Ok I’ll admit it, I had originally intended to go a bit off brand and write a take down piece about Aunt Giggles’ ludicrous post last week about how my infamous SMV graph wasn’t statistically viable, but the ABC 20/20 hit piece that never aired on Friday had the lion’s share of my attentions. To call that post flimsy would be an understatement, but when her site traffic starts heading south consistently enough she always resorts to taunting the manosphere to increase views and comments she’ll only delete. It must be a lot tougher a gig for her now that the HuffPo owns Hooking Up Betas and she’s expected to drive site traffic for revenue regularly. Gone are the days of the 1,000+ HUS comment threads when you’re only interested in hearing your own voice.
The abject stupidity of Susie quoting a single, unverifiable “PhD in statistics” comment on Dalrock’s site (from April of 2011 no less) to build a post refuting sexual market evaluation should be enough to tell the story about HUS’s commercial rebranding; not to mention Giggles’ desperation for viewership in an already saturated demographic. In other words, when your rebrand is essentially 17 Magazine for the 55+ female demo, you’ve got your work cut out for you. Advice for you Suz; go back to pretending to be red pill — there’s a hundred other bloggers on Jezebel, and a hundred HuffPo ‘psychologists’ who’ve been doing your schtick longer and better than you.
All that said, I can’t help but recognize the nerve that my SMV chart has struck throughout the internet. I’m not just talking about the manosphere proper here; from recognized psychology sites (generally for comparison) to BodyBuilding.com, this chart is easily the most linked-to picture from Rational Male. Whether it’s about refuting its accuracy or comparing how my instinctual understanding of SMP valuations gel with more scientific studies, that graph has become a benchmark, or at least the starting point, for a better understanding of comparative SMV over the course of a subjective lifetime.
A lot of that original post’s intent gets misconstrued, usually as the result of bruised egos still invested in blue pill social conditioning, but also women who are understandably threatened by the prospect of having their long-term sexual strategy chronologically laid bare for men to prepare themselves for. I’ve restated this repeatedly, but this graph was never the result of some scientific analysis, rather it was the result of observation and correlation. And I daresay (even to my surprise) that my graph lines up scarily close to most ‘statistical’ studies.
Nonetheless, Aunt Sue’s plea for site traffic prostitution made me aware that I should address some of the most common criticisms of the Tomassi SMV graph. So lets start with ‘Doctor’ Kelly’s assertions:
Those graphs are wrong because, with a fixed number of people in the world, equal between the sexes, you have to scale the curves so that the area under each one is the same. E.g. the top valued man is not a “10,” ever. He’s some relatively lower value scaled by the fact that men’s sexual prime lasts longer. Why is this, for the non math geniuses out there? Because if there are 50 men who are 7.5′s, and there are only 30 women, then men’s actual score and actual value on the dating market is downgraded because he can’t just choose a 7.5 and take her. He is downgraded by competition in the market.
You can read Kelly’s entire comment at Dalrock’s, but her analysis is fundamentally flawed for the same reason the 3 year old OK Cupid graphs are flawed (or statistically limited). This flaw is the assumption is that SMV evaluation is in anyway relatable to whom a person is actually pairing off with in the short or long term. As I’ve stated many times before, “wants” got nothing to do with it. Desirability, and peak sexual market value (and capitalizing upon that peak) have nothing to do with monogamy – however this is exactly the context I would expect from solipsistic women relating any and every detail of the SMP to how it fits into a feminine narrative. Though it might be a tall order I’d love to see a study done of how women’s menstrual cycle influences their short term breeding with who they pair off with in long term monogamy.
This was from a couple of comments he made on the Curse of Potential:
…with regards to the SMV graph–are you saying a 40 year old guy is gonna have an easier time picking up a 22 year old girl (at her SMV peak) at a bar than, say, a 27 year old? I dunno if I’m reading it correctly, but it appears to show a man of 40 as having almost twice the SMV as a man of 27, which doesn’t sound right to me. Almost all the hot young chicks I know are with other, young (maybe couple years older) douchebags, not forty year olds (or even 38 or 35 year olds). I mean, unless you’re Leonardo DiCaprio or something…obviously there are exceptions, but–even outside my circle friends, when I go to the beach, the movies, bars, etc. I don’t see a lot of young girls with way older guys, as your graph would suggest. Advising us to wait till we’re in our late thirties to settle down, and promising we’ll land 22 year olds if we keep up our Game, seems like bad advice–not to mention, you’re giving a lot of single dudes in their 20s false hope–like, hey, can’t pick up a girl at 29? Just wait till you’re 40! They’re gonna be all over that. Girls definitely hit the wall harder, and sooner, than guys, but if men really peaked at the age you say, then–again–most, or at least a sizable minority, of the hottest, youngest chicks would be with them, and they’re not.
SaladDays misunderstands the premise of men’s potential here. One of the most common criticisms I get, especially from disgruntled women, is Salad’s observation; “as a mid-20’s girl, there’s no way I’d ever be attracted to some older guy.” Once again, pairing and mutual attraction has nothing to do with SMV, and especially so when a woman is experiencing her peak sexual market value. The feminized-thinking presumption here is that like should attract like. The 22 year old SMV peaked hottie should be attracted to and interested in settling down with the 37 year old, in-shape, potential maximized, Game-aware man.
