Gendernomics: Compounding Sexual Market Value

compound_interestThis post was prompted by a post by Ed Latimore entitled “30 for 30: Lessons from 30 years of life” [1], which got me thinking about how the actions and choices I made in my teens and twenties are affecting me in my thirties. Furthermore, if I could go back, what would be my primary focus for each decade, and what advice would I give to a son who just entered his teens.

Einstein is quoted as saying that the most powerful force in the Universe is compound interest. The concept can be explained in a fairly intuitive manner as earning interest on your interest year after year. What this means is that every year, the interest is added to your principal, and the amount of money you earn from interest will increase. In the short term the amount of money will seem to be minuscule, but compounding rewards those who are patient and who continue to contribute to their principal on a fixed basis.

Many retirement funds are focused on this perspective as they are accounts often started in a person’s thirties, with the goal of enjoying the results when that person retires 20 – 40 years later. Perhaps one of the things that has not been talked much about in terms of male sexual market value is how it is affected by compounding and investments that are made prior to the SMV peak. The classic SMV graph merely shows that a man’s value starts to increase in his early to mid thirties and the continues to increase as he nears his mid to late thirties. However, as I cover in the upcoming Gendernomics book (read a sample here), and have on this blog before as well, male SMV and female SMV are different. Female’s are born with their reproductive value “built in“, males build theirs with little of it being gifted by nature.

This means that a male who wants to realize his maximum possible sexual market value has to make contributions to it over many years prior to realizing it fully. Naturally, some men are able to realize an above average sexual market value prior to their mid-thirties. High School athletes, wealthy heirs and those who find celebrity young for instance, however, what is unique about them as examples is their attainment of the societal merit required for high SMV at an age that represents a statistical outlier. The high school quarterback attains high sexual market value early, due to demonstrating a combination of genetics, leadership ability and gaining a massive amount of social proof very early in life. In addition, his success at a competitive endeavor will translate into much increased confidence in other areas. The wealthy heir will be born into an advantageous social position, that permits him to gain experience at a faster level, for instance through travel, partaking in business deals well above his weight, and the social proof that goes with it. The celebrity, will gain the massive social proof that comes with fame, in addition to a demonstration of high ability compared to his peer group.

This essay is not written as a foolproof guide, but as a series of reflections on how one ideally should dedicate time across 3 decades of life, ages 10 – 20, 20 – 30 and 30 – 40. Continue reading

Gendernomics: IQ and the Sexual Market

iq-articleThe idea that the stupid are out-breeding the intelligent appears to have reached the mainstream a few years ago by way of the movie “Idiocracy” intended as a dark comedy, this movie does has its basis in fact. IQ has long been seen as having a negative correlation with fertility, but a positive correlation with the survival of offspring [1]. This has also been confirmed to be an international phenomenon, and thus is not just relevant for the United States [2].

I’ve also observed this first hand, in that some of the men who struggle with getting laid the most, are the most intelligent. An example in popular culture as of the past 5 years has been the television show “The Big Bang Theory” about a group of highly intelligent physicists, who never the less seem to struggle with the simple concepts of friction and tension. Continue reading

Westworld and the Sexual Market Place

westworld-tile-a3576d50While I usually attempt to avoid certain forms of entertainment, specifically those that tend to be massive time-sinks with little productive to gain, I was sick for a few days this week and ended up watching the full 10 episodes of the HBO series “Westworld“. The show itself is set within a theme park where wealthy members of society can vacation and live out their western fantasy in a world populated by “Hosts“. The hosts themselves are artificial human beings of sorts, that the guest can kill, rape, murder, maim, live out their innocent farmer’s daughter fantasy and whatever else they desire.

In essence, it allows them to be the black hat, the white hat and everything in between. This got me thinking about what the effect on the sexual market place would be if such technology was widely available within our society. What if “sex-bots” were as ubiquitous as smart phones or laptop computers? What if you could pick up an iPartner at the Apple Store, along with your new iPhone?

The first major barrier is naturally the technology required to adequately mimic human behavior to a point where such bots would be the equivalent or better than human. A second factor would be the social programming related to sex and reproduction that affect all of us as super-ego instructions. Continue reading

Gendernomics Sample: The Company of Man

As the Gendernomics book is getting close to being ready for publishing, I thought I’d offer a sample chapter to the blog audience to get some feedback. The following is the chapter entitled “The Company of Man” and is the introductory chapter to the micro-economics section of the book.

