The basics of selling something often breaks down to “Sell a lot of something for a low price” or “Sell a little of something for a high price“. One could argue that the first one can exist in a state of both low-cost and differentiation, but the latter tends to correlate strongly with differentiation.
Differentiation and Low-Cost are two basic strategies outlined by Harvard Professor and business strategy guru Michael Porter in his landmark classic “Competitive Advantage“. In this book, Dr. Porter outlines 3 strategies, low-cost, differentiation and “stuck in the middle”, to summarize the 3 quickly:
Companies utilizing low cost strategies seek to achieve the lowest cost of production through striving for efficiency throughout the value chain. This manifests in reducing overhead costs (marketing, sales, etc) and seeking to produce at a lower cost than all of the competition so that they can sell their products to the customer at a lower cost than the competition. This strategy is highly suited for products where very little differentiation can exist, such as raw materials, generic components, and also where the item is a repeat purchase, frequently.
The differentiation strategy is a strategy aimed at planting the product in your customer’s mind as “something special“. To make your product stand apart from all the other products that service the same need. This is often seen with high end brands such as Gucci, Hugo Boss and Armani. However, it also happens with volume brands such as Budweiser and Gillette. The key to this is often to use a large amount of money on marketing and sales, toting the value of your product.
The “Stuck in the middle” strategy refers to a company that seeks to compete both on cost, and on differentiation. This is more often than not a failure, because you will fail to achieve the economies of production that pure low-cost strategy companies will, and you will fail to achieve the same level of differentiation as pure differentiators.
What follows from these 3 strategies is that the low-cost company will be selling their product at the lowest price to the customer, the differentiation based company sell at the highest price to the customer, and the stuck in the middle company sells at a rate between the other two.
Porter’s 5 Forces
The 5 forces is one of those heuristics that are brilliantly formulated by Dr. Porter but has been abused by a million MBAs to the point where I laugh a little when yet another MBA wants to present another analysis to me.
Porter’s 5 forces is a tool that helps you analyze how competitive an industry is based on important factors.
To give a short explanation of each:
Bargaining power of suppliers: How strong is competition among the people who sell you the inputs to your production? If you require highly specialized components for your product, that only one or two companies can supply, that are in high demand, they have a strong position in any negotiation with you, and can ensure that they receive a high premium on their product.
Bargaining power of buyers: How many other companies produce a product that covers the same need, or want. If you are a monopolist, then bargaining power of buyers is low, if you have a highly differentiated product then bargaining power of buyers is reduced. If there are hundreds of companies selling substitute products then your bargaining power is reduced.
Threat of new entrants: This deals with how easy or hard it is for new competition to enter your industry. The core premise is that if an industry is earning above average returns on investment (as a result in supply and demand), capacity will flood into the industry until the supply and demand rebalance. The “size” of the threat depends on what investments are needed to compete, the requirements of economies of scale and many other factors.
Threat of substitute products: This has to do with how easy it is for your customers to buy other product that satisfy the same need or want that your product does. This can be simple, such as if you make jeans, then substitute products may just be jeans made by other companies, it may also be a general “all forms of pants”.
Competitive rivalry: This deals with how intense competition is in an industry to begin with. How many dogs are fighting over the same bone?
From these 5 factors, we can conclude that an ideal industry to enter is one that has low competitive rivalry, low threat of substitutions, low bargaining power of buyers, low bargaining power of suppliers and low threat of new entrants. This is where a company will realize the highest profits. This means having a unique product, that requires highly specialized knowledge, high returns on scale in production, high investment to compete, where your buyers have to buy your product (monopoly producer) and where you are the only one who wants to buy the products your suppliers make.
The mathematics of sluttiness
So, what strategy do women employ to sell their goods to men? This is the first question I asked myself, because we can somewhat divide women based on the investment required to get laid. As I’ve touched on before, and will touch on more in length in a later post, men have 2 options of investment:
A) In Themselves (X)
B) In The Woman (Y)
(A-1) If we assume that these exist on a scale from 1 – 10, and that the maximum sum of the two values is 10. Making the equation X + Y = 10, will outline the sexual strategies of men. A high X value is Alpha fucks, a high Y value is Beta bucks.
(A-2) We further assume that women view both investments as equally valid, depending on their own SMV and goals.
(A-3) A third assumption is that women seek to obtain a partner who is as far as possible above them on the SMV scale. (Hypergamy) 
From these we can determine the following:
From A-1 and A-2 we can determine that a women does not care how you diversify your assets, but only the total sum with the weight assigned based on their goal (LTR or Hookup).
From A – 1 and A – 3 we can determine that “selling cheap” is the equivalent of putting out to a partner who is at, or below the female’s own SMV value.
From A-2 and A-3 we can determine that AF or BF will be conditional based on what product she seeks to purchase.
