If you don’t know who Rollo Tomassi is, he runs a “manosphere” blog covering a variety of intersexual topics in exhaustive detail. In contrast to my articles though, his writing style is much more academic and intellectual. If you like the topics you read on my blog, I think you’ll enjoy his stuff as well.

I want to tie SMV (sexual market value) in with the variety of responses I’ve received since launching the first episode of the MikeMehlmanShow just a few days ago.

Sort of like how in US politics, no matter what the actual policy proposal is, the yays and nays are almost always split along party lines; well I’d even go so far as to say the same is true with respect to the +/- reviews of my video, just instead along gender lines and between red-pill/feminist-ally guys (I’ll explain this more later in this article).

I want to reiterate that the way in which you approach women naturally filters for those with whom you’ll pair. In other words, while one girl might find your direct and straightforward approach overly imposing and arrogant, another will find it extremely attractive and masculine (if you don’t believe me, watch the video!).

Your approach style functions as an equal and opposite dipole: the degree to which it attracts some girls it will repel others.

Most women will think nothing of the way you approach. But for every girl who is turned off by your confidence, there’s another who’s equally turned on by it. The idea is to not change your behavior for the girls you meet.

Having received Rollo’s permission, I had used his SMV curve in one of my prior articles to talk about the possibility of whether I’ll settle down at some stage (I’m only 31 now).

As I’ve said before, it doesn’t matter if a woman wins a Nobel Prize at age 44; a guy who’s 25 would never date her because of it. He’d still rather date a store clerk with pigtails who’s 23 and more fertile. But a 44-year-old guy who wins a Nobel Prize? Yeah, that will get him plenty of 25-year-old women.

Most women aren’t consciously aware of their declining SMV the same way most guys aren’t aware theirs is rising.

A guy who lacks self-confidence at age 28, for example, often times is completely unaware he’s still far away from his peak potential. He’s spent his whole life having an SMV less than that of women’s, so his assumption is he’s just “inferior” or “low status” and needs to continually qualify to the women he meets. He carries the presumed mentality that he always has to prove himself somehow. He has no clue he’s on the way up.

Similarly, women cruise through their 20s bearing greater average SMV than men, so many of them ride that momentum as an entitled sense of falsely elevated value into their 30s, when in reality, their flower has already cooled into the autumn.

From his article, titled ‘The Threat,’ Rollo says:

In other words, your becoming aware of your true SMV potential as a guy is literally a threat to women because it reframes your consideration of when you’d be willing to settle down, and with whom, often to post-prime females’ dismay. And at the same time, no woman wants to accept the inconvenient truth of her quick SMV burnout.

Upon seeing the SMV curve, guys will typically say, “Oh, wow, I see. That makes sense. That’s really good to know actually. Nice.”

In contrast, women will usually get hostile and argue it’s wrong for x, y and z reasons.

You can’t argue with truth though.

I went on to share my ‘Playing the field forever?‘ article with Rollo, and I asked for his single most important piece of advice, given that I just turned 31.

There was one woman who took a jab at me because my rejection percentage was very high in my video. The implication is that she was satisfied and/or happy seeing me get rejected a lot.

The age-30 SMV-crossover is the most profound intersexual moment in human life. A woman is at her autumnal equinox, whereas a guy has just reached his summer solstice. His sun is rising while hers is setting.

That girl during your freshman year of college who rejected you harshly is the same woman you’ll have no interest in by the time you’re both 31. In fact, you’ll actually be out of her reach by then.

You think I’m exaggerating a bit? Trust me, I’m not. Just wait. You’ll see.

That ex-girlfriend you’re still secretly hung up on? Yeah, well 5 years from now you wouldn’t commit to her even if you had the chance.

Early-20s women who are enjoying their peak-SMV rubescence aren’t usually interested in guys their age who are just thawing the ices of winter; they want a guy who’s a bit older who has real confidence, social proof, and life/cultural experiences.

A woman who is at peak-SMV will never again be able to attract men as well as she can now. Doesn’t matter the social proof or income she goes on to attain. For the rest of her entire life, she will be chasing the memories of this narrow window of time she experienced.

As a man in your late-20s or early-mid-30s, if you’re aware of your growing SMV, you’d be less readily inclined to cash-in on a woman who’s post her fertile peak because you’d be aware that you’re actually really appealing to younger women.

