Revising Our Concepts of SMV and MMV

SMV depends on the supply.  MMV depends on the relative demand.

Readership: All
Theme: Problems with The Red Pill / Misunderstood Models
Length: 2,600 words
Reading Time: 15 minutes

Economic Theory

Supply

A supply is the amount of a resource that firms, producers, laborers, providers of financial assets, or other economic agents are willing and able to provide to the marketplace or an individual. Supply can be in produced goods, labor time, raw materials, or any other scarce or valuable object.

In the goods market, supply is the amount of a product per unit of time that producers are willing to sell at various given prices when all other factors are held constant. This is roughly equivalent to women’s SMV, which is time dependent, lasting from the ages of ~18-30.

In the labor market, the supply of labor is the amount of time per week, month, or year that individuals are willing to spend working, as a function of the wage rate.  This is roughly proportional to women’s MMV.

Women offer both goods (her body and reproductive potential) and labor (help, housekeeping, childrearing, etc.).  Female goods are often sold to a series of boyfriends, Chads, Sugar Daddies, and/or OnlyF@ns Johns, and female labor is increasingly sold to corporate employers.  The female goods and labor that are offered to men / husbands is at an all-time low.  Other scarce or valuable commodities that women might provide to men include companionship, honor, and respect.  But due to feminism, women are fundamentally opposed to providing these assets to men.

Demand

In economics, a Supply & Demand curve is a graph depicting the relationship between the price of a certain commodity (the y-axis) and the quantity of that commodity that is demanded at that price (the x-axis).

Demand curves may be used to model the price-quantity relationship for an individual consumer (an individual demand curve), or more commonly for all consumers in a particular market (a market demand curve).  It is generally assumed that demand curves are downward-sloping, as shown in the adjacent image.  This is because of the law of demand: for most goods, the quantity demanded will decrease in response to an increase in price, and will increase in response to a decrease in price.

In today’s market, we see women lowering their prices in order to increase demand (attention, clicks, views, $$$, etc.).  But in doing so, they also lowered their value.

Demand curves are also used to estimate behaviors in competitive markets, and are often combined with supply curves to estimate the equilibrium price (the price at which sellers together are willing to sell the same amount as buyers together are willing to buy, also known as market clearing price) and the equilibrium quantity (the amount of that good or service that will be produced and bought without surplus / excess supply or shortage / excess demand) of that market.  For a transaction to take place, the supply curve must intersect with the demand curve.

Notes for Finance Dummies

1. In a traditional sociosexual market, men are producers and women are consumers.
2. Supply (S) represents the producers’ willingness to sell.
3. Demand (D) represents the consumers’ willingness to buy.
4. Price (P) is the exchange price.
5. Quantity (Q) represents the number of transactions that occur at a given price.
6. P is the independent variable and Q is the dependent variable, but the axes are reversed in a Supply & Demand curve by convention.
7. In economic theory, it is assumed that the production and consumption of commodities is unlimited.  In reality, there are external forces that affect and limit both the production and consumption of commodities.  For example, Apple wants to sell more MacBooks at a higher price.  The demand is available, but the production is limited by resource acquisition and manufacturing capacity.  Likewise, people will want to buy more apples if they are on sale, but they will not buy more than they can eat.  More sophisticated models take these variables into account.

Our Present Understanding of SMV

The secular Manosphere has come up with many detailed graphs depicting the SMV of men and women.  The most famous chart from Rollo Tomassi at the Rational Male shows the general trend in SMV for males and females versus age.

What is not explicitly pointed out is that, in effect, the pink (women) represents the average potential maximum female sexual currency that can be tendered in a transaction, and the blue (men) shows the average potential maximum supply of a supply and demand function in an open competitive market.  That is, the Supply is shown in pink, which represents the producers’ (men’s) willingness to transact, and the Demand is shown in blue, which represents the consumers’ (women’s) willingness to transact.

Here, I want to point out that ‘Demand’ is often linked to ‘Value’, as Rollo et al. have assumed and put forth, but it is not necessarily so. This disjunction was not so evident in the early days of the Manosphere, but it is becoming more obvious now. I’ll explain this in the next few sections.

Also, this graph represents averages, and due to hypergamy, we know women don’t want average — they want the exceptionally HSV man.