SaladDays continues:
If SMV is indicative of one’s ability to attract the most desirable members of the opposite sex, then presumably those in the upper echelons of SMV would want to pair with other, equally sexy mates–and, according to the graph, we infer that the hottest 23-year old girls will generally hook up with 38-year old men.
And, as much as I would like that to be true, 27 years of experience tells me otherwise. Girls that age don’t tend to date men that old (there are exceptions– they have father issues, or the guy is really wealthy & some girls dig that, though they’re certainly not my type).
I believe it was Aristotle who said the best years to marry were 18 for women and 38 for men. In a vacuum, this might be an idealized situation, but the mistake is comparing female peak SMV with male peak SMV. A woman of 22-23 has nothing like the benefit of life experience a potential-optimized man of 38 will have. The comparison shouldn’t be made between peaks, but rather within the peak SMV span between the sexes. Even Aunt Giggles concedes that when polled, most women will say they want to marry between 27 and 30 years of age. Conveniently this is exactly the point at which men’s SMV is (should be) on its ascendancy and women’s SMV drops to an equitable level.
What’s ironic is that for all the handwringing about how a female 23 year olds should or shouldn’t be attracted to older men, no one has anything to say about 28 year old women being attracted to or wanting to settle down with men of 36-38 years old. They titter and giggle about the Half Plus Seven rule while it’s advantageous to their sexual strategy in their phase of life, but only insofar as it benefits women’s sexual pluralism:
When the age ratios of the ½+7 formula are strategically favorable to the feminine sexual strategy, the response by the feminine is one of enthusiastic embracement. Once that ratio progresses to the point it becomes a sexually strategic liability, or even the source of anxiety, the response is one of scorn and shame for men.
When a 28 year old woman declares she’d like to marry an older man, her intellectual and financial status equal, we applaud her for her prudence, but when a 38 year old man declares he’d like to marry even a 27 year old woman to have children with he’s accused of ‘trophy-bride’ hunting and is scared of the Strong Independent Woman® of his own age.
The point is that SMV, in as rough a form as I illustrate with the graph, is that monogamy or even desire has little to do with actualized SMV. Hot, 22 year old coeds with big boobs will always sell more beer than comparably hot 32 or 42 year old women. What gets lost in the translation is that SMV for each sex is determined by the opposite sex, not what that sex would like it to be for themselves. An SMV peaked 22 year old has so much opportunity to capitalize on that peak it becomes distraction. She’s not (as) interested in monogamy with a 37 year old SMV peaked Man, because she has very little motivation to pair off with anyone during this phase of life, much less having the life experience to know a great long term catch when she sees one.
However, when a woman is properly motivated by a more pronounced need for long-term provisioning (be it emotional, financial, etc.) and begins to acknowledge her decaying SMV and lessened capacity to compete in the SMP (i.e. the impending Wall) we conveniently see 27-30 year old women preferring and pairing with men who are, or are just, experiencing their SMV beginning to appreciate. This is a pretty remedial lesson when you consider women of this age’s popular frustration in finding and pairing off with men they deem “their equal”. This is really just a euphemism for ‘man who can provide long term security’, but I’m focusing on the mechanics of the SMP here.
While it might be a popular concept to think of cougars as women looking for idealized, younger, lovers, the reality is one of women seeking men of equitable maturity, and certainly the same, or preferably more, means and status than herself to support her idealized lifestyle. At 27 and older women are motivated to seek the Man who’s realized his potential most fully, while men of 37 who’ve become Game-aware and have in some way capitalized on their slower burning SMV are still attracted to the youth and physicality that they were in their 20’s. The question isn’t about who’s SMV is making them more acceptable for pair-bonding, it’s about which sex’s motivation takes priority when their SMV is peaked and the phase of life the other sex finds themselves in.
Well done. Im there now and loving it.
That sure didn’t take long. You know red meat when you see it. Would like to see you weigh in on the 20/20 fiasco. Matt F must be worn out by now.
Hamsters gotta hamster
What is the 20/20 piece you’re referring to?
Another great post Rollo.
Thanks, Rollo. That post almost made my head explode…
I’m currently banging a pretty hot 27 year old blonde. Probably one of the hottest girls i’ve banged. Funny post.
Me: 35, making 165k, no kids, in decent shape, full head of hair, 5-11.
Your analysis is pretty spot on.
60% of women have “daddy issues” and as the single mom’s increase there will only be more.
In my experience, 26 plus (though you can pull younger) seems to be the sweet spot for pulling women as you get older
55yo and recently jettisoned the 50yo wife, who was withholding sex and having affairs.
having the time of my life right now! Yay SMV curve!
Field experience says your graph is rock-fucking-solid dead on. No defending it necessary. Anyone who disagrees with it hasn’t opened their eyes and looked around.
