Manosphere myth: ”Men’s average SMV is higher than women’s after the age of 35”

…Hold on a minute. Average male SMV (that is, SEXUAL market value) is NEVER above average female SMV. It isn’t how the sexes work. When it comes to sex, women, on average, are the ones with the goods, at ANY age. If male average SMV was higher than female average SMV above the age of 35, then

1)Prostitution would reverse itself – men would sell, and women buy

2)Women over 35 would have a hard time getting laid, and the only thing men over 35 would need to get laid, is to “just be there”

3)Women who get laid a lot after 35 would be considered skilled players.

That is simply not the case.

If we’re talking about raw SMV, and not MMV (marriage market value) or RMV (relationship market value), then a male 7 and a female 7, despite having the same name, do not have the same SMV. He is a 7, and she is more like a 700.

Considering all this, I don’t understand why people in the manosphere keep repeating nonsense like “Relationships are most stable when his SMV is two points higher than hers” or that the SMV graphs intersect after 30. It’s obviously untrue. You can believe in this, and at the same time insist male and female sexualities are different and lead to the stud/slut dichotomy.

However, I think that men’s MMV or RMV probably does rise above women’s after a certain age. Then you can make statements like “Relationships are stable when his RMV is two points higher than hers”. It won’t be wrong.

For the longest time, I didn’t want to say this, in fear it will discourage men. But I can’t stand any more dishonesty, and don’t think it will be all that discouraging. I mean, it’s a fact that for women, getting laid is easy (on average), and hard for men (on average). It’s the source of the stud/slut phenomenon. It’s not some big blow to any man’s ego to admit women are the gatekeepers of sex. Also, despite overwhelmingly large SMV, women have no use for all that sex they could be having with everybody who offers himself. They don’t feel they are above a man, just because they can have sex with 1000s of men, and he can only have sex with 5 women per year.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Men, Women and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

134 Responses to Manosphere myth: ”Men’s average SMV is higher than women’s after the age of 35”

  1. You need to read Dalrocks and see what happens when grannies think they still got it.
    Sorry, but yes, women’s sexual market value drops as she ages and as her unattractiveness or ill health increases. Age, unattractiveness and ill health are all proxies for bad sexual genetics or menopause coming soon!
    Eivind himself views female reproductive capacity as the reason that supposedly (in a very very simplified form) females have pretty much all the sexual power.
    When you take in account that middle aged and older women tend to not be able to reproduce, then I think it shows you why I’ve had 3 of them basically throw themselves at me over the past 2 years, behavior I’ve only once seen from a younger woman.
    And throwing themselves doesn’t mean ‘horny’ and enthusiastic. I’ve had that from women where I’ve done all the chasing. What I mean is that they initiated and pushed for the sexual contact. You want to see when women are at height of their sexual power? Think ages 15 to 35 ( and only that age or above if she kept herself in shape, hasn’t went into early menopause, etc). If you think women ages 35 and up can go into a bar and get sex as easily as they did at 25 or 18, you have another think coming. They still tend to have it easier than most men up to say age 45 (once again, if in SHAPE) but it’s no longer such absolute power, and they actually have to WORK to maintain it unlike when they were younger.

    • emmatheemo says:

      “Sorry, but yes, women’s sexual market value drops as she ages and as her unattractiveness or ill health increases.”

      Sure, I never denied it. However, it’s illogical to say women’s SMV drops BELOW the male one.

      “If you think women ages 35 and up can go into a bar and get sex as easily as they did at 25 or 18, you have another think coming.”

      Maybe not as easily. But easier than men of the same age. My mom is 54. She looks like a regular 54 year old woman. Men offer her money to have sex (we live in a somewhat low class area though) . Of course, she is not into that, and even feels offended, but they are serious. If her SMV was below, SHE would have to pay them. Neither she nor them are terribly in shape.

      Aging is a blow to female sexual power for sure, but it doesn’t mean getting laid becomes hard for an old woman. I don’t think so. I observed it. Old women don’t run out of sex. If they aren’t getting laid, it’s often because they lost the sex drive, or men who are available aren’t attractive to them.

      • Salome says:

        Very true. Men seems to be under the delusion that they get more attractive as they age. Newsflash they don’t. Saggy skins (yuck) saggy balls (lol) loss of testosterone, gynecomastia in older man, wrinkles gray hair; heck, even your smell start to smell wrong as hormonal changes affect your natural (clean I add) body smell etc etc etc. Not to mention higher risk for reproductive genetic disorders related to older in men of 30+ of age.

        Men are at their hottest in their early-mid twenties, get over it. I mean, those who were actually good looking to begin with, not physically unattractive young men obviously :p

      • Maldek says:

        You are confusing physical attractiveness with overall SMV.

        For a WOMAN 90% of her SMV comes from looks. For a man it is different. Maybe 30% is body. The remaining 70% are what is known as beeing a badass or alpha if you wish.

        The 20 yo johnny handsome you mentioned may have perfect abs but he will still loose against the 40yo actor from hollywood every single time. As a man you get valued for what you have in terms of money, power, fame, skill and experience. A lot of these traits come with age.

        As a woman you are valued for your looks and your ability to have babies. Even from those cads who banged 100s of women but have no kids. Even they prefer women in the prime of their fertility.

        Male SMV is about getting as many hot women in bed as possible. Mother nature is wise and made it so that men can have the most babies in a given time period this way. Think Harem.

        Female SMV is not about getting tons of men in bed. It is about getting commitment from a quality man. Thats why the hot babes are working their ass off to get from an 8.5 to a 9. If it was about the bedroom only, even your 45yo saggy best friend does ok.

      • emmatheemo says:

        Well, if SMV is defined sensibly, if it actually says what it says, instead of “when I said “sexual market value”, I actually meant the marriage market value”, then a woman’s SMV is, indeed, all about sex and not securing commitment. I prefer to keep these words defined unambiguously.

      • emmatheemo says:

        Eh, I’m not sure I agree with you. I’m neither a proponent of “women hit the wall at 25-30” theory, neither of the “men over 30 are gross” theory.

        I know some manosphere writers say women are old-looking after 30 and I don’t agree with them because I’m just not seeing it in real life. But I also disagree with those who feel butthurt by this and say something nasty back about the men.

        Personally I think men look best with a few wrinkles, but that’s just me. (Btw, men have thicker skin that wrinkles and sags slower. Surprising, isn’t it?)

        All my post is saying is that women are always the gatekeepers of sex on average at every age.

      • Taylorinscoe says:

        You’re delusional. You’re an aging harpy desperately trying to ease psychological distress caused by impending irrelevance in the sexual market. All of your points prove you don’t know what you’re talking about:
        1. Women sometimes pay for sex. But women, no matter what their age, will never pay, en masse, for sex. Sex isn’t their stuggle… love, fidelity, resource acquisition for children, and declining fertility are the worries of the feminine.
        2. They do “only have to be there.” No one is beating down the door of 35 year old women, no matter what they’re selling. In every situation (prospective wife/gf, prostitute/escort, etc.), older women offer less (youth and beauty, fertility, femininity, less baggage) and thus settle for less… often very hard. The going rates for prostitutes regarding weight, skin color, and yes age have been floating around the Internet for years now. Only an old harpy with something to sell or a useless point to prove denies this.
        3. Women cannot be players… not in the conventional sense. Women dont have game because they don’t need it. They are the choosers as well as the chosen. Men need to game because women choose prospective mates off of more than just looks. Men are visual, women are holistic. Women can never be players because men are born whores, being the sex cursed with a disproportionately high sex drive so as to make the prospect of vying for female attentions seem worth it. How could you ever be a player? We already want to have sex with you… getting sex from men is no accomplishment. Getting love and commitment from a man every other woman wants the same things from…. now that’s hard.

        Yes, older men have to stay in shape and focus on the aesthetics, but aging is primarily the greatest enemy of the feminine. Weep, for if you have not extracted resources and commitment from a worthy man by 30, and you put have not won the genetic lottery, you will settle for less than you could’ve had in your roaring 20s.

    • I know a woman that is 47. She is the poster child for spinster cat lady. Drives a man repelling mini van. She is thin, but that is her only good trait. A “5” at best, and that is in the 47 year old age bracket 5–not the “all ages” bracket. Until a few weeks ago she had slept with 1 man in her entire life. After her divorce she went 4 years without having sex. Then something snapped in her head and she is going ape shit. Introducing her to OKC was like giving unlimited heroin to an addict. She is out of control.

      She can get laid any time she wants, by any age man she wants. She is having to turn men down by virtue of the fact that there are not enough days in the week.

      So this case study proves Emma’s point. The average woman’s SMV is higher than the average man’s, otherwise this 47 year old spinster would not be screwing men ages 21-60+. She would not have the option of having to pick and choose which ones to screw.

      Now, she might come across men whose individual SMV is higher than hers, and in that case she might pursue them. But those are individuals, not averages.

      PS: 35 year olds in bars do just fine. 65 year olds in the right bar probably can too (but I can’t personally attest to this age bracket yet).

    • Salome says:

      I don’t know why some guys need to make up all these bs stories lol (well, okay I sorta figured why). If you’re the guy in the photo, no chromosomally normal women would even give you the time of the day, let alone an attractive one.

      • emmatheemo says:

        Oh come on, Clarence really doesn’t look that bad. That’s just a dicky thing to say.

      • Salome says:

        “Oh come on, Clarence really doesn’t look that bad. That’s just a dicky thing to say.”

        Err,,,”he doesn’t look THAT bad” is not exactly a compliment either :p It actually sorta reinforce what I was saying. One could have said “he doesn’t look bad” for example which significantly change the meaning but you choose to say he “doesn’t look not THAT bad” instead, meaning he does look bad but not quite John Merrick level of bad.

        Aaaaanyway getting off topic here the topic was men and women “SMVs” and if someone is willing to be perfectly honest with the opposite sex they should no troubles being the one that’s being evaluated should they not? If someone was an hypocrite like that, they would be the dickish one actually.

      • emmatheemo says:

        I wasn’t intending to say he looks bad. To me, he doesn’t look bad at all, he looks normal. Decent. Average-ish. But English is not my first language, so I can make mistakes sometimes.