So let’s take a closer look at this.

Reframing Our Understanding of SMV

We have become accustomed to think of SMV in terms of sexual desirability, or hierarchy, or parity, or value, or how much power or choice a particular person might have, and therefore, we assign a Likert (‘Like Her?’) scale value of 1-10 to particular women.  We are much less accustomed to assigning a ‘Like Her?’ value to a woman’s MMV. However, this becomes a myopic view when we consider other market factors, such as real Demand, market forces, and risk, so this requires a shift in our thinking.  We must also consider how one’s SMV/MMV is determined by whether and how much the particular qualities of a person are actually wanted (in demand) by the other sex, and how much risk is involved.

In reality, the unit price for a particular good or other traded item, such as labor or liquid financial assets will vary until it settles at a point where the quality / quantity demanded will equal the quality / quantity supplied (the market-clearing price), resulting in an economic equilibrium for price and quality / quantity transacted.  That is to say, one’s sexual market value is an estimation of the reproductive potential and/or life / relationship quality that one can supply, or offer to a partner. If these things are absent, then men will be less interested in making this investment (Q), and the Demand will fall.

In total, this creates a vicious cycle of depreciation. Q goes down, which drives investment Value down in order to secure a more agreeable transaction. Meanwhile, Prices are held artifically high. Thus, what we see is that today’s women are eagerly willing to casually sell their bodies and sex appeal in a market transaction, but are quite UNwilling to formally sell HIGH QUALITY products and labor.  The result is that the market is flooded with sexual transactions, while there is a shortage of marriage transactions.

Male SMV Depends on Demand

In a myopic view, men will assume that women are constantly in high demand for sex, because P-ssy.  This is not exactly true across the board.  Let me explain this from the producer’s (men’s) standpoint.

For high SMV men, P-ssy is plentiful and free. This man has the freedom to Next a woman over the least bit of hassle. So the Demand drops accordingly for sex and especially marriage.

For low SMV men, P-ssy is considerably less plentiful but also involves greater investment.  What is required to obtain a transaction with a woman involves more money and greater effort, and is much more energy-intensive and time-consuming.  These considerations also figure into the total bill.  So although women are more highly desired by this demographic, they also come with a higher price tag.  Many of these men have decided that the products and services offered by women are not worth the investment costs and the associated risks, so the demand has actually fallen.

In summary both the demand (willingness to shill out $$$) and the investment cost to the male are inversely proportional to his sexual authority, similar to the graph shown above. IOW, better looking guys are less desperate and are better able to get a more favorable transaction. Of course, we already know this, but we seldom recognize this in terms of supply and demand.

Reframing Our Understanding of MMV

A lot of virtual ink has been spilled to address the question of which personal characteristics comprise sexual and marital value, from both the male and female perspectives.  To briefly summarize, males are attracted to women having youth, beauty, fertility, good health, etc. so these attributes determine a female’s sexual / marital value.  Similarly, females are attracted to men having power, athleticism, wealth, charisma, etc. so these attributes determine a male’s sexual / marital value. 

But here I’ll go a step further to pose the question, what makes any of these particular personal characteristics (e.g. youth, beauty, power, wealth…) an asset to their MMV as opposed to their SMV?

First of all, we must identify the differences in what is traded in each transaction. In general, there are 4 types of transactions that can occur, listed here in order of increasing investment cost for men and decreasing investment cost for women.

1. S1uttery — Sex in exchange for affirmation, attention, status, Tingles, validation, etc. Examples include ONS, FWB, OR, polyandry, serial monogamy, etc.
2. Pr0st!tut!0n / Wh0redom — Sex in exchange for $$$ or other tangible asset. Examples include Marriage 2.0, OASIS (IG, OnlyF@ns, etc.), sugaring, etc.
3. Concubinage — Commitment for sexual exclusivity under conditions that are agreed upon either covertly or explicitly. Examples include ‘baby trapping’ / OOW births, cohabitation, formal or informal concubinage, surrogacy, etc.
4. Marriage — Lifetime commitment for sexual exclusivity.

The immediate takeaway is that marriage is a long-term investment, and therefore performance and maintenance costs become preeminent considerations. Ideally, the preventive maintenance costs should have been shouldered by the girl’s father during her upbringing. The more that is invested in a woman during her formative years, the less reactive maintenance will be necessary later on.

