CMV: "The sexual marketplace" model is overly reductive

disposable_pants · 2017-01-12T07:15:54+00:00

Things that would CMV

This is an excellent addition to your post; I wish more people did this.

With that in mind,

he 80/20 rule is the typical example of what I mean. Unlike currency, your SMV cannot be consumed by use. If I'm a quality dude and had sex last night, that doesn't have any effect on sex today. This results in asymmetric distribution of sex, since once I have a higher SMV I can use it perpetually.

Two thoughts:

SMV can be changed by having sex -- imagine the social repercussions of having sex. If a woman who's perceived as virginal and cold has sex with a guy or two, her SMV might be positively affected because she's now viewed as a more realistic option (i.e. the chance of sleeping with her goes up from 0%). If a woman who's perceived as average has sex with twenty guys, she might get a small temporary boost in SMV (she's easy -- presumably there's a higher chance of sleeping with her) and a longer-term SMV hit (she becomes that girl). If a man is perceived as a kissless virgin and he gets laid a time or two, his SMV increases because he's no longer viewed as socially stunted/awkward. If an average man sleeps with 20 attractive women he gets an SMV boost because of social proof. If an average man sleeps with 20 ugly women he gets an SMV hit because he has no standards/is desperate/is an Ahab/is a chubby chaser.
Money spent today is not necessarily consumed by use. I can invest money in an asset that may yield returns later, or spend it on something I can easily cash out later, or buy some form of status that might be more valuable than they money itself. Not all transactions are buying a meal, where money spent is essentially money that will never in any way come back.

So I'd dispute two of your points.

I'd also argue that SMV -- like all analogies -- isn't meant to be a perfect comparison. The idea is to de-mystify romantic ideas like love and relationships, and to point out that people are going to be reasonably rational in the dating world, just like they might be reasonably rational when participating in any other market. Basic economic concepts like "people respond to incentives" and "high supply generally reduces price" go a long ways toward explaining various relationship phenomena. Not everything is going to be explained by this model, but quite a bit will be.

wub1234 · 2017-01-12T10:09:33+00:00

The other thing about SMV for men is that women's assessment of men is much more divergent than the opposite. So you can claim to have an SMV of 8, for example, but this won't necessarily count for anything when you meet a woman with a high SMV, or for that matter any woman. She may still (indeed is likely to) look at you and think "pffff...not interested". You cannot at that point state "look, objectively my SMV is 8, so you have to mate with me". You can do this with money; if you have enough money to buy something that is for sale then you will simply be able to purchase it.

The reverse is less applicable for female SMV; most men will be attracted to a woman with high SMV. In fact, it's almost a certainty that any man will be attracted to a woman with high SMV. I don't agree that women with high SMV are necessarily choosier, or possibly in some cases even aware of it, but at some point many are going to realise that they have options. This is why we usually see couples of approximate SMV (not to mention similar backgrounds, socio-economic status, etc) because water tends to seek its own level.

Furthermore, I often quote the claims of Paul Janka that he slept with 11% of the women from whom he acquired phone numbers when he was doing daygame. Let's assume that claim is true. Firstly, he cannot have got a number from every single woman he approached. Let's be generous and say that 50% of women that he randomly chatted to as a stranger gave him a legitimate phone number. That would mean that 95% of the women he approached weren't interested. But he is one of the best looking guys that you're going to see, there is no way I could ever be as physically appealing as him. It's just not possible. And yet despite his SMV, he's still saying that 95% of women rejected him. And he thinks this is encouraging! He cites this as a positive for people doing daygame! Despite the fact that overwhelming majority of guys doing it are going be significantly less attractive than him. So they're going to get even worse percentages; it stands to reason.

And in this situation, again, you can't say "well, I've been engaging in self-improvement, I've been lifting, I make good money, I'm flirting with you really skilfully, so you're not allowed to reject me". It just means nothing. Imagine how you would react if you went into a shop with enough money to buy something and they told you that your money was no good at this location. Virtually anyone would either be incredulous or get mad. But this doesn't apply to SMV at all; we expect to be figuratively told our money is no good at this location, regardless of how high our SMV may be. Almost certainly you're going to be pushed away by any woman that you approach, completely regardless of your SMV.