        Salome, maybe you really think he looks terrible, but so far it sounds like he said something offensive and you want to call him ugly for it. Not that I mind (he’s capable of standing up for himself if he must), but I think people will get much further by arguing his points, rather than insulting his looks. Or insulting all 30+ men’s looks. It kinda makes me feel bad for everybody.

      • :-O says:

        “meaning he does look bad but not quite John Merrick level of bad. ”

        His name was Joseph Merrick and he was not THAT bad looking. I heard that some women find men with big heads sexy

  2. Emma:
    I disagree.
    A middle aged or older man (think Hugh Hefner esp when he was middle aged ) CAN exceed most females of the same age or olders sexual market value. Men’s value does not drop as fast and so it rises relatively to female decline. Sorry, there are some women who hit with the ugly bus or who are so old (generally any woman over 60) that no man short of her husband or someone in her own age cohort or older ) consider to have any SMV at all. Surely you don’t think the general sexual power of younger women extends to downright (not just overweight but grossly overweight) fat girls as well? I will say it is still easier for fat women 29 or less to get sex than most men (unless they have some other defect besides weight) but surely you wouldn’t think a 25 year old fat girls SMV exceeds that of a rockstar in the same age group?

    When one says men’s sexuality is worthless, I’m sure you don’t literally mean that but you mean that, on average, young and middle aged (esp in youth) mens sexual market value is lower, often vastly lower than a woman in the same age bracket.
    My only points of disagreement are that this is not absolute and it does change somewhat over time. I will say there are far more males at age 45 whose smv exceeds the average value of a 45 year old female than there are male 25 year olds with the same advantage. And I will claim that MOST men do exceed most women’s SMV once the age of 55 or 60 is reached. Do you disagree?

    • emmatheemo says:

      “A middle aged or older man (think Hugh Hefner esp when he was middle aged ) CAN exceed most females of the same age or olders sexual market value.”

      Yes, he CAN, but this post is about averages.

      “surely you wouldn’t think a 25 year old fat girls SMV exceeds that of a rockstar in the same age group?”

      Can you read the first paragraph of the post, and count how many times I said “average”? It was written there for a reason 😉

      “And I will claim that MOST men do exceed most women’s SMV once the age of 55 or 60 is reached. Do you disagree?”
      Disagree is a strong word. Lets say I really, REALLY doubt it. What I strongly disagree with, is that male SMV is higher than female one, at the age of 35. That’s ridiculous. At older ages like 60, average SMVs can be closer together, that is what I’ll agree with.

    • Eivind Berge says:

      “And I will claim that MOST men do exceed most women’s SMV once the age of 55 or 60 is reached. Do you disagree?”

      Not at all. if anything, the difference in SMV gets even more pronounced in old age. Young men can sometimes get by without any extrinsic resources if they look good, which is how female sex tourism can operate. But can you imagine a 60-year-old man having any luck with women if he is dirt poor and without status or fame?

      Meanwhile, women can still make a living as prostitutes when they are 70:

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/sep/17/oldest-prostitutes-amsterdam-70-twins

      Men exceeding women’s SMV at any age simply isn’t a tenable theory if you look at the real world.

      Here is another old whore aged 71:

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/28/sygun-liebhart-prostitution_n_2567654.html

      “Lola” went by various ages from 60 up and turned tricks for $150. An apparent small sum compared to similar ads by much younger women who request $300 plus for sexual services.

      But still way more than men can command at any age!

      • Clarence says:

        The examples of a few aged whores, Eivind, doesn’t prove your point any more than feminists saying that rape is about power and the existence of granny rape makes the fact that 90 plus percent of rapes are of fertile and young women go away.
        Most whores retire by their early to mid 40’s.
        And maybe it’s just me, but while an old man who lives in a box usually (there are exceptions even among the homeless) doesn’t get any, I know quite a few older men racking it up usually with women ten to 20 years younger.

        Oh well, that’s just me. Anecdotal data and such, blah blah 🙂

        So I disagree. Big whoop. Nice talking to you.

      • emmatheemo says:

        The problem is, for every granny raped, you can show tons of young women raped. Can you find any old men, selling sex to women?

  3. Interesting article Emma, but the conclusion seems pretty meaningless at the end of the day. Sex is a female good that is traded by them for some other good (love, protection, financial resources). This is what market value means – it isn’t simply the number of units you can sell, but for what price or exchange. And sure, it might be the case that a 40 year old woman could find it easier to get casual sex than a 40 year old man, but the average 40 year old man could still hope to get casual sex with a female in the top 10% of quality sexual mates (i..e attractive girls in the 14 – 24 range), whereas the 40 year old woman could not realistically hope to get casual sex with a man in the top 10% (i.e. an alpha). And this is all assuming the pretence that casual sex has the same ‘value’ for women as it does for men.

    One interesting point you raise is the example of prostitution, and one point you seem to ignore is the way that feminists have rigged the free sexual market in favour of older women.

    First of all, it’s not true that older women do not purchase sex. An estimated 100,000+ European and American women (mostly age 30+) flock to the Carribean each summer to take advantage of barely literate, poverty stricken ‘renta-a-rastas’.

    Secondly, why not include the ability to purchase sex as the ability to have sex and hence a component of ‘SMV’? In orther words, given that even when it is criminalized by older women in places such as Norway and Sweden (in order to artifically shore up their own sexual market value) it is still not too difficult for a 40 year old man to find and pay for the services of a female prostitute, surely this counts as much for his ‘sexual market value’ as it does for that of women? Unless you are now defining SMV not in terms of ‘ease of getting laid’ but rather in what price can be demanded. In that latter case, we should be able to grant that ‘market value’ or price can consist in more than what a punter hands over to a whore (and this is in fact why feminists and puritans hate prostitution – the prostitute is trading sex cheaply for simple cash, and bringing down other women’s ability to trade their sex for goods (financial support, emotional and economic commitment etc). This, by the way, is the reason why the biggest slut shamers of whores and ‘easy’ women are other women.

    Sexual market value is really only cocommensurable intra-gender, not between genders. What these manosphere graphs are trying to illustrate (I assume) is that a man’s SMV rises as he ages (relative to other males, and up to a point), whereas for females it declines (relative to other females).

    • emmatheemo says:

      First, you’re right my post is a bit redundant, but the term “SMV” is misleading. People who live in this part of the internet understand what it really means, but it’s far from obvious.

      ” This is what market value means – it isn’t simply the number of units you can sell, but for what price or exchange.”

      Ok, I admit I’m no economist, but can a house buyer have house market value in the house market?

      “but the average 40 year old man could still hope to get casual sex with a female in the top 10% of quality sexual mates (i..e attractive girls in the 14 – 24 range), whereas the 40 year old woman could not realistically hope to get casual sex with a man in the top 10% (i.e. an alpha).”

      That’s a good question. Who has more sexual value: someone who gets laid with ease, can rack up an N of 100s, even getting paid for it, but with average and below average mates, or someone who has to work for most of his lays, but can have above average mates?

      ” And this is all assuming the pretence that casual sex has the same ‘value’ for women as it does for men.”

      I don’t think it’s necessary to assume this. Of course it doesn’t have the same value to the sexes. And precisely this argument proves my post. SMV is just how much you are sexually valued by members of the opposite sex. Men value women for casual sex, while women don’t value most men for casual sex.

      “One interesting point you raise is the example of prostitution, and one point you seem to ignore is the way that feminists have rigged the free sexual market in favour of older women.”

      I’m not ignoring it. Those who say “men’s SMV over 35 > women’s SMV” are talking about the western feminized society. In this society, this statement is not true. But I would be curious to see how men and women fare in non-feminist, not rigged societies. Somehow I doubt women there struggle to get laid after 35 either. Maybe at some much older age?..

      “First of all, it’s not true that older women do not purchase sex.”
      I’m not saying it never happens. It just isn’t comparable, and she isn’t purchasing just the sex.

  4. Eric says:

    Emma:
    This article dovetails into some comments I made on the previous post.

    Feminist women do not value men—sexually or otherwise. Men have no ‘market value.’ Like Antifeminist pointed out, the sexual marketplace is completely rigged against men. The way to break this cycle is to educate men to deny women what you called ‘the reality that women are the gatekeepers of sex.’ That’s a feminist-imposed social construct, and that reality must change.

    That’s what is appealling about MGTOW: it denies women access to high-status men and relegates them to pursuing the low-status men over whom women can freely exercise all their supposed ‘power’. Like Eivind, I would never be involved with a feminist. That’s what I meant before about men reclaiming their sexual power. Men have to be educated out of this feminst-instilled mindset that women are everything and men are nothing, sexually speaking; because as long as that attitude permeates society, women will continue to treat good men like garbage.

    • emmatheemo says:

      “That’s a feminist-imposed social construct, and that reality must change.”

      I’m pretty sure gatekeeping of sex never reverses itself in any society. That is, men are not gatekeepers anywhere. Also, other animals with a polygynous evolutionary pasts are the same way – females pick and males compete for it. You don’t have to rig the system against men (or against male animals) to observe this.
      Lol, you really are the MacKinnon of the MRM, if you think female sexual power is all a construct. (joking, but true)

      . Eivind would surely fuck a feminist, but he wouldn’t have a relationship with her. Fucking a feminist is not “giving her what she wants”. As I said, women don’t value sex just on its own, men do. I think the traditional way of going your own way is refusing to contribute to society that gives you nothing, and not have relationships with women. This forces everyone to make up for the lost contributor, and think (and write “Where are all the good men?!” articles). Not having sex with women will probably do nothing. Right now, men in general are still very much interested in sex with women, even if they are influenced by feminism, and to stop this force of nature, you need an equally powerful force. For every man refusing to have sex with women, there will be 5 who’ll fuck a woman whom they can’t respect.

      ” Men have to be educated out of this feminst-instilled mindset that women are everything and men are nothing, sexually speaking; because as long as that attitude permeates society, women will continue to treat good men like garbage.”

      But men don’t have much raw sexual value in the SMP, no matter if we treat them bad or not. This is the problem I have with any ideology – they obscure and twist the truth, because a lie or a twisted truth would be “better politically”. Why not admit women are the ones with sexual power, and simply allow men to acquire other powers (which they are naturally better at acquiring, if nothing stops them!)? It worked in the past, pre-feminism. The attitude was that men were valuable in other ways, wasn’t it?

