Monday, April 28, 2014


Most men are familiar with the distinction between women they would like to marry and women they would only like to use for sexual purposes. However, for some strange reason, they appear to often be blind to the fact that women divide men into both categories as well.

The important difference is that whereas men are often as, if not more, sexually attracted to the women they want to marry, women are usually less sexually attracted to the men they want to marry. They value them for "other things", which includes security, safety, and provision.

Hence this belated realization for many men:
Think of all the ass you pulled in college when you lived in a shithole, sheets over the windows, furniture from the dumpster, pounding shitty beer and sleeping on a soiled mattress on the floor. She never talked about window treatments, new cars, McMansions or vacations.
The answer is not to move out of your house and into student housing, but rather to understand the dynamic at work. There is nothing wrong with window treatments, new cars, McMansions or vacations, but THEY ARE NOT CONNECTED TO SEXUAL RELATIONS. Providing them does NOTHING to turn her on or make her want to have sex with you.

The summary: boosting your MMV does not boost your SMV.


Anonymous said...

Part of the problem is that welfares have cracked the old equilibrium. MMV characteristics used to be a selling point for a man. Being a good, reliable provider kept men in the game.

Today, women don't have to marry men with a high MMV - the government will cheerfully tax them into penury to support women they never slept with and children who are no relation whatsoever.

The question is, how do we fix this, given the current state of affairs? The single men who are Paying will support reform, of course, but their votes are offset by female Deadweights. It seems to me that we need to get the married people, men and women alike, to turn on the Deadweights. Quite possibly by pointing out that the Single Payer Man pays taxes that benefit the Married Couple...and every dollar going to a Deadweight is a dollar not going to the Married Couple.

Jake said...

" are often as, if not more, sexually attracted to the women they want to marry"

This was certainly my experience. It was like the difference between a candy bar and a good steak. Both may be appetizing, but the latter offers a satisfied appetite, nutrition, and long-term satiety, the former has nothing to offer but a tasty treat which you know would just leave you hungrier and less-healthful. A very attractive woman with (for me) no MMV was just eye-candy. Even a far more modestly attractive woman with known MMV or at least indicators of potential high MMV was always more far more attractive even at the basest "lust-factor" level. I'm probably a more extreme example of this phenomenon than most, but it's something that seemed intuitively true long before I'd read any of these concepts.

Jake said...

"The question is, how do we fix this, given the current state of affairs?"

A few thoughts:

Stay away from any woman bitten with the disease of seeing the State as her provider.

Minimize your tax burden to the greatest extent possible. Don't contribute one penny more to the government than necessary to keep yourself out of trouble.

Develop and improve your SMV to match your MMV. Men may have to develop both largely independently, but we have a lot more time in which to do so and a lot fewer limitations in terms of physical attributes capping our potential on either (though the gov. will severely hamper your MMV).

I married well, I'm in the process of starting a long term process of dramatically reducing my expenditures and so taxes, but the latter is my weakest point...and why I read here and elsewhere.

En-sigma said...

The traditional way to fix this (read reasonable during right headed times) would be to marry them young before they get on the carousel and/or before they are tempted into the limelight of younger, hotter, thinner celebrity. Unfortunately, the traditional method is the fastest way to get yourself frivorce raped in these current modern times.

The only way we have left to fix this is to stop the government from supporting this lifestyle. Both philosophically and monetarily. Once they have to actually do the same work and take the same risks for the same pay, and they have to save the same bills and make due with less like the rest of us, their attitudes will change (somewhat). An example is when the car breaks down. Women have to call a man - Daddy, orbiter, or some stranger who she has to pay in actual currency, not just the reward of being in her presence. Only when reality is brought back will it change.

Revelation Means Hope said...

The sad thing is that society crams the MMV down our throats. Or it used to, I don't think the young people today are being as indoctrinated to go to college, get a good stable job and work for 40 years and retire with your white picket fence and 2.4 children. But I have neither a TV nor newspaper subscription, nor does my child attend public school, so I'm not all that versed in what the message is now.

That said, my approach to raising my son is quite different from my parent's approach. I am raising him to be a disciple of Christ and not a provider for a Bernankified desouled reformed slut.

mcro.tonl_piltdown said...


A bit of clarification requested on my end.

I'm somewhat of a late bloomer and only now, in my early thirties, have I really begun to establish myself financially and socially. I've noticed an increase in female attention but I wonder to what degree, if at all, does attention translate to attraction.