We can also conclude that “selling cheap” for a women, means “not selling pussy at the highest possible price-point” and this is what makes a woman a slut. We can also add in that, as the male has two approaches outlined, females may have 2 preferences (A-2) one of the male investing in himself and the other of him investing in the female.
We already know from red pill philosophy that women’s investment preference changes with age, often referred to as her “hitting the wall” or as I outlined in my post on supply and demand, where a woman feels demand for her drop and thus sees the need to secure a long-term relationship with Beta Bucks to have children.
We also know from the same philosophy that in order to satisfy hypergamy, a woman tends to spend her peak SMV  years dating around, or riding the carousel.
This creates two different supply-demand scenarios for both genders. One when women are in the age range 18 – 30, one where women are 28 – 35. This also creates two competitive scenarios for women, one where they are seeking the most alpha man they can find for “fun” and one where they seek a stable “nice guy” to settle down with.
If we assume these can be interpreted as being part of the same strategy then we can make some logical deductions from the SMV curve.
Full SMV graph
The intended illustration by Rollo  with the original curve was to show how the genders peak in terms of sexual market value. However, the curve is generalized across both genders, which results in that theoretically speaking, no women in her 20s should ever sleep with a man in his twenties, she could only sleep with men at or above her on her to sate hypergamy.
This is obviously wrong as an axiom. However, the curve as a whole holds. It holds because women in their 20s exclude some male-value variables from the equation. For instance, if women sought pure financial variables, they should seek to get into long-term relationships with men studying STEM fields, medicine, law or business as these are the careers that give the highest potential life-time earnings. Yet, we also know that these are the type of men who suddenly become attractive once a women is close to, or hitting the wall. This means that women:
A) Seek realized value, not potential future value. Which means they do not invest in a man for future potential.
B) Seek other variables than purely financial ones prior to getting to the point where they want to settle down and have children.
We can deduce from this that a woman will operate with two prices, one SMV price for a short-term relationship/hook-up/fun and one SMV price for a long-term relationship/marriage/children.
From this it follows that there are three “slut-scenarios” for a woman:
- She hooks-up with a man who is below her on the SMV scale.
- She enters a long-term relationship with a man who is lower SMV for her.
- She hooks up with a man far above her on the SMV scale.
If we analyze the industry of vagina using the generic strategies by Porter, we can create 3 types of women:
- Sluts – Low cost
- Perfect women – Differentiated
- Normal women – Stuck in the middle
The sluts are women who seek to gain a man through requiring low investment from him and being low-maintenence, and other general factors that reduces a male investment in her.
The perfect women is a woman who seeks to gain a main through setting herself apart from the other two generic types of woman, through a mix of staying in shape, good genetics, developing a pleasing personality, learning how to take care of her man, and so on.
The normal woman, is a woman who basically can go between the perfect strategy and the slut strategy depending on what she feels like, and her present mood/situation. This may be the 38 year old who is looking for a long time mate, but hooks up with her married alpha male boss, while making her dates wait 4 dates for sex.
We can assume that the 3 strategies exist on a bell-curve as outlined below:
Where a woman’s base SMV dictates what category she ends up within, but where the majority cluster around the middle, with an SMV of 4 – 6.
If we do the industry analysis of the pussy industry, we can eliminate bargaining power of suppliers as a factor, as this is not a factor that is relevant.
Threat of new entrants would be a constant if we assume that the number of men and women born exists within 2 – 4% of each other. There will be X new entrants into the industry every year, as more women turn 18, and some of the older ones go bankrupt and leaves the industry. However, as younger women tend to have higher SMV values than older women, this threat would be high.
Threat of substitute products: There are two basic ways to look at this. We could look at it from the perspective of the first part of this summary, and conclude that the women within the top 5% of the bell-curve face little threat of substitution, while the women clustering around the middle face a high threat of substitution. There is also an argument to be made that all women are substitutes for each other depending on the investment required by the male. Depending on which argument one follows, this is either high or medium.
Competitive rivalry: Women are said to be highly competitive with each other. Anecdotally, very few men are hit on as much as they are when they wear a wedding ring or are seen with one or more high value women. If we take Rollo’s  Pareto principle article, and the statement that “20% of men do 80% of the fucking” one could easily conclude that this is conditional based on the man’s SMV. High value males encourage extreme competition between women, whereas low value males encourage less extreme competition. If we average this out, setting this as medium seems appropriate.
Bargaining power of buyers: There are two arguments to be made here as well. Argument 1 is that high value males have very high bargaining power, whereas low value males have low bargaining power. The other argument is that bargaining power is based on the relative values of the SMV of both parties. That the party with the highest SMV value determines the bargaining power in the situation. Thus, as with the others this is a medium.
What comes through in the 5 forces analysis is:
A) A high amount of averaging out between high and low depending on SMV.
