Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    Administrator jagrmeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    3,345
    Reputation
    14898
    Type
    Bachelor

    re-post: Sexual Market Value versus Actual Value

    original url:

    http://www.goingyourownway.com/mgtow...ey-concept-351

    --
    Actual Value versus Sexual Market Value

    Below I am posting a thread I made on the old forums about a concept called Actual Value (AV) and how it differs from Sexual Market Value (SMV). I believe this distinction may form an important cornerstone in the definition of MGTOW and how our worldview differs from both the mainstream and PUA.

    --
    One thing I enjoy about
    debating non-MGTOWs is it forces me to think more deeply about concepts. As such, I've developed a distinction which I think answers a fair number of questions I've had since becoming MGTOW. For background, the debate went like this:

    PUA:SMV (Sexual Market Value) is an important reality in life. Girls want the best guys.
    Jagr:Who defines SMV of a male?
    P:Well.....women do....
    J: Do you trust modern women, being the way they are, with their arbitrary criteria to be able to accurately define SMV in a way that measures a man's true worth?
    P:Well, women want to be with the best possible guy.
    J:They do? Then why do Leroy and Cletus have 10 kids a piece. They've never had jobs and have a 6th grade education. Are they the best?


    In the past, SMV and AV overlapped; due to new Female Mate Selection criteria (thanks to feminism), Not so Much Anymore

    What struck me from this discussion is society's default use of SMV as a means of measuring men. Sexual Market Value. The background for all this is that feminism unchained the Hamster. The Hamster is a woman's outdated animal instincts that were chained by society for her benefit and society's. Social sanctions were put in place to ensure women used rational mate selection criteria. In those days, when family was often involved in approving the mate, men with what I will define as Actual Value (AV) were the only ones approved.I will define this in greater detail. But with feminism, women were told they needed no external guidance. So now the Hamster uses ridiculous mental shortcuts (created a LONG time ago when men co-existed with sabretooth tigers) that identify traits with no real value -- but they accept them unquestioningly and chase them to their own detriment (aggression, dominance, cockiness, height - and its symbols such as tattoos). The problem with using SMV as often as we do is that 50+ years ago, there was high intersection between SMV and AV. In fact, you might say the two were largely overlapping. Marrying a dirtbag would ruin your family's name for good. You just didn't"elope". The term elope doesn't truly exist anymore because there is no societal/family approval process for the most part. In other words, there is no one to determine if a suitor has any AV.

    The upshot is that SMV was a good predictor of AV in the past, because of these standards and checks. Today it is not. But we still mistakenly conflate the two. Today, by doing so, we put a man's worth in the hands of the delirious twat, infected by feminism. Someone who considers men who peacock with a feather boa as High Sexual MarketValue, as desirable, as "high status". Women drool over a"player" with a full-sleeve tattoo. Does that trait have any objective value or make a man a good partner?

    Alpha or Beta?
    The biggest confusion from these two very different standards are the use of the terms Alpha and Beta. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates have contributed a great deal to the economy and are CEOS and geniuses.When we instinctively give value based on SMV, we could consider these men Betas. Same with Nobel Prize Winners. Using the warped measuring stick of Alpha and Beta, these men don't measure up. The waiter with a coke habit however is an Alpha. What concerns me is that, if Red Pill goes the wrong way, taking it could mean that all now live DOWN to the standards of the newly constituted SMV of the modern woman. "Winning" means choosing only fashionable interests/hobbies, taking vacations only to places that look good on Facebook, focusing time on wardrobe and peacocking rather than meaningful pursuits (or even things we enjoy). When someone asks Alpha and Beta, it is fine if only in the context of SMV and women. A fair response would be-"Those are terms that refer to a man's standing with women. The real question is- what is the person's Actual Value".