Mating with someone is more about meeting the right person, at the right time, in the right environment (ideally having been introduced by the right person). That's why it's often referred to as 'getting lucky'. When I have mated with someone, it has either come out of the blue, or else it's been the result of incredible persistence online, and tonnes of rejection. That's totally regardless of whatever my supposed SMV may be.

quicklogaccount · 2017-01-12T11:56:00+00:00

"Sexual Market Value" is only a colloquial term and isn't meant to be a close analogy.

That's quite the point. There are too many posts explaining it and its mechanics, it's not expected that one will derive its workings from actual markets, and you're right, it is nothing like it.
But you left me tempted to toy around with elasticity.

I would be curious what the explanation of its use is.

I suppose the label is meant to suggest relationships are mercantile and attraction isn't caused by some ineffable aspect of the soul, rather, it is quantifiable.

NalkaNalka · 2017-01-12T07:07:25+00:00

The SMP is not meant parallel the financial marketplace in every aspect. That is just nitpicking. "SMV" is just a rough approximation of what you can get on the market for what you have to offer. If someone wants to claim they have a SMV of 7.57843424 they are sperging the fuck out.

It's shorthand for "how attractive you are and how easily you can get quality partners for sex/relationships based on your looks, money, personality, status, fame, conections, sociablity etc etc all the factors that contribute to you mating value"

AutoModerator · 2017-01-12T06:28:53+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair, just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

ppdthrowawai · 2017-01-12T13:03:12+00:00

Sure it can be "consumed". You can be taken off the market by an LTR, something that eventually happens to most people. Your stock is rising/falling and someone will eventually buy it because its high enough that they find it to be worth it or low enough that it's in their purchasing range.
Do you have a better alternative?

EchoZeroEleven · 2017-01-12T14:26:18+00:00

I think it's strange to think as SMV as a consumable, as it's constantly in flux depending on who's around you. You could be an 8 to one person, and a 4 to another. There's some general things you can do to raise SMV (exercise, diet, tattoos, clothes, etc.), but beyond that it becomes circumstantial.

As for SMV being a pinpoint analogy - it totally isn't. I think SMV and RMV are terms used to convey an idea; a loose model to establish a framework, which could be helpful to the oblivious (and TRP is supposed to be helping the oblivious lost ones).

I believe the idea is - can I look in the mirror and determine a plan of action to increase my SMV? Now granted, I don't need to be 10/10 to get laid and snag the love of my life, but I certainly should be able to have a loose working model on how to increase my chances.

washington_breadstix · 2017-01-12T20:36:33+00:00

Like so many other topics on this subreddit, the ''sexual marketplace'' is more of a rough descriptor. It's only a portion of the RP community that takes the analogy way too literally.

In past decades, people weren't getting married solely for love/lust reasons. They got married for stability and to raise a family. Now after the sexual liberation, people are getting into relationships solely for love, lust and companionship. Which is totally how it should be, but we can't pretend it hasn't changed the dating landscape.

These changes have made the dating world more similar to an open market. For instance, people are getting married later in life because in this day and age, commitment comes with the opportunity cost of giving up companionship and sex with all the other partners you could have had. In that sense, dating has become more like a marketplace. Analogies don't have to be perfect.

So yeah, I'm contradicting you using your first point under "Things that would CMV" except I'm not just saying "being better is better." I'm saying that we call it a ''marketplace'' now because a generation or two ago it was nothing like a marketplace and we're trying to highlight the effects of the change.

Title	CMV: "The sexual marketplace" model is overly reductive
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	2
Comments	35
Date	January 12, 2017 6:28 AM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/5nhu06/cmv_the_sexual_marketplace_model_is_overly/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/cmv-the-sexual-marketplace-model-is-overly.270680 https://theredarchive.com/post/270680

Comments