HedgeDoc - Collaborative markdown notes

<header class="entry-header"> <h1 class="entry-title" style="text-align: center;">Susan Walsh Endorses Graph Where Female SMV Falls 50% By Age 31</h1> <div class="entry-meta">In her post, The Conclusive Data on Male vs. Female Sexual Market Value, Susan Walsh claims that the following plot is a graph of male and female SMV:</div> </header> <div class="entry-content"> <img class="alignnone" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20140403052603im_/http://cdn.okcimg.com/blog/older_lover/Desirability.png" alt="" width="472" height="407" /> She further endorses the chart: <blockquote> The OKCupid chart has good, reliable information for both sexes.  </blockquote> Okay, having established that she views this as an SMV graph with good and reliable information for women (and men), let’s see what it says about a woman’s SMV.  [Note, at this point, I'm not claiming this represents a woman's SMV, only examining the implications of Susan's claim that it does. Later I'll examine if it represents SMV.] Female SMV Plummets 50% by Age 31 The woman’s value peaks at 80% at age 21 and then is cut in half by age 31. Since Susan is claiming this graph is SMV and has “good, reliable information,” she is thus endorsing a graph that says that women’s SMV is cut in half by age 31. Note:  Susan clearly claims this graph represents SMV since she says that “by this unbiased calculation of actual data [from the OkCupid graph], the male and female of the species exhibit the same SMV.” Arguing The Sky is Blue and Not Blue at the Same Time The fact that Susan endorses the OkCupid graph and claims it represents a woman’s SMV–and that it is cut in half by age 31–is extremely odd since, just two weeks before, she was decrying a very similar SMV graph where the woman’s SMV hits half its peak at 29.5: <img class="alignnone" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20140403052603im_/http://makeshiftalpha.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/sexualvalue.gif" alt="" width="457" height="309" /> So, outrage for saying it hits half-peak at 29.5 y/o in this graph, or 30 in Rollo’s, but ringing endorsement for 31.  Here’s Rollo’s graph for comparison: <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20140403052603/http://www.justfourguys.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/RolloSMV.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-large wp-image-1302" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20140403052603im_/http://www.justfourguys.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/RolloSMV-1024x502.jpg" alt="Print" width="584" height="286" /></a> So why all the angst then that Rollo’s and other similar graphs show a drop to half-peak in female SMV by around age 30 when the Susan-endorsed female SMV graph hits half-peak at 31?  I really don’t get it. The focus of this post isn’t to analyze whether or where the graphs are right or wrong but I will add that I don’t think a woman’s looks ranking gets cut in half by age 30 or so but in the sense of how valuable a woman is perceived for sex, I could see how sex with a woman who’s looks dropped from say a 7 at age 21 to a 6 by age 31 (say 0.5 pts due to aging and 0.5 pts due to putting on 10 or 15 lbs) could be perceived by a large group of men as half as valuable.  And that, of course, is thinking of it in terms of solely sex, with no emotional attachment and love.  Loving your partner can certainly make the sex more valuable than simply the raw SMV, where the term is usually used in the context of short-term and uncommitted sex. Advertisement <a href="https://www.loveawake.com/free-online-dating/United-States/Massachusetts/city-of-Boston.html?page=86">https://www.loveawake.com/free-online-dating/United-States/Massachusetts/city-of-Boston.html?page=86</a> <a href="https://www.loveawake.com/free-online-dating/United-States/Nevada/city-of-Las-Vegas.html?page=86">https://www.loveawake.com/free-online-dating/United-States/Nevada/city-of-Las-Vegas.html?page=86</a> <a href="https://www.loveawake.com/free-online-dating/United-States/California/city-of-Los-Angeles.html?page=86">https://www.loveawake.com/free-online-dating/United-States/California/city-of-Los-Angeles.html?page=86</a> <a href="https://www.loveawake.com/free-online-dating/United-States/Pennsylvania/city-of-Philadelphia.html?page=86">https://www.loveawake.com/free-online-dating/United-States/Pennsylvania/city-of-Philadelphia.html?page=86</a> <a href="https://www.loveawake.com/free-online-dating/United-States/Pennsylvania/city-of-Pittsburgh.html?page=86">https://www.loveawake.com/free-online-dating/United-States/Pennsylvania/city-of-Pittsburgh.html?page=86</a> <a href="https://www.loveawake.com/free-online-dating/United-States/Florida/city-of-Orlando.html?page=86">https://www.loveawake.com/free-online-dating/United-States/Florida/city-of-Orlando.html?page=86</a> <a href="https://www.loveawake.com/free-online-dating/United-States/North-Carolina/city-of-Raleigh.html?page=86">https://www.loveawake.com/free-online-dating/United-States/North-Carolina/city-of-Raleigh.html?page=86</a> Returning to Susan, she flusters that in the unacceptable graph, for a woman, “by 20, her sexual market value is plummeting.”  