Rollo you are my hero
Out here in Japan land, nobody cares except older women.
55yo and recently jettisoned the 50yo wife, who was withholding sex and having affairs.
having the time of my life right now! Yay SMV curve!
What age are the girls you are going with? I’m curious.
Rollo, if I understand you correctly. your graph does not describe the SMV in full, it shows the shift from short term strategies of young women to long term strategies of older women. A liitle hyperganaut that is a 6 can get a drunken roll in the hay with a male 9, maybe a STR with an 8 and a still somewhat uncommitted LTR with a 7. When it comes to marriage though, even a 7 means pushing it though. Now, as women get older and more relationship oriented she must face the reality that she is not quite the… Read more »
> In other words, when your rebrand is essentially 17 Magazine for the 55+ female demo Not exactly, IMO. The core demographic of HUS can be described as: – belonging to roughly the bottom 60-70% of the female socio-sexual hierarchy – engages in ONSs and casual sex with more or less frequency, got burned more than once – prefers serial monogamy and the delaying of marriage – is in college or has just graduated – single – has a disproportionately high chance of being nonwhite – increasingly jaded and bitter due to her inability to elicit commitment from the men… Read more »
My prediction is that she’ll keep occasionally criticizing the kind of rabid feminists that are high-profile but pretty much intellectually discredited, just to remind her readers that her site is not the carbon copy of Jezebel.
I’ve always gone along with the SMV graph in the main. I’d add a couple of points, some that were touched on from other links: 1) The SMV, for men, is definitely based on potential rather than absolute. That is, most 30+ year old men do not reflect even close to the physical potential they could attain. Due to their accustomed mentality (fear of being alone) of settling down with women early and having the stress to deal with what goes with it – financial, work, kids – they are way past their physical best. The better resources and job… Read more »
I’m in my early 40’s but women have said I look 24-34.
Game ON!!
Thx Rollo for the SMP graph. BTW women from their teens to 23 (peak SMV) from poor socio-economic backgrounds and broken homes do seek out men in their mid 30s to 40s. But of course the Jezebel writers only discuss their own personal view and don’t study ALL women.
I think the graph illustrates men’s rational evaluation of both female and male SMV potential. To attempt to draw a graph illustrating female evaluation of SMV would have 14 different axes, with each axis variable and dependent on another, maybe throw some differential equations in there, and it would wind up looking like some pink and blue Rorschach test – i.e. whatever they feel it is in the moment, which can be manipulated by a game aware man. Men determine female SMV, but they also determine their own, through hard work, confidence, wisdom, humor, etc. We can’t just hit the… Read more »
Here’s the main point of the graph to my mind, and the thing that men and women need to grasp. In general, this graph accurately portrays the general trajectory of the sexual market value of the average man and the average woman. The average woman’s SMV rockets upward and peaks in her late teens or early 20s. At its peak, her SMV then begins a steady and rapid fall. At some point, that average woman will hit The Wall. It is to her advantage to lock in a man at her SMV peak. It is this truth that Susan and… Read more »
Well, I stuck up for HUS here once a few months ago, before everything was moderated there, more or less on the theory that those who aren’t against us must be for us and because Susie seemed to have some red pill knowledge. Wrote a pretty level headed response to Susie’s post, referencing your graph and some thoughts. I don’t completely agree with everything you’ve written about the graph (e.g., I don’t necessarily disagree conceptually with having areas under the curves being equal), however, I wanted to politely point out that men in fact do prefer women in the late… Read more »
‘Potential’ is key here. The graph is obvious relative as each individual needs to assess their own value in the SMV at any given stage of their life. Outliers are always involved in statistics, people seem to forget that. So naturally if an outlier views the graph from their own perspective they can call bs losing sight of the study at large. Generally speaking, the graph is quite accurate because women are valued by looks and men by status, success, and confidence. It only makes sense.
Re: biff
I’d say roughly 80% of men and 95% of women in this world have absolutely no desire for meaningful and honest discussion/debate about anything, much less the sexual marketplace. The large majority of human beings in general have no real intellectual curiosity in them. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that – it’s just the way the human race is. Susan’s ruse is that she claims to belong to the 5% whereas she actually belongs to the 95%. And that’s not right.
> The SMV, for men, is definitely based on potential rather than absolute. That is, most 30+ year old men do not reflect even close to the physical potential they could attain.
I’m pretty sure the same applies to women. As far as I can tell, most young women make little or no effort to raise their own SMV and realize their full potential. They don’t bother to stay thin, work out, eat healthy, keep away from harmful practices like drinking and smoking, dress well etc.