The degree to which you get “angry” or vehemently disagree with the bold paragraph that follows is directly related to how important it is that you’re reading this:

Most guys who are 35 don’t realize that they are, on average, considered to be more attractive to young women as compared to when they were 25. That’s because a guy’s SMV isn’t linked to his appearance/fertility the same way a girl’s is. Guys who are stubbornly convinced that their SMV is bound strictly to their physical appearance risk failing to capitalize on their peak potential period.

As a male, maybe your skin and physique at 35 are only 90-95% as robust as compared to when you were 25 (although some men arguably look better as they age), but your increased confidence, social proof, resource accumulation, maturity, life/cultural experiences, skill sets, wisdom, etc., make you, as a whole, much more attractive to women relative to your younger self.

It’s the guys who don’t understand this point (the vast, vast majority) who will never actualize on their full potential and will think, “I really wanna get married by 30.”

But we guys aren’t the same as women. It’s in women’s best interest, as per their decline in SMV and fertility, to get married and produce offspring before 30, but as a guy, you’re in no rush.

And by the way, this isn’t me stating any type of opinion in isolation; this is literally the hard biological truth women are confronted with.

A woman who’s coming out of summer only knows the highs she’s had during her 20s. She’s often not acutely aware of how the next several years will be characterized by markedly increased difficulty attracting men. Conversely, a guy usually doesn’t realize he’s about to flare during his 30s; the only experiences he can relate to are those during his lower SMV 20s.

The result is you’ll get a lot of women who are “picky and choosy” past their point of peak potential, completely unaware that the opportunity they decided to pass up on the street, at the coffee shop, at the park, etc., may have been the last remaining shot they had.

And by the way, I’m not writing this article as an attack against women and insinuating they’re ignorant. This lack of awareness isn’t gender-specific whatsoever. Guys are equally, if not more, clueless.

The same way most 30s women don’t realize their SMV is strikingly low, most 30s men don’t realize theirs is strikingly high.

Most men will fail to capitalize on their SMV peak-potential period the same way most women will fail to capitalize on theirs. It really is in a woman’s best interest to commit by her mid-20s. And if she chooses to risk being single beyond that point because she’s holding out for the most alpha genes possible, she can’t be too picky-and-choosy, otherwise she’ll end up with nothing.

The 32-year-old woman who rejects the 28-year-old confident guy who approached her doesn’t realize she’ll probably never have it better. She’ll justify that she wants to hold out for her Superman, but it’s likely only to her detriment. These types of opportunities are rarer than she wants to believe and she doesn’t see it. She was actually lucky that he considered her, bearing in mind their disparate SMV trajectories, but she forewent the opportunity anyway.

By the time many women (especially career-driven ones) decide they’re “ready” to have kids (mid-late-30s), it’s already too late, and their options are few. Or if they are already married and had always been using contraception, they might be faced with a harsh reality that they’re not currently as fertile as they had imagined.

Women don’t have the luxury of time like men do. A woman who is post-prime and secretly becoming aware of her declining SMV will begin to denounce the alpha (confident sex machine) male; she still wants him but knows she can’t compete for his attention (and subsequent provision) the same way anymore. She eyeballs the next flock of 18-23-year-old girls and realizes her flower isn’t among theirs now. She starts to develop a sense of urgency and panic.

The outward manifestation of this is the party girl who all of a sudden is seeking marriage now that she’s 27.

She’ll then proceed to assert that beta (monogamous provider) characteristics are actually what constitute a “real man,” but this is just the defense mechanism of the post-bloom female. As a woman progresses into her 30s, she becomes increasingly less able to lock down an alpha male, so she’ll assert that beta/provider characteristics are ideal.

She’ll say she’s “matured and awakened to” caring more about a male’s compassionate, emotional and fuzzy side, but this transition in her is reflective of a growing subconscious awareness for her fleeting SMV. If she doesn’t lock down a male willing to provide for her now, she may never. She’s preparing to cash-in for the long-term.

The best shot a post-bloom female has of securing an alpha male’s continued provision (i.e., preventing him from straying) is to assert, in the most convincing (and sometimes hostile) way possible, that a male is “being a man,” or “being honorable,” or “being alpha” by being beta.

A woman I used to date many years ago, who is now early-30s, sent me the following sentiment about my dating style:

She finds forwardness attractive IF it’s followed up by providing her benefit.

