What’s Your Number?

One significant difference between men and women which the Red Pill brings into stark focus is the fact that measuring male and female Sexual Market Values are very different propositions. One reason is that both male and female SMVs are on a different curve. But the principal reason lies in the fact that you can gain a relatively accurate idea of a woman’s SMV after a few seconds of looking at her (assuming she isn’t wearing a Burkha). How do you easily measure a man’s SMV? Appearance is only part of what makes a man attractive to a woman. In fact, the whole package can be summed up in the LAMPS formula: Looks, Athleticism, Money, Power and Status. However, the most important set of attributes, which fall under Power, cannot be measured or discerned easily. Power is a highly subjective sub-category of attributes, and thus defies easy efforts to rank on a 1-10 scale. Certainly for men trying to judge this and have that judgment line up the same as a woman’s discernment is unrealistic, at best. This makes it nigh-well impossible to assign a man a SMV value on the 1-10 scale using a static observation.

So this raises the question: how do you evaluate male SMV? I think that the only practical way to do so is to observe the SMV value of the woman who are attracted to a man. It stands to reason that if a man is capable of pulling the attention of female 8s, but not 9’s, then he is a Male 8. Likewise, a man who can pull 10’s is also a male 10. The hypergamistic nature of women means that they are very unlikely to be attracted to men below them in SMV rank. Therefore, you can use a woman’s SMV value as a tool to measure the SMV ranking of men she associates with.

Where this method might break down is with regards to lower tier men. Female hypergamy, especially the toxic hypergamy we see today, might be of such a nature that men below a certain threshold get essentially no female attention at all. Or at least female attention from equals. Novaseeker is a strong proponent of the argument that the lowest tier of men and women are essentially locked out of the SMP/MMP, and always have been. If that is so, then this is hardly a universal means of measuring male SMV.

Given all of this, I am asking my readers for their thoughts on the matter. How do you measure male SMV? Can you realistically measure male SMV? Or is the complexity of female attraction to men simply too much?

Advertisements

22 Comments

Filed under APE, LAMPS, Men, Red Pill, Sexual Market Place, Women

22 responses to “What’s Your Number?

  1. Well, you already know my answer–simply too much! haha
    How I would determine a man as marriage material would be done by three steps: 1) Scripture 2) Prayer 3) Discussion with my family.

  2. simply too much…that should be an oxymoron…

  3. Those are three good steps, although I would start with your family first, so that you can read scripture and pray on it while you family is thinking it over.

  4. That is very true…thank you.

  5. But a the same time, I wouldn’t raise it up to my family if I did not think he was marriage material. How I would determine if he was marriage material would be through prayer and scripture. If I bring it up to my family, then that means I’m seriously contemplating marriage. My family’s approval will be the last step, this does not mean though that my family would not know about him or that I’m courting him, my family would be very involved so they can hep me make a wise decision…But that is just me. I’m curious to hear what the other women will say.

  6. I have been married too long to play the “if I had it to do over” game, and I am very happily married despite doing it all wrong so there’s really no point in it. God has been gracious to us and we are very blessed.

    As for your LAMP’s. My husband had LAP, with a clear potential for M. He is objectively handsome (you don’t even have to take my word for it anymore). If I had to rank him, I’d say 8, before his conversion. I am assuming you’re referring to objective markers outside of faith based indicators.

    But to answer your question: yes, the complexity of female attraction is too complex to quantify in the ways that you men seem to be able to do.

  7. He is clearly an impressive man Elspeth. I know that some give you crap for marrying as you did, but whats done is done. The key is for others not to follow the same dangerous path.

    And yes, Faith is entirely outside of this. I know Matt A likes to argue otherwise (and he is right that Virtue plays into Power in some respects), but LAMPS is all about attraction. Faith is something you desire in a mate, but attraction is what gets you noticed.

    Alte noticed her husband because he is good looking, and the fact that he was a Christian satisfied her “desirability” for a Christian husband. But it was his attractiveness which opened the door.

    And Butterfly Flower, despite her protests to the contrary, experienced the same thing. Its just that her husband, being a chaste believer, didn’t upset her desirability preferences like some of the other “hot” men she knew.

  8. You evaluate his SMV by the attractiveness of women wanting to have sex with him.

    You evaluate his MMV by the quality of the woman wanting to marry him.

    The two values are vastly different.

  9. The Ringmistress

    @Leap, that’s a good point. It may explain the confusion women have regarding attraction, as well, since “attractive as a mate” is different from “attractive as a man”.

