Sex and value

despoticVeracity · 2015-05-27T12:18:38+00:00

Firstly, TRP does not attempt to ascribe an overall metric for value as a person. It discusses everything in a framework of sexual relations, assigning SMV, or sexual market value, to people. It does this because sexual relations is its focus.

Individuals within TRP may value sexual market value over other traits when calculating someone's 'overall. But really, overall value as a person has little use in TRP theory.

To put this a different way, let's say a RP man gets the choice of saving a high SMV woman from a fire, or preventing Albert Einstein from falling off a cliff. The RP man will likely choose to save Einstein. He won't fuck Einstein, but he'll save him. Einstein is valuable for what he can do for humanity. He isn't worth anything in bed.

SMV is how attractive one is to the opposite sex. Male SMV is primarily about power, financial, social and physical. Female SMV is about appearance and other feminine traits.

Let's look at some of the examples you've posed. When a woman has kinky sex with man A, but not man B, her reasoning is either "I don't feel attracted to him in this way", which means his SMV isn't high enough, or "his attention isn't worth doing this act I dislike", which means his SMV isn't high enough.

What about the examples of your friends that you value highly? If one of them made a move on you, then told you to take it in the ass, would you do it? Do you crave their attention? Do you stay up at night thinking about them? I doubt it. Whereas a high value man of similar proximity will have you doing that.

Given that high SMV people get treated better than low SMV people, TRP sees little point in debating whether or not you're 'truly valued as a person' and instead focuses on the results. If some guy she proclaims to 'value less' gets her best appearance, best behaviour and best bedroom behaviour, TRP says "fuck your values system; I want to be that guy."

ThirdUnderstudy · 2015-05-27T02:11:57+00:00

The guy you'll fuck, you are treating as a human being. The guy you won't is more like your favorite spayed pet--fun to have around for a while, but it's better if there aren't more like him in the future. Unfuckable guys are softly being exiled from our species, and are deluded enough to take consolation from "but he's a great guy though".

_ArchitectofThought_ · 2015-05-27T03:00:53+00:00

I think you're confusing two different concepts.

I value my guy friends, who I have absolutely no interest in having sex with, far more than I value a random guy I see on the street who (to borrow a TRP phrase) gives me "tingles."

You have no interest in having sex with any of your male friends, but you'd love to have sex with this guy who gives you vagina tingles. To me, this doesn't sound like you're making a judgement on either's value; you just have a lot more invested in your friends, and you've never met this guy other than seeing him on the street. It's nothing but a matter of proximity. If you met Mr.VaginaTingles, had sex with him several times, and formed at least some type of relationship with him whether it be FWB or dating, I'm quite sure his value to you would skyrocket and you'd quickly place more value on his opinions or desires, or worth as a man than you do your male friends.

I don't think seeing a guy on the street you wanna fuck and putting that against your friends is a worthwhile argument. I wouldn't value the opinions or thoughts, or femininity of the random hot women I see on my bus every day over those of my good female friend either. It doesn't mean I do not connect a woman's value as a woman to her ability to get sex from various men.

I am not convinced anyone can suggest that someone you wanna fuck or are fucking could ever have less value at least as a specimen of the opposite gender you respect for that trait specifically than someone you don't wanna fuck. Men's desire is to be viewed as worthy specimens of the male gender. When women don't see this in us, it's hurtful, hence why being told you're not attracted, but "we're great guys to have around!" is offensive in male culture and tropes.

Edits

40Watts · 2015-05-27T03:47:47+00:00

To me, the extent to which I find a man sexually attractive does not reflect my impression of his value.

It reflects his SMV, his sexual marketplace value. This means the extent to which you find a man sexually attractive reflects his value as a sexual being.

Sex and offspring are the only resources a woman can provide that a man cannot provide for himself. Being friends with a woman as a man does not result in directly acquiring these resources. Being friends with a woman as a man probably means you are providing her with the resources she needs (commitment, time, money, transportation, physical labor & listening to her bullshit).

CisWhiteMaelstrom · 2015-05-27T02:17:12+00:00

I don't really care about your assertion. I care about actions, namely the way women treat men that they're attracted to vs the ones they aren't. Anything other than stating what the behavior shows is just hamstering.

Cactuar_Tamer · 2015-05-27T06:58:59+00:00

I already said this in a reply upthread, but I agree and disagree, I think.