But in the accepted graph, it starts to decline, or using Susan’s word, “plummets,” at 21! (Note how both graphs don’t immediately plummet but gradually decline during the early-to-mid 20′s.) So 20 is unacceptable as the age where SMV starts to decline but 21 is fine.  Got it.  29.5 or 30 is unacceptable for reaching half-peak but 31 is fine. And note that Rollo’s female SMV decline doesn’t even start until the very generous age of 23, later than the Susan-approved graph.  :) The clearer message is that all three charts are basically the same for women aged 20-30–especially given the large uncertainties in estimating such a quantity–but Susan is arguing against them when it serves her purpose and arguing for them when–you guessed it–it serves her purpose. This brings to mind her recent post where she endorsed the Hoff Sommers debunking of excessive radfem rape claims and then used my post–based on the very same Hoff Sommmers piece–to claim that PUAs and MRAs try to downplay how much real sexual assault happens.   <h2>Susan Mistakenly Claims Vox Day is in Error</h2> Susan claims that Kelly only referred to the makeshiftalpha chart above and that Vox is in error for responding by analyzing this graph: <blockquote> In a rebuttal to Kelly’s reasoning, <a href="http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2013/10/savaged-by-statistical-sheep.html" target="_blank">Alpha Game </a>erroneously applied her comments to this chart instead: <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20140403052603/http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2013/10/31/relationshipstrategies/conclusive-data-male-vs-female-sexual-market-value/attachment/print/" rel="attachment wp-att-12942"><img src="https://web.archive.org/web/20140403052603im_/http://i0.wp.com/www.hookingupsmart.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/smv_curve1.jpg?resize=491%2C241" alt="Print" width="460" height="226" /></a> </blockquote> But Kelly actually referred to “graphs,” as in more than one, saying at Dalrock’s that “Those graphs are wrong.”  There are two graphs listed in the comments in Dalrock’s post that Kelly is referring to.  One is the makeshiftalpha graph and the other is the rationalmale graph.  So, Susan is wrong on her facts. <h2>The More Important Argument</h2> Susan hypothesizes that lifetime sexual value is equal between men and women, saying, “If we assume their lifetime sexual value is the same.”  (I’d actually argue that female sexual value is higher than all but the very top males, similar to the sexual hierarchy of a bull, cows and steers.) She then tries to use the OkCupid graph above as proof that this is so, that the areas under an SMV curve are equal for men and women over their entire lifetime. 1) The first and really the only reason needed is that the OkCupid graph does NOT show SMV!  It simply shows the % of the opposite sex that would date someone of a given age–see the title of the plot that get’s integrated to produce each of the final values for each age and gender:  “a by-age distribution of men who would date an [X] year-old woman.” That is not SMV and it’s definitely not an SMV ranking. It doesn’t allow for any differentiation, really, between all the women that fall withint that age range or that were messaged whereas a good model of SMV will allow for a man to further differentiate and rank the women that fall within his age criteria. Saying that you would be willing to go on a date with someone in a certain age range doesn’t take into account all the other things you would require.  This is true of both men and women. The woman is not likely thinking of the <a href="https://blog.loveawake.com/2019/02/14/the-problem-with-short-men/">average male</a> in that age range but likely someone more dashing. Likewise, the average male is not necessarily thinking of the average woman. Age range is one of many criteria that would have to be met.  On top of that, a date is not sex.  We could end right here but let’s continue. 2) Rather than showing SMV, it reports an obscure mixture of the age range that one would be willing to date, how many messages each age gets sent, and likely some influence based on the percent of women and men at each age in the sample. The methodology is not clearly stated in the blog.  Rather, this cryptic phrase is given: “In any event, here’s what happens when we synthesize all the above data.” Perhaps you could argue this graph is a proxy for SMV plus a lot of other things but let’s simply take it for what it is, a rough amalgam of stated age range that one wants to interact with (but not necessarily have sex), who gets messaged first, some other unspecified data, and some unstated assumptions on how the calculations were actually performed. It is certainly not some precise and highly accurate and representative graph of male and female SMV upon which one can conclude that male and female “lifetime SMVs” are equal.  