      • Eric says:

        Emma:
        I don’t deny that women are the ones with sexual power, but what I do deny is that society can or will do this: ‘simply allow men to acquire other powers’. Because in our society, masculinity—in any form—is utterly depreciated and disrespected. That’s what I meant about feminist society and female gender supremacy as an artificial social construct. Women see NOTHING valuable in men: sexually or otherwise. I don’t see that attitude changing.

        On McKinnon: patriarchy and civilization are synonomous. All feminism did was to ‘liberate’ women from civilization and civilized behavior.

        ‘To stop this force of nature, you need an equally powerful force. For every man who refuses to have sex with women, there will be five who’ll fuck a woman they don’t respect.’

        The equal and opposing force is that the quality of those five men who continue to have sex gradually goes lower and lower. Besides that, I don’t see how returning good men to the sexual marketplace would change anything either. Women would still reject such men and turn to the lower types of males anyway.

      • emmatheemo says:

        Ok, then I misunderstood you. But I think if you let men aquire other powers and chuck the state feminism, women will realize how much men are really needed. And we could also try to dissolve the delusions feminism created in everyone. It’s not impossible – creationism is not mainstream anymore, for example.

        “The equal and opposing force is that the quality of those five men who continue to have sex gradually goes lower and lower. ”

        It might work if high quality men actually did what you suggest. But men tend to use all the opportunity they got, when they are alpha. You’re asking them to take one for the team – stay celibate so that betas can get some respect. I simply don’t see this happening.

        Or perhaps by “high quality men” you ARE talking about those hardworking betas whom women reject mostly anyway. Then becoming celibate is even less effective… What he could do is make sure he contributes to taxes as little as possible, and doesn’t support any woman.

      • Eric says:

        Emma:
        I don’t follow these archetypes very clearly, but I think more what I’m describing is the hard-working, productive, and responsible ‘alpha’ type withdrawing from the field. That’s not to benefit betas, omegas, or sub-omegas (the latter being the preferred choice of American females! LOL). It’s to benefit the men and relegate women who don’t value them to the kinds of men who really ARE less valuable.

        That being said, it doesn’t necessarily imply staying celibate, although some sexual discipline is required to make it work. But a real Alpha shouldn’t have any probably with discipline for a good cause: I know I don’t! LOL

        But another way that such men can avoid a socially-imposed INCEL condition AND get their point across is to avoid feminist women altogether and wait for opportunities with non-feminist ones. I don’t date Anglo-American women at all; sometimes though I will date Latinas, Asians, or Eurogirls, when the opportunity arises.

        http://www.no-maam.blogspot.com/2009/02/bonecrker-2-local-vs-foreign-women.html

        Which article sums up how I think men should approach the dating scene over here. But the femihags fight any kind of competition from abroad, so it’s not always easy to do.

  5. Pingback: ….some interesting links…. | stonerwithaboner

  6. jack4510 says:

    Also, it’s the dynamics of the market that counts more than the absolute value. As a middle-aged ageing man, I can go up to any woman and tell her: “I’m a rising asset while you’re a waning asset. So you’d better invest in me for I have no financial incentive to invest in you”.

  7. John Doe says:

    Thought provoking article Emma, but methinks thou art misunderstanding the meaning of the phrase “sexual market value.” It does not mean strictly the ease with which one gets laid by a member of the opposite sex. If it did then I would wholly and without reservation agree with you in the article and your comments. Where you go wrong is assuming that since women get propositioned for sex from men at powers of ten times what men get propositioned, that that fact therefore proves that women have the higher sexual market value. But you have to look both beneath the numbers of whom is actually doing the propositioning, and look to whether the proposition is for a one night stand or a long term commitment.

    Men proposition women for sex much more than women proposition women. Duh. That is the essence of the difference between the sexes. So of course women will be propositioned more. For sex, as in short flings and one night stands. But not necessarily for long term commitment. I assume that most women want more than that, they want long term commitment. And that is what they cannot get, the older they get, from men that were once their peers in the sexual value market. Those same men that those women could get to make a commitment just a wee few years earlier are no longer interested, so the women have to resort instead to men of lesser value (not necessarily older men, and in fact they can still get men much younger than they are, but the quality of the man is much less than she previously could get).

    I agree that your mother can get propositions for sex from men much younger than she is. But of what quality are those men who are propositioning her? If they are high quality men who have their pick of the litter of younger women, why do you suppose they would waste their time on your mother unless it was just a casual fling or one night stand? In fact it sounds as though your mother turns most of them down. Why do you suppose that is? I would venture because it is either because those men are of low quality and/or because the men are offering one night stands or short term flings, something that your mother does not desire. IF ALL YOU CARE ABOUT IS THAT, then don’t worry about your sexual market value, and continue trol-la-la ling along with your delusion that your sexual market value will not inevitably decrease in relation to mens’ as you age.

    But if you care about your ability to make a good man commit to you for the long term, then yes, you bet yer ass you had better be concerned about it. Right now, you think and feel as though you are bullet-proof, immune to aging. And you want to remain safe in that idiotic belief and so you look at your mother and all the men she gets propositioned by as “proof” that your sexual market value will never decrease relative to mens’. There, I’ve said enough to let you know the error of your ways, and if you are foolish enough to not heed my advice, then that is your problem, not mine. What you ought to be doing is going out and finding one good man and making a long term commitment with him. Otherwise, you will be relegated to getting hit on by men for one night stands and short term flings when you are old and past your prime and unable to get a good man to commit.

    • emmatheemo says:

      Of course women don’t get commitment as easily as they do sex. But the word “sexual market value” implies sex, and only sex. This is why I view “relationship market value” as a much better word for what you are talking about.
      Yes, indeed, everyone uses “SMV” to describe what is actually SMV and RMV combined. But It seems weird and confusing, and I don’t like it, even though I understand “SMV” is not literally meant to be the REAL SMV.

      I don’t actually think that getting a man in old age would be as easy as it is now, and haven’t said it anywhere. However, I’m pretty sure I’ll never experience involuntary celibacy, unless jailed or kept away from men somehow. I actually already have a long term relationship man, and not planning on letting him go. However, I felt this post needed to be written, even if just to state the obvious and dissolve potential misunderstandings. When newcomers enter the manosphere, implied meanings of words are not visible to them, you know.

    • whorefinder says:

      As you point out, women cannot really fathom the male sex drive in any way, shape, or form.

    • wbotb says:

      John Doe. You wish lol! The fact is that older women DONget propositioned more for relationships than you get women because men take them more seriously. But women are just as hot in their 40s as they are in their 20s if they have good genetics. It’s a fact mr. Deal with it and stop living in a fantasy that feeds your insecure male ego.

  8. whorefinder says:

    After 35, men wouldn’t need to sell to women if :

    -Female sex drives after 35 were less than men’s under 35
    -Men’s pleasure in sex with pretty women had not not seriously diminished.
    -Men had the money /success to not need to resort to selling (like rich sluts today like Paris Hilton/Kim Kardashian, who would have sold on the streets but had the funds not to do so, and just slept around).

    Quite frankly, there are the occasional fortune hunter-type men who bed lonely hags, and , of course, every so often some article promotes Jamaican sex tourism for women, where a few rich old broads find young nigger studs to take cash for making them feel desirable, or that guy on Shameless , who scams women with his companionship.

    But we notice that because it is so rare–men after 35 have the funds not to do so, and their sex drives are still repulsed by sex with ugly, old women (and the cock can’t lie like a spread eagled vagina can), and women after 35 STILL have a much lower sex drive than men after 35, or men of any age for that matter.

    Your argument is invalid.

    • emmatheemo says:

      SMV is how much the opposite sex values you sexually. That means, for sex, not relationships, and not marriage. Also, this discussion is all about averages.

      If women over 35 have smaller sex drives than men, it supports my arguments, not the opposite. The one with the smaller sex drive has smaller sexual needs, and therefore men are lower SMV to them. Some women say “I don’t understand why sex is so important to guys” – they are not kidding.

      It’s true that men value young women sexually a lot more than they sexually value old women. However, they value most women sexually, at least a little bit. Women don’t value men for pure sex. Put sex drive into it, and the effect is further increased.

      And wtf, no, it’s NOT hard for a 50-year old woman to simply get laid. It’s only “rare” because women’s pickyness doesn’t disappear with age, even if it becomes smaller. They have a hard time finding a man acceptable to them, both because of smaller sex drive and remaining pickyness. It’s not cuz there are no takers. There are more than enough takers.

      You seem to have misunderstood the argument.

      • anon says:

        I think you are correct.
        But consider the source. The only SMV chart I’m familiar with is Heartiste and according to that one your mother has no reason to exist and should be dead. The SMV is the best measure currently available for ‘date value’ but it comes up so often in the manosphere to the point it seems almost an emotional security blanket. “Haha! My little pretty you might not screw me now but you will die alone with your cat! In ten years it will be over! Neer!”
        Not really the stuff well adjusted, confident men obsess over.

      • Sony says:

        Some people need to take a class on reading comprehension because emmatheemo shouldn’t have to repeat herself.

    • wbotb says:

      Stop living in a fantasy. It has been proven over and over again that a woman’s sex drive is just as high as a man’s. Stop trying to show off the sexual prowess that you think you have, but in reality do not. Women up and coming bish!

      • whorefinder says:

        “It has been proven over and over again that a woman’s sex drive is just as high as a man’s.”

        Math and science and valid, peer-reviewed studies are hard for girls. Luckily for their tiny minds, denial is not. 😛

      • wbotb says:

        Bullshit! More and more women are succeeding in math and science. Also, look at all the women nowadays who want sex just as much as men.

  9. Clarence says:

    Ahh, Emma’s in denial a bit.
    I don’t know where her mother lives, but the vast majority of women over 50 don’t look very good and don’t take of themselves here in America at all, and so their sexual value is just about zero.