I think there is value to trying to see the other side's perspective in an intellectual sense, but for all practical purposes, what does it matter to the individual when a crucial part of their self (to them) is not being acknowledged?

Personally I would feel disrespected and un-valued if a guy only wanted to sleep with me, no matter how he tried to spin it, probably.

Perspective would help to keep from getting hostile or entitled about it, but it wouldn't make me want to keep that guy in my life, because I just don't want that kind of relationship.

usernoeight · 2015-05-27T02:07:25+00:00

Use some adjectives.

if a woman wants to have sex with guy A but not guy B, she believes guy A has more sexual value than guy B. If a girl is willing to have kinky sex with guy A but only regular sex with guy B, she believes guy A has more sexual value than guy B.

You value your friends for their platonic value more than the guy on the street, but you value that guy on the street for his sexual value more than your friends. And, yes, it probably is true that men are for more sexual value from the women they see than platonic value, and women see the opposite. So, naturally, you are going to have trouble with assigning value if you just add it all up and call it the same. Some people serve one purpose in your life, other people serve another.

ThirdEyeSqueegeed · 2015-05-27T09:33:56+00:00

Stole this quote from this video. Great vid, by the way.

'The rejection of a man for reproductive purposes by a woman is the most serious form of rejection that's possible from an evolutionary point of view, because the judgement is that, "well you might be nice enough to talk to but you're sure not fit to have your genes propagated into the next generation." So it's no wonder that women can make men self conscious.'

I think you, and all the other women on here would do well to read that quote, and read it again, and really let it sink in before you comment on this issue.

The best male equivalent I could think of would be a man leaving you barefoot and pregnant when you know he could help you and your offspring out and saying, 'well, I think you're a nice person, but I've only got so much time and so many resources and I'd really like to find a prettier girl, OK. But we can still be friends, right?'

Problematiqu · 2015-05-27T03:09:09+00:00

In my opinion, the kinkier stuff comes from wanting to please more and wanting to impress. You get off the more the other gets off. It's an arousal tool. This diminishes the longer you're with someone IF they become less appealing to you. Be it physically or personality-wise. Sex goes more from "I want to get him off." to "I want me to get off." and that can easily be done with basic missionary sex. You're more selfless, so if you do the kinky stuff and the wild positions and don't get off, that's okay, because he did and that made you feel awesome.

So, basically, a guy that intrigues you more...be it mentally or physically, will probably be getting the best from you as opposed the the guy that doesn't really appeal to you.

Where I disagree with TRP is in what defines intriguing. Because I was married to an "alpha" guy and he got bare fucking minimum from me because of out of bedroom conflict leaving me sexually repelled by him and undesiring of any kind of intimacy.

zikkitzo · 2015-05-27T04:07:55+00:00

I don't think discussing friend zoned guys vs. guys you'd sleep with as a value proposition. That's like valuing 1g of weed the same as 1g of coke. If you met two guys at a bar, you'll go home with the one you appraise as a higher sexual value. Why would you not? When you friend zone a guy, it's because his sexual value wasn't high enough, but you saw some value in a friendship.

alexdelargeorange · 2015-05-27T08:10:03+00:00

she values him highly for his friendship

In my experience this just isn't true relative to how men value eachother's friendships. It's a very rare woman who will ever go above and beyond for their male friend and have their backs when the shit hits the fan.

Will_Im_Not · 2015-05-27T02:03:14+00:00

TRP frames everything from an economic context, which is interesting to think about but fails when you try and use it to explain real world interactions. The economy dictates how general trends go but people are human, for better or for worse.

wazzup987 · 2015-05-27T02:08:24+00:00

seems pretty spot on. though society does tell men that if you can't attract a woman your aren't worth shit, add on some onetis/friend zone and sexually frustration.

essentially because men are told they are valued by there utility to women and if they can't attract a woman this causes hurt and anger.

Aerobus · 2015-05-27T12:56:44+00:00

I can't speak for all women, but this idea could not be further from the way I view men. I value my guy friends, who I have absolutely no interest in having sex with, far more than I value a random guy I see on the street who (to borrow a TRP phrase) gives me "tingles."

