"The Wall is Softer Than You Think"

[RockmaninoffParticipant 1641]

Here’s the article:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:3FJxDavRzZ0J:www.rooshv.com/the-wall-is-softer-than-we-think+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

It’s a Google cache, because I know a lot of you guys don’t like Roosh V and don’t want to give his website hits. I post it anyway for discussion, because I think you guys are smart enough to realize that just because you don’t like the man doesn’t mean he has nothing to say or anything worth discussing.

The last two paragraphs really got me thinking. I often see trotted out, on this website and others on the manosphere, charts like these:

Now, I do recognize that I likely have not enough life experience to verify whether this chart is accurate or not, but I find it hard to believe, simply because it contradicts my preconceived notions and generally established truths.

It’s been generally regarded as true for a long time that women in their late teens and early twenties are in the prime of their life and have a great number of options (“flower of youth” and s~~~ like that); this is what makes what happens to Fantine in Les Misérables so tragic.

However, nowhere, outside of the manosphere, have I ever encountered the notion that a man at forty has as many options as a woman at twenty. Unlike that of women when they’re twenty, it’s not a general notion that men at forty have a lot of options; what is a general notion, however, is that men at forty are starting to put on weight, are starting to lose hair, and are having midlife crises.

I have heard from older men I know in real life that there is indeed a reversal in the dynamics between the sexes as you age, but from the way they talked it didn’t seem like it was that huge of a reversal, contrary to what that SMV chart would have you believe.

I think that the whole concept of “The Wall,” while certainly true to some extent as Roosh acknowledges in the beginning, is exaggerated because men want to believe that the universe is just; what’s more exaggerated, however, is the notion that a man’s SMV when he turns forty skyrockets (not wrong, just exaggerated).

Thoughts?

". . . elle, suivant l’usage des femmes et des chats qui ne viennent pas quand on les appelle et qui viennent quand on ne les appelle pas, s’arrêta devant moi et m’adressa la parole"—Prosper Mérimée

[Jan SobieskiParticipant 28791]

Interesting. However, the wall thing only matters if you care about females anymore.

I think of it as schadenfreude. And interesting thing about human psychology, etc.

So some females are less narcissistic than others…some men are shorter than others. So what.

I rate my SMV as 0 and don’t care because I ain’t gonna go back.

Love is just alimony waiting to happen. Visit mgtow.com.

[TaxGuyParticipant]

Good point. I would say though that the wall is as hard as imagined. You have to take the curves separately. Women certainly hit the wall hard and men stop giving a s~~~ about them. For men, I don’t think we ever hit 10 on the SMV curve, which is the point you were making.

For women, the 10 on the curve is the point in their life where they use sex or the thought of sex to get what they want. They get some idiot to let them through the grocery line because they are cute, they get out of a speeding ticket because of cleavage, etc. When that is the best you can offer, and you age like milk, eventually you hit the expiration date. And it goes sour fast.

For a man to ever hit 10 on the scale the way women do, he would have to be able to use his looks and wallet to get anything he wants. Now, while a woman may want access to his wallet, that’s not SMV, that’s $MV. And she is still trying to sell him expired milk, so she is still attempting to use sex to get what she wants.

The chart is going to be true for a certain percentage of men, but not for men as a group.

Order the good wine

[Anonymous 1]

Its often quite remarkable to see how quickly some women’s good looks turn to trash. Once their looks have gone, their ability to manipulate goes to s~~~, and its all they know, so at this point they are F~~~ED.

Women have a higher collagen density, which causes them to age faster, so there is science to support this. Throw in the smokers, drinkers, druggy’s, fatty’s = some of em dont stand a chance.

Men have a slower decline. I don’t need graphs to tell me that, I’ve witnessed it time and time again.

Also, something about wrinkles and gray hair looks ‘burnt out’ on a woman. It looks rather suave on men.

I’m not sure what data is used to compose these graphs. I don’t even need to look at them. I’ve lived it.

[BeerParticipant 11832]

TaxGuy wrote:

The chart is going to be true for a certain percentage of men, but not for men as a group.