MMV = Low Maintenance + High Performance

In a recent video at PsycHacks: Why men get married: it’s not about you (2024/4/15), Dr. Taraban states that men are hesitant to marry (which is a polite understatement in these days).  However, he emphasizes that men are more willing to marry a woman who has an array of traits supportive of childbearing, childrearing, and managing the home.  He also states that a man who is looking to marry wants a woman who does not consume his time, energy, and attention, and that a woman “being perfect is less important than being unproblematic”. 

This is entirely true, and the word, ‘unproblematic’ wraps things up very nicely.  However, Dr. Taraban leaves aside the obvious ‘problems’ that would make a woman ‘problematic’, and he doesn’t go into detail about what makes a woman ‘unproblematic”.  So I’ll list a few of the most important characteristics of ‘unproblematic’ women here.  I’m sure many others could be included.

Characteristics of ‘Unproblematic’ Women

• Loyal
• Quiet
• Helpful
• Agentic
• Humble
• Faithful
• Agreeable
• Teachable
• Submissive
• Sexually chaste
• Emotionally mature
• Sensitive to the needs of others.
• Self-controlled / Self-disciplined
• Husband and Family minded rather than self-centered.
• Good humored / Happy / Joyful / Willing to do Emotion Work
• Actually likes her man and is attracted to and aroused by him.
• Last but certainly not least, she eagerly and gleefully bends her knees whenever he’s hard and needs drained.

Putting all this together, I propose the following formula for MMV.

Marriage Market Value (MMV) = Quality (Beauty + Youth + Virginity) + Low Maintenance (unproblematic) + High Performance (agentic + mature ) + an array of many other qualities.

Although we have several graphs of SMV from various perspectives, a similar graph for MMV has never been introduced, probably because the secular Manosphere is preoccupied with seed foam, not commitment.

It is difficult to capture all these factors (e.g. how to quantify ‘unproblematic’ ?) in a single 2-dimensional graph.  So here, I’ve picked out age and N count as proximal variables to create a rudimentary graph of MMV.*

• MMV is highest for young virgin women.
• MMV drops exponentially from current SMV by N.
• MMV ≈ SMV e^–N

I’m not sure how useful this graph will be, because we already know marriage is in the doldrums.  But perhaps this is the best time to discuss it from an entirely objective point of view.

* Consider this graph as a theoretical model in progress.  I’m not entirely satisfied with this, so it may see some revision in the future.

The P-ssy Bubble

The failure of omitting any consideration of the demand in a transaction is revealed in how women overestimate their own value, and underestimate men’s value, as depicted in the following graph.

To offer a real life example of this imbalance, over at Spawny’s Space: Upping The Demands (2020/2/16), Farm Boy posted this video from Better Bachelor.

Farm Boy writes,

“She is 34 and she has upped her demands in what she wants in a man.  This is above and beyond the demand that he marry her requirement.  He has to be much better than what she tolerated in the past. Stuff like — good father material, stable income, do what she wants, etc.  Plus, he must be the sexy and fun that she probably has become accustomed to.

It seems to a fella that upping the demands as your bargaining position is deteriorating is ludicrous.”

Also, women falsely believe that many other qualities, such as earnings, education, and even sexual experience (heh) increase their SMV, when in fact, these things mean nothing to men and therefore have no trading power.  Interestingly, a woman who makes such demands drives her own value down, as men prefer women who are agreeable, content, demure, quiet, submissive, and unproblematic.  This is often described as “pricing herself out of the market”, but this is somewhat of a misnomer.

If we reframe this situation more accurately in terms of supply and demand, she is actually lowering her value until she eventually becomes a bimbo / wh0re who is no longer in demand.

A Barrel of Overinflated Monkey Branchers

So when it is said that,

“Women’s demands go up because they believe their value has gone up.”

We must recognize that the real reason why women’s demands have gone up has nothing to do with their real value.

Given that the risk-to-benefit ratio of marriage is now so unfavorable, it would be more truthful to say that the government, laws, and feminist social norms have devalued women.  Similarly, the phrase, “pricing themselves out of the market”, is more accurately understood to mean that women’s stick her price is vastly overinflated, just like their weight.  Women’s demands have just floated with this artificial inflation and have gone up past the point where an equilibrium transaction can take place, meaning that men must take a loss if a transaction is to be made. 

