SMV? What’s that, you’re wondering. It stands for “Sexual Market Value”. It purports to show the worth of men and women over a range of ages. Hold off on your rage for just a moment, and let’s look at it objectively.Actually, what we're laughing at is the fact that the critics, like PZ, have clearly failed to understand what they're looking at. As one commenter noted of PZ and his commenters: "It reads like some sci-fi robot trying to process illogical statements. "What are the units? There aren’t any." "What does that even mean? It’s dimensionless." "It doesn’t even make sense to put this into a chart [Warning CPU overload]".
First, the SMV axis. What are the units? There aren’t any. Why? Because he doesn’t actually measure anything. Get that? All of the values in this chart are arbitrary inventions that he totally made up. The entire thing is a fiction.
Second, the whole concept of “Sexual Market Value”. What does that even mean? It’s dimensionless. He doesn’t have a way to look at any person and say, “Your market value is X”. It doesn’t even make sense to put this into a chart; my sexual appeal to my wife is huge, but negligible to everyone else. Scarlett Johansen may have a reputation as a very sexy woman, but her sexual “market value” to me is zero, and not only is it offensive to propose that her sex is purchasable for some imaginary sum of a million quatloos or whatever, it probably isn’t even a real commodity.
Except, and here’s the scientifically repugnant part, he has no way to assess the SMV of an individual, except to look them up on the chart. Which he made up. The circularity is so perfect, it’s practically Biblical.
And then in his post he chastises critics for their inferior understanding of statistics, and unironically titles his post “Sex, Lies and Statistics”. Gaaaaah. Let’s not even start on the ethics of judging people’s worth by the sole parameter of their sexual attractiveness. By that criterion, the author of that graph is a negative ten, and should be shoved in the hole beneath the outhouse and ignored for the rest of his days.
One last tip: don’t read the comments. Don’t read the comments. Don’t read the comments. In between totting up the scores on all the women they’ve had sex with, they’re laughing at the critics for not appreciating the science of the graph.
Of course there are no units! It is a graphic representation of a variable! 10 does not represent, (as PZ somehow manages to erroneously theorize despite it being explained right in my post), one's actual SMV at any given age, but rather one's MAXIMAL SMV at any given age. And as for the idea that varying subjective values cannot be utilized by the market to produce an average net, well, this betrays an ignorance of basic economics that borders on the complete.
Having been overweight, lonely, and unattractive throughout his adolescence and young adulthood, PZ is entirely familiar with the concept of Sexual Market Value. What does it mean? It means why the pretty girls in high school and college never had any interest in him. And he knows that perfectly well, otherwise he wouldn't be complaining about the ethics of judging people's worth by something that is a meaningless fiction. No one cares about meaningless fictions, but most people care a great deal about how others judge their SMV.
As for the "scientific repugnance", PZ is remarkably unobservant if he is going to stand by his insistence that there is no way to assess the SMV of an individual except to look up their age on the chart. Does he truly find it hard to assess the changing SMV of the same individual pictured at 5, at 25, and at 85? Does he really believe anyone needs a chart to determine which of the three individuals pictured has the lower SMV?The fact of the matter is that PZ has no understanding whatsoever of Game. He is a fairly typical Gamma male, constantly trying to make sense of a universe that strikes him as unfair by viewing it through a reality-warping Gamma delusion filter.
All Rollo's chart is meant to be is a graphic representation of the observable and the obvious. The average woman's maximal SMV peaks at a younger age than the average man's and subsequently declines faster. This means that women are advised to make different decisions on a different timescale than men if they wish to take maximum advantage of their attractiveness to the opposite sex.
98 comments:
I'm no PHD, but I understood what the SMV was the first time I came across it. It's a fairly straightforward concept after all. A couple of things I found amusing:
Let’s not even start on the ethics of judging people’s worth by the sole parameter of their sexual attractiveness. This is a blatant lie tossed in to try to ramp up indignation over the chart. The SMV doesn't measure some nebulous idea of a person's worth. As the name states, it measures sexual value, and that's it.
Scarlett Johansen may have a reputation as a very sexy woman, but her sexual “market value” to me is zero, and not only is it offensive to propose that her sex is purchasable for some imaginary sum of a million quatloos or whatever, it probably isn’t even a real commodity. Look at the way the first part is phrased, he's not even willing to say whether or not he's attracted to her, but instead phrases it as if it's hypothetical. If he wasn't married, I'd call him an omega. As it is I think he's a fairly low gamma at least. As to the second part, if sexual market value wasn't a commodity, you'd have a hard time explaining the pay of Hollywood starlets. Yes some can act, but there are many female character actors that can act circles around the most famous starlets but that don't get paid 100th the salary. Gee, I wonder why that is?
These people must have all flipped out when they learned about Venn diagrams.
Yes, Rollo is wrong.
That is why the 40 year old, still attractive banking executive woman gets no looks in the bar full of 25 year olds, except her still desperately in love ex boyfie.
And that is why at 22 year old, a girl is on its peak with more sexual power in her immediate locality than the singer of KISS..
What PZ are doing is, they are the control tower.
There is a small plane (millions really), single engine, flying happily in lalalalala land air space.
An amateur radio operator crashes in the airspace network, "Watch out! There is a mountain coming. You will crash"
The plane "lalalalalalala"
The radio tower: "Show me a scientific study"
The enthusiast: "It's right there, in the plane's trajectory. Huge mountain"
The plane "lalalalalalala"
The radio tower:"You did not describe is it grayish or blueis"
The enthusiast: "It is a mount..."
The radio tower: "But you did not describe the trees"
The enthusiast: "A f... mount..."
The radio tower: "Look at the cute goats on the ridge of the mountain. Are they scientific?"
The enthusiast: "F... the goats.. There is a mountain.. You're going to cr..."
The radio tower: "Enthusiast. Please leave the line. You are a misogynist"
The plane "lalalalalalala... look at me I am a grrrrrl plane with 105000 hours of flight experience"
The radio tower: "mountains anyway are a social construct"
The enthusiast: "Fuck that." Swtiches to a channel where male mountain climbers are doing the hard work of climbing a mountain meter by meter
The operator: "good riddance of misogyinst."
The plane "lalalala loser llalalaa"
KA-BOOOOOOM
Operator: "Where are all the good enthusiasts?"
Plane: "All enthusiasts are assholes"
Mountains be misogynists.
Reality be misogynist.
