A lot of men believe they are entitled to access to women without commitment because they have certain "reward" qualities, primarily wealth and physical attractiveness. This is why so many men find the FDS concept of high value to be ridiculous. They think that if they are wealthy and/or hot, therefore they are high value, and this value is not diminished by a refusal to treat women like the prize. 

But this perspective is a result of male projection. They don't take into account the real risks and rewards associated with getting sexually involved with a man versus getting sexually involved with a woman. Let's first consider the rewards men offer outside of commitment and genuine investment. 

THE REWARDS - MEN 

Suppose we have the highest of high-value men from a male perspective: someone who is highly physically attractive and obscenely wealthy. This person is almost always going to be a male celebrity. There are plenty of obscenely wealthy men who aren't physically attractive (e.g., Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos), and there are plenty of obscenely attractive men who have little if anything to offer financially (e.g., struggling male models and actors). I think the rewards (and considerable drawbacks) of being sexually involved with either of these categories, with or without commitment, are clear enough. So let's give men maximum benefit in this analysis and go with a male celebrity.

Suppose this male celebrity is an LVM in the sense that he believes he is the prize. He is perfectly comfortable treating the women in his life like they are disposable. He does not feel the need to commit to a relationship with one woman or even to be particularly respectful of his sexual partners. He pumps and dumps freely. Many (if not most) men would think that this makes perfect sense from a sexual economics perspective. But in reality, the only reason this man is able to do this is because so many women are actively undervaluing their companionship and chasing men who are 100% not worth their time.

What does this man actually have to offer women, even women he perceives as beneath him? STDs? Mediocre sex? Having to sign an NDA before being subjected to said mediocre sex? Being able to say they slept with a celebrity? A few fancy dinners? A few overnight stays in a mansion? Mental health issues after being used by an extremely attractive man? 

Assuming he's not dumb enough to get anyone pregnant, he's not offering anything substantial financially. And male beauty is massively overrated. It's simply not worth as much as female beauty. Most straight people---men and women---tend to prefer looking at hot women to looking at hot men, which is why women's images are used so much more frequently in advertising geared toward both sexes. The male assumption that his physical attractiveness is extremely valuable is a result of male projection and women behaving in ways that are actively against their best interests. Women certainly will chase a man purely because he's attractive, but they never benefit from doing so. (This is why it's so important for women to analyze men objectively on all fronts before engaging emotionally.)

And, of course, this male celebrity is not going to want to condescend to date down. He's going to want to target women who are also attractive, wealthy, and famous. But these women have even less to gain from getting involved with a male celebrity who won't commit. The intersection between women this man wants to sleep with and women who could genuinely benefit from sleeping with him is extremely small. Ergo, he only gets laid because women are undervaluing themselves or because he is literally paying for it. 

There was a time when women genuinely benefited from getting involved with emotionally unavailable men. There was a time it made sense to have a hot affair with a man who had nothing to offer but physical attractiveness (because your only other sexual partner was a repulsive old man you were forced to marry). There was a time when it made sense to be involved with a man sexually purely because of financial perks (because you couldn't earn your own wealth as a woman). Those times are over, and good riddance. 

What about the risks involved for women who get involved with men? 

THE RISKS - MEN

Let's take our male celebrity again, keeping in mind that he is arguably a best-case scenario in terms of male value outside of commitment. What are the risks of getting involved with him? They're exactly the same as the risks in getting involved with a less "valuable" man, arguably worse in some scenarios. STDs, unwanted pregnancy, rape, violence, emotional abuse, wasted time. Being wealthy or attractive does not make a man less likely to impose these risks. Being attractive and famous arguably makes him more likely to be narcissistic and therefore abusive, and being wealthy makes it more likely he will get away with abusive or even criminally violent behavior (see: every wealthy man who's been outed for rape or sexual trafficking).

Conclusion: Sexual involvement with even an extremely "high-value" man is high risk, low reward for a woman, UNLESS commitment is also present. 

THE REWARDS - WOMEN

To contrast with our male example, let's take a woman who is average in value from a male perspective. Let's say she is a five in terms of attractiveness---not pretty but not unattractive. Let's say she has a job that pays the bills but isn't particularly glamorous or lucrative. Let's say she has a decent personality; she isn't a saint, but she is moderately supportive and compassionate, and she has no major character flaws or red flags. What does a man stand to gain from being sexually involved with this woman, especially if she undervalues herself as much as the average woman typically does? Regular sex without commitment. Free therapy, emotional validation, and ego boosts. 

Let's not underestimate the importance of the emotional validation and ego boosts. Many highly "valuable" men are perfectly content to flirt and sleep with women that they perceive as beneath them precisely because they inherently value and feel validated by female attention. Men desperately want to believe that women desire and value them, and they are equally desperate to believe that they are desired by women because of their unique specialness as an individual and not solely because they are rich or they won the genetic lottery. This is why many men need to feel that they are smarter and funnier than their partners. This is why many men will hit on everything that moves and become enraged when their advances are rejected, even by a "mediocre" woman. 

Remember, this is an average woman. The more attractive the woman is and the more supportive and loving her personality, the more the rewards increase. Think about how many women out there are offering the above perks to LVM or NVM, or even going so far as to add free maid services and a 50/50 share (or more) of household financial burdens, all without serious commitment. This doesn't make economic sense. It results from an artificial depression in female value. And this is in a market in which the price of sex has declined dramatically. If women refused to engage in sex and emotional labor without commitment, the value of the average woman would skyrocket. 

THE RISKS - WOMEN

What does a man risk in getting involved with this "mediocre" woman? Obviously women can spread STDs and be emotionally or physically abusive, and there are always risks to getting sexually involved with another person, male or female. But comparatively speaking? Lower risk of STDs (almost no risk at all if he bothers to wear a condom). Lower long-term health risks associated with most STDs, especially if he gets tested and treated regularly. Zero risk of getting pregnant. No risk of unwanted pregnancy if he bothers to get a relatively non-invasive vasectomy, and very low risk if he bothers to wear a condom and puts any effort at all into vetting his sexual partners. Lower risk of domestic violence. Vanishingly low risk of being murdered or raped. 

Many men will argue that their risks surrounding unwanted pregnancy are equal to or even greater than a woman's, but I don't think this holds water. Even if a woman is actively scheming to force a man to become a father against his will, she still has to carry the pregnancy and take on all the associated health and career-related risks associated with doing that, and if she wants child support, she has to be the main caretaker of the child. 

I'm admittedly not familiar with the ins and outs of enforcing child support, but I imagine it is not as easy as some men imagine it to be. A man can owe child support, but the onus for collecting is still on the woman, and I imagine she will have to choose between hiring her own lawyer to handle that (at great personal expense) and dealing with whatever government agencies provide free assistance in these cases (which are not likely to provide timely or high-quality legal support). In short,  the "cash for motherhood" scheme is a wash at best for most women, and it should be easy enough to weed out women who would even try it with some extremely basic precautions and vetting.  

Conclusion: Sexual involvement with even a "mediocre" woman is low risk, high reward for a man, with or without commitment. 

TL;DR: The FDS definition of "high value" stands. Unless a man is willing to genuinely commit to and invest in you, he is not high value, regardless of his other qualities, and you are risking more than you stand to gain by getting involved with him. Comparatively speaking and on average, relationships with women (casual and committed) are low risk and high reward for men. This explains the differences between the attitudes of FDS and MGTOW/Redpill practitioners, particularly in terms of their mental health, levels of hostility and resentment toward the opposite sex, and degree of bitterness. 

What do you think, ladies? Does this analysis make sense? Did I leave anything out? Any real-life examples that confirm or challenge these ideas?