At best, it’s a very rough proxy for SMV plus a lot of other stuff, as it was used by colleague, Sir Nemesis, and, at worst, it’s simply a combo of allowable age ranges and who gets messaged on OkC. 3) Using this graph as conclusive proof of SMV and that their areas under the curve are equal is flawed because both the male and female populations studied are strongly peaked at age 24 and the vast majority are under 30 and thus it’s not representative of the whole adult population and sexual market.  Not to mention that even ignoring the bias towards youth, the OkCupid population itself is not necessarily representative of the whole population.  Rather, it’s simply those people who do online dating at OkC. 4) Also, the male to female ratio of current users on OKC (as opposed to total amount signed up) is typically 2 to 1 or more.  So it’s definitely not some representative demographic.  I checked in my local area today and it was a 2.5 to 1 male-to-female ratio.  Can’t draw conclusive conclusions from such a skewed demographic. 5) The males have a much wider range of acceptable female age ranges than the women do, except for the very youngest women having a slighly broader age range since the 18 y/o men can’t list any desired female age younger than 18–and no, an 18 y/o dating a 16 or 17 y/o is not creepy. 6) Males send far more first-message than women do so using the females message-first data to inform the male SMV is not very useful.  Combining 4 and 5 should make the total number of females that are receiving interest much higher than the males, consistent with the idea that women <a href="https://blog.loveawake.com/2021/06/21/how-do-you-value-yourself/">have higher sexual value</a> and are the gatekeepers of sex. Which leads to the next point. 7) Since the methodology isn’t stated, it’s hard to say but it seems highly likely that the male and female curves were simply scaled to have the same average value. That is why when Susan calculates the area under the curve, “old school,” she finds them to be virtually identical. And just as a reminder, these curves aren’t showing SMV. 8) This can be seen by what would happen if you were to extrapolate the graphs to either side.  Move to the left, younger, and the female value is higher than the male and so that would upset the equality.  Move to the right and the male value is higher and so it would upset the equality the other way. Based on this, it is likely that the curves were simply scaled to have the same areas under the curve (which is the same as saying they have the same average value). <h2>Conclusion</h2> The OkC graph is not an SMV graph. And it certainly isn’t the kind of data to serve as the foundation for an argument that male and female SMV trajectories over a lifetime have the same area under the curve. The OkC demographics are skewed young and to the internet savvy, with roughly 2x as many males as females, and are thus not representative of the population at large. Susan has not proven Kelly’s argument that the areas under the curve must be equal. Even if she were able to find a real SMV graph and show that the areas under the curve happened to be equal, that is far different than there existing some law of nature requiring them to be so. But Susan hasn’t found a real SMV graph and since it’s highly likely that the two curves were specifically rescaled to have the same area, saying that they have the same area proves nothing. The other thing that stands out is that Susan unwittingly claimed that female SMV plummets by 50% from 21 to 31 by saying that the OkC graph is SMV and so strongly endorsing it. And that’s very amusing since she has spent so much time trying to debunk something and ends up debunking herself, once again. <h3>Addendum</h3> Also, since Susan continues to make false claims about me and the Hoinsky bruhaha, like this one, I want to make it clear that she was being unfair and continues to be so: <blockquote> Of course I talked to Han Solo, and he called me unreasonable. Just so you know, the behavior in question was putting a woman’s hand on your dick and telling her to suck it. Also, not taking no for an answer. </blockquote> I have to point out that the context for “pulling out your cock” was after making out, fondling and fingering the willing woman to orgasm.  It was not to just randomly whip out your cock to a total stranger and put her hand on it, like Susan and the radfems she aligned with have implied.  That was my point, that there was a whole lot of context to that “whip out your cock” statement. And Susan is wrong in saying, “not taking no for an answer,” and possibly implying that I don’t believe in taking no for an answer. I definitely believe that men should not force women into sexual acts or sexually assault them. And even Hoinsky himself says that: <blockquote> If at any point a girl wants you to stop, she will let you know. If she says “STOP,” or “GET AWAY FROM ME,” or shoves you away, you know she is not interested. It happens. Stop escalating immediately and say this line: “No problem. I don’t want you to do anything you aren’t comfortable with.” </blockquote> The narrow issue I was dealing with back at HUS was the “pull out your cock” statement and that it was not intended to be to any old stranger. When I later became informed that Hoinsky had been fairly pushy for sex in Japan, I also stated that he was too pushy. Thus I am not some Hoinsky or sexual assault apologist; simply a man who cares about fairness and common sense. [Update :  According to the Japan field report, he fingered the woman to orgasm and then stuck his "banana" in.  