As promised, this is the second part of the discussion of female Sexual Market Value.
Today’s post will explore the claim of “Kelly the PhD Statistician” re the statistical invalidity of a chart depicting imagined male vs. female sexual market value. I included her comment in a post debunking the myth that females rapidly lose their sexual appeal from the age of 20 on.
Kelly noted that the graph below comparing female and male “sexual value” could not be correct, because the area under the two curves was unequal. As you can easily observe, the male curve contains a lot more area representing sexual value than the women’s curve does:
Blogger Morpheus, formerly known here as Mike C, was apparently incensed by her argument, emailing me this vaguely ominous message:
Okaaaaay. Here’s what he came up with:
“There is absolutely NO sound, logical, mathematical reason the areas under the curves must be equal. That is just made up gobbledlygook.”
Mike C doesn’t know it, but he is correct IF AND ONLY IF you believe that the homo sapien male is inherently more valuable sexually than the homo sapien female. If we assume their lifetime sexual value is the same, despite having asymmetrical distribution curves, i.e., different peaks and rates of decline, then the average, or mean value would have to be the same.
It is my hypothesis that the distribution curves are indeed asymmetrical, with women peaking earlier and higher, while male SMV is a lower, broader curve. However, the mean value of SMV over time should be the same for both sexes.
Let’s have a look. Now, this chart was not constructed using real data, it’s an exercise in wishful thinking. So I had to go really old school to calculate the means for these two curves, but here they are:
Mean male sexual value over lifetime: 38.1
Mean female sexual value over lifetime: 30.8
By this red pill calculation, the male is 24% more sexually valuable than the female of the species.
Darwin argued the opposite with his theory of Sexual Selection, summarized here:
Eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap.
…It is what it is, and it will never change so long as humans are a sexually reproducing species. All the laws in the world can at best only paper over the very primal compulsion of people to value the life of the average woman more than the life of the average man, and sympathize accordingly. Railing against it is akin to shaking a fist at sunspots and gamma rays. It’s therefore folly or self-serving disingenuousness to act like there’s some moral high ground to stake out by imparting culpable agency to an indifferent, organically emergent biomechanical phenomenon.
Evolutionary biologist Donald Symons provides the rationale in his book The Evolution of Sexuality, in his chapter on Copulation as a Female Service:
“Among all peoples it is primarily men who court, woo, proposition, seduce, employ love charms and love magic, give gifts in exchange for sex, and use the services of prostitutes. And only men rape. Everywhere sex is understood to be something females have that males want; it constitutes a service or favor that females in general can bestow on or withhold from males in general.
…Because a male can potentially impregnate a female at almost no cost to himself in terms of time and energy, selection favored the basic male tendency to become sexually aroused at the sight of females. The basic female strategy is to obtain the best possible husband, to be fertilized by the fittest available male, and to maximize the returns on sexual favors bestowed; to be aroused by the sight of males would promote random matings, undermining all of these aims, and would waste time and energy that could be spent in economically significant activities and in nurturing children. So a female’s reproductive success would be seriously compromised by the propensity to be sexually aroused by the sight of males.”
In a rebuttal to Kelly’s reasoning, Alpha Game erroneously applied her comments to this chart instead:
I don’t know if the author of this chart is intellectually dishonest, intellectually challenged, or both, but here we see a truly extreme representation of lifetime SMV for the sexes.
(Note: Chart scaled to 100 for purpose of consistency.)
Mean male sexual value over lifetime: 43.1
Mean female sexual value over lifetime: 29.9
By this red pill calculation, the male is 34% more sexually valuable than the female of the species!
One thing he gets right is the SMV parity occurring at age 30. That’s very much in keeping with what the data shows, both for dating and marrying couples.
However, he loses all semblance of rational thinking after that. Look at the other couples who match up in his chart:
- 19 yo female & 35 yo male
- 29 yo female & 47 yo male
- 37 yo female & 60 yo male
- 50 yo female & 69 yo male
Yeah, I don’t think so gramps.
Let’s do one more analysis using the data of 200,000 real individuals who expressed interest in fellow daters at OKCupid between ages 18 and 48:
Well, what do you know!
Mean male sexual value over 30 year period: 40.0
Mean female sexual value over 30 year period: 39.9
By this unbiased calculation of actual data, the male and female of the species exhibit the same SMV.
The OKCupid chart has good, reliable information for both sexes. Women need to understand that the male curve lags the female curve by about five years, is flatter and a little wider. That means you’ll have more competition from younger women as you age. You will never be hotter than you are at 22, so plan accordingly.
It’s important to recognize that some men display a motive for artificially elevating the SMV of aging males, so ignore any wisdom characterized as “red pill.” As someone who’s been happily off the market since 1982, I have no stake in this game. I’ll give it to you straight.