This is pure AF/BB. You value your guy friends for validation, comfort, and support.

meehan666 · 2015-05-27T03:22:30+00:00

This is ladder theory.

sway_usa · 2015-05-27T14:04:43+00:00

Considering men highly value sex, when you "give sex" to some random guy on the street, men are going to view that in the lens of "she rewarded him for his qualities". If a guy is attractive enough to get rewarded with little effort, other men are going to try to emulate that man's qualities (fitness, status, confidence, etc). We want the most return on our investment, or rather, to do the least while receiving the most. Every living organism follows that pattern (and even non-living phenomenon, like lightning choosing the path of least resistance). Why would a guy want to put all the effort into a friendship, when the reward he ultimately desires is sex? Why would a guy want to make $10 million, and then spend all those resources on you just to get vanilla sex, when an in shape guy gets it because of his effort into his looks? He won't, once he understands the dance.

Lonny_zone · 2015-05-27T14:24:57+00:00

When a guy gets friend-zoned, he feels as though the girl he is interested in values him less because she does not want to have sex with him.

When a male friend leaves a Mortal Kombat sesh to hang out with a woman, it's easy to be happy for him, and possibly even live vicariously through his "success."

When you're hanging out with your Dream Girl^™, and she bails to meet Chad Thundercock^TM, that hurts, because it means, usually, that you are right for her in every way but sexually. By leaving, Dream Girl^TM has indirectly told you that you are sexuality inferior to her, and even though she is running into the arms of a guy who will probably mentally abuse her and cheat on her, your friendship and "niceness" will never be enough. In the wrong guy this leads to fear (of forever alone, or a lukewarm lovelife), anger (because you can't help that you aren't hot), hate (why does Chad just get to have everything with no effort, "It's not fair! WHAAA!!!"), and The Dark Side (at best, being an asshole on the Internet, at worst, Elliot Rodger).

But in her mind, she values him highly for his friendship, and the fact that she is not sexually attracted to him is unrelated to her opinion of his value.

I hope this is true, and for all intents and purposes, out of respect to you Op, I will "believe" you, but this sounds like a classic TRP example of a woman saying one thing while doing another.

A woman will say "where are all the nice guys at" while a Beta (who actually is nice) stands right in front of her, willing to treat her right, but implicitly she has stated "you are too unattractive."

A woman will get dolled up and beam with excitement for her Chad, but roll out of bed for her Beta.

A woman will submit to Chad's demands and walk on her tip toes around him, cook and clean for him, and do everything she can to please him.

A woman will ply Chad with sexual favors just to keep this "boyfriend" around, but she will ask a Beta "guyfriend" to move a couch for nothing. I don't think anyone is entitled to any sexual favors for another favor, but even guy friends exchange (nonsexual) favors.

Do you see what I'm getting at?

All of these actions speak louder than her words: Dream Girl^™ clearly values her Alpha-Fux more than her "friend" and possible future Beta-Bux.

ubiety · 2015-05-27T20:04:19+00:00

One of the things I have noticed in a lot of TRP/PPD threads is that many TRPers believe, either implicitly or explicitly, that the extent to which a woman wants to have sex with them is a direct statement about her view of their value as a human being.

Well yes. Due to biological programing, having a girl have sex with us is the ultimate reward of courtship. What's wrong with this? We've developed sex organs completely dedicated to having sex. The sole purpose of the female clitorous is to pleasure women. Is it not valuable for a women to have? We should take that away from women, it doesn't have use beyond sexual gratification so it must be morally objectionable! Why are you devaluing the importance of sex? Just because you don't feel the need for something, doesn't mean you can shame and write off an entire gender for something "they don't need" or does not have value in your brain.

According to this mindset, if a woman wants to have sex with guy A but not guy B, she believes guy A has more value than guy B. If a girl is willing to have kinky sex with guy A but only regular sex with guy B, she believes guy A has more value than guy B.

Why wouldn't you want to have sex with a guy?

You're in a relationship.
You're not attractive to him.
Sociological reasons and moral hamstering.

And with guys you are in a relationship, why would you perform selective sex acts with one guy and not another? Again, we're assuming you're attracted to them. Why wouldn't you do a sex act with a man that you did willingly with another man? There's a difference, and the reasoning behind the difference taps at the moral and practical judgments you place on valuable sex.

You may see sex as worthless because so many men throw sex at you on a daily basis. I've always asked girls how many guys she catches checking them out. They usually say none or it never happens. I tell them to focus and consciously look for them. Each one of them tell me they catch a bunch of eyes staring at them. Moral of the example, you don't value sex the same way as men. Similarly, you're not trying to look for sex partners 24/7 because they're really easy to obtain if you just catch a guy on the street staring at you. Will you have sex with him? Probably not, but unless the guy is trained sociologically not to (or is in a relationship), he will have sex with you.

