Friday, December 13, 2013

Why you're on the Bang Don't Bride list 1

Women often seem to have an amazing amount of trouble distinguishing between female SMV and female MMV, which is a little ironic in that they seem to have no trouble whatsoever distinguishing between hot ALPHA males (SMV) and dependable BETA males (MMV) by whom they are graciously willing to be supported.

This may be because they only see the male sex drive in a binary state, on or off, and therefore don't realize that men, too, are capable of making a distinction between women to whom they are sexually attracted and women to whom they are sexually attracted and are also willing to support.  The two images below sum it up fairly well.

Now, the woman on the right is moderately more attractive than the one on the left. She's at least a full point higher in SMV terms than the very attractive woman in the one-piece And yet, even an inveterate fan of blondes such as me would tend to assume her to be of lower MMV due to the way in which she is presenting herself.

Keep in mind that at this point, we're only talking about superficialities and physical presentation. But that's where the whole attraction process starts and therefore that's where the initial sorting process begins.

Does this mean that the blond actually has a lower MMV than the brunette? No, we have no way of knowing. In fact, we don't actually know that she has a higher SMV, after all, she could be frigid, diseased, or insane. But she certainly has a higher initial perceived SMV. And the brunette has a higher initial perceived MMV, although for all we know, she is 10x the slut with 5x the blonde's N.

So, that's the first reason men put you on the Bang list. Initial Presentation.

More to follow in this series, including one for men entitled Why You're on the Friend Don't F--- list.


Unknown said...

It always starts with "I wanna bang you".

"I wanna marry her" requires more than just looks.

Anonymous said...

Women often seem to have an amazing amount of trouble distinguishing between female SMV and female MMV

No, I think they can distinguish it just fine. The thing is, if they dress and behave as we assume the woman on the right does, they know they will get more attention quicker than the girl on the left. It's a quick shot of adrenaline vs. having to wait for it and tease it out.

This is why you will often see slutty women shame the good girl, especially when she is very pretty and feminine. They know they can't compete long term with her so they try to bring her down. They will also try very hard to steal the men away from her with the sure thing of sex that the girl on the left will (assumedly) hold onto for a longer time. This puts the right hand girl at a higher level on the totem pole for the short term where she can trick herself into thinking she is better, until the girl on the right marries well.

~ Stingray

Stg58/Animal Mother said...

You've got it backwards, Vox. Most likely due to your well known weakness for slender blonde women. The brunette is infinitely more f***kable than the blonde. As far as marriage goes, neither could be a good choice.

VD said...

You've got it backwards, Vox.

The point is not personal taste, but presentation. Simple one-piece vs cut-out contraption. Hand on hip vesus thrusting breasts and wide-open stance. Mouth closed vs mouse open. The blonde is much more overtly sexy than the brunette, despite the latter's pout.

Stg58/Animal Mother said...

That's what i'm saying. I think the brunette is more overtly sexual than the blonde.

VD said...

That's what i'm saying. I think the brunette is more overtly sexual than the blonde.

Then you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. I'm curious, are you male or female?

Stg58/Animal Mother said...

Male. I just felt like being an asshole today. The pose is sexual, but the blonde is pretty boring to me.

En-sigma said...

As Chapelle put it : You might not be a whore, but you are wearing a whore's uniform.

One you think, " I would so tear that up." The other you think, " I would so tear that up...and I bet she would give me some beautiful kids..."

Anonymous said...

I look forward to the series. One thing which strikes me about the topic is the flip side to the fact that women can bang higher SMV men than they can marry, and that is that men can (generally) marry higher SMV women than they can bang. The first is pretty universally recognized in the sphere, but I don't see the latter discussed. One corroborating data point is how often a man's mistress is of a lower SMV than his wife, especially if the wife is still young.

Revelation Means Hope said...

Just watched the 50's version movie of "Cheaper by the Dozen". Several times in that movie they heavily hit on this exact topic, as the father worked very hard to instill and enforce chaste values in his daughters. The book was the same way, it was interesting to see it presented in the movie in exactly the same way, AND sympathetically.

Also, the movie Grease shows the competing dynamic, with the slutty Pink Ladies making fun of the virginal character.

Some Guy said...

This is actually a matter of risk vs reward for women. Feminism has so devalued women in the eyes of men that they are forced to sexualize themselves just to catch male attention. Add on top of this that marriage is now little more than a redistribution of wealth from men to women, then you can see how female solipsism would enable them to stop distinguishing between the two. It's not in their best interest to distinguish anymore. Thus, they don't.

Anonymous said...

Dalrock made a VERY intriguing comment above...essentially, that men can trade committment for higher SMV. It's a very interesting bit of information for the Average Beta Provider.