Its the same for women…some women simply lack sex appeal and will never have a high SMV. I think all the chart is really suggesting is women are valued for their youth and fertility and men are valued for their resources. Most men have simply had more time to gather resources and improve their income by the time they are in their 30/40s. I think a broke 40 year old is in a significantly worse off situation than a well off 28 year old, where as a woman who was obese at 22 but got healthy and fit may find her SMV relatively higher when she is 30, but in general I think the upper hand in the dating game definitely shifts once you get past 30.

[NewgroundsParticipant 558]

All that chart really shows you is women getting men and attention with their looks in their early 20s while men get the attention in their mid 30s due to having a solid career and a lot money which attracts the young trollops. But the thing is looks fade while a solid career doesn’t so as time goes on women are unhappy while men enjoy the fruits of their labors because they didn’t have to depend on looks to gain happiness in life unlike the average woman.

|Right Wing Death Squad| Swallowed both Red Pills /pol/MGTOW

[RockmaninoffParticipant 1641]

TaxGuy wrote:

The chart is going to be true for a certain percentage of men, but not for men as a group.

I suppose you could replace both instances of the word “men” here with “women” and it would still be true, no?

". . . elle, suivant l’usage des femmes et des chats qui ne viennent pas quand on les appelle et qui viennent quand on ne les appelle pas, s’arrêta devant moi et m’adressa la parole"—Prosper Mérimée

[Anonymous 24]

This all has to do with fertility and wealth. Men biologically seek out young healthy females to birth their offspring, and by nature we are conditioned to seek it out. As for women, they seek to have themselves and any future offspring to be taken care of. Before currency and wealth this meant they sought out alpha male providers, and maybe older men in higher standing. Sometime after the hunter/gatherer era when wealth and power was accumulated, females began chase wealthy men/providers. This would certainly mean older men in modern society. I don’t need to read any studies or charts to gather any of this… Men are, for the most part, always going to be attracted to young, healthy females. Women on the other hand have a dual attraction, they like the young strong alpha males and are drawn to older wealthier men because of what they can provide, maybe some even like the distinguished looks of older men as well…

[BeerParticipant 11832]

Also…I think on the female side kids have a lot to do with it. A lot of women have popped a kid out by their early 30s, which puts them at a significant disadvantage in the dating world vs a woman who is a few years younger and kid free.

[Anonymous 1]

Rockmaninoff wrote:

I suppose you could replace both instances of the word “men” here with “women” and it would still be true, no?

I would suggest that it was implied ‘a small percentage of men’

I dont believe they are interchangeable.

I shouldn’t however presume to known what taxguy intended.

[CaliParticipant 753]

Rockmaninoff wrote:

However, nowhere, outside of the manosphere, have I ever encountered the notion that a man at forty has as many options as a woman at twenty. Unlike that of women when they’re twenty, it’s not a general notion that men at forty have a lot of options; what is a general notion, however, is that men at forty are starting to put on weight, are starting to lose hair, and are having midlife crises.

Your view of men at forty only applies to those who have not been diligently working at their careers and focusing on keeping themselves healthy and happy. For a married man in his forties, he will absolutely have fewer options, but that is only because he allowed himself to be saddled with the stress of caring for a family. A single man at forties has reached the point where, if he has put effort into staying healthy, he is still attractive, and his wealth is growing massively if he has spent it wisely.

The woman’s curve only applies to a woman that takes care of herself throughout her life. A woman who doesn’t will hit the Wall much faster.

Likewise, the man’s curve only applies to a man who is continually striving to further himself throughout his early adulthood. A man who wastes enough of his time and money on video games, drugs, and junk food will have a much less favorable curve.

Just my $0.02

Just a misogynist virgin hiding away in his mother's basement. Nothing to see here...

[TaxGuyParticipant]

Rockmaninoff wrote:

TaxGuy wrote:

The chart is going to be true for a certain percentage of men, but not for men as a group.

I suppose you could replace both instances of the word “men” here with “women” and it would still be true, no?

Absolutely. I guess the point I was trying to make, and did a p~~~ poor job of it, is that women’s SMV is gauged entirely on looks, whereas a men’s $MV is a function of looks and cash. So, a single woman is still at “her” 10 around the age in the graph. An ugly man with a bad job doesn’t have a curve, he has a flat line. But the man’s 10 isn’t as high as the woman’s 10, because mangina. There are still too many mangina’s out there putting all women on a pedestal and that keeps their overall SMV higher than men’s. Put another way, men are never put on a pedestal and worshipped for our dicks or our wallets, which is what it would take for our 10 to be equal to theirs.

For all the girls lurking out there, that mangina only puts you on the pedestal so he can see up your skirt. But I’m pretty sure you already knew that.

Order the good wine

[BeerParticipant 11832]

TaxGuy wrote:

Put another way, men are never put on a pedestal and worshipped for our dicks or our wallets, which is what it would take for our 10 to be equal to theirs.

I’d disagree. I’ve known guys that were very well off in their 30s/40s, unwed, and did things in their wealth that made it all too obvious they had it. One guy for example has 2 corvettes, and big SUV, an antique car with a ridiculous amount of money dumped into it as its practically a street legal drag car now, a boat, a camper, several motorcycles and multiple properties around town as could be verified he owns it since its public record. He also owns a business in the area so you see his name around on work vehicles all over the place. I’ve known him for 10+ years now and the entire time he’s literally had an army of pussy chasing/stalking him. From what I’ve seen of his dealings with women, it always seemed a lot to me like women drooled over him the same as 20 year old guys drool over hot 20 year old girls.

Maybe he isn’t “put on a pedestal” by society as a whole like young hot women are, but in the eyes of women guys like this are definitely quite elevated.

[Anonymous 1]

Problem I’m having with this topic is everyone’s assumption that looks and SMV are the same thing.

Does the wall not refer primarily to looks?

There’s a long running topic on here that refers primarily to women’s looks – the wall. Why is SMV being confused with that?

The line, for me here has been blurred.

Every poster thereafter, also overlooked that point.

[CaliParticipant 753]

For women, looks ARE their SMV, or at least 90% of it. You might get some desperate young men lining up to marry a 60 year old fat post-waller, but they’re only doing it if she has money the vast majority of the time. For most women, they hit the wall at around age 30-35, but some can last until 50.

Men, however, have an SMV that is a balance of money/status and looks. you can have an ugly man who has tons of money, and he will have a high SMV, and likewise you can have a broke guy who looks good and he will get a lot of women. For most men, the point at which they “hit the wall” only comes when young, hot women have no reason to pursue them anymore. For rich guys, they may never hit the wall, and it may simply be a slow decline. For poor, good-looking guys, they may well hit the wall much earlier, but if they are “bad boys”, they will likely still be able to get women.

Just a misogynist virgin hiding away in his mother's basement. Nothing to see here...

[bigboy83Participant 11312]

Lol, you should see, some of my past girlfriends or the c~~~s that rejected me, now. They aint, ugly. Their uggggggllllllyyy.

So ugly, didn’t even recognize them.

Shit Tested, Cunt Approved.

[Anonymous 1]

Pvt.mgtow – but the op is referring to the wall, which we both know refers to a woman’s looks. He then suggests that the wall is softer than we think.

SMV and “the wall” are 2 different things.

They can be used be used to measure someone’s overall SMV, but the problem is the OP hasn’t done this.

I’ve had a few drinks and its possible I’ll check my logic in the morning and it will be hugely flawed. Right now I cant see that it is.

Def overused “refers”.

[Anonymous 1]

He has tried to to compare 2 things, that simply are not COMPARABLE.

They’re mutually exclusive.

[CaliParticipant 753]

Ah, yes. I think I see what you mean, joller.
I suppose I learned a different definition of the Wall than you. No big deal, as we both know what it ultimately means when a woman hits the Wall.

Just a misogynist virgin hiding away in his mother's basement. Nothing to see here...

[Anonymous 1]

Cali wrote:

ultimately means when a woman hits the Wall

Yep. That’s all its ever meant to me, brother.

All it ever will.

[Author]

Posts