Funny thing is, you can fight reality, like a mosquito can fight a twenty ton trailer on the German highways.
I think it's interesting that the people screaming the loudest about this keep linking "sexual value" to "personal worth", despite the fact that neither Rollo nor VD are discussing personal worth. Attractiveness peaks and declines - is that really so hard to accept?
but her sexual “market value” to me is zero
Does he not understand that it's "sexual market value" and not "sexual value"? By definition, the word "market" makes his observation irrelevant.
But PZ probably posted that after reading someone studying a troop of monkeys, noting the alpha male had three females, and you could go down the hierarchy, or something similar for a pack of wolves. Or even Stags.
Is all this male preference and reproductive ratio (number inseminating v.s. ova) also nonsense?
No he'd praise it as good evolutionary science and Darwin's "sexual selection" in action.
And when presented with a study or observation in the same vein about humans (somehow it isn't venn diagrams but bell curves - racial and sex v.s. IQ too - they have a grand mal seizure.
Evolution is about inequality in a form worse than the worst ACCUSATION against Vox, yet they say we evolved, but don't want to apply the same differential science to humans to the point of denying clear reality.
No evolutionist has said we have evolved beyond evolution. Theists say, but we have a soul and differ in kind, and our will and intellect are outside the physical universe and not subject to deterministic laws. We are tempted to be animals but can choose to be angels instead (or devils)
PZ is worse than stupid.
Attractiveness peaks and declines - is that really so hard to accept?
I think it is hardest to accept for highly attractive women and men who never were attractive. As for me, I look in the mirror and wonder who the bald overmuscled gargoyle is and where he put the good-looking college guy.
It doesn’t even make sense to put this into a chart; my sexual appeal to my wife is huge, but negligible to everyone else. Scarlett Johansen may have a reputation as a very sexy woman, but her sexual “market value” to me is zero, and not only is it offensive to propose that her sex is purchasable for some imaginary sum of a million quatloos
It leads one to wonder the frequency of transactions in the above example. A car is more valuable but I buy one only every few years, but have to get milk and eggs more often. But here again, evolution will probably save us as the next generation will not contain either his genes or memes. If he really believed he was smart and better, he'd aim for a dozen children since he would want to pass his (and his wife's) down as much as possible. Perhaps he is doing this, but I would doubt it. (He might make some excuse about overpopulation, but illiterate single mothers often have 4 or more children, often by illiterate men).
Vox,
Please forgive me if this is a personal question that hits too close to home: But, how do you personally handle being in your prime SMV yet not being able to fuck other women?
Yet another example of the social autism of atheists that you've been observing. The heavens declare and reality just is and yet they accept neither.
Quibbling about a chart by reality-deniers over that which is readily observable without a chart doesn't change reality.
"He is a fairly typical Gamma male, constantly trying to make sense of a universe that strikes him as unfair by viewing it through a reality-warping Gamma delusion filter. "
I think you are a bit incorrect, here. No, no, he might well be a typical gamma. And, sure, he is trying to make sense of it all. But... even from the honest view of an alpha type, the gig is patently unfair. Whether as prime predators, the master of men and women, or the lowliest of the lot, or somewhere between those, it can clearly be seen to be unfair. Now, can anyone change the facts? No, but that doesn't mean it isn't unfair. But life isn't fair, and that is his problem, and the problem of vast swathes of people. Being a young, and even just sort of pretty through youth, woman, is an easy gig. But if they don't work that they end up single, middle aged, toast. Useful as mistresses at best, and usually for the lower tier of men, fodder for a careless, reckless, thoughtless, careless society, world, and life at worst.
I can still get some, if I want it. Even as crippled up as I am, and a bit hungry from being such, I have turned down over a dozen middling women in the last decade, more actually but lets not flaunt. That is true, even as little as I can get out, being homebound so often. Won't mess with a middle-aged woman who is at the end, or beyond, fertility. But he is right. It is unfair. I try not to gloat, then again I don't have a young wife, and children, yet either, so I have tread carefully with that anyway. UNFAIR! True enough. *chuckles*
I think another group (with overlap to attractive women and unattractive men) that has problems with this chart are those with an above average need to imagine they control their life. They are the ones who want to believe that the good things they have are 100% the result of them making smart choices. The chart needles them because it points out that they are often rationalizing events that they had little or no control over (the dreaded need to "settle", for example).
It's pretty consistent at HUS that men with options are the villians in the dramas. She's never realized that "cad" means "an alpha that wouldn't commit to me".
PhD (Piled High and Deep)
Proven correct once again.
It is always amusing to watch how the self-proclaimed intelligent, logical, skeptical, "we follow the facts" crowd consistently make asses of themselves.
Everyone has the same reaction when they are confronted with a statement that bothers them. They put up mental walls. They make excuses. They latch on to any shred of a bad argument so long as it will protect them from the thing that offends them.
The "skeptic" crowd erroneously thinks they have cured themselves of that.
But, how do you personally handle being in your prime SMV yet not being able to fuck other women?
First, I'm past my prime SMV. Second, I am married to a very high SMV woman, both in age-related and absolute terms. I'm in very good shape, but she keeps herself in "ready to walk the stage if Victoria's Secret calls" condition.
Not really a problem, to be honest.
He has a point which the game-o-sphere seems intent on ignoring: most people, either by choice or social custom are effectively not in the "sexual market". It's like drawing a graph of the QMV "Quarterback Market Value" of every person you come across and insisting that that's an important metric. It's autistic in it's own way. Most people are either actively trying to isolate themselves from the "market" and dealing with other things that are not part of it, or they're selling shoes and reminiscing about the time they scored four touchdowns in a single game. The relatively few 40 year old men clutching their Rogaine and prowling the bars for pussy are just that - few and far between. It makes very little sense for average guys to go all in and raise the game/pua paradigm up to the level of a religion, like so many seem to have done in the manosphere, because getting more sex from their middle aged wives is just a very dimished return on the investment they'd have to make.
Waving this graph around in the city square and insisting everyone aknowledge it's truth like a raving lunatic is either missing the point, or insane - the market is either closed off to most people by custom, and therefore it doesn't matter much, and you're not recognizing that, or else you're implcitly advocating for a more open market, which means you want your maximal smv fantasy football buddies to hook up with your maximal smv college aged daughter.
Do you find you were able to be dedicated like that prior to conversion? One-itis is often put down, yet isn't that the foundation of a successful marriage? (Just extrapolating the principle.)