  10. It’s not that uncommon for a man to have both high SMV and MMV, though. Is it?

  11. Re: SMV and MMV

    Male MMV and SMV are often very close. At least, in a normal culture/society. After all, male SMV includes the man’s status, the amount of money he has and makes, and personality characteristics. All of which would naturally factor in MMV.

    Any real difference between SMV and MMV would almost certainly come from a vast discrepancy between a man’s Money and Status values and the other values.

    For example a PUA might have a huge Power value, and thus a decent to high SMV in the current SMP, but his MMP would be low. In a healthy society this wouldn’t happen often; sadly our culture is anything but.

  12. Male MMV and SMV are often very close. At least, in a normal culture/society.

    Yes. Only in a disordered culture do women want to have sex with men who are clearly not marriage material. Now you’ve seen enough of my commentary to know that I don’t shy away from reality. If a man is physically attractive, then he’s physically attractive and I don’t think we get virtue points for pretending to be blind. BUT…

    There was a time when most women understood that a man with good looks and swagger wasn’t necessarily good for them. We live in a disordered culture now, one where sexuality has been divorced from marriage and family and things have gone bad quickly.

    Hence the apparent disconnect between SMV and MMV.

  13. Exactly. I think that quoting from Titus 2:3-5 is appropriate:

    3 Likewise, tell the older women to be reverent in behavior, not to be slanderers or slaves to drink; they are to teach what is good, 4 so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 to be self-controlled, chaste, good managers of the household, kind, being submissive to their husbands, so that the word of God may not be discredited.

    The problem is compounded by the fact that the older generations can no longer teach the younger generations upright behavior, because they themselves turned away from it long ago, and forgot what little they actually knew. In many respects I fear we must start anew in creating a proper moral climate. The task ahead of us is far greater than a mere restoration to the way things were.

  14. You are correct Ringmistress that MMV includes some things which are not found in SMV (although not the other way around). However, I think we need to be careful about the terminology we use.

    I have taken to use the word attraction purely in the sexual attraction, SMV sense. When talking about traits women want in a mate, I use “desirable.”

  15. While I agree that SMV and MMV can be very different, I don’t think that there is a huge disconnect in women from wanting to shag a guy and wanting to secure commitment from him. Not like there is for me.

  16. Historically, for 95% of the women born since the emergence of homo sapiens, their SMV and MMV were identical, given that sex apart from marriage had dire consequences. It was usually set by the prominence of the woman’s family.

    Sons were for continuing the family line. Daughters were for forging strategic alliances. Ask the Hapsburgs.

    For those willing to go that route, SMV had a very literal, monetary meaning what they could charge for their services as prostitutes.

    Also, remember that until very recently, men were born with a measure of MMV by virtue of the complicit exclusion of women from the workplace. This is no longer the case.

  17. I think that they are different after the widespread use of birth control. Specifically for the relationships between men and women under 30.

    This is because older generations are counseling women to do the exact opposite of the scripture you quoted.

    Otherwise you’d never see ‘good girls’ (which there are none of as all men and women are fallen, but for this purpose Christian girls) hooking up with people that inspired the all mighty tingle. This is how you get self reported accounts of women sleeping with men they hate (but make tingles) while making men they want to marry wait so that they see her as more ‘pure’ and higher quality. The really crazy discrepancy between the two is seen at the extremes of sexual attraction, with both sexes. But you still get more inflated egos with mid range women than down to earth.

    Thus, in today’s society, they’re drastically different. And dysfunctional. In a Christian society they’d be the same.

    Thus why I state that a man’s smv is who he attracts sexual attention from

    Mmv is who he attracts commitment from.

    A man can be either or both. The smv only is a player, the mmv is a future chump, but a healthy marriage needs both

  18. @Donalgraeme: You brought up a good point when quoting Titus 2. Also, I think another problem would be that we live in a very individualistic society today, where we all (especially young people) want to go our own way and no longer want to seek counsel from the older generations, even from the few left that still have sound advice. By getting rid of male headship, the family unit is dispersed.

  19. Ok Leap, that makes a lot more sense when you put it that way. The root of the problem is what Elspeth said it was, the way our culture treats sex and marriage.

  20. “Or is the complexity of female attraction to men simply too much?”

    It didn’t used to be before birth control and subsequent feminism.

    The complexity used to be that female attraction was strictly regulated by her parents and society…now Pandora’s box has been opened there probably isn’t any accurate way of nailing it down.

  21. I have to disagree Earl. Female attraction is biological; it operates under the laws of nature. It hasn’t changed for a long, long time, if ever (maybe the Fall changed it, tough to say for sure).

    How women have acted upon that nature may have changed since birth control and feminism, but the nature is the same.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s