Do you believe that Men and Women have a Sexual Market Value (SMV) or is it all just pseudoscience?

[coachTanthony]

Do you believe that Men and Women have a Sexual Market Value (SMV) or is it all just pseudoscience?

Yes it's real

No that isn't true

It's a red pill scare tactic

To be honest I am not sure

See poll

[philthespark]

Yes, sex sells, years ago car manufacturers used very attractive girls to advertise sports cars, it was supposed to make you think that if you drove that type of car then you could get that type of girl. Barmaids were another one, a barmaid with a large chest and low cut top was always guaranteed to bring the men in, quite often it was a case of, 'the ale may not be that good, but they've a barmaid with great tits'.
At some of the trade shows I used to attend, it seemed at times that some of the exibitors were competing against each other for the most noticeable girls on their stands. I remember one show, there was one exhibitor and he had this tall blonde girl, all she was wearing were these black knee high boots and a lycra catsuit in pale blue, that was about 2 sizes too small, it left NOTHING to the imagination, not only did she attract a lot of people to the stand, but lots of people were talking about it for weeks after. You'd go into a suppliers and they'd ask if you went to the trade show, followed by, 'did you see the bird in the lycra?' and you'd reply, 'yes the one on the x#*& %$£ stand.
I'm not going to name the company, but you get the point, it worked, a lot of women sales people are quite clever, and use the 'sex sells' bit to their advantage, quite often a male sales rep won't get in at a firm, yet a woman in a short skirt, tight top, or some other revealing clothes, will not only be invited in, but also secure an order, so they'll return.

[englisc]

They do kind of, but it's not the be-all end-all. There are many other things that matter when it comes to choosing a partner, especially for a long-term relationship.

For a man, sexual market value is mainly determined by:
- height
- looks
- earnings
- age (late 20s early 30s being the prime years)

For a woman, sexual market value is mainly determined by:
- looks
- number of sexual partners + casual partners
- age (late teens early 20s being the prime years)

In general as a man, the taller you are, the better looking you are, the more you earn, the more women will like you. In general as a woman, the better looking you are, the less sexual partners/casual partners you've had, and the younger you are, the more men will like you.

But there's more to it than that right? Things such as:
- sense of humour
- personal compatibility
- similarities/differences in values
- emotional connection

Most people have an idea of what they expect from a partner, kind of a base level of SMV. Most people have an "ideal type". Yet, often they end up with someone who isn't that type, and are perhaps even lacking in those areas, because that person has other attractive qualities that make them attractive despite that.

[Boppy]

This is very similar to my thoughts on the subject. I think it may be helpful to think of SMV as using just the easily-read traits, but not considering the deeper levels of compatibility.

As such, focusing solely on SMV feels kinda dehumanizing, as it ignores personal depths.

[el_Te_de_la_Rosa]

For me, men who are unavailable, married or not are off the market. No matter how good lookibg they are.
Me myself is too old, too indifferent to romance becuase I love researching about how our brains work. It's easier to understand what attraction is like rather than falling in love with someone myself.

[el_Te_de_la_Rosa]

Thank you for the MHO.

[StingRayxoxo]

I don't even know what that means and I'm not sure that I care. I just want to give all of my love to someone. I hate all these dating rules and gimmicks and tricks.

[rjroy3]

It's an attempt to make a nerdy scientific model for attraction between men and women. So if a guy knows his SMV he'll know where he stands in the hierarchy of men as potential partners for women. Basically think rating people on a scale from 1 - 10 and taking that to the Nth degree lol. So you're not just a 6 or an 8 anymore. It's like, you're an 8 in looks, but your financial success might bump you up to a 9, but if your career type is viewed as low status that might bring you back down to an 8. It's kind of humorous, but has some truth behind it.

[StingRayxoxo]

I see how it can make sense but do you really think that everyone in the world thinks this way? Like I can't be with this person because he's not this number or this rating, etc.

[rjroy3]

Not at all lol, but I understand the principle and it does carry some weight. While not everyone thinks in terms of "I only date 10's". Most do have a more vague idea in their head of a certain level of quality they are willing to date and a level quality they wouldn't consider. While we wouldn't look at it through the lens of "that's a 6 and I don't date 6's". We still do make that assessment in our minds. We just don't give them numbers.

Like if you're determining things you value socially one could ask on a scale of 1 to 10 how important is that to you? And just go down the line with all the major points, then on paper you would have your idea of a theoretical 8, 9, 10 even tho you don't think in those terms. From that model of thinking that's what it would be for you.

The average person has a naturalistic assessment as opposed to a scientific rating system assessment. But it's still an assessment, just without the number.

[StingRayxoxo]

The rating system without the number, I think that's more accurate for me. I know that I couldn't date someone who is/isn't x but could date someone with x criteria.

[StingRayxoxo]

Thanks for sharing your explanation.

[rjroy3]

*tips hat*

[OlderAndWiser]

Sounds like a concept developed to sell books and seminar tickets.

