 year olds complaining about aches and pains and graying hair and (knock on wood) I haven't had to deal with those yet even though I'm close to that age. It just makes you seem old when you act like you are. I was working the other night with a 20 year old girl, who worked at Hooters before she came to work with us. She has a cute face and is skinny but not very big boobs. She told me her reason for leaving there was because she couldn't deal with all the "creepy men" even though she knew it was part of the job, she said it was just too much. You would think more men would be hitting on/flirting with her than me, but because she is a little more shy and I am more outgoing it didn't work out like that. So personality does make a difference too, as well as maybe that she looks TOO young for a lot of men. My boss (who would totally get fired or slapped with some kind of sexual harassment lawsuit or in trouble with sexism if anyone at our workplace actually cared, lol) is 50 and always commenting on various women when we are out and about. He thinks the 18-20 year old cheerleaders at some of the games we go to look like "babies" and says their moms are hotter, or the 25 year olds. I think a lot of times people make the mistake of thinking 18-20 year old girls are high schoolers or younger, because a lot of times you can't really tell, especially when you are long out of high school yourself. So you may think you like 18 yr olds but they are actually 23..... I sure thought this girl working with me was younger than she is.
Carmichael Reid 2016-05-12 09:05:22
As an aside, for the younger cats on this blog. Your flexibility with time and money count alot in getting premium poon. Most of the guys I know who are getting/marrying girls in their late 20s are 9-5er betas. Bad bitches love the free man who calls his own shots. BD forgot to mention the Holy Grail of attractiveness which is Time Freedom. If mixed well with Financial Success... it's a home run. But in the beginning you're just an unemployed bum. Don't stay this way.
Bulma78 2016-05-12 09:00:06
As we get older, men appreciate, women depreciate.I wanted to comment on this statement as well. I don’t necessarily see why this would be true, it’s not like men have an automatic, built-in fountain of youth. Both men and women have the same skin and are exposed to the same outside elements. What ages us would be the outside elements like sun & wind, lack of sleep and just the years passing us by in general. These things do not just affect women only.
Women’s SMV is determined by these factors: Appearance & YouthfulnessI agree with BD that our looks are within our control. People don’t usually think ahead to preserve their young looks. I was very early on this idea and began when I was 20. I have been in preservation mode for many, many years. Mainly because I had looked at my mom & aunt, who still look good for their ages, but I knew I could do way better, plus I’m a little vain. I’ve turned myself into a human science experiment.
Carmichael Reid 2016-05-12 08:46:56
You are an individual, and an individual is not a statistic.Yet, many individuals choose to behave like statistics. Which is too bad.
As we get older, men appreciate, women depreciate.Valuation is completely relative to the buyer. Many men around my area are rich and retired yet they still have wives who are 10 years younger than them. But if the guy is 55, the wife is 45. She's still passed her prime who have been married to for decades (When he was 28, she was 18).
The vast majority of 50 yr old men are unattractive.I would titty fuck Susan Sarandon in a heartbeat. Doesn't mean I would be seen with her in public. Women are attention whores who are attracted to power which, I agree not a lot of 50 year old men have. Majority of people in general don't live up to their potential!
As is so often the case, we’ve moved from one stupid extreme to the other. We should have stopped halfway. I’ve been very clear that looks do matter, but I’ve also been clear they’re not the deciding factor that so many men today think they are (odd cities excluded). Game (including confidence and outcome independence) is hugely important. Never let all this focus on esoteric concepts like SMV dissuade you from the truthI think men need any mix of 3/4 attributes to be consistently good with women: Wealth/Income Confidence/Dominance Appearance Social Standing I don't buy that young guys can't get young girls that bitchy whiny redpillers complain about. I had no money but played every sport and looked great and got to pick my girl. Still do. I just find most guys are very lazy in locking down any of these traits to raise their SMV and get mad when someone tells them about the promised land and hence end up like the unattractive 50 year old mentioned above. Live Now. Pay Later. Pay Now, Live Later. I disagree that women have it easy. To elevate their SMV, they have to have a substantial amount of money not only to plastic surgery, but make rent and car payments too. Which most women can't do. Most women who can afford plastic surgery already have a sugar daddy that meets her "basic" needs. The game is hard but simple and fair.