    Let me put it bluntly: Since I’ve been say 15 the vast majority of women between say 15 and 35 could tell me they wanted sex and have their way with me with no problem. The very fat (double chins or above) the totally unhygienic and the few female “1”s and ‘2”s ( in terms of unsymmetrical features) being the exception as well as a woman whom I was personally aware was a horrid person (in which case I’d rather hurt her than fuck her) – like a false rape accuser.
    And most..not all but probably a bare majority of 35 to 45 women as well.
    But basically the amount of woman I’ve found that attractive over 45 is very close to nil without major cosmetic /laser surgeries and a lifetime of taking care of themselves. Perhaps 20 percent of 50 year old women could entice me to their beds, but they couldn’t order me.
    And that’s the point. Women lose so much of their sexual power over 45 (esp over 50) it isn’t funny.

    • emmatheemo says:

      So you still find 20% of 50 year old women hot enough to just fuck, if they initiated in a pleasant manner? About how many % of men would a woman your age say the same? 50 y old men, especially.

    • wbotb says:

      Clarence, if that’s you in your avatar, even a 90 year old women wouldn’t desire you LMFAO!!

    • wbotb says:

      Hahaha and men don’t lose sexual power after 50???? Ha! Guess again dreamer LMFAO!!!

  10. Clarence says:

    I should also mention my two brothers.
    They aren’t PUA’s. They are hardly aware of the manosphere.
    Whatever ‘socialization’ they get is through friends and tv.
    And they have long regarded most females over 25 as useless sexually.
    I , personally, think that attitude is a bit insane. And I know they don’t 100 percent mean it. Occasionally someone older than say, 30 will catch a glance from one of them. But its rather rare and pretty much every sex symbol I’ve ever seen or heard them talk of is under 30.

    But while I’m less picky than they I still think Emma is making way too light of just how much age affects the average woman in terms of sexual power. And yes, I’d maintain I’m far more on a level playing field now than I was 10 or 20 years ago.

    • emmatheemo says:

      “Emma is making way too light of just how much age affects the average woman in terms of sexual power”

      I don’t think that at all! I DID say that female sexual value is diminished by age, even a lot. However, they are always, on average, the sexual “sellers”. I’m stating the obvious here. Please, don’t view this thing I’m describing as some kind of overwhelming threatening power. For an old woman, men trying to get in her pants is not that valuable, if they offer no commitment or tingles. Even offering money doesn’t always thrill them. Their RMV is lower by this point than men’s. But that doesn’t change the fact that they are still sexual sellers. And congrats on your improvement.

    • ReligionIsAMentalDisorder says:

      “And they have long regarded most females over 25 as useless sexually”
      Virgins!

    • wbotb says:

      Put me in front of your bothers and they’d be on their hands and knees worshipping me!!

  11. ReligionIsAMentalDisorder says:

    Market value? Women are people..not commodities.

    • emmatheemo says:

      Sure they are people and not commodities. But they have something that has a market value in that market.

      • nomisandry says:

        I agree fully with the main point in your article, women are the gate keepers for the most part when it comes to sex but I would like to add & emphasis a certain dichotomy that is on the raise currently & I believe you did allude to in your comments, that is that men are becoming the decision makers or gaining more power when it comes to long term relationship between sexes as a result of the negative feedback resulting from high divorce rate with all the catastrophic negative outcome of it (financial, legal & emotional ), that includes even common law relationships which are increasingly being treated the same way as marriage or long term relationship even if it only last three months in some increasing number of jurisdictions in the west & all over the world as a result (UN, feminism influence, …etc), as a matter of fact that ever increasing social reality , coupled with low number’s of typical alpha male’s with (female) acceptable level of financial & social status on top of higher rates of so called failed to launch males & a fair number due to incarceration (like in the black & Latin communities) creates a warped (SMV/DMV) for increasing number of males, but I fully agree with the main point of your article, Clarance’s point of view seems to either come from personal experience (or his social environment ) or on reactionary ideological basis which doesn’t agree with unbiased (specially by feminist ideology) social studies & stats, anyway thanks for a brave, hold no truths as I see it at least plus let the chips fall were they may can of article.

  12. The First Joe says:

    1)Prostitution would reverse itself – men would sell, and women buy

    – You mean like when all those middle-aged women go off to the Carribean and paying beach lads in “presents” and clothes and dinners and money, to fake being their boyfriend and shag them while they’re on holiday?
    http://english.pravda.ru/society/sex/29-06-2007/94318-sex_tourism-0/

    2)Women over 35 would have a hard time getting laid, and the only thing men over 35 would need to get laid, is to “just be there”

    – Women over 35 do have a harder time getting laid – with men they find attractive.
    Trust me, I’ve turned down more than a few.

    • Shee says:

      Old men can pay for all of those things and still don’t get laid. Also older women are paying younger men for sex. NOT OLDER MEN! Old mens SMV are still lower.

      You may have turned them down but that doesn’t mean other men haven’t. Older women tend to be more secure about their sexuality. They are more bold and assertive toward men they find attractive.

      • maldek says:

        They pay young BLACK men because these are the lowest SMV men on the face of the planet who are still “bangable” (i.e. not omega poor looser types) for women.

        These SMV 1 old ladies would rather have sex with george clooney given the chance. But the high SMV males of a certain age tend to have money. These older, successful men simply have much better options than selling themselfs for a few bucks – these are the ones who bang the models you see on TV after all.

        Women have a small window ~18-22 when they are at their peek and this is when you can snag the best quality male in your entire life. The older you get, the more your SMV will go down and the lower the quality of your potential male will be.

        Sure, there are tons of hot 30yo who get decent husbands. But these girls would have been even hotter at 18 to 22. Back then – with the right knowledge – they would have been able to get an even better man.

        Life is not always fair, but in the long run it is in a balance.

      • Shee says:

        I’m having a hard time believing that an older woman who is ONLY looking for sex will prefer an older man over a vigor healthy young male. It’s been stated again and again that older men with money have a higher MMV/RMV not SMV. Older men without money don’t have such luck.

    • wbotb says:

      Umm no we don’t. I’m 46 and I get gorgeous hot guys hitting on me all the time. Where do you get this notion gem LMFAO!!

  13. x says:

    attractive girls in the 14 – 24 range??
    14 year olds are attractive?

  14. Pingback: Emma the Emo on the ‘Manosphere Myth’ of Female Sexual Market Value Decline | Anti-Feminist Theory of Feminism, Male Sexuality, Men's Rights

  15. Alan Vaughn says:

    @x
    Indeed to most normal men, 14 year old young women are attractive. If you’re implying that any man who perceives (most) such 14 year old young women as attractive is a ‘paedophile’, all you are doing is pushing the agenda of man-hating, sexually jealous, feminist hags!
    That would make you (assuming you’re a man) a ‘paedocrite’. If you’re a women, it makes you a feminist.
    You have a right of course to be either: “to each his own”, however before you go upholding the hateful and oppressive ideologies of feminism on a blog that doesn’t exactly condone them, you should be aware that the TRUE definition of the terms: paedophilia and paedophile have nothing to do with the legal age of consent as set by governments that passed them, after extensive lobbying by feminists, some decades ago.
    Paedophilia is NOT sex with a person at or below the age of consent.
    It simply means an abnormal sexual interest in PREPUBESCENT children, normally exhibited by men.
    Most people, especially females, have passed puberty or pubescence long before reaching age 14 years, thus when considering and / or discussing sexuality and reproduction, such young people are NOT children anymore.
    Therefore a ‘child’ or children are considered ‘prepubescent’. below about 12 years old.

    Just because misandric feminists say that (fully consensual) sexual relationships between people below a certain age (and in many US states it is already set at a ridiculous 18 years and likely to be raised much higher, soon), are wrong or are ‘rape’ because 17 year children are too immature, or too stupid to consent; does not mean it is so.

    Feminists have a totally different agenda and a totally different motivation for redefining ‘paedophilia’ and raising the legal age of consent for sexual activity, and be rest assured that they are NOT interested in the welfare of ‘children’.
    This ‘protecting children’ motto or mission statement they promote is nothing but a smoke screen that is very easy to see through.

    Furthermore, it was only relatively recently, even in our (now highly feminist dominated) society that 14 year olds were LEGALLY married with their own children and such legal marriages were not considered immoral, perverted or indeed as anything related to paedophilia at the time.
    Feminists and their bitter, jealousy founded ideologies changed everything related to sex and marriage into the ‘taboo’ that most of our sex-obsessed society believes it is today.
    You might even be surprised to find, if you investigated your own ancestry, that even one or two of your own predecessors were so married as teenagers.
    Interestingly too is that nearly all such young marriages (in fact nearly ALL marriages, regardless of the age of the couples), lasted the full ‘to death do us part’ term as well.
    The only difference really, between then and now is that back then, feminism was only in its infancy…

    • x says:

      “If you’re implying that any man who perceives (most) such 14 year old young women as attractive is a ‘paedophile’….”
      I am not implying that.
      Hebephilia differs from pedophilia.

    • wbotb says:

      A 14 year old is practically an I can’t. Yes you’re a pedophile. Those laws were put there for a reason. Men in olden times were nasty perversts who bullied little girls into submission. People like you belong in prison and deserve to be flogged day in and day out until you die of a nasty infection.

    • wbotb says:

      A 14 year old is practically an Infantt. Yes you’re a pedophile. Those laws were put there for a reason. Men in olden times were nasty perversts who bullied little girls into submission. People like you belong in prison and deserve to be flogged day in and day out until you die of a nasty infection.

  16. @x 0.k, you don’t find 14 year old girls attractive, we get you. You don’t need to overdo it.

    I would like to ask you to give an explanation though, given that a majority of girls now start puberty at 10 or 11, as to why nature would give females 4 years or more of being fertile and yet at the same time, apparently hardwire the male brain not to find females sexually attractive during those fertile years. And if you’re so adamant that it is perverted to find 14 year old girls attractive, then presumably 15 and 16 year old girls (5 or 6 years post-pubescent) can scarcely be much more attractive (which is odd as well for the fact that most 16 year olds have completed puberty and physical growth, and hence can only be distinguished from women in their twenties because they have younger skin).

  17. Lumpa says:

    I find your analysis interesting Emma, and in substance I agree with you. However, I think the problem you have comes from the definition you make of SMV, as is implied by your use of MMV and RMV (which are acronyms I had never encountered before), rather than from a real disagreement with most of the manosphere. I’m even surprised that no comment brought that up until now.