Now you could argue her use of “benefit” could mean many things, e.g., emotional connection and loving support, encouragement of aspirations, etc., but the specifics are actually irrelevant because they all converge back on the same thing: ultimately laying the groundwork for a longer-term relationship.

And a longer-term relationship equates to provision.

The notion that alpha characteristics, which she found attractive and mated with in the first place, are now, retroactively, considered to be attractive only if “benefit” follows, is notably paramount.

Suddenly, a male “proving himself” amounts to providing benefit. Being forward and confident are not what she sees as ideal to her needs at this moment in time.

With regard to any woman you ever enter into a relationship with, “proving yourself” early = demonstration of alpha/confidence traits; “proving yourself” mid-long-term = your provision.

In other words, you “proving yourself as a man” only ever equals what is convenient for a female at that point in time for her.

The behavior you demonstrated that resulted in her selecting your genes is the same behavior she’ll despise once she realizes she can’t lock you down.

If your behavior doesn’t suit her goals, it’s bad. If it’s convenient to her, it’s “honorable.”

The only reason the feminist movement is so hostile toward the idea of the alpha is because he threatens the female societal goal of securing resource provision. They want their cake and eat it too. The movement’s aim is to convince guys, in overarching and overgeneralized blanket terms, that unleashing their alpha is wrong – or even harassment of some kind – so that they’ll “self-police” into a strict provisional mindset.

This also carries the simultaneous aim of turning women into the forward gender in society.

Really digest for a second that there’s not a single person out there who’d argue that a woman walking up and simply introducing herself to a guy would be exhibiting “harassment.” But if a guy does it, a not-so-small chunk of the population would call it harassment.

Society is undergoing a major shift where women will eventually be the more forward gender if men are increasingly made to believe, from an early age, that being forward themselves is synonymous with harassment.

Unwanted sexual advances are entirely different; that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about the act of just being forward and saying hi – introducing yourself – that’s it.

Dating apps/websites are the best thing that ever happened to women. They make it easier for men to be lazy and retreat into non-forward beta land, while giving women leverage to be the selectors. In the absence of dating apps, guys would have to be forward if they had any chance of forging a relationship.

If women can convince men that they should be beta providers by forcefully denouncing anything alpha, they can effectively select for anyone they want to mate with while simultaneously increasing the chance of securing subsequent provision.

In other words, you being made to believe forwardness is wrong in any way is part of the feminine agenda to maximize the chance you’ll be a subjugated, monogamous provider during your peak-SMV years, while she retains full control over whose genes she wants, even if they’re not yours.

Read the above green text one more time.

Then, you’ll “wake up” at age 47 and realize you invested your peak potential into supplying for the feminine imperative, rather than sexually optimizing your one at-bat in life. You’ll see that you lost the sexual game.

Guys like Rollo and me in the “manosphere” provide the societal counterbalance to the feminine imperative. We’re not fighting anything. There’s no conflict. This is literally just about providing you with simple awareness of intersexual dynamics so that you can decide for yourself how you want to use your peak years.

Once again:

An important point to be aware of is that women continually engage in a process called hypergamy, where they are never unconditionally loyal to any guy.

Women will always seek the best alpha genes no matter what – even if already/currently in a “committed” relationship – but they must simultaneously weigh the risks of what not being able to secure the provision of an alpha will entail if they relinquish the stability they currently have.

Guys who are keenly aware of SMV dynamics are considered to be “red-pill.” Once you take the red pill, as in the movie ‘The Matrix,’ there’s no going back. In other words, once the curtain is pulled from your eyes (in part due to articles like this) and you understand how the female sexual strategy works, it will forever change how you strive to achieve your own as a man.

You’ll see that most men are unaware that they live out their peak-SMV years inadvertently subservient to the female strategy. Red-pill guys are “free” from the female strategy, and in turn, are often despised by women due to the threat red-pill awareness poses to the feminine imperative. Red-pill guys will differ as to their opinion on what % of men are blue-pill, but I’d probably guess that >95-98% of guys are unaware of SMV dynamics and the feminine agenda.

Many beta husbands think their wives are committed to them unconditionally. The truth is, their wives are only “committed” because male resource provision is really important to their biological imperative. If a beta’s wife met a really confident alpha next week who simultaneously showed promise of provision on par with, or greater than, her beta husband’s, she’d end the marriage.