[young_old_soul]

It's not remotely as cut and dry as the MGTOW incels make it out to be, but there definitely is such a thing to a degree. Those who are considered to be physically attractive will of course have a higher SMV, and vice versa. But this is only really relevant when comparing people exclusively on looks. Not to mention, individual preferences can vary tremendously. A "6" to one person could be a "10" to another and vice versa. I would say it is mostly pseudoscience, as a coping mechanism for the have-nots.

What I consider to be a more accurate assessment is "Dating Market Value" (DMV). This would factor personality and socioeconomic factors into the picture, often greatly outweighing physical attractiveness. SMV and DMV are positively correlated but that does not imply causation. One can have high SMV and low DMV - e. g. someone you'd happily hook up with or be friends with benefits, but would never want to commit to a relationship with, let alone marry. That's how I see it from my own experience.

[Oram52]

"One can have high SMV and low DMV - e. g. someone you'd happily hook up with or be friends with benefits"
That's exactly what they are implying or trying to define. Hence the sexual part in SMV. Somebody with high SMV can still ahve high DMV, but somebody with high DMV can't necessarily have high SMV like you mentioned.

[mattdzz]

It's real. However, it could only be accurately measured by taking several different people's evaluations into account. Generally, a mans SMV could be broken down into Wealth/ Looks/ Sex, while a girls would be broken down into Looks/ Morals.
Of course looks are predicted on preference in terms of race, or thick vs. thin, but generally people will prefer someone thinner as opposed to fatter, etc., and White/ Asian girls are more desirable than black girls.
For example, a guy could be extremely wealthy, be average on looks, and be average on sex, but still get a 9.4. On the other hand, a girl could be broke, gorgeous, and have a body count under 5, and still be a 9.4.
Girls value is heavily weighted on their looks, which decline in value as they age, until they are considered "expired" by most after 30. Also, some guys will weigh their morality, which impacts how their behavior as a partner would be perceived, differently. For some a girl with 20 partners, who was loyal to all of them could still be considered a "good girl." For others, loyalty doesn't matter as much as absolute number, which is why it's important to take many different perspectives in order to get an overall public Sexual Market Value figure. All things equal: low body count> high body count (any over 10), Loyal> cheater, and relationships> hookups.
To be fair, a guy could be gorgeous, be broke af, and great in bed and they'll be initially high value (in high school), but quickly lose value as girls are looking for someone to take them out, and eventually provide for them (whether or not they make good money themselves).

[ronaldo75]

100% Real. As I enter my 30s I see myself getting much MUCH better looking than I did at 25 years old while women my age seriously look more and more like shit. There were girls I had a crush on at 22 that are now 36 who turned me down when they were hot and now are interested in me even though I wouldn't go near them with another man's dick. Age obliterates women if they're not careful. Also as women these days less and less want to be seen as physical objects let me tell you that on the personality end they dont get better. women in their 30s and 40s become bitter and jaded. Nowhere NEAR as fun as younger girls.

[btbc92]

It's not real. It's real for people who want to discriminate others because it makes them feel better and get them the attractive partners for sex they want. And harm others who are sincere and truly desire a good relationship. I honestly now don't care what others think of me. I know what I am deserving of. And it's not based on somebody biased SMV. Everybody has value and its not based on sexual attraction. It's a choice to be DE-valued.

[RustyTinCan]

I can see a degree of truth to it, in that people have preferences and most people are not so desperate as to have sex with anyone that will have them. That said, it's not like when people go looking for sex, they stop and say "let me grab my blue book". The SMV is simply overblown and greatly exaggerated in my opinion and while I don't think attractiveness is quite as subjective as some people think, it's not exactly so objective that you can assign a market value to everyone that everyone else will agree with.

Stick to your gut.

[rjroy3]

Mostly true at about 80/20. The principle idea is pretty intuitive, but SMV is overstated in my opinion. I can think of more than one occasion where I or a friend competed for a girl, when another guy of higher SMV by superficial societal standards came up and the girl chose me or my friend over the other guy just because she liked us. Per SMV idea of the world that should be impossible and the girl will always choose the guy of higher SMV.

I have heard certain concepts that would explain that, but they were not the SMV model of the world. Personally I don't prescribe to SMV, but it's pointing to a truth that is worth understanding.

[taleswapper]

What you need to realize is that "value" is SUBJECTIVE. So it's not an exact science, just a way of examining the aggregate behavior of people in search of a partner.

Some people will value one factor, or one range, more than another. for example, I prefer skinny chicks. I adore the Olive Oyl girls; it's just my thing. And I much prefer older women to younger ones. I'm 57, after all. A 19-23 year old is more like a child to me.

But in general, a woman's appeal will go down after about 35, or as she deviates form the ideal shape of her culture, because those are things that the average male in that culture prefer.

[Passinggas]

That was all started by economist types and it is simply an easy way to evaluate the trends of the decline of relationships and marriage. It is like the butter vs guns curve or the Laffer curve, a concept that there exists some tax rate between 0% and 100% that will result in maximum tax revenue. One can simply apply that there is a minimum in relationships based on the maximum feminist-man-hate. Smv also applies, relationship gain vs. pain, looks, risks, etc. It isn’t a bad abstraction to explain a lot of things with male-female trends.

[Oram52]

Their is no scientific basis or any research validating concept of SMV. However concept SMV is used in research (SMV, LDV, SDV etc). I wouldn't call it pseudoscience as it doesn't necessarily go against any scientific reasoning.

I think its good concept as it is good way of analyzing or dealing with specific concepts in dating, its good to use as comparison. It is of course subjective and can be determined by individual preferences. But SMV collectively would inherently include that, as we're basing it on our own preferences and what we may perceive preferences opposite sex has.

I definitely believe both Men and Women have SMV, which can depend on different factors. Its clear specific proportion of guys are more successful and find it easier than other guys.

[tartaarsaus]

Sounds like a decent theory.

If it's like with demand and supply, and the value is decided by that, sure I can see the logic.

Naturally, demand curves differ based on the individual's preferences, but that's the exact same in real economics and demand/supply analysis.

Naturally, we could apply some basic algebra and assumptions and eventually come to certain relationships between variables (e. g. income) and attractiveness. However, those results would heavily depend on the assumptions someone makes.

Nonetheless, it sounds decently acceptable that there are variables that increase one's attractiveness and others that decrease it.

[Moonchild714]

Personally, I don't see it I'm wanted more now tgan when I was younger. I can't figure it out. I'll be out with all my friends ages 20-70 and I'm getting hit on not them. I do believe there are individuals who may use this and will be sorry when they find it is all BS. I think many use this as an Excuse for why they can't get anyone. People have to have something to blame rather than look at themselves at find a way to fix what may be an issue/turn off to others...

[manmeat]

very true

so take it your hot and you got great personality as well :D

[coachTanthony]

@Moonchild714 well according to the SMV you are washed up ! LOL

[Moonchild714]

manmeat, No I would not say I'm hot, I think I'm average 7 at the most. Do have an amazing personality though. My friends say its my confidence and also what the guys and strangers say there is this Aura around me that they are all just drawn to me. I do know everyone says I'm very approachable to talk to.

[Moonchild714]

coachTanthony, that's why it's all BS made up by people looking for Excuses...

[manmeat]

@Moonchild714
follow me?

[Anonymous]

SMV exists, but it's relative to how ego driven, and obsessed with the physical plane we are as a society. Most of us have a sheer beauty that remains unseen that is muddied by the waters of our own compulsive thoughts and ego.

For example, this comment ''Well I can assure, no one is going to want to buy a 48 year old bald man. That’s for sure.''

Now look closely at the comment. It's mostly based on the physical plane. But there is no telling what lies beneath this bald 48 year old.

The same goes for an old woman with sagging skin. How many would be capable to see beyond the physical?

I once met a woman that I didn't find that attractive at all. But despite this, I decided to go on a trip with her. This was despite her wanting to be more than friends, and knowing how I felt.

However, the more time I spent with her, the more I realized she was the most attractive person I'd ever met. it would have been my loss if I rejected her due to not being physically attracted.

[Billybob643]

This is absolutely disgusting in my opinion. Reducing someone’s worth as a person based on how much sex they have. A woman’s value (keep in mind this a PERSON with feelings, hopes and dreams) is not reduced to how often she has sex. That’s gross. The same for men. A virgin guy isn’t any less valuable as person because he’s never had sex. Some people may have a preference for the number of partners someone has had, and that’s okay, but to tie a value to a person is always quite gross in my opinion.

[coachTanthony]

So I am guessing you don't believe it?

[Billybob643]

Yes 😂

[HereIbe]

"Value" is a purely subjective phenomenon and has no applicability beyond a specific transaction. The actual "value" of something is what is exchanged for it. If the offer of exchange is refused, then the "something" doesn't have that value. Value can change in an instant because it is only pertinent to a specific transation. There is nothing at all intrinsic in value.

Value is not merely personal, it is personal, temporal, and further contextual. Thus, speaking of a "sexual market value" should only be done with this knowledge. Treating it as some sort of "price tag" is stupid. Then again, people are stupid enough to treat price tags as actually stating the "value" of an item. They don't. They merely state the "asking price". If people aren't willing to pay that much for the item, it doesn't have that much value.

[MistiGal]

I agree, its very real, but many have different perceptions on what it means it has nothing to do with price tags.

[cavmanier]

We all have a desirability amount to each potential mate. It's highly subject to the potential partner though and not like some fixed number for all. I'd think this would be fairly obvious? It's similar with cars or home types. Some like sports cars and others like luxury cars. Some like beach houses and some want to live in a cabin on a mountain.

[genericname85]

it's not "science". it's just an idea. and yeah i think you could say it like that. a female sexual market value falls with age, while a male value starts out low and grows over time.

[White-American89]

More or less yeah. It's kinda hard to define because it differs slightly from person to person as well as gender wise.

[LukeLugh]

I have looked up the components of this value system, it is really quite obvious. Improve upon yourself and you won't have as many problem finding a partner, be it serious or casual.
I do think there is a sexual market value, but I do think sexual instinct precedes all the specific components addressed within this value system. I would say the value system pertains more to serious relationships.