After one minute she told him to take it out and he did.  So if he penetrated her with consent then it would not be rape.  However, if he penetrated her without consent then it would be.   Because we don't know whether there was consent or not, the case is uncertain.  And because of this uncertainty, this is what I said at HUS, "In the other field report in Japan, he definitely went over the line in continuing to escalate excessively." And penetrating without consent is escalating excessively and rape so the possibility of me saying he went over the line with rape was implicitly covered in my statement at the time. However, I wish that I had explicitly added the following words at the time: "If he penetrated her with consent then it would not be rape.  However, if he penetrated her without consent then it would be.  We simply don't know."  So I am not a rape defender or apologist.  If he did it without consent then that would mean it was rape and he should be condemned.  If it was with consent then he did not commit rape.  Above, you can see I paraphrased this according to memory as being "too pushy" but you can actually see the comment I left at HUS was stronger than that. I will admit I should have gone back to the HUS comment and quoted myself exactly instead of just paraphrasing but since that wasn't the main focus of my comments at HUS (taking the "whip out your cock" statement was) or what I was writing about at the time in this post, I didn't. Because of the uncertainty of whether there was consent or not--and we simply don't know--that is why I simply stated that he "definitely went over the line in continuing to escalate." Now, whether that line was simply trying too hard and continuing to escalate too much or whether he penetrated without consent is impossible for us to know.  That's why I simply left my statement to be somewhat flexible to what that line that he crossed actually was.  Even the person commenting on his field report, quoted by Susan, didn't even definitively say it was rape.  Rather, the person said, "Do you see that depending on exactly how things went down that what happened at 2h00m here could be rape?" So to accuse me of being a rape apologist is completely unfair and unfounded. Here are my words on the matter in the comment section of the HUS post, Blurred Lines: Anthem to Female Hypergamy: <blockquote> I stand by my interpretation that the page I linked to [about whipping out his cock] was describing a series of steps that one could take to escalate towards sex. However, he wasn’t clear enough about that but I think that any fair-minded person wouldn’t think he was just suggesting to take his dick out to strangers or when there wasn’t any previously consented to escalation. In the other field report in Japan, he definitely went over the line in continuing to escalate excessively. This is what should have been pointed out as inappropriate and not the quotes from the link I linked to that were, IMO, taken out of context. That link was the only [thing] I was looking at since those contained the “offensive” quotations. </blockquote> So since there was ambiguity in whether the sex was consensual or not then one can not definitively say he raped the girl in Japan. I think that most men, myself included, want to have sex only when the woman wants to and so if he penetrated without consent then that was the line he crossed and it was rape, and if it wasn’t rape, then the line he crossed was of keeping on trying too much.  He should have left when she wasn’t into him or, if he wasn’t simply looking for sex, then he should have done something else or kept it at a level she was comfortable and let her get so turned on that she might have escalated or decided she wanted intercourse.   Men, don’t be needy and pushy when it comes to sex. Yes, be assertive but have some self-respect and either be more patient and stay at the level she was comfortable at, do a non-sexual activity, or leave.  And it goes without saying but I’ll say it anyway, don’t stick it in unless you have consent.] And Susan, since you will read this post or one of your minions will bring you word, stop falsely accusing me of being a rape or sexual assault apologist. You are just as responsible as some of the extreme voices that sometimes commented there for bringing on the negative tone at HUS by your frequent refusal to accept facts and well-reasoned arguments and by your vindictive outlashing towards many commenters, mostly male but some female as well. You are very much to blame for the downfall of the once great site that was HUS, not me and not the many truth-seeking commenters that used to comment there. Before you go blaming others with your self-righteous rage, look in the mirror and stop falsely accusing people of things they are not guilty of. </div> <div id="gtx-trans" style="position: absolute; left: -92px; top: 765.675px;"> </div>