    Basically, I believe that most men in the manosphere do not think about SMV the way you do. If you were to ask guys like Roosh or Heartiste, for instance, whether or not they agree with you about the ease of the average 40-something woman to have sex compared to the average man her age, they would probably agree with what you’ve written (I’m not in their heads though, so who knows).

    But for most men in the manosphere, SMV is not just about the ability to get one-night stands with members of the other sex. Rather, it is an all-encompassing value that includes what you call SMV as well as RMV and MMV. More precisely, it is something that takes into account both what men are biologically hardwired to want from women (either ONS or LTR) and what women want from men (LTR/MTR most of the time and quality sperm from an alpha male during ONS, usually cuckolding episodes).

    By that metric, men’s SMV might truely become higher than women’s SMV at 35, or 30, or 40, or whatever. I don’t really know what is the real age and it’s probably not the same in each Western country. In essence, rather than the age at which men can get sex from women more easily than women can get it from them, it is the age at which men can get what they want from women more easily than women can get what they want from them.

    Now of course, it is almost impossible to determine what that age exactly is, or if men at 35 really are more likely than women to get what they want. On top of that, our feminist overlords are doing what they can to tip the scale more and more in older women’s favor. In the end, there are just far too many variables and uncertainties to give a good answer to this question. But the idea behind that reversal of who’s got the highest SMV stems from the experiences of men in their thirties or forties. Suddenly they feel that women are getting more desperate for their attention while they couldn’t care less about one particular woman. They basically experience, though at a much less intense level, what cute 20-something women go through.

    I don’t think most men experience that though. Only those with a good situation, preferably good-looking and with some level of game, tend to have that chance. And unfortunately for them, more often than not, the attention they receive does not comes from the women they are really attracted to (those pesky younger women).

    Now I might be wrong about what men in the manosphere really believe, but from everything I’ve read, this seems to me like the most common understanding of what SMV really is. At the very least, that’s how I’ve always, kind of instinctively, understood that expression.

  18. Maldek says:

    “Relationships are most stable when his SMV is two points higher than hers” or that the SMV graphs intersect after 30. It’s obviously untrue”

    You are wrong. Your SMV is not high enough – thats all.

    Let me explain. My humble self comes from the manosphere and I am a male 9, maybe 10. Currently my age is ~40 and even though I always liked pretty female company, I had to work much, much harder at age 18-25~.

    What may be confusing you is female mating preference. As males we are much more willing to “settle for less” than the average girl. Example: You enter a bar and hit on a set of 3 girl, rated 7+8+9. You want the 9 at first but it then turns out she got 2 kids waiting at home and leaves with her 8 friend. The 7 however is bangable and shows clear interest in you. She is isolated (her 2 friends left, remember) so you take the easy notch. Most guys (and almost all players) would do just that.

    Not so the women. If they cant have the 9 they will most often just call it a night and fling on any dates they made with the beta. That is why you experience such problems. You may be good, but you are not good enough aka on the top.

    As a male 9 or 10 you dont have it harder than a female 9 or 10. It is the 5 – 7 crowd of men who have problems compared to the 5-7 crowd of females. The later can get laid whenever they want by some beta dudes while even the beta females will prefer a shot at an elusive alpha rather than settle with a beta male. Not until they go past 30 that is.

    • emmatheemo says:

      Well, it might be a misunderstanding, but I already said this – sexual market value, when understood literally, it about how much the other sex values you purely sexually (if you’re heterosexual). In that case, to have SMV like a female 6, a man has to be a famous rock star, for example. If that is what you call a 9 or 10, I can agree. I just have a feeling most men who think they are 9s and 10s are not famous rock stars, on whose cock women are pratically aiming to jump.

      • Maldek says:

        Right, you are misunderstanding.

        The part about purely sexually you got right. The part about a female 6 is not.

        I am not a rockstar, nor a famous person. I am not a film star, nor a model. Just a 40year old guy who took good care of his body and got an internet company running that spares me the 9-5 job most people have. I am not rich but If I stoped working today, my lifestyle would stay the same.

        What you have difficulties to understand is the the difference between “can get laid” and “can get laid by those I want”. A female 6 can get laid a lot. Male 4/5/6 guys will be happy to have her. 7/8 guys will bump and dump her though. 9/10 guys will not touch her, I certainly wouldnt. It ain’t easy for a plain girl to get a good man, even if it is for a night. Thats why girls wear heels, have boob jobs made, use make-up. You will have to improve a lot if you should aim for such a male prize yourself.

        A male 6 can always use his credit card and bang a female 9/10 hooker. You didnt even consider this option, did you?

      • emmatheemo says:

        It doesn’t matter that a female 6 doesn’t want all those male 4s, 5s and 6s that are availible (and even some 7s and 8s) – they are there ready to say yes if she ever wanted to fuck them all. She still has that sexual value, whether it’s used or not. It comes from men who would say yes to sex with her (and even seek her out themselves). For a man, this would be an enormous sexual success.

        And paying a hot woman to have sex with you only proves she is the one with the sexual value, which you pay for.

        Lets face it, sex is the only “sport” where women would beat men time after time. Nothing to do about that, you should be happy you can beat us at everything else.

        Also, I feel like you’re talking down to me somehow – saying I personally need to work harder to get a male prize?. I already got that 😉

      • Maldek says:

        “And paying a hot woman to have sex with you only proves she is the one with the sexual value, which you pay for.”
        -> Agree. Does not change the fact that the male 5 CAN get a female 10 while a female 5 will have it much harder to get your rock star. Even with money.

        You wrote: “Women don’t value men for pure sex. ” + “feel like you’re talking down to me somehow”
        Are you still wondering where the idea “you need to work harder” came from?

      • emmatheemo says:

        Right, the female 5 might not get the male 10, even with money, but it’s a small loss, compared to all the men below 9 she can have sex with. Plus 10s of either gender don’t value 5s of the opposite sex all that much. I’d say a male 10 is more likely to fuck a female 5 for free, than if the genders were reversed. I think it doesn’t change the question of SMV.

    • Tim says:

      Maldek

      i have a problem with your rating system. You’re saying a female 6 can only get a 3/4/5 men and 6/7 for pumping and dumping.

      That is very inaccurate.

      Firstly a ‘6’ means better looking than 60% of women her age.
      A 4 means better looking than 40%
      And a 9 means better looking than 90%

      Using this relative scale of looks, I can assure you that women who are ‘6’ have casual sex with guys who are 8’s, 9’s and 10’s, They have relationships with guys who are 5’s 6’s and 7’s but dont have casual sex with them (they’re not hot enough)

      • maldek says:

        Hey Tim, since you did address me here is your reply.

        The rating system is not an empirical number but rather a picture.

        Check here for an example where you can rate yourself:
        http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2009/03/27/female-beauty-from-1-to-10-2/

        or here with lots of pics:
        http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=143524503&page=1

        As an relativly attractive male who is 40 years old and running his own business for over a decade, I can assure you that I had a girl friend who was a 5 once in my life. And that was 20 years ago. Since then I have not, and will not touch a girl that is not at least 7.

        Other men who have some success in life and take good care of themselfs have similar standards because it is a feature of mother nature that females in great number prefer certain qualities in men just like us men prefer younger, slender babs with firm C/D cups and long legs. Just like the hot girls, those few men who have these traits are using the words “no thank you” frequently.

      • Tim says:

        Maldek

        yep, the chateau heartiste one is a relative scale of rating looks…exactly what I’m talking about.

  19. x says:

    “Women over 35 would have a hard time getting laid…….”

    35? According to the “manosphere” , women over 25 would have a hard time getting laid.

    • emmatheemo says:

      Nah, if manosphere is saying women over 25 have trouble with something, it’s extracting commitment from certain high-status guys (also true for plainer women of any age).. Never heard of anyone saying they can’t get laid.

  20. The Echo Chamber of Blowhards says:

    Bend over and let me smash your filthy ass with my big black hard tool. I am black as
    coal. My mother was a negro sex slave.

  21. CaptainGeezer says:

    Old geezers (40+) must lower their expectations & approach only 4′s and 5′s or women over 22.
    40 years old is the NATURAL life expectancy of a human. No fertile young girl/ woman wants to spend time with a zombie.

    The truth is always a bitter pill to swallow

    • Emma the Emo says:

      Weeeeell.. I don’t think 40 is ancient. Sure people used to die earlier in the past, but not because they aged that much faster.

      To get beautiful women under 22, a normal 40+ man needs to either be famous or go to another country.

    • Maldek says:

      Rofl. Even in ancient times the kings and generals aged well beyond their 70s. It was the poor people who died early.

      Today a man has its PEAK SMV around 40. Thats right guys – it is around 40 that men are the best catch for these sweet 8s, 9s and 10s. If you are a yound man beyond 25 let me tell you that life is going to get better each passing year for you. Improve yourself and be patient and I promise you that every new girlfriend you have will be better than that last one you nexted.

      Girls love us men to no small extend for what we ARE – rather than our bodies. If of course you are a 9-5 cubicle slave you are out of luck. A 20yo looser will have it easier than you because at least the girl can illusion herself into the dream of your glorious future. If by 40 you are still in such a sorry state, all hope is lost and you will really have to dumbster dive into the 4s and 5s.

      @Emo 1/3 very young girl (age 15-21, in countries with 18 limit 18-21) have a liking for guys in the age of her dad. Thats not a good foundation for a LTR but for a FB thats almost perfect.
      That said, watch the movie “Pretty woman” (yes I am that old) and tell me in all honesty that you would dump him (played by Richard G.) because he is “too old for you”. If you would, you and I are not sharing the same reality.

      • emmatheemo says:

        I think male peak is late 20s-early 30s. 40 is “a little over, but still hot”, like a woman in her late 20s. After all, the average guy is not rich or famous, he’s closer to that cubicle slave.

        I dunno which country’s teen girls you have talked to, but western ones learn to desire boys closer to their age or only a few years older, and those I have talked to thinks older (6+ years) men are ew. “Dirty old man” is an expression that didn’t come out of nowhere. But around early 20s they start liking them more. Perhaps cuz they work with them then.

      • CaptainGeezer says:

        “Thats right guys – it is around 40 that men are the best catch for these sweet 8s, 9s and 10s.”

        This is nothing but wishful thinking.

      • Maldek says:

        “This is nothing but wishful thinking.” For you.
        Value gives options. If you have no options, you have no value.