The Company of Man


Graph 6

The company of a Man is founded on the day of his birth. It has value to his parents. Throughout his life, the actions and choices made by the man can either add, subtract or sustain the value of his equity. The equity starts with a value of zero when he is born, and as he passes through life, his choices and performance affect the equity. This is the reason why the male sexual market curve peaks long after the female sexual market value curve. A woman is born with her equity at maximum value reduced for risk; male equity is built one-step at a time. Continue reading

Gendernomics: The Economic Engine of Entitlement

entitlementI’m sure we’ve all seen the statistics that women control most of the purchasing decisions within a family [1]. This is a major reason why so much of marketing and advertising is aimed at women. From the statistics I cited in last week’s essay it is also clear that women are the major beneficiaries of income sharing within the family, on top of being the majority recipients of social benefits. This all breaks down to the fact that women control much of the money within a family, not only their own income, but the income of their husband, or many other men within the society via taxation. This follows from the fact that any social redistribution of income program is largely a process to redistribute money from men to women.

Thus, a woman will not only control her own income, as is frequently the case with men. Any man who has ever lived with a modern western woman knows the distinction between “our money“, which is the income earned by the man, and “my money” meaning the income earned by the woman. Thus, at best the man controls his own income, subtracting the income he contributes to joint expenses. The woman on the other hand controls her own income and part of the man’s income, and in some modern western states also gets specific allowances from the state. If the woman decides that she is not happy and wants to kick the guy out, then the state will rapidly step in to be her daddy.

Therefore, a woman within a family at minimum controls income equal to that of her own, plus part of that of her husband. A single woman at minimum controls her own income, and a single woman with children controls her own income, plus the income received via the state. Thus, it follows that any marketer worth his or her salt will seek to appeal to women. Continue reading

The Social Breach of Contract

social-contractThe social contract is a concept that symbolizes the agreement between the individual and the collective. It protects the rights of the individual and the outlines the duties each individual must accept in order to gain the benefits of the collective. In a sense, this is a case of risk management on a very high level, wherein each individual who opts in gains a way to normalize risk through the law of large numbers. The concept of the social contract comes from Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and is Rousseau’s idea on how to best form a community in lieu of the problems he identified in his discourse on inequality. One of the fundamental principles within the theory is that force does not create right, and humans are only obliged to submit to legitimate powers. Therefore, a human has no duty to submit to coercion.

Furthermore, it makes no sense for a human to voluntarily submit to slavery, therefore to accept a rule in which they accept a lesser amount of rights or higher amount of duties than others makes little sense. Thus, as individuals gather intro steadily larger tribes, unless their rights and duties are equal and identical, one group or multiple groups will be enslaving the other(s).

In exchange for each member of his tribe or group pledging to protect his rights, he also pledges to protect theirs, thus he gains protection and he gains duties. This forms the basis for most of the Western democracies that we have today. Many countries have such principles outlined within their constitutions, drawing limits for both individual rights and behaviors, along with the rights and behaviors of the collective.

However, as with most deals that are struck, this has tended to somewhat breach against the original terms over time, wherein the collective Leviathan of the state slowly take away the rights of their population, while seeking more rights for itself. This is merely a function of incentive theory, that leads the individuals chosen to represent the people to act in their own best short-term interest, at the expense of the population. Continue reading

Sex Politics and Monopoly Conditions

monopolyI came across this thread on Reddit a few days ago, and felt that it warranted further comment from a Gendernomics perspective. To give the short version, the wife was a major Hillary Clinton supporter, and her husband voted Trump, as a result she decided to deny him sex for 30 days. The responses in the thread vary, from those who advocate that the husband should communicate how it feels to his wife, to those who think it is perfectly warranted considering the false media narrative surrounding Trump’s treatment of women.

The first piece of advice that stood out as an illustration of the feminine primary perspective is this :

Generally speaking, sex as a weapon is not cool. And it only works because of the false pretense that it’s purely a service for the guy and that women don’t like sex just as much if not more then men.

But on a side note, voting for Trump but then not understanding why a woman is withholding access to her body to express disapproval? The irony is palpable.

This is an amazing example of female logic, in that sentence one outlines that it is not OK to use sex as a weapon, but the last sentence expresses complete understanding for why this was done. It is either OK to withhold sex, or it is not. The next comment gives some context to the manner, outlining how to more effectively utilize sex as a weapon to promote compliance:

This is actually a pretty common tactic that’s been used before, known as a sex strike, though if your wife wanted it to be effective, she should’ve denied the sex before the election to prompt you to not vote Trump. In countries where it’s used it’s done as a form of nonviolent protest to prompt some action from the husband. In this situation though, she’s using it as a punishment since there’s not much else that can be done at this point.

Regardless of if it is used as a weapon, the reasoning behind it is manipulation. In the case of a sex strike, it is used to force behavioral change through operant conditioning. In the case of a “sex strike“, the reasoning is “If you do X, you get punished with Y” or “If you do not do X, you get rewarded with Y“. In the latter case, it is a case of positive reinforcement, where the husband is punished after he voted. The former is in some ways less malicious than the latter, as the former presents an explicit demand, the latter creates an intermittent reinforcement situation, wherein the husband may frame all his actions going forward based on “if I do this, will she deny me sex?“. Continue reading