    Actual Value
    I propose that rather than obsessing about "high status" males as defined by women, we concern ourselves with "high value" people. What is ActualValue? Traits that objectively make for a good person leading a meaningful life; actual ability, actual traits of good character. Let's start with the most basic- character: a fundamentally decent human being. Honest. Trustworthy. Strong. Resilient. Resourceful. These are traits of someone who is a good friend, a good worker, a good person all around to know. Then there are abilities- someone whois intelligent, has practical skills, a sense of humor. Finally,there are what he does- activities, interests, his job. A guy could be tall, loud, and aggressively boss other people around and have high SMV- but he could be a total fuck-up at life as well. The difference could be as basic as a guy who can Talk a good Game versus a guy who actually Lives a Good Life.

    SMV and AV are becoming Inversely Proportional
    The interesting thing is that SMV is becoming inversely proportional to AV. A guy like Kevin Federline is preferred to a guy with ActualValue. In my view, if someone is a "player", given women's modern selection criteria, more likely the guy is a dirtbag. Now there are cases where men can have high SMV and AV, but that seems to be increasingly rare, especially because a woman's selection criteria prevents it. If you have a full-sleeve tattoo, you're not headed for the corner office.If you have a drug problem or criminal past, McDonald's may not even hire you. If you spent nights chasing tail, those are nights you can never have back to pursue a new business. In fact, not only are you less likely to be successful, you are less likely to be an interesting person. I've noticed that guys with high SMV just so happen to be doing things that they can boast about to women. Women love DJs. Most DJs just play music (sorry to all those who may DJ out there). But to women, it's the most special thing you can do. Now, lots of alphas and PUA wanna-be alphas DJ in their spare time. The problem is that as women rely on the Hamster more and more,you become a product of the Hamster- if you want to be in their world. And because their criteria is so fucked up, it will shape your life in odd ways.

    To this end, I think it would be useful to discuss men in terms of High Value and not 'status' terms (alpha, beta). The true question is- are we talking about a High Value person or a Low Value person.Their success with women is besides the point. To me, one aim ofMGTOW is to get men to focus on Actual Value, not Sexual Market Value. That's what living your own life means. Players, PUAs, etc. may think they are "living their life on their own terms" but they are not; by making courting the modern twat a key objective in their lives, they consciously and unconsciously choose a life that emphasizes beliefs, attitudes, and activities built around courting the Hamster.
    --

    If you liked this, you may also like:
    http://www.goingyourownway.com/mgtow...4037-post38942

    Some of you may be wondering -- who is this Jagrmeister guy? Have a look at some of my posts from MGTOW Forums--> Jagr Archive (collection of my articles)



    Stuff I do: Box, Surf, Tennis (3.5/4.0), Downhill skiing. I lift 4x a week and have for 10 years.
    Stuff I like: Comedy shows, NBA, Reading Non-Fiction (sociology, philosophy, biographies).
    Random facts: I admire Steve Jobs. Favorite travel spots (Russia, Central America).
    *If you're on Twitter, follow me: MGTOW_Jagr

  2. #2
    Senior Member Azure Nomad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    3,193
    Reputation
    15019
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: re-post: Sexual Market Value versus Actual Value

    I have noticed that the PUA community has shifted from trying to qualify to women via peacocking to give off a perceived value. And instead the PUAs now prefer to have women qualify to them instead. They have women qualify to them if these women perceive real world social value by associating with these men. Basically all the new PUA stuff is recycling of social circle building by having actual value and connections that attracts women that want to be in the modeling industry for example.

    But I do agree that in a time of relative peace and along with technology we have lost sight of actual value of men's contributions to society. For example, this is often the feedback I receive interacting with professional tradesmen working in plumbing, electricity, painting, etc. Society used to see these professions very highly because not only were they important to improving the actual value of the community, but also are still well paid professions.

    Same thing with civil engineers, geologists, surveyors, etc who are critical of building roads, bridges, wells, etc. Society has lost sight of all these men in these fields because social media is not focused on male accomplishment for society.