      • CaptainFogy says:

        W/o money, men in their early 40s could not hope to sexually compete with men in their early/ mid thirties

      • wbotb says:

        No we like men in their 20s and 30s. Stop fantasizing.

  22. CaptainGeezer says:

    If you are dead,
    you have no value. In nature, 40+ is post-mortem.

    Old primates, you had your chance, and blew it, you blew it. I tell you again,
    lower your expectations & approach only 3′s and 4′s.

  23. Tim says:

    This is something upon which I disagree with Game community as well.

    A woman’s SMV NEVER drops below men for the same level of attractiveness.

    • emmatheemo says:

      I’m glad you agree. Guys fighting me on this should not be pissed off that a woman can get laid easier than them. They should instead be happy that they can have a higher RMV later in life and an ability to appreciate all that sex (if they get it).

      • Tim says:

        Actually there’s nothing to be happy about, as a man, the reality only gets increasingly bitter, as you learn more about female sexuality.

        The only thing I and other men should be happy about is that women are finally acknowledging that its easier for them. You don’t realize how much I appreciate that. Its like a huge load off my chest because its something I know is an obvious and unmistakable truth yet is not accepted by mainstream society.

        I wanna ask you a question..
        Why do some women (specially on feminist forums) have an ego problem with admitting that its easier for them to obtain sex?

      • emmatheemo says:

        Well, ok, maybe it’s not very happiness-inducing, but many men seem to feel a great deal of schadenfreude over the fact that women’s RMV drops with age, and theirs goes up. It gives them some leverage, to get what they want.

        As for your question, there could be many answers. Regular women’s reasons:
        1)They are convinced sex is easy to get for men, because all the men they fucked got laid very easily (apex fallacy)

        2)Maybe they don’t want to feel like sluts. If they can pretend male and female sexuality is the same, sleeping around is equal for both genders.

        3)Women seem to have a tendency to wish to enter any male club where they are not allowed due to natural biological sex differences. Once they hear “women cannot understand involuntary celibacy”, they want to insist they do, and had same/similar stuff happen to them. They don’t understand their attempts to empathize are just annoying.

        Feminist’s reasons:
        1)Perhaps they don’t want to hear that men have some difficult problem, that women don’t have. A tendency that arises in any “victim group”, if they were in it for too long, and haven’t been careful.

        2)Feminists subscribe to the “performative” model of sex. They think it’s misogynist to say that sex is a commodity that someone can give, and another takes. It’s just an action that can be performed together, like playing music. I think initially this mindfuck was made to destroy the sluts vs studs double standard. But all this could be just a way to shut men up. If they had to admit there is an inequality in sexual power, they would either be hypocrites, or work to eradicate any inequality, which means telling women to start fucking all those sexless men they don’t like.

      • Tim says:

        but many men seem to feel a great deal of schadenfreude over the fact that women’s RMV drops with age, and theirs goes up.

        If men’s RMV goes up, it only does because of presumably, increases financial stability..not because men get sexier after 25, get better looking or sexually potent or ‘desirable’

        The only reason a woman would prefer an older man over a man her own age is his financial stability. Women simply don’t want to leverage their financial stability or ability to provide to attract men. It makes them cringe to think that they are wanted by men for their usefulness. They feel they deserve a higher level of validation. They want to be desired. Even a granny wants to be desired.

      • emmatheemo says:

        Well, some bloggers would say money and influence are themselves hotness factors. xsplat would for example show to that study that women orgasm more for wealthier men. I think there is something to it, wealth can look good on a man, among many other things. It’s not just usefulness. On the other hand, this trait doesn’t add any hotness to a woman.

        But unless you have more money than her, simply having money won’t cut it.

        Also, I will disagree that men don’t get sexier after 25. They look better after 25, than before 25 (but that’s just me.. and likely many others). If they don’t get out of shape.

        You’re right though, at an older age lots of older women get desperate and try to get you. But if they didn’t want you back then, the interest doesn’t seem very sincere, so many men date the younger women.

  24. hobbes says:

    As an asexual man I think I am in the catbird seat. Old men have sex with young women more than old women have sex with young men. Men of all ages want to have sex frequently but in general do not hold as much value on their ability to attract sexual partners as women do. Women are definitely the human equivalent to the male peacock yet they don’t seem to notice or will at least deny the charge if they do notice. Women regardless of age have the ability to have sex with more men but only for a short time can they attract men with the traits they seem to want or at least claim to want. I know this is going to sound sexist but I mean that most men or at least the most vocal will hit on any woman and tell her anything she wants to hear to have sex with her however men who are smarter kinder and more compassionate are not as likely to have sex with just any woman or man if they are gay. So men, by the numbers, are sluttier than women but women are absolutely more likely to have sex with a male slut. Also older women cheat more than older men and vice verso. Men factor in looks alone when finding a sex partner and claim this isnt true, probably so they appear less shallow than they actually are. Women factor in looks first followed by wealth and status and lie about factoring in looks at all again probably so they appear less shallow, but they do not see looking for signs of success in a mate as shallow while men do. I mean that men dont hold value in success and if they meet a man that does they see him as a shallow person, yet they dont hold women to the same standard. I would like to add that there are plenty of exceptions and this is a broad generalization. As an outsider in the game of sex these are my observations. Also sex seems to be the sole factor of sexist behavior among men and women. My view and my very few sexless friends views also of men and women is not the same as breeders views toward the opposite sex. I think this is because of the value both men and women place upon sex. An example is that men who have sex with women more or more women do not enjoy the company of women in social ways as men who do not have sex as often. Men who do it a lot have less of a tolerance for women when they know sex is not on the menu so to speak. Men who have sex less see women more as equals. This is the same for women with the exception women dont think men should cheat but do not feel guilty or as guilty as men who cheat when they cheat. This seems to be a double standard men and women hold maybe because men cant have as much sex with the amount of women they want while women can (have sex with more men numbers wise than men can with women. A man will forgive a woman for cheating quicker than a woman will forgive a man perhaps because he knows he is less likely to find another mate and so has more to lose than a woman. Again this is all a serious generalization, but then so it seems are all these sexual accusations men and women dish out to each other. It seems important for both sexes to dominate the other in terms of morality. Ironic because domination is immoral. As a person who has never been horny it seems much more divisive than inclusive. I have never envied you.

    • Tim says:

      Some very interesting points, Hobbes. However let me correct you on this one..

      Women are definitely the human equivalent to the male peacock yet they don’t seem to notice or will at least deny the charge if they do notice.

      The difference is that the male peacock, despite being the beautiful sex, is the one who displays his beauty to impress the rather plain hen-like female. The female still sits on her ass and chooses !

      I understand that by equating women to male peacocks you’re implying that they are the more physically beautiful sex (perhaps) but their ROLE in attraction is not the same as the male peacocks.

      My view is that beauty for women is just a bonus in the game of sexual attraction…not a pre-requisite. Women can be totally mediocre in looks and still sexually attract higher quality men. The greater emphasis on female beauty in humans is an anomaly among animals. Its a product of society..not nature. Nature requires men to be more beautiful.

    • Tim says:

      An example is that men who have sex with women more or more women do not enjoy the company of women in social ways as men who do not have sex as often. Men who do it a lot have less of a tolerance for women when they know sex is not on the menu so to speak. Men who have sex less see women more as equals.

      Good observation. I agree with it.
      It also flies in the face of what we are taught about attracting women…ie to be good friends with them first and engage with them as equals. It is clear that men who are most successful with women sexually do none of it.

  25. icaresoverydeeply says:

    Who cares? MGTOW.

  26. nate says:

    Women are the gatekeepers only if they are in a society where men allows it. So ultimately the men are in control. For a society of women to keep their job as gatekeepers they must give themselves sexually to men who can provide them security. Otherwise they will lose their job and become victims of unwanted sex. Alpha males which makes up only 10-20 percent of males, have an endless supply of women without having to pay for it. It is the high calibre guys in our society who make up the laws to help protect the gatekeepers. In some cities, such as Atlanta, it seems that a guy can walk out with 30 women long before a woman could. Also, an ugly american guy can go to Ukraine and be inudated by women but if an ugly american girl of the same age, she wouldn’t get noticed. In those countries, unlike the U.S., beauty among women is so common that It has less value. Most, prostitution rings and porn industries are run by men to make money from men of lower sexual value. In all reality, its really about the man’s sexuality.

    • emmatheemo says:

      I’m not sure this disproves anything. Whether we lived in a feminist state or a society where most men have good opportunity to rape, women are still the ones with higher sexual value. I lived in Russia, and haven’t observed the role reversal you seem to suggest. Women there are desparate for a protector/provider or just commitment, but sex is not harder for women to get. And women still sell sex, and men buy. It’s a sturdy reality.

      ” In all reality, its really about the man’s sexuality.”
      Right, it’s about men’s need/desire to get women, who are the sex objects/sexually valuable, not men.

    • Ali says:

      men largely face rejection far more than women. Men still do much of the asking out, women generally don’t—unless you are some perceived alpha that other women are tripping over themselves to date/have sex/have a relationship with. Women will often go after what other women want; the goal of getting a man that other women desire is no exception. Regardless of his worth, a man who as a potential harem of sorts has women after him because other women value him.

      But this is not common at all. Even so-called liberated women will often expect men to initiate and face rejection. Hypergamy is a subject that comes up on many MGTOW boards and videos; women that claim they want equality can be summed up by their hypocrisy by a couple of things; desiring to get a higher status man, and expecting men to do the work gaining her approval while she has veto power. By having this choice, it shunts the onus onto men while women do not have to face the pain of rejection; they are in the driver’s seat, while men have to sink or swim. The righteousness in this dynamic is frustrating; women can be petty and nitpick about the dumbest crap in mate selection while not sharing the same level of approval winning.

      In reality, many (if not most) women take rejection worse than men. Men have to inure themselves to it; hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

      Let’s face it. Despite complaints to the contrary, even women of subpar physical looks, low-paying jobs, and other flaws can snatch a man far easier than a man in the same equivalence. Hell, even a man of higher attributes often have difficulty in dating and attracting a suitable mate. Women typically do not date/marry down as much, while men are supposed to demonstrate clemency to women that are of lesser socioeconomic status as them.

      Since women have a better time attracting men, many believe that men can pick up women with the same ease and frequency. This is nonsense; men have to prove themselves far more unless they are at the top of the heap. There are women who complain about the quality of men out there, but they are usually focusing on a narrow spectrum of men. Even a recent article stated that anyone outside of being white collar are “non-negotiable” as far as dates are concerned—they are not dating material these pseudo-elist women mentioned in the post. Nevermind that many blue collar men can make good money, but I digress.

      Looking into it further, the typical moaning and bitching often includes that men aren’t even “manning up” to improve themselves and make themselves more potentially good date/mate material. Of course, there are women who decry that men will not take up their responsibilities. When Western culture is swimming in misandry, it’s not too hard to understand why men will not “man up” in first place. When being loyal, honorable, honest, hard-working, genteel, and generous is not mutually rewarded or even outright exploited, a man seeing clearly will wise up.

      This is evident with the dating scene as well. The cards are stacked against men, and there are women who will not give up their social and personal power so easily . . . even if it harms them in the short term. They are refusing to accept that there are men who will not let their own self-respect dwindle or be used in the dating process while sweety wants to reap the rewards. If some sort of mutual equity was widespread, it would be different, but it is not the environment we observe now.

      A good friend of mine summed up things nicely, although he was speaking about the workplace when he was getting the brunt of crap jobs and lost much of his motivation when he knew it was a losing battle to hold on to his job at the time: If you don’t care, why should I. There are women out there that do not want to understand this about men, and will continue to blunder and largely blame men while living in denial about what is actually happening.

      Over the years, the shaming language loses it effect, and the women that are upset that men would rather play an X-Box in their thirties or keep their money for retirement. Women need acknowledge why this is more common rather than remaining smug and single (all the while still thinking about men at every turn). In the mating dance, even with the dating scene, it’s not being intimidated by a “strong, independent” woman that stops men from approaching/making the first move. Those same men are tired of running the gauntlet for little result, disappointed by the arbitrary whims, never being good enough, and the exhaustive and trivial lists judgmental women draw up for them. And who can blame them?

  27. nate says:

    Depending on the culture yes. In some cultures women are for babies and men are for pleasure. Not sure what part of Russia you lived but I mentioned Ukraine. Many of the women there love foreign men such as americans. I talked to a friend yesterday and he was saying that his friends who are in Atlanta that have escort businesses have noted that more men are requesting men vs. women ( homosexuality ) which may account for so many available single ladies. Men’s sexual value is higher in some places. That’s the point I’m making.

    • Emma the Emo says:

      So you have a few escort services that are being used by lots of gays. I don’t think matters much for the general male population, which is mostly straight. What you are describing is sexual value of men to other men, not sexual value of men to women.

      Sexual value of women to men is higher than the other way around, even in that place you are describing, I’m sure.

  28. nate says:

    I agree, the sexual value of women to men overall is higher. A woman have a lot more qualities to offer a man but for the most part the value of women to most men is no more than what is between her legs and what is really upsetting to a lot o women is that there isn’t any loyalty. Similar to a commodity there is no brand recognition. When one gate keeper refuse entry he goes to another to get access. I don’t see what the fuss is on this topic, its true. Men have a higher security value than a woman. Most societies rather have a male child, example, China. Our security value don’t make us more or less valuable overall than a female.

  29. AntiWomenOverACertainAge(25) :-p says:

    “By 34 she hits her “Wile E Coyote” moment when her SMV is close to zero”

    • Ali says:

      men largely face rejection far more than women. Men still do much of the asking out, women generally don’t—unless you are some perceived alpha that other women are tripping over themselves to date/have sex/have a relationship with. Women will often go after what other women want; the goal of getting a man that other women desire is no exception. Regardless of his worth, a man who as a potential harem of sorts has women after him because other women value him.

      But this is not common at all. Even so-called liberated women will often expect men to initiate and face rejection. Hypergamy is a subject that comes up on many MGTOW boards and videos; women that claim they want equality can be summed up by their hypocrisy by a couple of things; desiring to get a higher status man, and expecting men to do the work gaining her approval while she has veto power. By having this choice, it shunts the onus onto men while women do not have to face the pain of rejection; they are in the driver’s seat, while men have to sink or swim. The righteousness in this dynamic is frustrating; women can be petty and nitpick about the dumbest crap in mate selection while not sharing the same level of approval winning.

      In reality, many (if not most) women take rejection worse than men. Men have to inure themselves to it; hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

      Let’s face it. Despite complaints to the contrary, even women of subpar physical looks, low-paying jobs, and other flaws can snatch a man far easier than a man in the same equivalence. Hell, even a man of higher attributes often have difficulty in dating and attracting a suitable mate. Women typically do not date/marry down as much, while men are supposed to demonstrate clemency to women that are of lesser socioeconomic status as them.

      Since women have a better time attracting men, many believe that men can pick up women with the same ease and frequency. This is nonsense; men have to prove themselves far more unless they are at the top of the heap. There are women who complain about the quality of men out there, but they are usually focusing on a narrow spectrum of men. Even a recent article stated that anyone outside of being white collar are “non-negotiable” as far as dates are concerned—they are not dating material these pseudo-elist women mentioned in the post. Nevermind that many blue collar men can make good money, but I digress.

      Looking into it further, the typical moaning and bitching often includes that men aren’t even “manning up” to improve themselves and make themselves more potentially good date/mate material. Of course, there are women who decry that men will not take up their responsibilities. When Western culture is swimming in misandry, it’s not too hard to understand why men will not “man up” in first place. When being loyal, honorable, honest, hard-working, genteel, and generous is not mutually rewarded or even outright exploited, a man seeing clearly will wise up.

      This is evident with the dating scene as well. The cards are stacked against men, and there are women who will not give up their social and personal power so easily . . . even if it harms them in the short term. They are refusing to accept that there are men who will not let their own self-respect dwindle or be used in the dating process while sweety wants to reap the rewards. If some sort of mutual equity was widespread, it would be different, but it is not the environment we observe now.

      A good friend of mine summed up things nicely, although he was speaking about the workplace when he was getting the brunt of crap jobs and lost much of his motivation when he knew it was a losing battle to hold on to his job at the time: If you don’t care, why should I. There are women out there that do not want to understand this about men, and will continue to blunder and largely blame men while living in denial about what is actually happening.

      Over the years, the shaming language loses it effect, and the women that are upset that men would rather play an X-Box in their thirties or keep their money for retirement. Women need acknowledge why this is more common rather than remaining smug and single (all the while still thinking about men at every turn). In the mating dance, even with the dating scene, it’s not being intimidated by a “strong, independent” woman that stops men from approaching/making the first move. Those same men are tired of running the gauntlet for little result, disappointed by the arbitrary whims, never being good enough, and the exhaustive and trivial lists judgmental women draw up for them. And who can blame them?

  30. :-p says:

    Emo wrote: “40 is “a little over, but still hot”, like a woman in her late 20s.”

    • emmatheemo says:

      E tu, Susan? How disappointing. I used to think all those manosphere guys who hated her were just unreasonable, but now I can see she has too many character flaws for me to remain respectful.

      “The female’s sexual attractiveness peaks at the ripe old age of 16.5, and by 20, her sexual market value is plummeting. By the age of 33, she’s flunking miserably with only 25% of her mojo left!

      Oddly, her sexual value decreases slowly after that, with little decrease at all after age 55 – whoo hoo. Of course, there’s not much room left for decline – she’s at a measly 3% by then. A dried up and withered old crone. This might be understandable if it represented the singular preference of one pedo male at one point in time, but makes little sense as an absolute portrayal of sexual market value.”

      TheAntifeminist is right at least in this particular case – an older woman will shame men who like 16 y olds as “pedos” once she is herself over a certain age.

      • :-p says:

        Proper deformity shows not in the fiend
        So horrid as in woman

      • :-O says:

        “It could be argued from an evolutionary perspective that it is normal also to find girls a little way below puberty (not much) sexually attractive, given the tremendous evolutionary advantage a man has in securing a girl who has not been impregnated before.”
        TA

  31. Maldek says:

    “Those are a different things entirely”
    Female and male are also different things entirely. It makes no sense to compare SMV in one dimension alone.

  32. Muse says:

    Emma, I am impressed how you calmly re-explain what is so self-evident. The MGTOW crowd seems to cherry pick “women” and plant all of them firmly in the “old cat lady” cart; firmly convinced that a woman’s entire life meaning is associated with how many men want to have sex with her. Sorry MGTOW, women don’t think like you do. Especially older women. In general, women over 40 place a negative value on a one night stand. PUAs place a lot of value on getting laid/a one night stand. A 40 year old woman has learned getting a one night stand is easy; plus, she derives little pleasure out of it, so…what is the point? MGTOW crowd says, “The point is she ends up a lonely HAG!!! Bwahahaha!” Argument fail.

    A single, over 40 year old woman can easily attract female friends. Said hetero female can travel the world with her girl friend, share a room, even a bed, and not be looked at as homosexual. The same can’t be said for ANY man over college age; he runs the risk of being seen as homosexual; which most hetero men go at great lengths to avoid. At the same time; women can/do/will emote with women and fill up their emotional needs. No man required. Men, otoh, have a difficult time emoting with another man. Women join groups, volunteer, play with the grandchildren, etc. SMV isn’t something they are worried about. Furthermore; many “married” women are lonely cat ladies. On one hand, MGTOW want to laugh at older women; yet, marriage doesn’t cure loneliness for either sex.

    What a single, over the age of 40 woman “might” want is access to financial security. At that point, yes, her value goes down compared to a younger woman; but NOT if she has her own security. Again, if she doesn’t need a partner to give her access to cash;…what would be a reason for her to date/have sex with a man her own age, + 10 or 20 who is physically repulsive or lacks money? As Emma points out, women are very picky. For the most part, they would rather do without than have casual sex with someone they are un-attracted to. To equate “doing without” to being a lonely old cat lady is absurd. I imagine if one could get an accurate count, there are vastly more numbers of men “doing without” than women.

