In the last month or so I’ve written multiple articles dealing with the sexual market place and how the genders seek to control and manipulate it. I would recommend reading the following articles before this one to get the whole picture.
The SMV game is largely focused around marketing. This is the preferred female approach, and this is reflected in their attention to clothing, make-up perfume and other sensory aspects that draw male attention. Therefore, a lot of men have started to emulate this, embodied most strongly by the “metrosexual” movement where men in essence adopt female modes of dress, and grooming. However, far from being purely about the physical, women (and to a lesser degree men) also adapt their personalities when around a potentially attractive partner.
The 4 Ps of The Sexual Market Place
The 4 Ps are a classic tool in marketing and consist of Product, Price, Place and Promotion. A quick intro would be that:
- Product the different characteristics and choice criteria of a product and what need it sates.
- Price, how much does it cost, how is it positioned price-wise in the marketplace.
- Place, is how is it positioned, and where is it sold.
- Promotion, how do you build awareness of the product, what are the selling points, where do you promote it and how do you promote it.
Collectively these are known as the “marketing mix” and tend to form a backbone in most product and service marketing that is done. There has been some alterations to them, increasing to the 7ps, the 4Cs and a lot of other trials, but the 4ps still stand.
As I mentioned in the posts on female and male competition, men primarily compete in the product category, while females primary compete in terms of promotion. Price is relevant to both genders, but men tend to use it more as a choice criteria often making the distinction between a “high maintenance woman” and a “low maintenance woman”. Place (distribution) tends to be related to the social habits of each party, however, women tend to hold a stronger control over this aspect of the mating mix, because if women go somewhere, men tend to follow, hence why you get “girl’s drink for free” or “no door charge for women”.
People buy benefits, not products
This was a favorite saying of an old business professor of mine, that builds off the fact that the impulse to buy something is linked to a need. You are not going to buy something that makes you un-thirsty unless you are thirsty. In this case, the benefit you seek is something that makes you quenches your thirst, and what you seek to quench that thirst with is dependent on your choice criteria. Your choice criteria are the elements of the features of the options for what to quench your thirst with. This ultimately leads to a choice you make for what to drink.
In the sexual market place the same thing takes place. Every customer (male or female) have a need usually it is either a relationship or a hookup, sometimes it’s both or neither. They know some of the benefits sought, such as getting off. They have choice criteria that ultimately inform their decision on who they’d prefer to sate that need with.
The core difference comes in the various layers of social elements that obscure the transaction that is actually taking place. It is social perceptions that result in that a woman that overtly sells sex in order to pay her rent is a prostitute, while the woman who has her fuckbuddy pay her rent is not. This is where statements that men say among themselves and women hate such as “all sex is prostitution, it just depends on how you pay.” comes from.
The confusion among men about “what women want” comes from the fact that men often view sex in terms of expectancy and equity theory however this does not lead to hypergamous optimization.
In order for hypergamy to be optimized, it needs to make sure that the choice of reciprocation lays on the woman, not on the man. If the female had to reciprocate in order to maintain relational equity, then it follows that she either has to sleep with non-optimal men, or say no to free stuff. Neither which is a good option in the eyes of hypergamy.
In order to ensure hypergamous optimization, it is necessary to obfuscate the female choice criteria, because if a man knows them, he can fake them and thus sleep/date her when she feels he should not be able to. Thus foiling female hypergamy. This is also why the red pill and pick-up artist communities have received so much backlash from women, because to them it is a system hack. It is using their inborn choice criteria against them.
How much is she going to run me?
Men and women approach this from two different perspectives, yet are both looking to get the best possible deal. With how our sexual market place is set up, men are looking to pay as little as possible, women are looking to get paid as much as possible.
As a general rule there are 3 major pricing strategies, price skimming where the company sets a high price at first that is lowered over time in order to get the maximum sunk-cost recovery before competition sets in. Market penetration pricing, where a company sets the price low enough to capture large amounts of the market, and neutral pricing which is a mix of the two former.
The concept of price may be a touchy subject for some, but there are always costs associated with getting laid. In a way we could put women into a pricing model where the total price is Pre-Sex + Relationship cost = Total cost. This is based on the cost to get laid or into a relationship, plus additional costs you have to bear in order to remain in the relationship.
What we have to remember is that as humans there is only one metric that truly matters in cost analysis, namely time. Women in order to optimize hypergamy adopt market skimming as a pricing strategy, they want to realize the maximum benefit of their SMV as they go through life, this is evidenced by how the average female age for marriage coincides with the start of decline in their SMV . Men on the other hand tend to go for penetration pricing to appeal to large amounts of the market very quickly.
As I outlined to begin with, women tend to be better and more natural promoters than men are. In order for a man to compete with women at promotion, he has to adopt narcissistic and Machiavellian traits. As every U.S presidential campaign reminds us, there are 2 basic types of promotion regardless of the mix, which are; positive advertisements of your candidate, attack ads on the other candidate.
I outlined how women do this in my post on female competition.
I think that the reason why this has become the chosen strategy for women is that it holds low risk/effort, for high reward. You do not need to become objectively better than another woman, you just have to be perceived by the buyers (men) as being better than another woman. Where men seek to be objectively better than other men, since men are judged based on performance not perception, women are judged by perception.
However, knowing how much weight women put in promotion, most men should take a page or two out of their book. The “manosphere” has done a good job at figuring out female choice criteria, and men should learn how to signal those choice criteria when they have developed them. What use is it being the best product, if nobody knows it?
Distribution seems irrelevant, except for the fact that your SMV ranking is relative. A 10 in Miami is going to be off the charts in Boise, and a 4 in LA can be an 8 in Cleveland, because it is dependent on what exists in the market already. SMV for both men and women, just like for products depend on what is available in the market. Sure seafood that came off the boat 2 hours ago and was fished no more than 4 hours ago is expected in coastal cities, but 3 day old frozen fish may be top notch in a town where there are few (if any) opportunity to get truly fresh seafood.