I spent 6 months in Poland last year and the dating landscape and perception of SMV seems much different to me. California girls in their early 20s are not thinking of marriage (unless they are first generation Americans or immigrants). In Poland it’s common for girls this age to get married and have 2-3 children by their late 20’s. I also saw and met couples with at least a 10 (even 20) year age difference. This line in the article struck me the most, “she has very little motivation to pair off with anyone during this phase of life”. I… Read more »
@RT: KA-BOOOOOM! You have truly outdone yourself, sir. I can’t believe this sort of thing is actually being seriously debated; all it takes is one good eye and the commonsense God gave a billy goat to see how things go down out here on these SMP streets. Any Man who takes care of himself and makes something of himself, while also possessing a bit of Game, can pretty much run the table. I say this borne out of experience – I know what it’s like to have a live-in girly when she was 19 and I was in my mid-30s.… Read more »
I didn’t included it in this write up, but one thing that really bothers me about Suz bit is this assertion: 2. Fertility declines very gradually between the ages of 27 and 35. In a study of 782 couples: They found that women between the ages of 19 and 26 with partners of similar age had approximately a 50 percent chance of becoming pregnant during any one menstrual cycle if they had intercourse two days prior to ovulation. For women aged 27 to 34, the chance was 40 percent. 3. Fertility declines more dramatically after 35. Even then, female fertility… Read more »
I agree with all of it.
I am 32, cancer survivor and currently in danger of having a recurrence.
My fiance is 23 and even with my medical history, she wants to getting married young and have 2 kids before she’s 27.
Why is she taking this chance with me? I assume because I look 25, physically in shape and have money and she seems to understand the SMV.
I think there are (at least) two ways to think about SMV. One is to simply in terms of a 1-10 rating of the woman’s looks and I think this is how the term is often used. She’s an 8 or she’s a 6. And women (perhaps restricted to a certain age range) would probably populate some quasi-bell curve like distribution, with the most in the 5-6 range and declining numbers to both sides (5.5 is the mean value of a 1-10 scale, where 1 is the min; (1+10)/2). The other way is to think of how valuable sex with… Read more »
@Han: I think you hit on something that is rarely discussed anywhere – the very real reality of the variability of Male orgasm(s), which is rooted in the attractiveness of the Woman in question. A lot of people – and this includes professional researchers and the like – are under the assumption that, because most Men can bust a nut fairly easily and with most Women, Male orgasms don’t need to be studied. But every Man here reading this knows that there ARE differing levels to busting that nut. And that’s completely correlated to the hawtness of the chica in… Read more »
Sorry for not removing the word ‘to’ from my 2nd sentence. It should read:
“One is simply in terms of a 1-10 rating of the woman’s looks”
I had an interesting experience with the Half Plus Seven algorithm last week, which you have to be older to have. I’ve known a woman since she was 19; I am 18 years older. We have cycled in and out of amorous, sexual, and even speculative LTR/marriage conversations. She has always had very high SMV: airline pilot, athlete, long and lean, very good with men, big personality. She’s hitting the wall now at 37. Actually, I would say she hit it two years ago, but hey, I’m in my 50’s, so whatever. (Theory: when does a woman hit the wall… Read more »
On some level, everyone knows this graph is true. They may not be able to (or want to) overtly explain it, but the anger that is thrown at it shows most people at least unconsciously see it’s truth.
For those who don’t like it, conflating men’s attraction cues with women’s doesn’t help in the least.
@Stingray:
BOOM!-the Truth, does hurt, don’t it?
😉
O.
HS, I totally agree that the scale is linear, but attractiveness (SMV, MMV) is non-linear — maybe logarithmic. There’s a huge, almost incalculable (to me) difference between difference between an MMV 7.5 (these are women I could call up today and marry tomorrow, in many instances) and a MMV 9 (I’ve known two, and you don’t call them up and expect anything for tomorrow). The rudimentary scaling disguises the non-linear nature of attraction and value.
I don’t completely agree with everything you’ve written about the graph (e.g., I don’t necessarily disagree conceptually with having areas under the curves being equal),
Biff,
There is absolutely NO sound, logical, mathematical reason the areas under the curves must be equal. That is just made up gobbledlygook
@BV:
Yo, the chica you’re dealing with is an A1 Psycho. Dump her with the quickness.
Pronto.
O.
Obs, that would certainly be an interesting way to study female SMV! lol
@Han:
LOL, it would indeed; but really, do we need “studies” to confirm this? Just about every Man here (and those ladies reading along who are brutally honest about it) knows what I’m saying is true – the hotter chicas you got with you more than likely bust a much stronger nut than those lesser gals you played with. I’m just saying.
This is why I’ve always Aimed High, like the Air Force. I value my climaxes too much to be busting in/on/around a lesser gal. Again, I’m just sayin.
O.
Actually Heartiste had a post about the evolutionary function/necessity for Beta men to produce higher sperm volume due to lower rates of sexual instances. I’ll see if I can find it, but the logic is that betas produce more sperm because they have more riding on fertility with less sexual frequency.
Morpheus, I think that if one is controlling for attractiveness, a valid model samples the two cohorts equally. So the underlying populations should be equal. It doesn’t matter to me if they are not in the graph, because it’s more metaphor than a backtested, double-blind research result. As metaphor it rings the bell.
O, no worries. I’m naive but not that naive.