    A construction builder that builds homes is seen as ragged by most females but these men own their own companies, employ a small team of men they trust, and are rich by the time they retire and exit the industry with a newly built home in the Bahamas waiting for them.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    350
    Reputation
    1773
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: re-post: Sexual Market Value versus Actual Value

    I think the problem with classifying men as high-value or low-value is that that the audience for that measurement methodology is nearly nonexistent.

    For instance, let's take a three-year old who sees a nice tasty cupcake and desperately wants to eat not just it, but also the remaining five in the box. To her, those are high-value consumables. Now, someone with a wider, forward-looking, more-rational point of view will try to debate her by saying that it's not a high-value consumable; it's only a short-term pleasure that will negatively affect her for the rest of the day. (If she eats even one, she'll zoom up to a sugar high for a half hour, then come crashing down and turn nasty and argumentative. If she eats all six, she'll first turn into a Tasmanian devil, then morph into the world's nastiest mini-bitch. Tell her it was exclusively her fault, and she'll start screaming at you for being unfair, but she'll never admit she was wrong, because that would mean admitting she was wrong, and that would be self-shaming. O the horror.)

    The adult recommends she eat an apple or an orange as a substitute. But it's not what the three-year old wants. It's not what her taste buds want. Her tiny brain doesn't define "high value" in that manner. The cupcakes are more-attractive, she knows they taste better, and she knows there'll be a bit of rule-breaking (i.e. fun) as part of the process. That's why the cupcakes are high-value. The adult just can't understand her point of view.

    Now add this: She looks around, and she sees that all her female toddler friends are eating sugary cupcakes. But there's this pain in the ass adult telling her she can't? Not only that, there are many more adults telling her, "Oh, go ahead, eat as many as you want. You'll enjoy it, and besides, it's all about freedom of choice and being yourself. If you get sick, don't worry -- you can blame someone else for being unfair." Those two things validate her grading methodology because her senses (eyes and taste buds in this case) and the overwhelming external plurality of similar opinion line right up and create Truth.

    The rest is just noise. Back to Facebook, Tinder, and Instagram so it stays that way.

    I guess what I'm saying is that the SMV-vs-AV discussion may have merit, but only in an academic sense, and only to a very limited audience, because the AV foundational value system exists so far from how the mainstream's collective two-ounce brain has been programmed to work today. You can offer something of infinite value to people, but if you can't make a connection, all you'll get is a collective shrug and a return to its collective smartphone.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Insidious_Sid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Alberta
    Posts
    2,647
    Reputation
    23656
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: re-post: Sexual Market Value versus Actual Value

    I have a pretty big AMV to SMV GAP! hahaha. I love using GAP in a sentence! It doesn't matter how much you do for your children, or society, or work, or orphans. SMV is what you do for HER, how you look to HER and how much value you have to HER. That's why MGTOW is such a liberating thing. What any "HER" wants is completely irrelevant.

    When they say "Just better yourself" they're NEVER talking about ACTUAL MARKET VALUE. They are only talking about SEXUAL MARKET VALUE. Why?

    -Making more more money doesn't help anyone except perhaps the HER I would spend it on.
    -Showing DHV (Displays of Higher Value) with high-status objects doesn't help anyone, except make you more "shiny" to the "HERS".
    -Dress, style and even mannerisms mean jack when it comes to things that society would value. To her, these things are PIVOTAL to HER being titillated.
    -You gotta lift bro! Muscles mean nothing to society generally speaking, but again, you need to be a "fine specimen" to qualify for her.

    Now, it's clearly obvious how a person can high a high SMV and do little or nothing for society, or have high AV and do nothing for females.

    However, in this gynocentric society, the terms are used unanimously because men are still judged based on getting the approval of not just one, but a number of different women within the confines of a local tribe. The extents of that tribe can now break geographical barriers due to the power of the internet...