Single women tend to congregate in certain cities such as New York, L.A and Miami. Meaning that the market in these cities tend to experience a constant influx of young and attractive women. Once these women settle down with a man, the family tends to move to the suburbs where the competition for her man is less. So, the HB10 moves to New York to land a rich investment banker, then moves him and the family to a suburb where he hardly sees another HB10 of the younger model. This means as his wife’s SMV drops off with age, she has a point or two advantage in the local market, while he is unaware of his rising SMV due to being in a poor market.
Where you live and the places you frequent decide what market of men or women you are mainly targeting with your product.
Igor Ansoff devised the product matrix that I’m going to be using the categorize methods for growth for a product.I could make some market penetration jokes here but I won’t. Market penetration means that you sell more of a product to an existing market. Market development is when you develop new markets, in order to increase sales. Product development is where a product is either improved, altered or entirely new products are created in order to increase sales. Finally diversification is when you branch out into other products, or markets. Ansoff points out that diversification is different because unlike the other three it requires that the company develop new resources, skills or knowledge.
What we can now see is that when the “body shaming” movement posts their memes, try to make people feel bad for their preferences and so on, they are actually engaging in market development, in that they hope to build a market for women that are not appealing to the conventional market.
When a man engages in weight lifting, healthy eating, running business over bitches and adopts a red pill mindset, he is engaging in product development, as he improving and innovating on his product (himself). In this specific case, it may also include diversification, if the man decides that he wants to specialize in a special type of woman, and as a result has to develop new skillsets and so on. For instance day-game.
When feminists or beta males push the “Stop fucking jerks” narrative, they are attempting to increase the market penetration for beta males and feminist accomplices to encourage more of the male market to move in that direction to set up hypergamy for when the feminists are ready to settle down.
Market shares and market potential
One of the first red pill truths I ever heard was in Chris Rock show “20% of the guys, do 80% of the fucking.” To put it in economic terms, this means that 20% of the sellers have an 80% market share. This means that those 20% of sellers have done something that makes this happen. In the history of economics and business, no company has been able to do this without somehow being a superior performer. Carnegie Steel and Standard Oil obtained market shares comparable to this in the Robber-baron era, however they did so by delivering superior products and being superior throughout their value chain. Thus it follows that 20% of men is doing something very right, that the remainder can emulate.
To put this into numbers, if there are 10 men and a 10 women in a group, 8/10 times a woman gets fucked, its going to be by 2/10 men. That means that two of those men got laid 4 times each, while the other 8 got laid 0.25 times.
To draw further on the reasoning, the only reason why men like Carnegie, Rockefeller and the other Robber Barons, were able to build their fortunes and get such huge market shares, was because there was no anti-trust legislation. This means that the business could only work that way, so long as the other part of it; government was complicit in what was taking place.
This does not mean that I advocate government control of getting laid, it means that such a market share for that minority of men, can only happen if women are participants in the market distribution.
The two products that are interesting to women
Women tend to be interested in 2 rough product groups of men. The Alpha male (the good genetics) and the Beta male (The good provider) this is quite normal as tastes in products often change with age and experience. The difference is that women’s tastes for Alphas never change, they are a constant demand market, whereas the demand for Beta males seems to increase once the woman has had her fun years and is looking to settle down.
This basic categorization by women, indicate that there are product characteristics that define which category a man ends up in to that woman (and most likely her peer group). It stands clear that women have obvious choice criteria for:
A) Which of the groups the man is put into.
B) Which product she is seeking at the moment.
The fact that men categorize women was well known to previous generations. It was quite common for mothers and grandmothers to tell their daughters colloquialisms such as “Nobody is going to buy the cow if they can get the milk for free”. This indicates that for men, we tend to divide into “hoes and housewives” there are simply some women who are wife material and some women who are one night stand material.
Summary and Conclusions
The thing that started to congeal in my mind after writing all these articles is that I can argue the sexual market place from many different angles. The traditional way of arguing it with women as buyers and men as sellers, comes short when the end is “marriage and children” because while women are gatekeepers of sex, men are gatekeepers of marriage.
On the other hand arguing men as buyers and females as sellers comes short when explaining hookup culture, as women are gatekeepers of sex.
Arguing the SMV as corporation vs corporation also falls short, because while you do have 2 camps, men and women, you have men that adopt the feminine imperative.
The only way that it makes sense to argue it is to argue in terms of desired end product, and keeping in mind that the entire SMP has 2 goals.
B) Long term relationship
Here it follows that you will in each participant have a weighted choice criteria. For instance someone may be 99% hookup and 1% long term relationship, another may be 99% long term relationship and 1% hookup. From basic supply and demand theory, one can conclude that for each tier of choice criteria has a supply and a demand, and they have a point where equilibrium between supply and demand is reached.
However, this will influence the price based on the other aspects outlined in this post and others, such as the supply of women who want a hookup vs the demand by men who want a hookup. For instance, if 1 woman wants to hookup but 10 men want to hookup, that increases the price. If you introduce the principle of choice criteria into this, that could eliminate 6 of the men, however they are unaware that they have been truly eliminated, because the woman has a vested interest in keeping the perception of demand high to maintain her price.
However, if you introduce 2 more women into this, her ability to do so will lessen as a result of competition, unless they decide to keep the price high in a form of cartel price fixing through making themselves seem scarce.
An abundance mindset is recommended because it undercuts the female price fixing strategy, whereas a scarcity mindset reinforces it. A Beta orbiter both makes a woman feel high in demand, while offering social proof that she is in high demand through acting as a false type of competition.