I know my father tightened up his personal governance after his conversion. I think he had a significant amount of beta later in life while still being quite the alpha in personality and even physique. He was a missionary and had some opportunities for further relationships, but stuck with pining after my step mother who left him when he committed to go into the ministry full time. His own testimony was a change from being quite loose and cheating to being extremely committed.
Is that a required component for such a change?
He has a point which the game-o-sphere seems intent on ignoring: most people, either by choice or social custom are effectively not in the "sexual market".
We are ignoring it because it is absolutely false. The vast majority of sexually mature adults as well as post-menopausal women are in the sexual market. Furthermore, they still possess an SMV because SMV concerns more than one's actions, it concerns the way other people perceive you. A nun is not actively in the sexual market, but she still has an SMV.
You're not smelly, you're simply stupid.
Do you find you were able to be dedicated like that prior to conversion
No idea. No data. But it seems unlikely.
The responses [to the graph] in the comments section over at his site are pathetic and bizarre.
The chart is offensive to people like PZ because they are ugly and it offends their own ideals. What it does is indicate that men should wait until they are slightly older before considering marriage and that women should marry as young as possible.
This is extra delicious because PZ is a biologist. One would think he would immediately recognise the fact that the alpha male gets the poon or that females are more attractive to said alpha males when they are at their peak fertility.
Right? Right?
He has a point which the game-o-sphere seems intent on ignoring: most people, either by choice or social custom are effectively not in the "sexual market".
Irrelevant. The simple fact of the matter is every car has a Blue Book Value whether it is up for sale or not. Even if the owner is "not in the market" and would never, ever, ever, ever sell that car, that car still has a Blue Book Value. Taking the car off the market doesn't change the reality that the car has some quantifiable value. A 15-year old Chevrolet Cavalier doesn't have the same value as a brand new McLaren just because the Cavalier isn't for sale. It may be true that the owner is perfectly happy with the Cavalier, doesn't want to trade it in, or try to buy the McLaren, but none of that changes the fact that the free market value of the McLaren is higher.
"This is extra delicious because PZ is a biologist. One would think he would immediately recognise the fact that the alpha male gets the poon or that females are more attractive to said alpha males when they are at their peak fertility.
Right? Right? "
Right? Absolutely. I keep forgetting we aren't discussing some snot nosed pimple faced teen, but a supposed biological scientist, or at least someone supposedly steeped in biological data. And, to add injury to insult, he seems to not even believe in God (if I have it right) so should then believe man is merely an animal, only amplifying the man/animal alpha connection. Sad. Sad little man. Doesn't even have a mastery of his... mastery. Not even when face to face with the simplest of things. Sad.
I think these maboobzfolks are addicted to outrage. They make it up if they cant find enough reasons. Then the outrage chemicals dont let them see there are not enough reasons at all for the chain of "feeling violated" emotions they are experiencing.
He keeps saying "hold on your rage" "but wait, it gets worse, dont get all infuriated yet!" "here it comes!" booom!
Like they are really digging it.
"It comes from a site called The Rational Male — yes, the second word does not belong there."
Tells you all you need to know about PZ. Subliminal self-gender deprecation is the mating call of the Beta male.
Tells you all you need to know about PZ. Subliminal self-gender deprecation is the mating call of the Beta male.
If only I put down men the way they do, maybe they will like me... men are the worst!
Yohami,
Yes. When you read the comments, it almost seems to be a game of one-upmanship in terms of who can display the most indignation. In that "community" it appears that status accrues to who can display the most politically correct thinking/statements. Pretty sad way to compete if you ask me, especially for men. Men compete in the ring, or the weight room, or the corporate world, or accruing wealth. Seems quite pathetic to compete on the basis of who can garner the most "approval" for "correct" statements.NJ
Here's what I commented on his blog.
A couple of things:
1) I work in the porn industry, where (like the fashion and cosmetics industries) we objectify people for a living. While there are not objective criteria for what constitutes “more attractive” vs. “less attractive”, the fact remains that yes, some people are more attractive than others. Understanding that subjective criteria are always present in any individual case, we also know that if ninety guys out of a hundred think a particular woman is more attractive than another particular woman, then we feel fairly confident in our model selection based on that response. Just like if you asked a woman whether or not a particular dude is “creepy”, and has no problem reeling off her rationalizations of that unfair, subjective assessment, there are entire industries who live or die on their ability to figure out this fairly-simple fact of human nature. “The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that’s the way to bet.”
2) Vox Day’s diagram, with which you take issue, is based on this somewhat arbitrary scale. It is designed to show how youth and experience affect socio-sexual attractiveness in our culture. While you might rail against its implications, the fact is that it is a handy and pragmatic reference guide that fits better with reality than . . . well, pretty much anything you have come up with. If you have a better method of establishing such a metric, one that more accurate models real life experience, we’d love to see it. As it stands, this chart is not designed to, as you put it, “judge someone’s worth based solely on their sexual attractiveness”, but to provide a means for discussing the matter. As adherents to feminism, of course, both you and Dave Futrelle have a vested interest in denying the masculine interest of forming a cogent reproductive or mating strategy. Why you would work so blatantly against your own interests and those of your gender is your own business, but in the Manosphere we are in the business of advising men on the reality of the mating/dating/reproduction arena in this culture. If you have ANY useful information in this direction (and it appears that you do not), then publish it. Otherwise you are behaving as just another knee-jerk liberal trying to score points with his blog readership by bashing what neither of you understand.
3) There is no money involved in the Sexual Market Place. It is a model of human behavior, similar to many other models commonly used in sociology, psychology, and other “soft” sciences. While the concept of a analogous model to describe a difficult-to-measure phenomenon might confuse you, I assure you that it is used with regularity in many disciplines, and the wholesale condemnation of such things does not add to your credibility among academicians.
Feminine minds crave indignation:
http://therationalmale.com/2011/10/17/indignation/
. . . continued
4) The blatant male self-loathing in your post demonstrates that you neither understand the Manosphere or your own masculinity. I’m not surprised or shocked — most people who take issue with the Manosphere do so out of willful ignorance, or only through the filter of those who oppose a robust masculine culture, such as Manboobz. While I understand this tends to be the philosophy of the few men left in the liberal camp, as a progressive myself I find the willingness of liberal men to publicly repudiate their own masculinity repugnant, disingenuous, and a stunning abrogation of independent thought.
