In reply to Keith Tanner :
The female graph looks fertility based, but the male graph looks like it wants to follow an earnings potential curve, except for that steep drop at peak earning years, between 40-45.
In reply to Keith Tanner :
The female graph looks fertility based, but the male graph looks like it wants to follow an earnings potential curve, except for that steep drop at peak earning years, between 40-45.
That graph is super uncomfortable to me- I have a 14 year old daughter and a 57 year old wife!!
In reply to SVreX :
YIKES
The good news is that your wife is almost fully depreciated, so overall cost of ownership of time should be good. Also, it will cost you if you decide to trade in for a newer model.
In reply to mr2s2000elise :
Right!
In reply to ddavidv :
That means I’m at the peak of my value and my wife just dropped like a rock.
I think Farmers Only should team up with HughesNet.
SVreX said:That graph is super uncomfortable to me- I have a 14 year old daughter and a 57 year old wife!!
Not that long ago I would have gone looking for a "this thread is useless without a picture" meme, but apparently I am now far enough along the curve to recognize my own place on it.
This thread has sad in it now.
RevRico said:In reply to Keith Tanner :
The female graph looks fertility based, but the male graph looks like it wants to follow an earnings potential curve, except for that steep drop at peak earning years, between 40-45.
The male graph looks like apparent fertility*earnings potential. 40-45 is before fertility really starts to fall off but right where a man might *look* less fertile based on grayness & wrinkliness 
SMV (sexual market value) is subjective. What one person rates 8/10 another may think is 6/10. However most everyone can agree what attractive and unattractive are. The levels in between matter less because people tend to pair up with someone close to them on the 1-10 scale.
A woman who is an '8' probably won't date a guy who is a '5' but she would consider a 7, 8 or higher.
If you spend time in a public place and just observe couples you will see this theory played out before you. Nearly every couple is within 2 SMV points of their partner.
The more attractive person is more frequently the one running the relationship. This piggybacks on the truism that the person with the least to lose in severing the relationship will be the one controlling it.
As to the chart, yes a woman's fertility features strongly in where she will be on the chart. This is biological programming, not a conscious decision on the part of males. This is why women in their thirties often develop 'baby rabies' and work harder to lock down a man for long term provisioning for her and her offspring.
And yes, the chart also depicts a man's typical peak at a combined attractiveness, earning potential and social status stage. Though his earnings will likely continue to increase his appearance and ability/desire to father children will start to taper off. Women inherently know this in their hindbrains. These are not typically conscious thoughts.
I think the SMV chart is biased towards fertility vs boinkery value.
Case in point: 50 y/o women berkeleying 25-30 y/o men. Back in my 30's we called 'em older women or just 50 y/o's.
Today they are "Cougars".
Some older women want an older guy for the money and security but they'd rather have a young guy in the sack.
You'll need to log in to post.