That “women have priced themselves out of the market” might be true according to the feminist mantras that women are taught to believe, but it’s not accurate to reality.  But in women’s solipsistic minds, they erroneously believe it is determined by their own intrinsic value.  Heh.  Then solipsistic women use this argument to justify wanting a high quality man.

It is an unreasonable proposition to men, as they have to pay both the government and the women themselves, and continue doing so long after the products, labor, quality, and value offered has diminished past its sell-by date, and with little to show for it.

In summary,

• Women claiming that their value has gone up is a bald-faced lie, simply because they are less able to provide what men want.  Most of them don’t even know what men want, other than sex.
• Men saying these women have “priced themselves out of the market” is a reflection of this lie.  Men who say this are parroting women’s fem-centric solipsistic Gaslighting.

So don’t admit this false argument of ‘increased value’.

Polyandry — A Market Correction

Not all women truly believe their value has risen. More and more women are becoming acutely aware that they can’t pull the Brads, Chads, Thads, and married Dads they once did in their early 20’s, leading them to the vexation we see in the video above.

There are several factors contributing to this increased awareness among women.

1. Women who hit the epiphany stage are beginning to understand the depth of their needs (as opposed to their solipsistic wants). So part of the reason why the demands go up is because they realize this is what all they need to get a much desired sense of contentment out of a relationship.
2. Women are more vocal about making such demands because of a societal inculcated entitlement complex.  Also, the b!tching and complaining is therapeutic to their egos.
3. However, they are frustrated because at 30+, they have less of what MEN need to get a sense of contentment out of a relationship, and so because of this mismatch in market equity, there is no possibility for a transaction (unless the man sacrifices hard, which is more and more unlikely, as more and more men are waking up to this bitter reality).
4. It’s a cry of pain out of the guilt resulting from their poor life decisions and lost opportunities.
5. However, this guilt and pain is still not sufficient to motivate them to humble themselves, honestly assess their present condition, and make the best of whatever they have left — so more demands.
6. Maybe other reasons, depending on the individual.

Women make demands of men and even demand multiple men to meet their needs because they fail to understand (or refuse to admit) that it is impossible for one man (or even many men) to meet all their needs. Only Jesus can give them the sense of contentment they are looking for.

Because of the above reasons, more and more women are overtly demanding open polyandry in the form of ‘friends with benefits’ and/or ‘open relationships’.  This is spreading like wildfire because of herd mentality / FOMO / YOLO, and a societal-wide absence of moral restraint.

Better bachelor pointed this out in a recent video.

At 22:30, he says,

“When hypergamy was an effect… women would chase after the top 10 or 20 or 30%.  Now, what women are doing is they’re saying, “You know what?  The top 10, 20, 30%, they’re not necessarily enough anymore because a woman can’t just get one of them because that man never ‘settles’ for her.”  So what this girl’s really talking about is… she wants to sleep with the 10 or the 9 that’ll sleep with her, she wants the finances of a 6, and she wants the friendship and romance of an 8.  That’s what she wants because [she can’t get commitment from the 10,] she can only get the 10 to sleep with her.  She can get the six’s money but she doesn’t want to sleep with him, and the 7 or 8 that she’s comfortable with and she enjoys, well, that’s the one she wants to cuddle up with and watch a movie.  Now, she’d rather do that with a 10, but he can’t be bothered because he’s out sleeping with somebody else.  So this is why you see that women don’t want to be monogamous anymore.”

Joker also points out that…

• Women are now arguing that humans cannot be or aren’t meant to be monogamous because one person cannot give you everything you need.
• It is considered ridiculous for a man to demand multiple women to fill various female roles in his life, even though this would be more realistic (and more Biblical).

Related

• Donal Graeme: Mind the Gap – The Conundrum of Male SMV and Marriage (2013/11/23)
• The Rational Male: Preventative Medicine – Part II (2014/3/26)
• Σ Frame: Sexual Market Value (SMV) vs. Marriage Market Value (MMV) (2017/7/27)
• Σ Frame: How much is Virginity worth? (2019/9/6)
• Σ Frame (Thedeti): Breaking Feminine Delusions (2024/1/30)