    Also, women are emotionally very, very, smart about the wants of women–much like men are smart about what men want. (Sex!). When a woman sees a female peer dating/marrying a much older, physically sub-standard man, said woman knows exactly what the bargain was. Many women are very repulsed by this; hence, they don’t do it. If a 8-9-10 has a low intellect/is lazy/doesn’t mind looking at rotted teeth, poor hygiene, saggy skin, she will put up with all kinds of gross men in order to secure an easy lifestyle. But to equate those relationships as “proof” that men have better SMV/RMV is not realistic. Once a certain threshold of ugliness/lack of money/gross is crossed, a man has zero power to attract even a marginal 3. Of course, if he has SOME money, he can pay a whore.

    Women don’t place value on “scoring” sex with a man. (Unless he offers lifestyle, drugs, or money. Yes, “stars” of any kind have groupies; but that is only because the groupies are after one of the above.) But regular Joe? Show me a super-model who is dating a regular Joe older guy. Show me….even one. Please, don’t equate “rich” guys dating hot women as proof men have it “easier” than women after a certain age. It is a myth. As far as “scoring” sex with a woman, well, yeah, there is always low hanging fruit. If a PUA brags about scoring one night stands, all he is bragging about is picking up easy women. Women will sometimes pick a low hanging fruit, (poor impulse control, needs validation of her attractiveness, drug induced euphoria, etc.) but she has zero incentive to brag about it. (In other words…when a PUA “scores”, he brags, she denies or in some instances cries rape or foul. But what does one expect when playing in the low hanging fruit department?!)

    I didn’t write the laws of the universe, but they exist, nonetheless. Men want sex more than women. Stop wanting sex, men. Problem solved!

    • emmatheemo says:

      I don’t know enough about single 40+ women to see if they end up lonely or not. However, it does help to have grandkids, or at least a career. Or else even other single women won’t invite you to any fun parties. They will instead ask you to babysit their kids, while they are going out. The sad reality for us all is that people only want to hang out with us if we have something to give (sometimes money, entertainment, “fun”, sexual attractiveness). Unless they are very close friends and family.

      I think I will have to respectfully disagree on the part about groupies. Yes, those can show up for drugs and lifestyle, but obsession with celebrities is very real. They are not just groupies, they are fangirls.

  33. Ørslien says:

    You are brave enough to challenge the widely held manosphere notion that women start losing their appeal once they hit their early 20s. Bravo!

  34. tony montana says:

    I think the OP makes a good point. But I think this argument is a Symantec one. The only men who have an average woman’s ability to get sex partners are the Will Smith’s and Justin Beiber’s of the world. ‘SMV’ may be a misnomer. I think the SMV charts are accurate and correlate to online dating statistics.

    What they really display is the optimal age for achieving one’s goals in the dating game. For most women it’s about achieving an monogamous relationship with a ‘high value’ male. For men it’s about having sex with as many attractive women as possible.

    I wish the OP would at least acknowledge that being able to score low value mates doesn’t really count for much. And if you don’t think females looks rapidly plummet after 20 its only because you don’t have a set of balls. You have no idea how attractive men find 21 yr old women in comparison to 30 year old women.

    A man would be willing to pay a 35 year old for sex, the same amount of money he’d pay a 20 year old just to smell her hair.

    • emmatheemo says:

      I understood later that Rollo’s SMV charts were about today’s SMV divided by the 100% potential that you can reach. It’s about relative SMV. Then they make a lot of sense. But not everyone (including me) understands it right away. Simply writing “SMV” on the y-axis is a bit confusing.

      But even then, simply comparing SMVs would be pointless. It’s like comparing when women’s and men’s physical strength peaks. So what if women’s peaks later, they are still weaker (for example, I have no idea when they peak). The thing here is that men have other values to them, not just the sexual one. It’s their commitment and marriage value that balances out the SMV later in life, I think. Power comes in many forms and there is no need to argue just in terms of the sexual power to explain why men feel a boost in attractiveness in their 30s.

      And I don’t think I said anywhere that 30 year old woman is as hot as a 20 year old one. It certainly can happen for an individual woman, but overall young is still hotter to an average man. I also don’t say that women value all those endless men they can have sex with. But sexual market value is just about being valued sexually, that’s all I’m saying.

    • :-p says:

      “And if you don’t think females looks rapidly plummet after 20 its only because you don’t have a set of balls.”

      You are limited by your mistaken certainties

  35. Scott says:

    The male sex drive ensures that women can easily get sex with ripped 20 year old studs well into their 40’s (and probably 50’s). Even if they’re fat.

    Women’s plummeting smv is one of the biggest myths in the manosphere, perhaps second only to “game.”

  36. caprizchka says:

    A man who manages to enter his 50’s with his testosterone and sex drive intact becomes hugely in demand. With each decade, his rarity increases. Unfortunately, most dietary advice these days is anti-testosterone. The scare tactics put forth are such that if women are the ones who are deciding what the household diet consists of then more and more men are being effectively chemically castrated for the sake of “longevity” even if the actual statistics don’t bear this out. The generation with the greatest longevity (also known as “The Greatest Generation”) did everything health wise that we say today is “bad” but yet lived to ripe old paradoxical (maybe) age. It turns out that fear is a real killer in terms of attractiveness, vitality, etc. and women are being fed fear through marketing like crazy and are out of “love and concern” forcing the men in their sphere to fall in line. Fear just isn’t all that sexually attractive at any age except to psychos and white knights. Normal people are paternalistic/maternalistic towards scared little children–not sexual. The amount of money that anyone (lesbians too) will pay on a date for the hope of sex with a woman decreases with her age. The amount of homemade cookies, appeals to pity, and sheer seductive inventiveness of women (including huge outlaws for cosmetic procedures) increases as they age and realize just how rapidly the pool of sexual, vital, intact men decreases with their peer group. Watch what happens at an elder community when a wife dies vs. a husband. In the former case, the casseroles, cookies, etc. just go wild as the women start clawing each others’ eyes out.

    • emmatheemo says:

      Interesting. I heard saturated fat wasn’t all that bad compared to what they’ve been saying. Is this the diet advice you are talking about?

      And I noticed that the numbers of old women are often large compared to numbers of old men the same age. I guess at those ages many men have already died and there aren’t enough for single old women. That’s a somewhat scary way to obtain higher SMV and larger pool of choices – one has to make sure one is not one of the dead ones. Or sick ones, like you say.

      • caprizchka says:

        I have had the privilege to learn from elderly lone voices in the scientific community who are still keeping on despite being marginalized when they were younger. I was one of those gals who dated guys 20 years older, married a doctor, and now I’ve caught up. The successive crops of the same age are just fading away–especially with statins.

        But why wouldn’t alpha men try to trick other men through their women–the traditional consumers and preparers of groceries? It would seem that dietary advice prevalent since the ’70’s is actually designed to suppress the genome which of course requires fat-soluble vitamins–emphasis on fat.

        Tobacco is also an issue and not what it seems. The New Prohibitionists are all in the same mold as old. Now is the time of the Smoke-Easy where men get together for conversation and women should start learning the old ways of food, nutrition history, and paleontology. Just this old broad’s opinion.

  37. valor says:

    personally i think smv is kind of a stupid thing to bother talking about. sexual market value is nothing in the grand scheme of things. what is the overall quality of your life? are you living a quality life? do you have the courage to take proper action towards a quality life? while plenty of people will bs about what quality actually means, i hope there’s enough intellectual maturity out there to not waste debating that. the average man lives a better quality life than a woman, because he is easier to satisfy. if the majority of his life is spent being chill, pumped up, or busting a nut, he will look back and say he had a great life. his lifestyle is on average cheaper if you don’t count the manginas who tax themselves with marriage. men have an overall higher value than women because they are capable of providing “value” for themselves and those around them. on the other hand women on average are like bottomless pits, never to be satisfied. i can’t tell you how embarrasing it is to read how many stories there are of women who literally had everything, wealth, great man in her life, good kids, etc, and how many of them throw it away because “something was missing”. i’ve rarely seen a man with such intangible delusions about reality, as well as an inability to think objectively.

    while you are right that women will always have higher smv no matter what any pill guzzling nerd stomper says to make himself fell better about himself, posturing about it is beyond meaningless. it’s time to evolve beyond mere animals looking to fuck around.

  38. sa says:

    it ‘s quite incredible how sexist the slut-stud dichotomy is, and that you would think it is in any way justified by anything else than prejudice and the will to control women
    So just cause women are better at something, they should be despised for doing it?
    because men are stronger, should we also call them sluts when they achieve physical prowesses as it’s easier for them, and call women studs when they lift weight. Would male soldiers be sluts and females skilled studs?
    How petty, to make someone’s source of pride into a source of shame just cause they somewhat have an advantage over you at the activity.
    Should we call men in relationships sluts as it’s easier for them to find a wife than for women a husband after some age?
    Considering women always try to get men out of their league to have sex with, just as males do, sex is a skill and achievement for all by the way
    Taking away this property of it is excessively lame.

    • Eivind Berge says:

      In sports, sex differences are indeed recognized to the point that we don’t even compare men’s and women’s achievements and they don’t compete in the same leagues. There have been some rare cases of women wanting to play on a men’s team in football, for example, and when that happens they are actually praised like studs (Jennifer Welter is a good example), while a man wanting to play against women would rightly be despised like a sort of slut.

      I do not think sluts (in the true sexual sense) should be shamed, but the difference in accomplishment or lack thereof between a stud and a slut is indeed profoundly real. This statement is bullshit:

      “Considering women always try to get men out of their league to have sex with, just as males do, sex is a skill and achievement for all by the way.”

      From a man’s point of view, there is no such thing as a woman out if his league to have sex with (at least not unless you count very old women, but geriatric women don’t try to sleep with young men anyway), because a man will lower his standards almost to zero for casual sex. Relationships are another matter, of course, but it is frankly delusional to believe just sex can be an achievement for women, even with very high-status men. The sex difference in receptivity to casual sex is one of the most incontrovertible facts of life, and women do not just “somewhat have an advantage” here; they own sex — outside of relationships, sex is practically always a female resource.

      So let’s get rid of slut shaming, but don’t deny biological differences, either. We do not need all this emphasis on “accomplishment” anyway, which is poorly correlated with happiness. Doing something easy is often more fun than doing something hard. Going the South Pole is hard, but I don’t think I would enjoy a vacation there. I would much rather go to the beach. So if a woman says she enjoys being a slut, who are we to criticize her?

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