Why SMV and MMV are stupid.

There is no marketplace for individuals.  There are only other individuals.  SMV is especially stupid because most women can’t attract “men in general” and those that can attract large amounts of public favorable attention are not available to “men in general” in the first place.  MMV is a little less stupid, but only if you have an actual ethnic and/or religious community serving as your pool of options.  If you don’t have that, you’re not in anything resembling an economist’s marketplace.  In a tight-knit community, there can be a market of sorts for marriage, but even then, you don’t have “marriage-minded men in general” if you’re the average woman.  You have a handful of prospects that can be sorted through relatively quickly without frittering up all your baby-having time.

In the world where super nerdy people misuse economic terms, though, it’s really about one-to-one.  You just need one guy or one girl and once you realize that, things get a whole lot easier even in this atomized, deracinated world where people yap about marketplaces and street values or whatever.  One of the ways you know the whole SMV/MMV thing is stupid is that people using it can’t even be coherent in their examples.  A typical example is underwear models or some other looks-trading category of woman having a “high SMV but low MMV”.  If you are desirable enough in charisma and presentation and raw natural good looks to trade on them for a modeling contract, your MMV is whatever the bleep you want it to be.  That’s just reality.  Reality doesn’t have a red-pill bias.  Conversely, women don’t have a “high MMV but a low SMV”, as far as that one goes either.

I need to dig up the anonymous pamphlets Fascinating Womanhood ripped off   was based on.  Because they were written by someone who recognized all the way back in the 1920s or so that things were less community-oriented for women and that the idea of a preselected pool for women to pick a husband from was increasingly not available to average women.  So it was about how to be the best kind of woman you could be to attract That One Guy.  There was a recognition that most women can’t attract men in general, but they can be appealing to a couple now and again.  This is not really a marketplace view of female attractiveness.  But it was the view of a pamphleteer trying to help young women starting to live alone in the big city keep their virtue until they could get married, however long that might be.  Apparently this is not what Fascinating Womanhood is about, which I guess means I should look into it one of these days and find out where the divergence lies.  From what I understand the pamphlets were plenty popular themselves.

I find the whole market-fixation to come from the same ridiculous place as libertarianism and lust for free markets and all that other right-liberal junk so many conservatives are in love with instead of faith, family and country.  It also leads to seriously terrible advice given to women of all ages.

TLDR; LOLOLOL at the idea that SMV and MMV diverge for women or that a woman who can figure out how to command a room’s attention can’t get married (spoiler alert: most do).

 

 

Advertisements

15 thoughts on “Why SMV and MMV are stupid.”

  1. Well said. I don’t mean to sound crass here, but men have proven themselves able to assign a SMV to sheep and other assorted barnyard creatures, and even to each other in a prison setting. So color me totally unimpressed with the whole concept.

    Also, I am well aware that men often rate sexual attractiveness on scales, but having walked through Walmart a few times, I have observed that men often say one thing and do another.

    Have you ever heard a man brag, “So, last night I got all hot and bothered….. …with a 2?” Of course not, generally whoever a man is with is perceived as having a high SMV.

    As to MMV, well, many of us chose to simply run off with the stable boy. 😉

    Like

  2. TPC said:

    “In a tight-knit community, there can be a market of sorts for marriage, but even then, you don’t have “marriage-minded men in general” if you’re the average woman. You have a handful of prospects that can be sorted through relatively quickly without frittering up all your baby-having time.”

    Yeah.

    “A typical example is underwear models or some other looks-trading category of woman having a “high SMV but low MMV”.”

    “Reality doesn’t have a red-pill bias. Conversely, women don’t have a “high MMV but a low SMV”, as far as that one goes either.”

    Right. It might have been different in the past (when fortune hunters married homely heiresses and heirs to the throne had to marry whoever was politically most advantageous), but nowadays, the two things line up fairly closely when middle class Americans are eyeing each other. There isn’t any room in middle class household budgets for extracurricular hanky panky, so it’s most prudent and economical to marry a person you find sexually appealing. (That sounds a bit cold, but I’m sure you ladies know what I mean.)

    And speaking of which, what is the deal with the manosphere guys trying to stampede young women into marrying men they aren’t actually that interested in?

    “I find the whole market-fixation to come from the same ridiculous place as libertarianism and lust for free markets and all that other right-liberal junk so many conservatives are in love with instead of faith, family and country. It also leads to seriously terrible advice given to women of all ages.

    “TLDR; LOLOLOL at the idea that SMV and MMV diverge for women or that a woman who can figure out how to command a room’s attention can’t get married (spoiler alert: most do).”

    Yes.

    The guys do give the impression that the ladies are as easily auctioned off to the highest bidder as purebred heifers.