BTW, I concur with Vox - the blonde is hotter, but the brunette is more marriagable. At least in those photos. I really look forward to the rest of this series.

mina smith said...

Because of some other articles I have read recently, I have actually given some thought lately as to why I ended up on the "marry" list vs the "bang" list. I wasn't really a "good catch" (as far as the definitions go in the manosphere) and so for my daughter's sake I have spent some time analyzing what I did wrong and what I did right in order to wind up on the winning side of things at 50. For grins, inspired by the photograph accompanying this article, I looked back to old photos of me and my husband to one that was taken after we had been dating for about two months and I was invited to dinner to meet his parents. Long hair, worn down and carefully curled and conditioned. Barely there makeup. My favorite pair of artsy, slightly patina'd copper hanging earrings. A dark green dress (it was Christmas time) with a fairly thick fabric, mock turtleneck style and the hemline just to my knees. Understated, well made, quality 50s type pin up girl low heels in black suede paired with very sheer, plain black stockings. In the photo, taken by his Dad, my husband has one arm over my shoulders,is grinning gamely and clearing thinking to himself "yep, she's the one I am going to marry!" - it really couldn't be more obvious. And we were married, about 18 months later. Granted I do think that my husband had the misfortune of being pre-programmed by our feminist society to believe that I brought no negatives to the table, matter of fact his programming was so strong that he firmly believed then and still believes now that some of those negatives are actually positives ... but I digress. Per his conditioning and based on his strong family situation (many generations of multi-decade marrieds), he was looking for a marriageable woman and I am glad that I was smart enough or behind the times enough to not care about fashion or what other women wore or how they behaved at the time to be that marriageable woman he was looking for. I got really lucky. Women today shouldn't count on getting lucky, they should think more about they are doing and what they want their life to be at 50 and behave and dress in their 20s accordingly.

Stg58/Animal Mother said...

Vox is right, but I still want to f**k the brunette over the blonde.

Trust said...

Women can kill a man's potential to marry her by spending her sexual currency too soon in a way that men can hurt a woman's sexual attraction by wining and dining her too much.

There was a woman in my social circle when I was probably 28, few months before I met my wife. She was 23 or 24, and always dressed and acted respectably. My career had taken off and i was appealing to women looking for marriage material. She ended up at my apartment with a friend of hers one night. While the friend was on the phone, her and I were in my office looking up something on the web. I got the interested look, so I kissed her. About 30 seconds after our first kiss, she surprised me by kissing down my body and giving me oral. They left, and she returned later for sex. Her SMV skyrocketed... she was very good. Her MMV was once high but.dropped to nill. She explained to me later she liked me and wanted me to like her so she gave me what she thought I wanted. But, she unintentionally the impression she just liked the carousel (I'm not an alpha, but she overrated me).

She ended up a pretty good wife and mother to someone else. But she had to learn that men have more than one want.

Anonymous said...

Well yes if a woman demonstrates she is a slut it will dramatically lower her MMV, though not as much as it should. Men are capable of rationalizing quite a large number of red flags away.

I don't really think SMV and MMV should be all that related. Certainly you want an attractive wife, but there are a lot of factors
1) An objective 8, becomes subjectively much lower when you have regular access to her. That is just basic brain chemistry
2) Because you aren't just looking for a dopamine fix, other factors become much more prominent such as femininity, fidelity, etc lowering SMVs influence on MMV
3) Instant SMV isn't the whole story and longevity matters. And it is not linear. For example I have 2 college buddies, both got married about a decade ago, both had 3 kids by their wife. The first guy married an 8, she has since gained 70 pounds and is pushing 3 territory. The other guy married a 6, she looks damn near the same. And considering the culture in the US, women are much more likely to follow the former path rather than the latter.

Weouro said...

Dalrock's point sounds counterintuitive. Women of course can have sex with men they can't marry. The male correlative, per Dalrock, is that men can marry women they can't have sex with? It doesn't seem like women value marriage that highly unless they're desperate.

Stg58/Animal Mother said...


Look at the recent post about the guy who married his wife hoping the sex would get better, then found her porn star debut years later. He married her without the sexual part all locked down.

Weouro said...

I thought of that, but the problem with it is 1. he was able to bang her and 2. she was desperate to secure provision. So maybe Dalrock is just restating alpha fucks beta bucks.

Anonymous said...

Dalrock's point sounds counterintuitive.

Not so much if you think in terms of marriage 1.0 (though I don't know if this is what he was thinking). Not so long ago, a girl might tell a guy, "You're not getting the milk for free," which meant that she might be willing to marry him, locking down his investment in her, but she wouldn't have sex with him otherwise.

That's upside down now, of course, and women who would marry a man but wouldn't have extra-marital sex with him are now rare.