5) Portraying the Manosphere as a tribe of angry white conservative men demonstrates you have done NO scholarship on the subject, and Futrelle’s obviously sycophantic attempt to curry favor with his feminist masters (gender-neutral term, natch) puts both of you on the same moral high ground as black Republicans, gay evangelical Christians, and married feminists.
There is a science, or at least rule-of-thumb engineering, involved with human mating and reproduction, believe it or not. Some of us have actually studied it. Some of us have field tested it. And some of us use this advice to help guys who have spent the last four decades being told by feminism how evil men are to finally find something within themselves worth valuing, and who in turn leverage this self-worth into a positive mating and reproductive strategy. Whereas the dudes who stick to feminsim’s “Be yourself, be a Nice Guy” end up chronically unlaid, in tragically bad relationships, or divorced.
And that’s the thing. Complain about us all you want . . . but how man liberal men do you know who are divorced? How many in unhappy “equal” relationships where “some spouses are more equal than others”? How many liberal guys have been brutally rejected, emotionally savaged and financially ruined because they believed the feminist ideology? All feminism has to offer them is “better luck next time.” In the Manosphere, we give you tools that you can use . . . tools that actually work.
And before you go all knee-jerky, I’m a happily married (22 years) father of three who gets laid more than you and Futrelle put together. I’m not ugly, I don’t live in my mother’s basement, and I love my extremely intelligent wife. When the rest of the liberal gents reading this decide they’ve had enough lonely nights or subsistence-level sex (and, believe it or not, sex is IMPORTANT to most men . . . no, really, I’ve seen the surveys) then they will eventually find themselves in the Manosphere, looking for answers. Because as everyone can see here, there are no answers on this topic available in the liberal sphere. If there were, I wouldn’t have to blog.
Ian Ironwood
http://www.theredpillroom.blogspot.com
Author, The Manosphere: A New Hope For Masculinity
We are ignoring it because it is absolutely false. The vast majority of sexually mature adults as well as post-menopausal women are in the sexual market."
What market you idiot? Are you including the "market" between two people in a committed relationship? According to stats, some 50% of adults are married. Excluding widows (are they in the "sexual market"? Is there such a thing as a negative SMV?) and other outliers some percentage of adults are in the sexual market, but it is definitely not the "vast majority". And if you exclude college kids and young adults, the closer you approach the ages of people like PZ Myers the more this is the case, and the less relevant the SMV of individuals is, which is what he was saying.
Furthermore, they still possess an SMV because SMV concerns more than one's actions, it concerns the way other people perceive you. A nun is not actively in the sexual market, but she still has an SMV.
Yes she still has an SMV, but insisting that she pays attention means you're a moron.
Irrelevant. The simple fact of the matter is every car has a Blue Book Value whether it is up for sale or not.
I know that, you are just reiterating my point. Every man also has "Quarterback Market Value" as well or a "Brain Surgeon Market Value" or a "Fashion Magazine Model Market Value", it's just not relevant to practically anyone because they're not looking to go into those things. Similarly, people in committed relationships are not looking to cheat. Going around waving a graph of everyone's Quarterback Market Value and insisting they pay attention to you is acting like Rainman.
There is a big caveat here: I am assuming that people in relationships are not looking to put themselves on the market or looking to cheat. Admittedly that is an increasing untenable presupposition, but even then, it doesn't credit anyone to push to facilitate that, which is what you do by repeatedly reminding a resolute owner who doesn't want to sell what his blue book value is.
Ian,
Great write-up. You are going to make heads explode with that one. Going back to the theme of indignation that Yohami and Rollo hit on, I find that often the best response seems a measured, cool, logical response like what you've done. It is almost like they get even more emotional and indignant when they realize you aren't going to play their game and simply respond matter of fact.
Dr. PZ Myers, Futrelle and their male apologist liberal ilk remind me of the old story of the group of critics who were placed in a room and who ultimately all starved to death because none of them understood that the word "Exit" on the door meant it was an exit.
Which would I rather boff, two sweet young things, or Angela Merkel, that is a tricky one. I'm gonna need a slide rule and a pair of dividers ... chuckle.
Smelly,
No one is excluded from the market, for the same reason you still feel attraction fort Pitt, Depp, Clooney, Bieber, or whatever rocks your boat, regardless of their relationship status or yours.
When a woman is taken in her 20s that doesnt mean other men wouldnt happily pay the price if she was back in the market, and some will try to. Same for a man in his thirties, he might be taken but, you get it.
Or you dont.
Even when you're in a relationship, the woman is always measuring you against what other men she could get. Same with men and their wifes. And, you know? the moment somebody feels they could actually do better in the market... divorce. Pretty sure you heard of this?
There's no out of the market.
Ian, good stuff, and smart move for promoting your blog.
This chart keeps getting attacked is that knowledge is power, and in this instance it's male knowledge that creates male power.
Wasn't it here I recently saw a comment by a guy who married at 22 and recently divorced at 33 and was amazed at the number of women literally throwing themselves at him now?
We know the routine: female carousel rider turns 30 and marries 30 year old male beta-provider. Male beta-provider thinks he has gotten lucky, because up until this point women have acted as if he didn't even exist, so jumps at chance to marry carousel rider.
With the knowledge in this chart, the male beta-provider now understands that his value will start to shoot up the charts. So, instead of settling for a 30 year old carousel rider on the way down, he now knows that IF HE IS PATIENT he can land the kind of young, desirable woman that used to ignore him in his 20's.
And that threatens the entire feminist meme of school, career, party, AND THEN WHEN I TURN 30, marry and have children, because those guys that they were depending on being there when they turned 30 now realize they can do better, because they have a more accurate understanding of their worth.
Angela Merkel is such a powerful Alpha female that I get aroused just thinking about her.
Even when you're in a relationship, the woman is always measuring you against what other men she could get. Same with men and their wifes. And, you know? the moment somebody feels they could actually do better, which to happen needs to be offers from the market available... divorce. Pretty sure you heard of this?
This is a paranoid psychosis in the manosphere, presumably common because the manosphere itself is centered on men who either have always been losers or were divorce-raped. The irony is that while this a huge part of the religion of the manosphere the other totem is that middle aged men are at their SMV prime and have their pick of women. An observer wouldn't know if the manosphere is full of abject losers or top flight alphas. It's insanity.
youresmelly,
"This is a paranoid psychosis in the manosphere"
So you stopped liking Pitt since he was in a relationship (always) or Depp, or Bieber, and you estimate their SMV at zero? The only one with SMV is Clooney, but intermittent. Sometimes he is very HOT, sometimes he's nothing, like an omega, but even quieter.
Either you understand this or not. I think you do but your panty smell is too strong for you to think clearly.
Smelly, monogamy / marriage is no insulation against Hypergamy. Just ask any "frivorced' guy.
I think it might help if I linked the original SMV chart post so people can pull the ideological wedgies out of their asses assuming my intent without reading the post(s).
I realize attention spans are limited to whatever picture flashes on the monitor long enough to register some self-imagined meaning so here are the original posts:
http://therationalmale.com/2012/06/04/final-exam-navigating-the-smp/
http://therationalmale.com/2012/06/12/smv-in-girl-world/
http://therationalmale.com/2013/09/19/the-curse-of-potential/
@yoursmelly,
Being afraid of a 50% divorce rate isn't paranoid, it's sensible.
Trying to determine the causes behind a 50% divorce rate isn't paranoid, it's sensible.
Avoiding doing the things that will cause you to be one of the 50% divorce rate casualties isn't paranoid, it's sensible.
Blithely ignoring the 50% divorce rate and maintaining a "it will never happen to me" attitude isn't sensible, that is what is actually a psychosis--a delusional psychosis.
What market you idiot? Are you including the "market" between two people in a committed relationship?
Yes. Everyone is in the market. Deal with it, Smellygirl. And try vinegar, I hear that works.
Ian, it might be simpler if next time you simply drew a picture of a bomb in ASCII....
Sometimes paranoia means having all the facts.
No one is excluded from the market, for the same reason you still feel attraction fort Pitt, Depp, Clooney, Bieber, or whatever rocks your boat, regardless of their relationship status or yours.
When a woman is taken in her 20s that doesnt mean other men wouldnt happily pay the price if she was back in the market, and some will try to. Same for a man in his thirties, he might be taken but, you get it.
Or you dont.
Even when you're in a relationship, the woman is always measuring you against what other men she could get. Same with men and their wifes. And, you know? the moment somebody feels they could actually do better in the market... divorce. Pretty sure you heard of this?
There's no out of the market.
EXACTLY RIGHT!
Athol Kay has essentially made an entire blog and living around this fact. You are kidding yourself if you think you are "out of the market" just because you are in a "committed" relationship. If either person lets their SMV drop too much relative to either the expectations of the other or where they started the relationship...that relationship is going to be destabilized. It may only be a matter of time before one or the other....usually the women...pulls the ripcord and is back on the market for real.
Angela Merkel is such a powerful Alpha female that I get aroused just thinking about her.
I'm not the only one. Her "confidence" and status as a leader of a country gives me a rock hard erection I could probably smash titanium with. Kate Upton, I'll pass...give me Angela any day.
Ya know, the fact that it is even debatable that those two women have astronomically different SMVs to the overwhelming majority of men just shows how far politically correct thinking has trumped obvious reality.
Hilariously, PZ's site is filled with clothing ads directed at obese women.
I'm seeing a pattern.
I know that, you are just reiterating my point. Every man also has "Quarterback Market Value" as well or a "Brain Surgeon Market Value" or a "Fashion Magazine Model Market Value", it's just not relevant to practically anyone because they're not looking to go into those things.
This is a ludicrous comparison. Mating is something universal to all people (maybe a few exceptions). Brain surgery or being a fashion model is an extremely narrow niche.
Going around waving a graph of everyone's Quarterback Market Value and insisting they pay attention to you is acting like Rainman.
Nobody is waving anything around like Rainman. The concept/chart was attacked by someone who doesn't like what it is saying and proceeded to use the flimsiest of logic.....really just an embarassment citing a random commenter. That nonsense was quite rightly decimated here and elsewhere. Now the deflections are taking place and bar is being moved all over the place.
Why do people keep saying that there is no $$$ involved in the SMV?
Someone better inform Ian Ironwood of that fact, I'm sure he'll be surprised since his living depends on assessing the market value of sex.
And the prostitutes, I'm sure the old 40 year olds on the corner will be glad to know that men will pay just as much money to sleep with them as the fresh young 18 year old prostitute down the street. Because of course there is no $$$ at all attached to the higher SMV of the 18 yo than the 40 yo.
Also, I'm pretty sure that those women who claim they are no longer in the "market" would be willing to open their legs for a night if a hunky rich man offered them a few million dollars for a few hours of sexy time.
or else you're implcitly advocating for a more open market, which means you want your maximal smv fantasy football buddies to hook up with your maximal smv college aged daughter.
No. I guess I'll never understand why many women can't distinguish the difference between DESCRIBING a certain set of conditions and ADVOCATING certain behavior/actions in response to it. A 55-year old guy can observe and understand that his 24-year old daughter's friend is way, way hotter than the average 55-year old woman without EVER hitting on her, hooking up with her, or actively displaying sexual interest in her.
Yes. Everyone is in the market.
...
There's no out of the market
It's like you guys have an allergic reaction to sensible thinking. Yes, technically, no one is out of the sexual market. Technically no one is out of the Astronaut market either, but many, probably most people, are effectively out of it. There are certain barriers between them and Astronauthood that make determining their AMV a pointless exercise. A sensible person might even take some of those people at their word and accept that they do not wish to become Astronauts, and in turn stop insisting that the chart of Astronaut Market Values is very relevant to them. But Rainman couldn't do subtlety either, oh well.
Smelly,
"Yes, technically, no one is out of the sexual market."
If you're technically in the sexual market, how can you calculate your technical sexual value?
Moron.
Yes, technically, no one is out of the sexual market. Technically no one is out of the Astronaut market either, but many, probably most people, are effectively out of it. There are certain barriers between them and Astronauthood that make determining their AMV a pointless exercise.
What's funny is you most certainly think this is some type of devastatingly logical argument, when it is sophmoric pedantry.
A sensible person might even take some of those people at their word and accept that they do not wish to become Astronauts, and in turn stop insisting that the chart of Astronaut Market Values is very relevant to them.
And that would be fine. If someone wants to put their head in the sand or remain ignorant of certain facts, more power to them. The real issue is why so much furor if some people do want to point out and explain these things...
Probably has something to do with what 8 to 12 said
"With the knowledge in this chart, the male beta-provider now understands that his value will start to shoot up the charts. So, instead of settling for a 30 year old carousel rider on the way down, he now knows that IF HE IS PATIENT he can land the kind of young, desirable woman that used to ignore him in his 20's.