    In practice, there isn’t a whole stockyard full of bidders for the average young woman.

    (Blech.)

    Like

      1. TPC said:

        “This post was inspired by some recent posts by ladies of the pillosphere on the topic.”

        !!!!!!

        I suppose you’re too much of a lady to link…

        Bummer.

        Like

  3. what is the deal with the manosphere guys trying to stampede young women into marrying men they aren’t actually that interested in?

    Most of the men in the manosphere are the type of men that young women aren’t interested in.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. “Most of the men in the manosphere are the type of men that young women aren’t interested in.”

      Occam tips his hat to you.

      Like

    2. I think a lot of these men need to admit they’re looking for women who’ve “got it going on.” Think devout, virginal, submissive Christian woman who looks like what guys think is hot.

      Is it bad to want a devout, virginal, submissive Christian woman? Nope. But highly attractive women know they’re highly attractive, and assortative mating FTW.

      Like

      1. I’m not even sure that “submissive” and “hot” works as a combination in our culture.

        “Hot” (as opposed to “pretty”) suggests a certain amount of attitude and diva-ish-ness.

        Pretty + submissive I think is possible, but I doubt that hot + submissive is found in nature.

        Like

  4. The concepts behind SMV/MMV have been around longer than our great-grandparents. I take issue with the pseudo-economics behind it all, but the fact is these acronyms stem from the current issues with the globalization of the market place.
    This is how it worked historically:

    You lived in a Tinytown with 200 people. Tinytown was not too far from Teensytown (about 10 miles), with 300 people. Sometimes you ran into the people from Teensytown, but the fact is most of the people you ran into are from Tinytown. When men and women from Tinytown marry, they marry someone from the same town. In fact, marrying someone from Teensytown was considered marrying an “out of towner”! There was no such thing as SMV or MMV because if you did anything stupid and shameful, you were written off. People have.not.changed! I know this because you only need to talk to people in their 70’s to figure it out.

    In reality, “SMV” and “MMV” existed long before the acronyms did but the biggest difference is families and communities were more involved. Unfortunately, from what I’ve read when families and communities get involved (such as churches), all it does is pisses off a lot of men. They proclaim “I’m an adult!” Okay, then expect to be assessed as an adult with your decisions. Of course there’re going to be bizzaro situations and disrespect in the mix, but what were people expecting? A spouse on a silver platter? The whiners might as well say “You’re not the boss of me!” Or this.

    Short answer: I firmly believe MMV/SMV is a redux to give modern people more individualistic control in sexual dynamics. The more power to the individual, the less they have to yield or submit to the power and authority of family, community, Church.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. The silver platter thing is real.

      I’ve seen so much whining about church not helping more, but would the guys like who church set them up with? Not likely.

      Like

      1. Part of the problem is the exclusiveness on demand. I’m of the camp single men and women should get to know each other more in low-pressure groups first. The exclusiveness is what gets singles into a frenzy to find someone.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. I don’t really know or read what you’re responding to here, but I don’t find it hard to believe that an ideal (or one of the ideal) mate to produce a happy marriage would have a high combination of seemingly objective attractiveness to other people (smv?) with individual intra-relationship attraction/safety/comfort (mmv?) In other words, “I’ve got a real catch, but she’s not batshit crazy,” and you can insert a female equivalent here.

    Even if you ended up choosing one out of a small handful of potential mates, and you’re not sure that the whole pool of 3 billion folks of the opposite gender might not have given you a better one, you could still take steps to increase/ensure a higher smv and mmv to improve the relationship. Or is the idea here that smv and mmv must diverge? I’d say they only diverge at the extremes. If you’re( trying to be) 10/10 attractive or 10/10 sahm wife material then it will exclude the other. But note how much effort it takes to be a Kardashian or a… Duggar? If that’s the appropriate celebrity examples.

    Just a side note, as a male I think it’s pretty false that most women can’t attract all men. Maybe not porn-addled neckbeards on the internet, but for the rest of us…Assuming most women are average, because it’s average, it wouldn’t take much to step up slightly above the others and get noticed, whether that means wardrobe adjustment or social skill adjustment or whatever. Once I started thinking in these terms I noticed that almost all women I thought were attractive in a day to day context were quite average, they just dressed or interacted a little better. Or just look at most actresses or singers without makeup. Likewise, if I wear a tie to work interactions with women are markedly different than if I wear an old polo. I agree that assigning market values and rankings is a little absurd, and grossly absurd if taken literally, but I’m not sure they’re far off the mark if they’re just used as tools. As tools, they’re only useful if they’re wanted to achieve something; if they’re not needed they can be ignored.

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.