Anonymous said...

Its easier to understand darlock if you start with the premise that once a month starfish intercourse isn't sex.

Thus darlock's point is that a male SMV 7 is going to have an easier time marrying a female 8 SMV than he is getting her to give him a blowjob while he watches Sportscenter. For that he would need to go get a 5 or 6.

One Fat Oz Guy said...

Should check out the TV show Snog, Marry, Avoid.
Basically they take a guy or girl and have people of the opposite sex rate their SMV & MMV (snog meaning you'd ONS them).
They make over their look (ie women go from took much makeup to barely any) and the same people re-rate whether they'd ONS, marry or avoid the new look.
Some interesting outcomes.

Unknown said...

Its basically simple. Ludacris said it best:

We want a lady in the street but a freak in the bed.

The blonde appears to be a freak in the street while the brunette is a lady in the street.

Anonymous said...

I don't normally comment here, but I think you must be a lot like me, Vox. I couldn't agree more with this post. When I read something like this, and it rings true, I must say I am taken aback. This is how I regard women, with this level of scrutiny. The blonde is a fuck and a do not marry. The brunette is a fuck and marry, hands down, no questions asked. But what's important here is that men extract the larger theme of this post. This is how you look at women: SMV vs MMV. Well done, Vox.

PVW said...

Re. Trust: "She explained to me later she liked me and wanted me to like her so she gave me what she thought I wanted [easy sex]. But, she unintentionally the impression she just liked the carousel (I'm not an alpha, but she overrated me). She ended up a pretty good wife and mother to someone else. But she had to learn that men have more than one want."

My thoughts: Here is the thing, this is what parents, mothers as well as fathers, and other elders in communities used to teach girls, that it is possible to get men to like them without acting in a way which will make the men think that they are just easy and with a corresponding low MMV. It is possible to have a high SMV without putting sex on the table right away: be charming, attractive, pleasant to be around, and highly desirable (and likeable) as a result. It is sad that too many young women don't seem to realize that.

rycamor said...

O.T. but here's another tussle in the burgeoning online war between geeks and feminism: GitHub Takes Down Satirical 'C Plus Equality' Language:

Some clowns and jokers over at 4chan thought it would be a funny idea to put together a web page for a programming language named 'C Plus Equality' as a parody of feminism, dismissing OOP as 'objectifying' and inheritance as "a tool of the patriarchy".

The absolutely serious feminist post that inspired it has to be read to be believed: Feminism and Programming Languages. The writer tries to tackle the weighty question "what is feminist logic" and comes up with

There exist logics that handle contradiction as part of the system, namely paraconsistent logic. I think this type of logic represents the feminist idea that something can be and not be without being a contradiction, that is a system where the following statement is not explosive: (p && ¬p) == 1.

Meanwhile, one of the male commenters ponders and arrives at the hypothesis:

A feminist programming language is a language that respects the agency of objects, acting upon them only upon mutual consent.

Interesting! So, you could have a computer program that a) allows (or even produces) contradictions and b) only does something for you when it wants to. You've come a long way, baby.

Anonymous said...

I thought of that, but the problem with it is 1. he was able to bang her and 2. she was desperate to secure provision. So maybe Dalrock is just restating alpha fucks beta bucks.

This is one way to look at it, but it is incomplete. First, it doesn't mean you have to marry a woman exiting the carousel (real or unicorn). The same dynamic is true for a 19 year old virgin; she could go out and hook up with a higher SMV man than she can expect to marry. The other thing is it isn't simply beta bucks. Beta traits are of very limited (if not negative) value in the hookup marketplace. But most men's overall value is higher if you add in their beta traits. Women don't just value the beta bucks; there is status women get from having a worthy, respected, man publicly call her his woman (investment).

The other way to look at it is a woman needs to bring more to the table to get commitment/investment from a man than she does to get sex from him. Morality aside, why would a man marry a 6 if that is what he could fairly regularly pull?

Another way to look at this is recognize that investment isn't a marriage vs one time hookup proposition. LTRs offer something in between. If women are competing with each other to bang the hottest man, only the highest alphas will be in the mix. If these same women were competing to show off the best boyfriends, a different set of men now have a shot at them. Or, conversely, the average man is much pickier on the kind of woman he is willing to call his girlfriend vs the kind of woman he is willing to bang. Part of this is the kinds of qualities Vox is referencing in this post, but part of it is generally going to be a higher standard for overall attractiveness too.

Trust said...


True. As now a father of girls I'm often asked if I would teach a man to bang my girls the way I used to bang girls. I tell them that it is worthless for me to try to teach boys how to treat my girls. It is my girls I must teach, otherwise I'd just be teaching boys how to be invisible.

Post a Comment