    What's unfortunate is that men USED to do things that had AV and then a corresponding SMV would result. He would be "marriage material" and a "upstanding man in the community" or "pillar of the community". Now that means jack shit. All that matters to her is his status and his resources. That's why a woman can consider a literal gangster to have a high SMV even if he takes from society far more than he gives. It does beg the question: perhaps those women of yesteryear were not nearly as noble as their male counterparts, and even then just wanted a man to 'get them the cake'. BUT NOW... since men are walking away, we can also be walking away from socially noble pursuits. Now, of course, the blue-pill masses need to believe we're all basement dwelling losers - because if they can mentally reduce us to that, we're not of any great loss.

    Am I understanding this correctly?
    - Feminism is Cancer.
    - Where have all the good men gone? Away. Far far away... from you.
    - NAWALT? Maybe, but EWALT means Russian Roulette is a much safer bet...

  5. #5
    Member TomMak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    49
    Reputation
    494
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: re-post: Sexual Market Value versus Actual Value

    It's fascinating to observe how straight women behave around gay guys. I had the opportunity to do this at close quarters when a gay ex-college friend came to visit with his partner a few years back and we went out to a local bar. We hadn't been there long before 3 cock-hungry cougars approached us. I'll never forget the look of momentary bewilderment on the women's faces when my friend gently but firmly explained that he and his partner were “together” - in other words that, in relation to those women, his SMV was zero.





    You could almost see the women's brains frantically re-calibrating the situation. The solution alighted on by the more outspoken of the 3 – the two others rapidly falling into line- was to friend-zone the gay couple and attempt to make common cause with them against me as representative of “the enemy”, heterosexual men. (Gays have a name for this type of woman: the “fag hag”.)

    Why do women always have an agenda???
    "I am​ a male chauvinist. Who's been saying otherwise?" (Joe Bob Briggs)

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    350
    Reputation
    1773
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: re-post: Sexual Market Value versus Actual Value

    Wow, Katy Perry got a wig and some facial surgery that makes her look like Dee Snyder!

  7. #7
    Senior Member Insidious_Sid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Alberta
    Posts
    2,647
    Reputation
    23656
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: re-post: Sexual Market Value versus Actual Value

    Quote Originally Posted by kru-kut View Post
    Wow, Katy Perry got a wig and some facial surgery that makes her look like Dee Snyder!
    Yeah, and We're Not Going To Take It!!!
    - Feminism is Cancer.
    - Where have all the good men gone? Away. Far far away... from you.
    - NAWALT? Maybe, but EWALT means Russian Roulette is a much safer bet...

  8. #8

    Re: re-post: Sexual Market Value versus Actual Value

    That was one funny-ass video. Watching Fag Hags get friendzoned is hilarious... I worked in a convenience store once upon a time, and I this one gay dude came in with 4 hot-ass orbiters. It was incredible, the power he wielded over these women, who would have never given me the time of day. Shout out to the homo's, they are causing justice... lololololol...

    And in case you didn't know.. Hanging out with lesbians can be somewhat cathartic. I think I wrote once before about this butch lesbo that I worked with at a video store.. She was a truck-driver, with a lipstick lesbian girlfriend. She was incredibly cute, not in the physical sense, necessarily, but because she was *such* a man. She didn't give a fuck about anything. She would beat a Soyboy into the ground on general principle. We had so much fun together, rating chicks that came in the store. She actually got me, and liked me just the way I was... We planned on going to a strip-club together, but it never happened...
    And it's nothing but wide open prairie...

    There's something very brave about MGTOW. In an odd sense, like charting a new territory of the mind, or rediscovering a long lost civilization. Occult knowledge, secret societies, cannibal natives (THOTS), it's all very exciting... lololol


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 19
    Last Post: January 13, 2019, 10:22 PM
  2. News Exaggerates Number of Actual Sexual Assaults
    By William Noy in forum Lounge
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: September 23, 2015, 10:08 AM
  3. Sexual Market Value - Married vs. Single
    By Afterburner in forum Lounge
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: July 14, 2014, 2:50 PM
  4. Sexual Market Value (SMV)
    By jagrmeister in forum MGTOW Dictionary
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: March 23, 2014, 4:25 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •