Introduction to Sexual Market Value

I will open with the Jewish concept of Bashert. Derived from the Semitic root “B-S-R” it signifies a soulmate. The story goes that GD assigned each person a partner during the time of creation. When that person reached maturity, they recognized their soulmate in another. Furthermore, there are no other possible soulmates since any other relationships will constitute a compromise. This idea suggests that body, wealth and status are immaterial and irrelevant when selecting a partner.

This notion is the basis of most romantic stories. In fact, the central thesis of Beauty and the Beast is that beauty is internal and can overpower a hideous appearance. If you look at the authors of romantic films the credits are littered with Jewish names. These ideas are not unique and have origins in the Judaic cultural vault.

Welcome back to reality. The sexual marketplace is not dissimilar from its economic cousin. In fact, they both use a similar rubric for assigning merit in a quantitative fashion. When properly deciphered, a statistician can predict romantic longevity in much the same way that he can forecast stock-valuation. However, unlike economics it is culturally taboo to discuss these processes since they are deeply offensive in nature.

Some publicly-traded companies offer common shares for pennies while other shares command high prices and exclusive distribution. What dictates their value? The emphasis here is on ROI or return on investment. The objective is to maximize profits while taking into considering things like opportunity cost, inflation, and growth potential. At the end of your year the investor wants to have as much money as possible relative to his investment.

In the sexual-marketplace participants want to attract the best mate possible. This not only satisfies personal satisfaction, but also commands social authority. You will rarely see a high-profile celebrity with an overweight spouse. While the rubrics (both each male and female) share similar features, they include different categories and are weighed differently. This formula is rooted in evolutionary biology but is expressed differently through out separate cultures.

A short caveat: this metric is not objective or conclusive. It is based on the Western Model and has been discussed in academic and popular forums. It is offensive and should be understood properly in context.

Male SMV

Prestige:                  60 percent

Resources:                            30 percent

Influence:                             20 percent

Personality:                          10 percent

Class/style:                           10 percent

Physique:                 20 percent

Weight:                                 7 percent

Hair:                                       5 percent

Height:                                  7 percent

Other:                       20 percent

Humor:                                 10 percent

Common interests:            10 percent

Score/100

Female SMV

Physique:                 80 percent

Age:                                        40 percent

Weight:                                 20 percent

Body shape:                         15 percent

Style:                                      5 percent

Other:                       20 percent

Personality:                          10 percent

Resources:                            5 percent

“Easygoingness”:                5 percent

Score/100

We can conclude several things by examining this rubric. While age is a big influence (on desirability) among women it is not relevant on their male counterparts. Both partners desire a healthy mate but a female is more likely to disregard obesity (in a mate) when compared to men. While men may enjoy sleeping with an overweight woman, many would object to selecting her as his “public” girlfriend. A nice guy (soft-spoken, office worker) may provide company for a woman, but she will not select him if an Alpha-type male is within her reach.

This explanation is reductionist and is not meant to be conclusive. My objective was to highlight the different preferences between the sexes. While society may signal the immorality of such a system it remains in effect. It has taken million of years to get to this point (evolutionarily speaking) and we cannot force people to find us attractive. Either we must accept our SMV—and the corresponding mate—or spend time on improving ourselves to improve our dating prospects.

There are criticisms from both sides. A low-income male may decry the inherit unfairness of this system and emphasise his strong character. An overweight female may feel beautiful—which is socially reinforced—but she will not attract a high-status mate. When people complain about the lack of quality mates they are not saying that there aren’t any candidates. They are wondering why they cannot attract their preferable mate without doing a self-inventory of their SMV. Complaining bears no fruits, even if it merits you a top grade in your college humanities course.

There is a discrepancy between what people—and society—say they want and what they actually want. The media’s objective is to generate revenue. Its goal is not to make you feel good but instead generate demand (for their advertisers) and shift the paradigm towards their agenda.

Why is this important, especially for a married person? Your value changes perpetually but not in tandem with your spouse. If a polarization of the values manifest it will create tension in your relationship. You married your partner expecting them not to change over a lifetime. Not only is this impossible it also sets couples up for failure. As the old mantra goes, “you cannot love someone else until you learn to love your self”.