Lovergirl 2016-05-12 07:49:05
As we get older, men appreciate, women depreciate.Sorry, but this simply isn't true. After about 45 men DRASTICALLY depreciate in SMV, overall. Remember, women get to decide this, not you. Men like to tell themselves they are getting hotter and hotter as they age, but this isn't any more true for men than it is for women...it's just that men have a later peak in their SMV (around 35). Sure you can work really hard at being attractive after your SMV takes a nosedive, but men who tell themselves they are going to get hotter to women as they get older are kidding themselves. The vast majority of 50 yr old men are unattractive. This is why women laugh at men who think they are going to have 20 yr olds fighting over them when they are 53. It's ridiculous, unless you look exceptionally young for your age.
Anon. 2016-05-12 07:01:14
There’s just so much more beyond appearance. Personally, I find myself aroused by behaviors more than by looks.
Gil Galad 2016-05-12 07:01:07
You're right about women's peak being around 18. Physically speaking, there really is nothing that "improves" about a woman's looks between 18 and 23. Below 17-18, some aren't fully physically mature yet and so we're bordering on hebephilia, and above 20, literally nothing is getting better and the first signs of aging are slowly building up. The reason 23-year-olds might look better than 18-year-olds is that in those five years, 1° aging is extremely negligible, 2° the girl had the time to figure out how to optimize her appearance and the way she carries herself, etc, and has the money to achieve just that. Tomassi's graph is a bit steep in my opinion, but I'm probably being misled by how statistics work. A girl who is a 9 at 20 may still be a 6 or even a 7 at 42 even if she isn't perfectly trim, and that chart would have us believe that a woman loses all desirability in her forties. But the blue graph ("Men") seems quite correct to me. I still cringe when you mention breast implants LOL. Maybe I was unlucky with those I "experienced", but fake boobs strike me as unreal and unpleasant. In fact any fake boobs that don't successfully fool me into thinking I'm touching real flesh are a turn-off for me.
Nitpicker 2016-05-12 06:36:09
A few nitpicking (not much to disagree with in the whole) points here: A really nomenclature point: I might be wrong but I have always believed that "game" is considered a ( important) part of SMV. That would make your definition go off a bit but still wouldn´t invalidate your point. In the end it doesn´t matter whether you insist that "game" is important within the SMV or outside it, it still is crucial. 18 vs. 23: You would have to do the test just showing 18 and 23 y.o. women without telling the men the age. I´d actually bet money (although not much) the 23 would win. Have some photos of 18 and 23y.o. girls sent, and make a survey like you did with body types. On this (purely academic) point I would lean towards Rollo´s 23, I would even say 25 years and I am far from sure it´s just societal programming. If it were, we would be saying 30. Yes you´re right, we might get there soon and not so long ago we did say 15 and a 23 was way too old for anything worth mentioning. It can be also said that my view is obscured by societal programming in the fact that somewhere in me I expect to have to deal with the woman for a longer time than till first ejaculation, which can skew the result and I am not actually evaluating the SMV but some sort of relationship potential. Still... Finally SMV for women: looks and youthfulness. One thing I am always amazed at on the web is how men insist the looks are the most important factor with a woman. My guess is you just try to make the thing seem much simpler than it is. I have seen numerous women who, seen in a photo, wouldn´t get a second look, yet men fight over them in real life while dumping supermodel material (which partially supports the game > SMV point with which I agree). But... I personally think it´s not "game" (or not only "game") but something much more biological working on a pre-caveman level, something you can´t learn (you can compensate for it at some other level though). Might be the forever disputed feromone stuff. I have met women whom I didn´t like at first sight (not enough breasts on her, too skinny or too fat, crazy hairstyle, dressed like crap, walks like a buffalo, you name the problem) yet after coming close to them (and before they could start playing any game on me) I got crazy like a dog in heat and each time I actually got them (which was not each time, sadly), the sex was awesome. Then I´ve known a few really beautiful women who, for some crazy reason didn´t even get me horny or, when I got them, the sex was a disappointment. Most of the time I could agree on this problem with friends: we agreed the woman was close to perfect, we craved to see her naked and would willingly jerk off to her pictures but seen in flesh at close range none of us really desired to get her to bed (don´t give me the "you didn´t desire her because you didn´t dare" because I did dare, got them and was disappointed and necessarily by their fault, it just didn´t work out). I would argue that this "something" definitely enters the SMV.
Eddie 2016-05-12 06:34:55
BD, another great article. I just checked out your other site "Girls With Game."...looks classy and well done, my friend....Congrats!!!! BTW..I always felt a woman's sweet spot was between 18-25 and us men 30-40....and as we all (should) know... As we get older, men appreciate, women depreciate.