Here you write:

"There is nothing wrong with window treatments, new cars, McMansions or vacations, but THEY ARE NOT CONNECTED TO SEXUAL RELATIONS. Providing them does NOTHING to turn her on or make her want to have sex with you."

I understand this logically - intuitively, even. AF/BB after all.

But earlier you wrote:

"Women sexually respond to money and status. They don't just find them to be signals, they will literally get wet at the sight of sufficiently impressive cars and houses. I've seen it happen. There is nothing wrong with that, but the problem is that very few [women] understand that men do not do so."

Are MMV and SMV not related even on a tangential level?

- Cliftonb

Acksiom said...

>The question is, how do we fix this, given the current state of affairs?


What is it with this blind spot you people have over Vasalgel?

Laguna Beach Fogey said...

Excellent advice. Expensive things like sports cars and fine watches do help get a girl to jump into bed with you. I've seen it. There's no need to move into student housing. Just find your inner asshole/badass and let him loose.

Anonymous said...


In your first quote from Vox, those things are not connected to SMV because the assumption is that the man will provide those things for her because they are close to getting married, are already married, or he simply provides them out of hand. She's already his and now she is attempting to get provisioning from him.

In the second quote, a woman see's a man driving a sports car that is his, she notices his status and she finds those things of his attractive. They aren't hers and they aren't even close to being hers. Who does she have to compete with to get them? How hard will she have to work? What kind of status will she have to have to get him to notice her? If he has status and money she will assume she has to work very hard to be chosen and it heightens the reaction. If he just hands those things over to her, the attraction is gone.

~ Stingray

mcro.tonl_piltdown said...


I don't disagree with your comment. In fact, it's given me valuable inside into the rationale at play with regards to a man's wealth and status and his sexual value.

My deeper question is what sort functional relationship (in a mathematical sense) that determines a man's SMV and MMV.

Say for instance SMV can be denoted as f(x,y,z,...) and MMV g(u,v,w,...). Do the two functions have any elements in common? Isn't it possible to boost one and at the same time raise the other?

- Cliftonb

Anonymous said...

I'll state this as a theory rather than a fact, but I think a man's SMV is increased by qualities of personality, such as being dynamic and forceful, which tend to lead to money and status. Expensive, visible possessions serve as markers that a man is likely to have these qualities, and therefore attract women at least long enough for them to find out if the man actually does have them.

The possessions and the money by themselves increase MMV, but not SMV.

Retrenched said...

Of course, for women to get AF/BB to work they need to keep the beta men in the dark about the spontaneous sexy fun times they have with alphas when the betas aren't around... which is getting harder for them to do, thanks to the internet and social media.

But even so, there are a lot of sex-starved betas who are more than willing to believe the women's lies; they want to believe that the girlfriends they [finally] get are women worth having, instead of washed up carousel riders just looking for a 'nice guy' to pay their bills.

APL said...

Jake: "Stay away from any woman bitten with the disease of seeing the State as her provider."

That ain't gonna work. Women livin' on 'em borough estates, have got plenty feral men to service them.

Anonymous said...


You want a hard and fast set of rules that you can understand clearly just as you understand math, so that you can see the rules. Alas, it doesn't work that way.

What do SMV and MMV have in common? Masculine strength. Practically speaking this follows a whole spectrum of behaviors as we see serial killers getting mobbed with women callers in jail. This type of man will have a higher SMV to many women today because he will be seen as more daring and dangerous (and women have this weird fantasy that he would never do anything to hurt them). On the other end of the spectrum is the highly masculine man with strong morals. He will have more MMV because he will hold himself to standards and will not be seen as daring and dangerous (though he might just be, it won't be as overt or to the same level). He is husband material and due to his masculinity, is also attractive.

Now, there is a ton more to this as I've just written out a brief summary for you. The underlying factor of both SMV and MMV is overt masculinity.

~ Stingray

Fred Mok said...

I agree with Stingray - masculine strength is the common factor between SMV and MMV. Though I wonder if the point VD is making is that because of feminism, SMV and MMV have been split apart. Women without sexual inhibitions want raw masculinity (SMV) and are no longer turned on by beta provider qualities (MMV). I bet in Eastern/more traditional cultures if both SMV or MMV are more closely correlated.

Anonymous said...

Learn to Pick Up Attractive Women!

Post a Comment