And that threatens the entire feminist meme of school, career, party, AND THEN WHEN I TURN 30, marry and have children, because those guys that they were depending on being there when they turned 30 now realize they can do better, because they have a more accurate understanding of their worth."
The feminine imperative depends very much on most men remaining ignorant, some willfully so (good for them).
The concept/chart was attacked by someone who doesn't like what it is saying and proceeded to use the flimsiest of logic
No, actually most of his direct criticism about the chart, like the fact that it doesn't have an empirical basis is valid. (Hint: that does not mean that it doesn't refer to an actual phenomenon, only that the chart itself, as displayed does not itself have any empirical basis. Some dude pulled the general shape out of his imagination).
As refers to him, what he is saying is that it is not personally relevant to him. Which if that's what he's saying, that's what you might as well take as true. When he says his SMV in the wider market is 0 but to his wife is high, that could be true for many reasons, relationship fidelity being just one of them. Doubting that is fine, but it's nothing but speculation on anyone's part because you're not privy to his inner dialogue or the intimate conditions of his relationship with his wife. If you're having a violent allergic reaction to a declared enemy of the group getting any credit, try to imagine how this would apply to anyone else. If Vox says he's not going to cheat on his wife and his wife says the same:
a) the chart is not relevant to them, although they might have some kind of internal "SMV" system
b) you can doubt it but it wouldn't be anything more than speculation on your part, for the same reasons as above
When he says his SMV in the wider market is 0
This doesn't surprise me.
What's funny is you most certainly think this is some type of devastatingly logical argument, when it is sophmoric pedantry.
But you keep arguing against it, like a moron:
And that would be fine. If someone wants to put their head in the sand or remain ignorant of certain facts, more power to them. The real issue is why so much furor if some people do want to point out and explain these things...
It's not ignorance or putting your head in the sand to disregard things that are not relevant to you, it's common sense.
Your SMV, which is mostly your social status if you're a guy, and your physical attractiveness if you're a woman, affects just about every social interaction that you have, even when sex is explicitly off the table. Pretending otherwise is insane. Young women in the US have it easy, just maintain a healthy weight for your height---typically somewhere in the 19-23 BMI range, and you're, if not 'golden', at least in the upper 70s or 80s in percentiles. You can get almost anything you admit to yourself that you 'want' out of men in the 70th and 80th percentiles in the US. Just maintain your weight and don't make apologies or try to hide the fact that you're a girl.
Smelly, Morph
"But you keep arguing against it, like a moron"
In other words you're stupid and know your arguments are stupid, but since we're interacting with you, we're stupid too. So we're all equally stupid and in a strange twist of things, that makes you win.
Are you Stormy?
a) the chart is not relevant to them, although they might have some kind of internal "SMV" system
I suppose I could start by placing a bar 6 inches off the ground, then redefine an inch as a foot as part of my "internal measuring system". I could then proceed to jump over the bar, and declare I jumped over a 6 foot bar, and declare myself an incredible jumper. Of course, that would be purely delusional based on my nonsensical "internal measurement system".
Look, the bigger issue than SMV is that a core tenet of a certain strain of liberal thinking is no judgement or objective evaluation is allowed. We can't say someone has a higher SMV, or that a certain culture was superior, or that a certain kid is smarter (when I was a kid separating the smarter kids into their own class was standard, my understanding is this has been done away with to a large degree).
I absolutely, unequivocally reject the notion that everything is relative and we can all craft our "internal systems" of evaluating. No, there are objective criteria that can be laid out to determine better or worse, superior or inferior.
Question for you. Forget the chart and graph and the exact curve. Do you agree that for the majority of men the average 22-year old is much more sexually attractive/appealing than the average 40-year old, and thus has a much higher SMV? Reasonable people can debate the exact magnitude of difference (and thus the shape of the curve), but if you cannot even agree on that general statement you are living on a different planet.
I absolutely, unequivocally reject the notion that everything is relative and we can all craft our "internal systems" of evaluating. No, there are objective criteria that can be laid out to determine better or worse, superior or inferior.
Question for you. Forget the chart and graph and the exact curve. Do you agree that for the majority of men the average 22-year old is much more sexually attractive/appealing than the average 40-year old, and thus has a much higher SMV? Reasonable people can debate the exact magnitude of difference (and thus the shape of the curve), but if you cannot even agree on that general statement you are living on a different planet.
You're just a fucking idiot. Stick to your religious mantras and keep repeating them, you've understood nothing.
Smelly,
"You're just a fucking idiot. Stick to your religious mantras and keep repeating them, you've understood nothing. "
Someone needs to get laid.
You're just a fucking idiot. Stick to your religious mantras and keep repeating them, you've understood nothing.
Stellar rebuttal sweetie. Vox's title of this post Raging against Reality is quite apt with retorts like this. I take it you are either unable or unwilling to answer my very simple straightforward question above comparing an average 22-year old woman to an average 40-year old woman. Is your position that their SMVs are identical? Yes or No. Very easy question.
"It's not ignorance or putting your head in the sand to disregard things that are not relevant to you, it's common sense."
Yet it was relevant enough to PZ to write a critique of the graph without (obviously) reading any of the accompany posts explaining it, and then ghost-linking to it on his blog.
Would you like to know why it's relevant to him? His ego-investment in his feminine conditioning is threatened.
"Nothing is more threatening yet simultaneously attractive to a woman than a man who is aware of his own value to women."
http://therationalmale.com/2012/02/10/the-threat/
Morpheus,
Obviously false. Do you have any idea how many billions of dollars 22 year old women spend on graying their hair and breast drop surgeries? Sexi sixtiez, yo!
Morpheus,
Obviously false. Do you have any idea how many billions of dollars 22 year old women spend on graying their hair and breast drop surgeries? Sexi sixtiez, yo!
LOL...it truly is fascinating to me how invested and passionate some people are in arguing AGAINST the obvious. What bizarre psychology must drive that?
With that in mind, I would recommend that Rollo modify the vertical axis to be "Percentage of maximum attainable SMV" or some such (out of 100, obviously), rather than "SMV," so that such confusions don't occur. Otherwise, it's a good chart. Is it 100% quantitatively true? No, nor do I see anyone other than those trying to refute it view it as such. It's the general shape, and the offset between male and female, that is the key.
I take it you are either unable or unwilling to answer my very simple straightforward question above comparing an average 22-year old woman to an average 40-year old woman. Is your position that their SMVs are identical? Yes or No. Very easy question.