I can't speak for all women, but this idea could not be further from the way I view men. I value my guy friends, who I have absolutely no interest in having sex with, far more than I value a random guy I see on the street who (to borrow a TRP phrase) gives me "tingles."

You know your guy friends provide immediate value whereas the guy on the street you would have to approach. Chances are all of you guy friends approached you and not the other way around? If they didn't approach you, why did you approach them, what did you see in them that made them approachable? Most guys approach girls because they find them attractive. Most girls see this friendliness as friendship and the guys are too cautious to fuck things up that they go along with friendship... But the thought is in the back of his mind always.

To me, the extent to which I find a man sexually attractive does not reflect my impression of his value. And when I refrain from having sex with a man, that doesn't mean I don't value him. It just means I don't want to have sex with him.

You don't value sex, men value sex a lot. We even go so far as to pay prostitutes for sex. And yes, when you don't have sex with a man, you don't view him as a man worthy of sexual value. This is OK. Accept that men are always buying sex and hoping that women are available (unless they're in a relationship).

I'm wondering if this might be a fundamental difference between men and women - that men equate sex with value, and women do not.

Women would if their were still value judgments on female sex. Again, you would value sex more if all men stopped giving you attention, or if you were starving and needed food, or if you were poor and needed money. You'd more easily see the value in sex once you benefited directly from it. Simply existing is more valuable than sex in the west. Men are willing to sacrifice their time to hang out with you and not perdue other women. For the friends you mentioned above, so they all have girlfriends?

Perhaps this is where a lot of the anger about the friend zone comes from? When a guy gets friend-zoned, he feels as though the girl he is interested in values him less because she does not want to have sex with him.

Yes. He also deludes himself into thinking the girl thinks the same way as he does... Which is sort of what you're doing until this paragraph.

But in her mind, she values him highly for his friendship, and the fact that she is not sexually attracted to him is unrelated to her opinion of his value.

Harsh, but yes. You don't place any sexual value on the guy, but place a lot of value on the friendship. Sadly for the guys looking for sexual relationships, they're perpetually frustrated by girls like you who don't look for guys like him. Friends and Nice Guys.

Thoughts?

Welcome to the red pill, where we give you tips and self help advice so you can find girls who value you for something more than friendship and your utilitarian uses (sex, which in the west has little transactional value these days).

haircombsnightmare · 2015-05-27T03:36:09+00:00

That's because RedPill believes there is only two types of relationship with a woman: slave, or master. No middle ground. Madonna/whore complex much?

Sepean · 2015-05-27T05:27:53+00:00

You're right. It is because men value girls for sex (if we hire a female lawyer we can value her for being a lawyer, but that has nothing to do with her being a girl). In turn, if she is not willing to be of good value to us, then she doesn't really value us - she is just using us for her selfish needs, like keeping an orbiter around in the friendzone for favors and validation.

adrixshadow · 2015-05-27T07:40:49+00:00

she values him highly for his friendship

Please quantify this. You see him as useful to you, but how are you in any way useful to him.

gavinok · 2015-05-27T02:58:59+00:00

Your misinterpreting the term value. Value does not mean emotional significance or importance. It strictly means Sexual Market Value, or SMV. SMV is the RP way of measuring a level of attractiveness to the opposite sex. When you value a man's SMV, you value his masculinity, strength, confidence, assertiveness etc. etc. The things that give you the "tingles".

But in her mind, she values him highly for his friendship, and the fact that she is not sexually attracted to him is unrelated to her opinion of his value.

Again, when RP refers to value its only sexual market value, nothing to do with friendship or emotional connections.

I_TRY_TO_BE_POSITIVE · 2015-05-27T03:45:28+00:00

For me it's about what I want. If I'm in a relationship, I'm going to want to be intimate, and I'm going to want a full commitment, because that's exactly what I'll be giving in return. Otherwise we are just friends, and I can have the full bed back.

SlippyToadsWildRide · 2015-05-27T14:41:57+00:00

I think you have 1 definition of value, when really, you can value different people for different things. In your case, value = resources (not money, but emotional and social resources).

I value my guy friends, who I have absolutely no interest in having sex with, far more than I value a random guy I see on the street who (to borrow a TRP phrase) gives me "tingles."