BuenaVista, if we assumed that every 1 point step up in looks made her 2x as valuable then we could write her SMV as the following equation, 2 raised to the power of her looks: SMV = 2^looks, and for simplicity I’m not putting any constant in front of the 2. SMV would be an exponential function of her looks, or her looks would be a logarithmic function of her SMV. Same thing for for MMV 1-10 rating and her actual value to the man. Like you said, what we term 9 in MMV has far more utility than being… Read more »
Rollo, related to your point on higher sperm levels would be how a lot of men will cum quickly if they get with a hotter woman because they are programmed to know that they better cum quickly before some hotter or stronger guy comes and kicks him out or she changes her mind halfway through.
BV, having underlying “equal” populations still wouldn’t lead to the conclusion that the area under the SMV curves of men and women should be equal. It’s not like either men or women have a total amount of SMV fuel that can be “burnt” at a high but short-lived rate or at a lower but longer-lasting one. Looking at the more simple variable of looks, one simply would measure how good a woman looks (perhaps as voted on by a group of 1000’s of men every month or week or whatever) over time. More elaborate experiments could be imagined to determine… Read more »
@Han: “Rollo, related to your point on higher sperm levels would be how a lot of men will cum quickly if they get with a hotter woman because they are programmed to know that they better cum quickly before some hotter or stronger guy comes and kicks him out or she changes her mind halfway through.” O: Boom – I’ve long thought this to be the case, just from/on the intuitive level; I mean, think about it, from an EvoPsych 101 POV, it makes perfect sense what you’re saying, and would explain the whole “premature ejaculation” thing – maybe it… Read more »
Deti, gotta disagree there. Turned 55 this summer, yeah I let myself go somewhat after 42, but was not fat, being a tradesman, kinda hard for that to happen. Have gotten back on the program, lost 20 pounds and am working out for tone. The looks, smiles and approaches I am getting from younger women now are revealing. The health kick that started 20-30 years ago has really made 50 the new 40 and so on. For those who put the time in.It seems that like wealth, for us older folk, there is no more middle “class”, you either work… Read more »
Rollo You are 100% on money with this post. It may be true it is the minority of 38-40 yr old men who have the social status, looks, socio-sexual standing (alpha, high beta, sigma) to actually pull mid-twenties girls. Most 38-42 yr old men even in the prime of their SMV are not very attractive at all But there are certainly men who are. I owe you for your revelation of the SMV and your honest discussion, feminists be damned. I’m 38 and can only imagine I knew of you 10 yrs ago. So many men have been fooled by… Read more »
@DN: Again, you’re living proof of what I’m talking about (and as a Blue Collar Brotha, I can fully relate to what you’re talking about in terms of fitness; I’ve done tradesman work all my life and like you said, it’s kinda hard to get fat that way LOL). If you’re fit, dress well/well groomed, and have just what The Fifth Horseman called “moderate Game”, you can and will clean up as an older guy (I’m talking about the solid 50s and above here), because at that point you’re able to appeal to both the younger, same-age and even slightly… Read more »
@RT: “Actually Heartiste had a post about the evolutionary function/necessity for Beta men to produce higher sperm volume due to lower rates of sexual instances. I’ll see if I can find it, but the logic is that betas produce more sperm because they have more riding on fertility with less sexual frequency.” O: Hmm…well, the theory would be sound, from an EvoPsych POV; after all, Betas would not have as many opportunities to mate as Alphas would in the ancestral environment; it would make sense to make every busted nut count in a copulation, because they were so relatively infrequent.… Read more »
@Obsidian And the flipside of that is if a man can last long then he isn’t afraid that the woman will get bored and leave or that some stronger male will kick him out. The man who can last longer must be of relatively high value, according to a woman’s subconscious. If orgasm bonds women (and I have no doubt it does to some extent), then the woman doesn’t want to bond to an “unworthy” man. So, staying hard long enough to show that you’re not afraid of other men kicking you out, or of tigers coming along, is a… Read more »
HUS targets perimural (that’s “around-the-wall”) women of average looks, telling them the lies they want to hear: no, they’re not average; yes, they are the equal of the 9s and 10s they hook up with; and that once they find “the right guy” he’ll commit to her. It’s a fool’s errand, for reasons amply detailed by Rollo throughout this blog. Giggles is doing her audience a lot of harm. As for the graph, I’d take it at an individual level. For most women, their attractiveness will peak in their early 20s. For most men, their attractiveness can rise until their… Read more »
@Han: Again, all of what you’re saying makes perfect sense from an EvoPsych standpoint; can’t disagree with none of it. And to be fair to the eggheads, the Science of Human Mating has only been around for a few decades at best; not even 30 years old!-so we do have to cut them a bit of slack. There have been studies into the female orgasm of late, with some interesting early findings; checkout Buss’ The Evolution of Desire for more on this. But I’ve always maintained that the male orgasm is a grossly misunderstood dimension as well, and merits its… Read more »
@Obs There is also some debate about whether the vaginal orgasm helps retain and propel sperm through the cervix into the uterus and up the fallopian tubes. But if that were true then it would mean that a woman could subconsciously assist in who she got pregnant by by vaginally orgasming with certain men so as to cause them to cum (that part doesn’t depend on whether vaginal orgasm helps push sperm into her cervix) and also assist the sperm upwards. The guy who has sex with her and she doesn’t orgasm would have to have his sperm work harder,… Read more »
Maybe I’m an outlier. But experientially I have found no reliable correlation between the hotness of sexual partners (generally within a four point range) and the strength of orgasms (except in a few cases below the range). Nor have overweight women always been a non-starter (as long as they still have real curves)–that is, re SMV as compared to LTMV. The woman’s skills and responsiveness have mattered more to the outcome than sheer aesthetic appeal. Based on reports from other men, though, I recognize that I’m relatively easily aroused in flagrante. Still, I’m surprised that more men apparently aren’t like… Read more »
@Han:
Yup, I’m quite aware of the “upsuck” theory; it makes sense to me, as does your idea of a Woman’s orgasm “coaxing” a Man to orgasm himself – again, I think we can attest to this in our own experiences, heh heh. And, your notion that for those Men who *don’t* cause Women to have orgasms, it would make sense for their sperm to “work harder” to make it to the egg…after all, we ARE talking about survival, here.