Lol, get back to the Matrix, genius.
Smelly,
Check your pussy.
VD - As for me, I look in the mirror and wonder who the bald overmuscled gargoyle is and where he put the good-looking college guy.
Sounds like an improvement.
Second, the whole concept of “Sexual Market Value”. What does that even mean? It’s dimensionless. He doesn’t have a way to look at any person and say, “Your market value is X”. It doesn’t even make sense to put this into a chart; my sexual appeal to my wife is huge, but negligible to everyone else. Scarlett Johansen may have a reputation as a very sexy woman, but her sexual “market value” to me is zero
He might understand SMV better if it were explicitly compared to the concept of "price". 50 Shades of Gray is worth less than $0.00 to me, but that doesn't change the fact that it has a positive market price.
Lol, get back to the Matrix, genius.
Now how can I argue with sheer brilliance like that! You win.
Smelly, the truth is that you would have no trouble understanding and accepting these arguments if they were applied to a houses market value, or probably ever a persons job market value. You might be happy with your job and not looking for anything else. That does not mean that other employers have no price that they'd be willing to pay you to come work for them. A homeowner might not be looking to sell his house, but it still has a market value.
The fact that you are unable to grasp this about the sexual market is not because it's any more difficult to understand, but because you are choosing to remain ignorant. The truth bothers you and therefore you have chosen to reject it.
Alexander - Obviously false. Do you have any idea how many billions of dollars 22 year old women spend on graying their hair and breast drop surgeries? Sexi sixtiez, yo!
Good illustration. Do young people try to emulate old, or old young? Do women get botox to induce wrinkles? Is "male pattern baldness" a popular hairstyle among twenty-something bachelors? Do people try to lose their sight, strength, flexibility, and bone density? Do they seek out Alzheimer's?
Too good not to share:
http://iconicmen.wordpress.com/2013/10/24/smv-is-it-real/
I just realized the economy really is about to collapse. I don't want maybe 99.8% of houses in the world right now. That means that 99.8% of all houses have NO value!
I agree with the general thrust of VD's demolishing of PZ's attempted "rebuttal", but I think we are often close to conflating two different metrics here: one's own age-relative SMV and absolute SMV relative to the population. The graph measures the former; it means that even PZ Myers was at some point a 10, relative to the ~0 SMV he will have when he is 75 years old. But if we are saying that PZ Myers is a gamma male who has always been unattractive, we are talking about absolute SMV. That's what is being referred to when we say that Scarlett Johansson is a 10. It is the score you would get if you asked a statistically significant sample of the general population to rate your sexual attractiveness, given that you are a certain age (certainly people would compare you to your age peers). Thus I think VD's bringing up of Johansson and putting in pictures of models is misleading information which is not relevant to defending the validity of the graph (unless if he were, for example, to show pictures of a young Johansson and an old Johansson).
Has your household ever had domestic help in the course of your marriage? I'm curious as this is standard for women I know who keep themselves in runway condition.
I also think that the graph is only truly meaningful in sexually liberal societies like the West. In my country, where conservative sociosexual norms still hold much sway in sexual interactions at all ages, it wouldn't mean much in terms of practice. Yes, technically a 40 year old man is still more sexually attractive than a 40 year old woman, but since the majority of the population doesn't flirt or have sex with anyone other than their own spouse, that information isn't very useful. Of course your SMV can also show itself in non-sexual contexts as well, but then other factors also come into play (for example, as a 40 year old man you are more sexually attractive than a 60 year old man, but here a 60 year old man might still be afforded more respect in everyday conversation due to his seniority).
physphllmusic - where do you live?
Southeast Asia.
The logical disconnect here is amazing. I am referring to saying the SMV has no bearing on a particular person if they aren't having sex outside of their marriage.
Which means they have zero contact with any persons outside their marriage. Because in the world *I* live and work in every single day, my SMV has a big impact on how the bus driver, the clerk, my coworkers, my bosses, my fellow church members, my classmates, the strangers I meet constantly......interact with me.
And it ignores the fact that all studies have shown that more attractive people earn more, and generally are favored in most life measures.
Yes, tell me again how your SMV has zero impact on your life. Tell me again how it would make ZERO impact on how others treat you if you had a gigantic hairy wart on the middle of your nose. Go ahead.
I'll be waiting.
physphllmusic: Southeast Asia. I mean no disrespect, but are mistresses common in any segment of society?
Nope. No corroboration whatsoever of any study indicating men 36-38 are in the prime of their SMV,...
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/society-and-culture/why-women-lose-the-dating-game-20120421-1xdn0.html
Where is your God now, SJWs?
I'll let Bloodhound Gang sing the theme song of PZ
Because in the world *I* live and work in every single day, my SMV has a big impact on how the bus driver, the clerk, my coworkers, my bosses, my fellow church members, my classmates, the strangers I meet constantly......interact with me.
Yep. Just yesterday I stopped at the grocery store. There was a cute young girl working at the coffee kiosk, and a somewhat homely older woman working the checkout counter. If they switched places, would the homely woman get the same tips? Would just as many men decide they needed a coffee right then and there? How many men would linger at the counter, buying an extra drink or two, hoping to chat her up? It affects nearly every interaction.
Another day a very large, ugly woman came into my office. I caught myself almost hoping that I wouldn't have what she needed, so she'd leave. I had to remind myself that I could use the business, and that any potential client deserves courtesy. Funny, I never have to do that when a hottie walks in, regardless of whether I intend to hit on them.
Women like Smelly aren't going to understand these examples of the difference in SMV, you have to frame it in a manner that they will understand. Posit a young male MBA, 28 years old and good-looking. He meets two women in the same night, the first one is a high-school graduate who makes a decent living being an aerobics instructor who wants to be a stay-at home mom and the second is a women's rights lawyer who earned her degree at Vassar. Which woman is of higher value in the SMV in Smelly's world?
Has your household ever had domestic help in the course of your marriage? I'm curious as this is standard for women I know who keep themselves in runway condition.
Do you mean providing jobs? Is this a bad thing?
Regardless, you do realize that it doesn't take more than an hour a day to keep oneself in runway condition, don't you? Well that and some self control over gluttony. I'm sure the Italian villa doesn't require so much maintenance that an hour a day would necessitate domestic help. (Well, perhaps someone to operate a chain saw on occasion) ;)
"axcrom said...