Likewise, if she can achieve adequate pecuniary provision through a divorce settlement, while simultaneously venturing off to bang alpha genes elsewhere, she’ll do it. For that reason, a lot of women will use finances as the maker-or-breaker for whether they’ll end a marriage. Most judicial systems essentially set women up to achieve their agenda – i.e., receive a beta male’s continued provision irrespective of whether she terminates her commitment to him, while she then has the privilege to acquire genes elsewhere.

High divorce rates aren’t a reflection of there being “something wrong” with society; they’re a reflection of modern culture’s increasing tolerance of people freely and non-judgmentally pursuing their sexual agendas.

Doesn’t matter how much you think she loves you; hypergamy doesn’t care who you are. If she meets a guy more alpha and confident than you who can equal or surpass your level of provision, she’ll leave you for him. If he can’t meet your provision, she’ll sleep with him and come back to you; or she’ll sleep with him, divorce you, then take your provision through the courts anyway.

And don’t misconstrue my emphasis here either. I am not being cynical of relationships in general. I’m saying that high relationship-turnover in society is a reflection of normal sexual agendas being fulfilled.

Maybe as a 44-year-old man you decide you would rather just remarry to that 27-year-old who shows an interest in you.

Similarly, maybe your 36-year-old wife decides she’d rather acquire alpha genes elsewhere in what could be her last chance to have kids.

If a woman believes she can “trade” her guy in for someone more alpha, while also successfully securing adequate provision from this second guy, she’ll ditch guy #1.

One of the primary ways that women will attempt to secure provision is by attempting to keep men ignorant of their rising SMV.

I’m going to repeat that because this is really important:

One of the primary aims of the feminine imperative is to keep you, as a man, ignorant of your rising SMV.

If a woman can optimize her hypergamy and secure a guy with good genes while preventing him from straying toward other women, then that’s in her favor. The way she’ll do this is by trying to keep him ignorant of his growing SMV potential.

This is actually the paradox of hypergamy.

A woman who successfully keeps her mating choice ignorant of his rising SMV potential increases the chance she’ll secure his continued provision, even though that means his lack of awareness may inadvertently attenuate his own efficacy, and in turn, the degree of provision she receives.

Males who are in their late-20s and early-30s will get guilt-tripped into “doing the right thing by being a beta provider” more than at any other point for the rest of their lives. Guys who succumb will then themselves become resentful of the alpha as they get older.

This manifests outwardly as the blue-pill guy who becomes a “feminist movement ally.” He sides with post-prime women, often angrily asserting that alpha-male traits are synonymous with harassment or are rude. You see it everywhere.

What a blue-pill, female-ally guy fails to realize is that the behavior he proudly exhibits, which is cheered on by women as being “honorable,” is the opposite of what these same women screen for sexually. A blue-pill guy’s genuflection and allegiance make him a reliable standby option to a post-prime woman still trying to buy time for her alpha-genes search. Even though his behavior isn’t sexually attractive to her, he’s hedging his bets on her choosing him as a hypergamous consolation should she fail to win herself an alpha.

When a male jumps on board the feminist movement and becomes a “female ally,” he’s now got a leash around his neck.

A woman (particularly one who is post-bloom) who is able to secure ‘good genes,’ while simultaneously keeping her mating choice from becoming aware of his rising SMV, wins the sexual game. Women don’t want you to know your full value to other women. A man who is aware of his rising SMV will usually see no reason to commit early to a woman, particularly when her ensuing autumn becomes more obvious to him.

This is the reason this type of blog (or the video I just posted) is met with such a hostile blowback by the overwhelming number of women. It’s not because they actually find forwardness creepy; it’s because male ignorance of rising SMV and latent approach prowess is the only shot they’ve got at winning the sexual game.

If you want to know my aim for writing this article, it’s more or less to simply provide you increased awareness of SMV dynamics and intersexual behavior so that you can make the most well-informed and thought-out decisions possible with respect to your relationships and sexual interactions.

If you watched my rejections video, where I showcased my 31-year-old SMV, and were wondering what the purpose of it was (as this guy had asked):

Most of the guys out there don’t approach women because they’re too afraid. I think if guys can see some of my rejections first-hand, it will help them better realize how not-that-big-of-a-deal rejections really are.

Try this one next.

—

Did you like this post? Share it with somebody you know.

Are you subscribed to my blog yet?

Tell me about new articles.

Also check out the latest podcast update if you haven’t already.

Or my vids on YouTube.

Say hello on: Instagram | SnapChat | Twitter | Facebook