Again, who’s gonna do the research that just might bear us Red Pills out? 😉
O.
@LT: Well, we have to keep in mind that our evolved sexual psychology, both in the aggregate (I’m speaking as a Man personally and for Men in general here; not for Women in either case) is quite complex and context dependent, so there’s that. Second, there’s the fact that, despite what so many in the sphere may say, “plus sized” Women don’t seem to have that much of a problem finding willing sexual partners (now of course, “plus sized” has a range as well, which goes to your point about “as long as she has curves”, i.e., a discernable “hourglass”… Read more »
@O:
Fair enough. But I find little acknowledgment (among men who generally have options) of the “tweaks” and “caveats.” Instead, there is a lot of hype about never going more than 2 points below one’s own estimated SMV. When I’m limited by time, energy, or access, I’d rather go lower and get some. Still, as you note, there is a limit even for my type.
@LT: LOL, yea we all hear lots of smack talking from the fellas in the sphere and IRL – but just take a walk around. Just apply what Rollo’s talking about here with regard to the ladies to the fellas, because trust, a lot of guys be talking out they arse too. Five will get you ten there be much plus-sized gals out there with guys walking beside them – and just as many pushing baby strollers, etc. And let’s be clear here, not all the guys are busted Beta Herbs, either; quite a few are what many Women would… Read more »
I’m 46 and pull plenty of girls under 25. You’d be surprised what happens when you are the most interesting guy in the room.
Oh, and when I declined a weekend on Nantucket last week, she let loose a barrage of contemptuous texts, generally along the lines of I’m a pale pathetic shadow of my former physical self — this from a woman who had sent me boob shots and full frontals earlier in the day, and was cooing promises of love rejoined. I probably deserved some of that; I did indicate that I preferred to date women who didn’t appear to be approaching my size. Ouch. That probably could have been left unsaid 🙂 Still, and I’m sure I don’t even need to… Read more »
Those graphs are wrong because, with a fixed number of people in the world, equal between the sexes, you have to scale the curves so that the area under each one is the same. E.g. the top valued man is not a “10,” ever. He’s some relatively lower value scaled by the fact that men’s sexual prime lasts longer. Why is this, for the non math geniuses out there? Because if there are 50 men who are 7.5′s, and there are only 30 women, then men’s actual score and actual value on the dating market is downgraded because he can’t… Read more »
Just some anecdotal data: Me: 38, Single, Never Married, $175K+, Decent Shape, Have Hair (increasingly gray), Not Tall, Funny, Smart, On the Polite/Complimentary Side with New Chicks GFs/FBs in last five years (as best I remember): 22 Stripper Super Hot 9+ (this weekend in fact!) 20 Stripper 8+ (Daddy issues galore on both) 29 Bartender (9+, gold diggerish vibe, but fun) 26 Hairdresser 7+ (still friends, not really that hot) 31 Hostess/Waitress 7+ (not hot enough, kind of annoying) 26 Lawyer (Pretty hot 8-9, former fitness model, still friends, 2NL) 28 Stripper/Tattoo Artist (7+, Daddy issues in extremis, dad doing… Read more »
I want to add strippers are some of the hottest, loneliest, and easiest girls around. By them a pack of Newports and be cocky but show a tiny bit of decency and sensitivity and you’re prince friggin’ charming, driving them home and they’re giving you a BJ for your troubles. No joke. Happens regularly.
[Strippers]
I love these comment threads where the geeks get hard-ons for the statistics. lol
Nerds, please.
I’m approaching middle age–successful, fit, look at least 10 years younger–and I’m getting girls starting in their mid-20s. Granted I’m also banging hot women in their 40s.
Interestingly, I often see older men in their 40s-50s with much-younger wives/gfs–and with babies.
For older men who keep themselves in good shape, these are good times indeed. Life is great.
Younger guys are fucked.