Women like Smelly aren't going to understand these examples of the difference in SMV, you have to frame it in a manner that they will understand. Posit a young male MBA, 28 years old and good-looking. He meets two women in the same night, the first one is a high-school graduate who makes a decent living being an aerobics instructor who wants to be a stay-at home mom and the second is a women's rights lawyer who earned her degree at Vassar. Which woman is of higher value in the SMV in Smelly's world?"
Well, the lawyer ... duh! In the Smelly-verse, the aerobics instructor has been victimized by the Patriarchy™, so she needs re-edumacatin' before she's fit to couple with anyone. Any man should be LUCKY and WORSHIPFUL to get the lawyer (Vassar!!11!--instant male attractor!) in this pseudo-reality.
- MrA. is Mr.A
I have an Ian Ironwood-length list of items so this will take a few comments.
From Morpheus last thread: "One could also look at porn stars and who the top money makers are, and what their ages are. It is amusing to see so many people argue so violently against something that is fairly obvious if you simply think about the observable evidence."
That's what I noticed both about HUS and this PZ fellow, they are VERY forward about credentialism and "scientific method" and all sorts of ways to communicate "I'm a serious person and so what I say has merit." Meanwhile, the things they are saying just defy the smell test. It's clear that there is some ego investment driving the dissembling.
Also what I noticed is the same thing lower-value men and women will tell themselves when they can't or won't work to raise their SMV - "there's more important things than how hot you are or how much money you make, I'm great on the inside so I feel good about myself."
I think that for both men and women, it's very threatening to start the process of thinking about SMV and the mating market in the big picture. It was for me. It's really disheartening to think that how hot/young/into sex you are as a woman, or how much height/fitness/money/power you have as a dude, is going to matter more than your personality and personal will to make things "work" when it comes to who will be attracted to you.
(To riff on this point, the discussion of game in terms of behavior to build attraction is actually sort of a frill - it has been said by Morpheus, Athol Kay, Danger&Play and others that you'll get much more out of spending your efforts to get fit, dress well, read interesting books and have a career with some potential than on exhaustively working your pickup game to high tightness. You need a bit of game, but the better your "product" the more straightforward your "marketing" can be. The Mystery Method steps are openly and honestly aping the behavior patterns of intrinsically valuable men.)
Anyway so the typical first reaction to being told about structural attraction psychology is going to be to reject the premise and try to replace it with something that is more flattering. We constantly mock women for doing this, but it's a stock pattern of blue-pill male thinking too.
Of course, not everyone can be a CEO or a pro athlete or a Senator or a fighter pilot, or a cover model or an hourglass figure, and so rather than just objecting to the fact that the human nature is attracted to these things, I think it's important for both men and women to accept it and to come to peace with how much effort they are willing to spend upping their SMV to be more attractive to the people they want to attract.
One thing I think is underappreciated about Rollo in particular along with a few other Manosphere writers is emphasizing that you don't have to like it, but things work the way they work and there's no point getting worked up in moral indignation. Also that denying reality is eventually going to turn into an "own goal" in your life.
A couple other points:
-It's worth noting that Susan once made a comment that her husband had to tutor her through MBA stats. I don't mean to offend anybody but from what I know MBA stats courses are not particularly rigorous so Susan is by her own admission not at all qualified to evaluate Kelly's criticism before posting it as ground truth. It's clear she highlighted this Kelly's comment simply because it flattered her dismissive view of the chart and she could have a big high-five, in the same way that Thomas Frank and Barack Obama's books show up on the shelf of every confirmed liberal I've ever met (and now, Sheryl Sandberg's book is being carried by every working woman I know).
-Everybody needs to stop with this discussion of "area under the curve" because the integral of the chart is a nonsensical metric.
Someone else noted that "Kelly" made an exceptionally dumb/ill-informed inference that the plot was a histogram when it is really more like a stock chart...she probably thought because the curve looked bell-ish it was a distribution when it's in fact a value function, not statistical at all (except for the fact that the function values are themselves drawn for a sort of "representative example").
I don't want to get too technical but areas under a curve only make sense when the Y-axis values "accumulate" over the course of the X axis. For example, integrating velocity over time produces total distance traveled (velocity times time equals a distance). Or if you integrate wattage (electrical power) over time you get total energy consumed, in Joules.
I believe Morpheus is trained in finance so maybe he can go deeper, but for a layman, it seems to me that plots of prices or values don't have meaningful areas under the curve, in and of themselves. Prices and values only "accumulate" when transactions take place. That's why stock price charts are accompanied by a volume chart, so you can understand how much money is actually trading hands for a given security.
And in the SMP, relatively few transactions take place for an individual - practically speaking when someone gets in or out of a relationship, or when sexual congress takes place.
However, as we also know from finance, and JCclimber said this well above, you don't have to sell something for its price/value to have an effect. Athol Kay tells men not to cheat on their wives but also says she has to know you have options. That's why SMV is valuable even when you're "taken," and that's what I've noticed the critics of game most predictably don't want to acknowledge. They assume that if we assert that someone has an SMV, we are encouraging them to cheat or sleep around. They don't want to admit that "pretty" people just get treated better, possibly because they resent the fact they weren't the ones to benefit from it, and so they reject any discussion of how to get "prettier" (which for a man is much different than for a woman).
-Kelly or Susan (I lost track of who) made a silly conjecture that women should stay identically attractive as long as they are credibly fertile. This is an interesting cognitive path, so I wanted to highlight it as an example of IS vs OUGHT thinking. It's well understood that attraction (which is what is motivating the behavioral organism when it comes to sexual market value) evolved as a reaction to fertility and fitness cues. OK, so if you're attracted, there's probably some fertility...that's some IS thinking. Where the OUGHT comes in is when the girls try to run the logic in the other direction - if there's fertility, there must be attraction, so I'll still be hot when I'm 35 etc. This is a straight logical fallacy, and also it's clear from many counterexamples that you can find someone very attractive even if they are somehow not fertile - men still want to have sex with women on the pill, for one. Attraction is influenced by fertility but the correlation is exceptionally weak at this point in the human story.
Yes, their "fertile = attractive" idea is stupid too, the way they treat it as an absolute. They even got that from the manosphere and corrupted it. Consider two refrigerators, same brand and model, each keeps your food equally cold. One is brand-new and has a 10-year warranty; the other is 8 years old and has 2 years left on its warranty. According to these knobs, they are equally valuable. I'm sure Sears will agree when I demand to trade mine straight-up for a new one.
Good points, Badger.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.