Evolutionarily speaking, you're basically saying "I value my guy friends for their beta qualities and I value the guy on the street who gives me tingles for his genetics and sperm only."

You DO value both types of men but for different reasons. The reason you think the value of your friends is more important (again, evolutionarily speaking) is because sperm is cheap and another guy can easily give you tingles and impregnate you, but your social friendships take longer to build and would be more costly if lost.

kick6 · 2015-05-27T16:12:32+00:00

The animalistic exchange that underpins all human male/female relationships is sex for resources. Namely, she is trading her sex for his resources. Based on this: your friendship has zero value.

The "friendzone" basically says "I value your resources, but not enough to trade sex for them. Instead, I'm willing to offer you absolutely nothing." So yes...you are valuing that man less than other men with whom you are willing to trade sex.

SirNemesis · 2015-05-27T17:32:33+00:00

It's not that we think women consider sexual value the main determinant of value.

It's that we find value primarily in being valued sexually.

SirNemesis · 2015-05-27T17:40:56+00:00

I'm rather intrigued about your statement about what women value, so I'd like a clarification based on the following. I recently overheard a convo between two guys:

Guy 1: "Would you rather date a really good-looking girl or a really nice girl?" Guy 2: "The good-looking one." Guy 1: "Really?" Guy 2: "I mean I'd be really good friends with the nice girl!"

Am I correct in believing that you'd rather be the girl guys are really good friends with than the girl guys want to date?

iamyo · 2015-05-28T08:15:21+00:00

It's not a fundamental difference between women and men--it's that people are very wrapped up in what potential sexual partners think of them and how appealing they find them. People feel like their sexual attractiveness is a key component of their value. Men and women both believe this. So when they are not seen as sexually attractive, they feel personally disregarded.

mpnsk · 2015-06-11T10:23:40+00:00

http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/07/jezebel_proves_scott_adams_is.html

GridReXX · 2015-05-27T04:23:08+00:00

I agree. I think this is a fundamental difference between men and women.

APlaceInsideMyHead · 2015-05-27T10:06:01+00:00

How many of your male friends do you think secretly want to fuck you?

Cyrusk4 · 2015-05-27T13:51:03+00:00

A lot of TRP rage on this thread. Thanks for your post Cherry, here are my thoughts from the place I call reality:

Yes, men with GFs do have female friends. I have half as many female friends as male friends, and I have a LOT of friends. My last GF got a bit jealous of one of my female friends. I told her if I say goodbye to my friends for her sake then she can see the door. Was never an issue again (we broke up for other reasons and now she's one of my friends with zero problems)
If a female friend of mine was treating me as an "emotional tampon" as Terper rage suggests, she'd not be my friend. Period. It's never been an issue for me, but obviously it's an issue with Terpers a lot. Why?
Human relationships are not about using / not using people.
Things sometimes develop with "just friends". Sometimes a "just friend' becomes a future girlfriend / wife.
Here's where I will give ONE POINT to the TRP POV: Men DO desire to believe they are sexually attractive. If a woman completely discounts this in a man she knows, and believes he's an unfuckable TOAD... Then some men MAY develop resentment. I think this is human nature. TRP believes in lifting weights a lot and making yourself look as good as you can and being high value, right? if you do these things then this situation won't happen very much. It's not so much about sex but it's about, again, whether or not as a man you are a completely unfuckworthy toad. But Terpers are taking this insecurity to an EXTREME level and using it to rationalize hatred against women.

YES_BOIIS · 2015-05-27T13:15:05+00:00

To me, the extent to which I find a man sexually attractive does not reflect my impression of his value.

if we were to give you the benefit of the doubt here, even so SMV trumps whatever other value you might see them as having. Which one do you think a man would prefer to hear? a) that you find him really cool and nice, or b) that you want to gargle on his dick.

Even if you don't think SMV determines a man's respectability as a person, men will still think so. Women heavily infer it with the way they talk, not to mention all the friendzone nonsense and treating high SMV strangers wildly better than lower SMV friends.

I'd still argue that deep down you don't mean what you say though. Could be wrong of course.

Title	Sex and value
Author	cherryblue12
Upvotes	25
Comments	330
Date	May 27, 2015 1:54 AM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/37enhh/sex_and_value/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/sex-and-value.281942 https://theredarchive.com/post/281942

Comments