Something has dawned on me, after multiple dates: If I’m on a date with the idea, “I want to screw this girl ASAP,” and I focus, use what game I know, things can be okay. If I’m on a date with the idea of “I just want to get to know this girl as a potential girlfriend, not trying to bang her immediately” then I’m screwed every time, because she will say some variation of “I just want to be friends/there’s no spark.” My fellow college age girls are such sluts, they’ve done so many one night stands/screw a guy… Read more »
It’s even worse when you consider Marriage Market Value. MMV is the integral of SMV (the area under the SMV curve) from current age to death. That’s why girls used to get married shortly after puberty. Those late-20-something A-list actresses the tabloids fawn over are less attractive than half the girls in a typical suburban high school.
>> The guy who has sex with her and she doesn’t orgasm would have to have his sperm work harder, if the part about vaginal orgasm assisting sperm is true
true, but many/most ancestral scenarios involved a single Alpha KEEPING a harem of women who only ever sex’d with HIM. So, if he didn’t knock her up one occasion, it would be a later one.
Male sex without orgasm? I was late 30’s before I ever experienced such a thing. It can still happen now at 50, but it’s not routine. Almost never happens during Morning Wood.
>> Marriage Market Value. MMV is the integral of SMV (the area under the SMV curve)
no, MMV is much different. MMV is the future opportunity costs the man is willing to pay to lock down THIS opportunity RIGHT NOW.
Dead on brilliant graph! I have lived this graph (38 now) and so has my wife (38 as well). What’s funny/ironic is that my wife and I met at 30 as “equals” and were both about 7’s. We recently discussed our sex rankings. Now I’m still a 7 and she concedes she’s a 5.5 or 6. It happens, there is no denying it. But what she lost in raw sex appeal, she makes up in being an awesome wife and lover.
Archon said : As for the graph, I’d take it at an individual level. For most women, their attractiveness will peak in their early 20s. For most men, their attractiveness can rise until their mid 30s. Obviously there’s outliers, and good genetics and good habits can change things. As has been pointed out, it requires work to get up to a high score; it’s not like Rollo is saying that every 38-yo guy is a 10. Yes. There is a physciality to it all. Men “age” better due to their physiology and the fact that their skins tend to be… Read more »
Rollo, take a look at my latest post where I respond to Susan’s ridiculous claim that my post on the 1-in-4 rape myth is full of deceptive “machinations” and show her to either be devoid of logical capability or simply trying to smear me, or both.
http://www.justfourguys.com/hus-accuses-me-of-deceptive-machinations/
I think Men reach their physical and financial peak more around 30/32
But saying that we reach our peak sexual value at 38 is far from the truth.
Its way easier for a hot and fit man to get laid with a young girl at 30 than at 38, no matter how much money you make. Your BMW and your big condo, wont make a difference if shes craving a hard dick, chiseled abs and a head full of hair lol
xavier. I thought Rollo’s graph illustrated physical peak and sexual peak in the physical sense, as both go hand in hand with each other. But sexual peak can mean anything. To men, it probably means function – ie arousal, performance, endurance etc, which is more correlated to physical fitness. To women, it is more the satisfaction women derive from the act, which tends to increase with age and experience.
An interesting verification of the graph is the fact that the ‘marriage age gap’ (the age difference between men and women at marriage) increases as men age.
If the graph wasn’t correct you wouldn’t get the ‘Man Up, Peter Pan, Man Child and Adulescent’ trope that is ostensibly being driven by aging women falling on the wrong side of the SMV curve.
“To Rollo’s post, perhaps this anecdote serves the point that HUS rejects: that an SMV curve reflects what men want, not what women believe men should want.”
Brilliant observation.
I have a question. I don’t keep up on the goings on at Mrs. Walsh’s place; I don’t generally agree with her but I have no particular animosity toward her either. However, I was curious about what Rollo’s post was about, so I read the piece at HUS that he was responding to. This sentence from Mrs. Walsh’s post was interesting to me: At 37, for example, she is likely to receive very different ratings from men aged 17 and 57. I’m curious to hear men’s response to this. As you have aged, have you found older women more attractive?… Read more »
Well, lets put it this way, the cosmetics, fashion and plastic surgery industries didn’t become the multi-trillion dollar corporate juggernauts they are today as the result of an overwhelming demand to make women appear older.
I’m curious to hear men’s response to this. As you have aged, have you found older women more attractive? I had assumed this was not the case. I had assumed that men’s attraction cues were mostly set – no matter what their age was – for younger women. But is that true? Would a 19-year-old man rate a 40-year-old woman lower than he would rate a 40-year-old woman when he himself is fifty? I’m talking purely from an SMV stand point, not from a MMP stand point, where issues of compatibility and mutual interests come into play. SSM, I think… Read more »
I’ve been off in my own world for the past week or so…but all I can say, congrats on creating a shit storm. Change happens on the edges – not in the middle. As many Men here have stated (and there have been many debates within these walls with unbelievers) you can decide to believe the stats or get out in the world and see it for yourself.
SSM: “Would a 19-year-old man rate a 40-year-old woman lower than he would rate a 40-year-old woman when he himself is fifty?”