B) : The 5 forces analysis
Bargaining power of buyers: Medium
Threat of new entrants: High
Competitive rivalry: Medium
Threat of substitution: High
This creates elements of something called “Hyper-competition” this exists where you have a higher supply than demand for something, and often results in destructive price wars. It is often a case of low differentiation combined with high substitution, med-high bargaining pwoer of buyers, and a high competitive rivalry. The two core approaches to dealing with it is either a race to the bottom where only the lowest cost producers and the most differentiated producers survive or it’s a form of collusion referred to as “Oligopoly”.
Oligopoly is a situation that often happens when you have a few large companies offering a substitute product to each other, where they tacitly cooperate (price fixing) and avoid head-to-head competition. Usually, this is not a case of overt price fixing or overt territorial division but it happens because of a Nash Equilibrium 
In the case of women, based on the 3 strategies, and hyper-competition all “non-sluts” have an interest in and incentive to keep the price of pussy fairly stable. If all women in a small tribe of 40 (20 men, 20 women) people decided that you have to put a ring on it to get laid, then all the men would have to marry in order to get laid. If a single woman deviates from this, this undermines the strategy by the other 19 women. It also increases the bargaining power of men, and shifts the supply line. It creates a situation where the negotiating power  of men is increased, and the negotiating power of women is decreased.
As the goal of women is to maximize hypergamy, a women who does not respect the X+ hypothesis, undermines the negotiation position for all women. This undermines the strategy of fake scarcity that women create for a majority of men, and the strategy of maximizing hypergamy vis-a-vis high value men. If the market is given less of a drastic curve it creates a situation where:
A) A man will be more aware of his true SMV value.
B) High value men will restrict themselves to a narrower set of female SMV values.
Both of which undermine the basic principle of “maximum hypergamy” which takes place where the female is able to sleep with/enter an LTR with a male who has a much higher SMV value than her.
For instance, say that all women in the present market are able to do SMV +3 so a woman prefers to sleep with/LTR a man who has an SMV up to 3 points higher than her own. A man on the other hand is SMV -3 where man can sleep with a woman who has an SMV equal or up to 3 points lower than his.
With the assumed bell-curve distribution of SMV for both genders, this puts most females (SMV 4 – 6) in a range where they can sleep with/LTR men up to values of 7 – 9 (roughly top 16%) but most men (SMV 4 – 6) in a position where they can only sleep with a minority of females. This satisfies hypergamy and the female imperative perfectly.
Because it means that a women can sleep with an alpha male, and still can fall back on sleeping with someone +-1 of her own SMV, thus secure an LTR that seems like a good deal to the man, who normally is only able to LTR women with a -2 to his own SMV. This is illustrated in the following graphs:
In the above graph, you can see the relative relation between the SMV of the male and the SMV of the female. For instance that a female with an SMV of 1 is equal to a male of SMV 4. In the graph below, you see the same distribution with +1
From the graph here, the narrower gap means that females have less of an ability to date, and sleep with men above her own standing, and it also means that the majority of females that cluster around the mean in the bell curve have less access to the highest 16% of men (those with an SMV of 7 or above). This is less acceptable to female hypergamy.
If we introduce the SMV curve into this, it also makes it clear that it narrows the female window of securing a high value male. They would either have to date older men who are likely to be more aware of their true SMV, and have had a longer time to create a high SMV. Or they would have to take risks on men who are likely to develop a high SMV.
This all started with a question of why women slut shame. As I’ve argued in this post, women slut shame because they are in a market situation where they by keeping the majority of men in a situation where sex is scarce are able to date above their own SMV, but also ensure that they get a medium to medium high, good deal once they decide to settle down. In short, assurances  of their backup 
If women and men paired off at equal SMV, so a woman at an SMV of 5, would only hook up with a man with SMV 5, then the supply in the market would match the demand in the market, this would create an equilibrium where the demand = supply.
The competitive situation would normalize, as the number of SMV X would equal the number of SMV Y and therefore it would seize to exist. However, in a situation where a great majority of females are attracted to a small minority of men, and the situation dictates that those men will sleep with the majority of females, it creates a case of hypercompetition for the top 16% of men that some 70% of women are chasing after to maximize hypergamy.
Therefore it is the best interest of women to slut-shame 2 sets of women:
- Those who offer “no strings sex” to men well above their own SMV. For instance a female 6 who sleeps with men with SMV 8+ as these are the only acceptable mates for SMV 8, 9 and 10 women.
- Those who offer “no strings sex” OR “LTR” to men equal to OR below their own SMV, as this undermines the backup that these men are to be for the women who are busy sleeping with higher SMV men.
It is never in the best interest of men to slut-shame, as this reduces the SMV gap between males and females, gives men more bargaining power, and pressures the female suppliers to reduce their price in order to create sufficient demand.
Competitive advantage by Michael Porter
The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning by Henry Mintzberg