Very true for me. I see my age peers as attractive-enough, that their *apparent* SMV goes up, even though I know it can’t really be so. But their younger competition goes up, too.
Time machine Christie Brinkley vs. current Christie Brinkley-
Both 19 yr old and 50 yr old will say current Christie looks good
Both 19 yr old and 50 yr old will prefer time machine Christie
50 yr old is less likely to not say current Christie looks good with the words “for her age” at the end.
SSM, one of my sayings for the last twenty years to the younger dudes has been, ” the nice thing about getting older is that the age range of woman you will bang increases.”
So for me yes, I find woman up to 60 now attractive. But still like looking at the 20 somethings too.
I say bullshit to both men and woman — let’s get to some real hard thinking on this (completely from a man’s perspective)… Scenario: (1) You have one day left to live. (2) You have one choice, to spend the day with a 18-25 year old woman — OR — you have the choice to spend the day with a 45 to 55 year old woman. (3) Looks are approximate (let’s say, both are well within your perception of good looking and “I’d do her” standards) – goes for face and body (clothed of course, no peeking). Now – who… Read more »
Giggles has never been very good at reading anything too sciencey. I cannot tell if this is incompetence or indifference to the truth.
But she’s not the first Warton MBA I’ve run across who was essentially innumerate for numbers greater than 5…
Tin man, if my wife is that 45-55 year old, hands down her!
I don’t really understand the chart.
Is it showing how sexually attractive (intensity X number of people interested) an average individual man or woman will typically be during their life time, if they are not taken out of the race by marriage/children?
Nothing I love more than sanctimonious babble about “rationality” and “science” from someone touting a chart with a Y-axis that is completely made up (not that the X is any better, but at least an age is an age).
Or maybe that’s just my innumeracy. I’m sure you folks can link to the data used to generate this awe-inspiring graphic sure to forever legitimize the twisted chimeras born of your feelings of inadequacy.
Let’s see; if we project that pink line the author pulled out of his ass further to left on that chart it appears that he finds women’s “sexual market value” at age 10 is about the same as it is at age 35…
Better keep this guy away from your children everyone…
(PS did you know that 79.8% of all statistics on the internet are just made up?)
The SJW’s have arrived to tell us all about science.
SJWs?
Social justice warriors, The graph has received some attention on PZ Myers blog.
These ones think that topping a women’s glass up is almost rape.
Thanks, that explains the dontlink.com traffic I get when cowards link to me.
I was curious where the new troop of trolls (ToT) were coming from. Most interesting…Only those who seek and are open to the truth, will find it.
Here ya go, since PZ is too much of a pussy to direct link:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/10/24/13609/
OK – I have to admit it – after only getting through a few comments on the post, I was suddenly struck by the fact that IF I had not spoon myself on what is presented within this blog and others, I would probably have some of the same types of responses. We are so conditioned to “no see the truth” that once it is presented (not force feed) – there’s an almost physical reaction to rage against it. Because it just can’t be the truth – because if it is, then not only is my wife (GF, SO, ex)… Read more »
Try commenting there and see how long before the squawking starts to have you banned.
Elusive Wapiti attempted to engage Susie Giggles with reason, and the banhammer dropped on him.
http://elusivewapiti.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-one-way-spin-on-campus-sexual.html
Looks like the link-love for HUS is gone from EW. Also Vox Day finally took the link to HUS off of Alpha Game.
Too bad that the average HUSsie won’t post here. Not even after a couple of margaritas…
Let’s all get screenshots of PZ’s posting, just, oh, because…
Oh no, people with science degrees are showing up to scrutinize your childish horseshit. Hurry, hurry, everyone get together and convince each other that this absurdly stupid graphic based on nothing but the fevered imagination of a bunch a dumbasses is “science.” If only those fucking feminist hadn’t hijacked the scientific method so you fuckers can’t use it anymore. Or just show me the survey data you used. Easiest way to quiet the skeptics is to show that there was some rigorous methodology applied to this bullshittery. Of course, there wasn’t. This is just the back-of-the-envelope slap-dickery of a group… Read more »
Rollo,
Here they come! 🙂
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPh1KXA8egU
It is amusing to me all these types have the same argument structure. Lots of snark, sarcasm, dash of profanity, but absolutely zero logical counterpoints.
Science degree in what?
PeeZee Myers’ hoard, also known as “baboons”, is one of the saddest bunch you’ll witness online. Typical anti-science liberals with enough emotional/psychological issues among the bunch to fill a whole new volume of the DSM.
PeeZee is pretty fucking sad himself though. He’s like a castrated version of pre-fall Hugo Schwyzer. Since he has no balls, he’s burning out at a much slower rate, but burning out for sure.
Hell, you shouldn’t need a science degree to see through the bullshit in that made up graph…
https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/5092370944/h9680C161/
You MRA dumbfucks don’t actually take this shit seriously do you?
Surely even knuckleheads like the MRA crowd can understand that calling someone a “10” or a “7” is not a scientific measurement of anything.
Bro, Nickelback is totally the best band in the world, I give them a 9.5, science, bitchez!!!